To the Gary Johnson supporters, hear me out.

the tax is voluntary. you have to check it and pay it voluntarily if you choose. a moral tax.

No it isn't. You designate WHERE that dollar goes, but not whether you pay it.

However, in 1989 Ron said when it came to third parties getting it, he was less adamant against it and might be talked into it, because of the taxpayer funding of major parties and ballot access and other legal barriers to third parties. He said he wasn't quite there yet, but he didn't feel strongly about it for third parties.

Mind you in my mind that means RON should file for his matching funds and run....

I personally agree with others about GJ lacking the strong philosophical core Ron has which makes even Ron's fall back plans -- which is where you are going to end up -- the best possible for us.

This year, I'm voting for Ron.
 
There will never be another Ron Paul. But Johnson isn't pro-war. Which is big plus for me.
??

http://reason.com/blog/2012/04/11/gary-johnsons-foreign-policy-libertarian

told TheDC that he supports Americas efforts to aid African troops in tracking down Lord’s Resistance Army leader Joseph Kony and that he wouldn’t rule out leaving behind American bases in Afghanistan.

Johnson said that while he wants to end the war in Afghanistan, that doesn’t mean he would necessarily stop drone attacks against terrorists in Pakistan or Yemen, even though he believes they create more enemies than they kill.

“I would want leave all options on the table,” Johnson said....

“So now you have the U.S. bases that exist in those areas, do we shut down those military bases? Perhaps not,” he suggested, taking an odd position for a supposed anti-war candidate.

“I would completely withdraw our military presence,” he further expounded. “Does withdrawing our military presence from Afghanistan mean that we would still have a base open in Afghanistan if they allowed us to keep a base open? Perhaps.”....

But despite Johnson saying he thinks that the Middle East is a region of the world the United States should maintain a military presence in, he contended that there are “no military threats” to the U.S. anywhere in the world.

“As I’m sitting here right now, there are no military threats against the United States,” he said, stipulating that America should be “vigilant” against terrorist attacks on the homeland.

Last year, The Weekly Standard reported that Johnson told the publication that he supported the concept of waging wars for humanitarian reasons despite wanting to cut the military budget by nearly half. Asked whether he stood by that, Johnson said he did.

While running as a Republican, Johnson stated that he "supports the right of Israel to exist as a sovereign country and believes that the United States should protect that right militarily if needed."[19] He also stated that Israel is an important ally, and that America's military alliance with Israel should be maintained
 
No it isn't. You designate WHERE that dollar goes, but not whether you pay it.

However, in 1989 Ron said when it came to third parties getting it, he was less adamant against it and might be talked into it, because of the taxpayer funding of major parties and ballot access and other legal barriers to third parties. He said he wasn't quite there yet, but he didn't feel strongly about it for third parties.

Mind you in my mind that means RON should file for his matching funds and run....

I personally agree with others about GJ lacking the strong philosophical core Ron has which makes even Ron's fall back plans -- which is where you are going to end up -- the best possible for us.

This year, I'm voting for Ron.

an earkmark.
 
When Ron Paul endorses Gary Johnson there are going to be a lot of people here that are going to feel stupid.
Ron Paul ran on the LP ticket before so why wont you support the LP?
If we can get just a small percent then it will make big gains for having a viable 3rd party.
 
When Ron Paul endorses Gary Johnson there are going to be a lot of people here that are going to feel stupid.
Ron Paul ran on the LP ticket before so why wont you support the LP?
If we can get just a small percent then it will make big gains for having a viable 3rd party.
Ron has said he won't make an endorsement for president in 2012 because he wants people to make up their own minds. Plus, I suspect Ron has figured out that the libertarian party is already been co-opted. Look at 2008...Bob Barr was the LP nominee...did Ron endorse? No...he endorsed Chuck Baldwin.

If, Ron didn't support the LP party then, why would he now? Especially when the candidate (Gary Johnson) does not have a strong monetary/banking platform and he is wolf in sheeps clothing when it comes to foreign policy (see his quotes from my last post).

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...rters-hear-me-out./page9#post_message_4621092
 
Last edited:
while I will be voting Gary Johnson, I do not live in a battleground state, I would like to see all supporters who do not live in a battleground state join me, the rest I would urge to vote mittens, we all know whats at stake, we will not hold you accountable for your vote, in fact I would support your sacrafice for the nation and allowing all of us in states where it is decided anyway to express our dissatisfaction with the GOP while not losing the support of the tea party who we will be needing in the future. also I cant stand another ovoldamort presidency.
 
You also forgot about the filing deadlines that have passed and would prevent him from being on the ballot.

the electors on the LP slate could vote for anyone they want regardless of deadlines.
in fact, GOP electors that are ron paul supporters can vote for ron in washington.
 
You also forgot about the filing deadlines that have passed and would prevent him from being on the ballot.
Historically, those have been easy to challenge in court. Besides a write-in campaign isn't all that bad. The true benefit from a Ron Paul general campaign run would be education. We have an ignorant public. They need to be educated. Generally speaking, the public's only source of information on the outside world are schools, tv and corporate marketing. Ron bypasses this corrupt trifecta by running for president and he can get the message out about we need a new monetary system and foreign policy. He can also force Obama and Romney to talk about these issues, which they have no interest in doing now. As is, it will be all about Romney's off-shore bank accounts and other inane non-issue issues.
 
I was surprised to see those foreign policy views of Gary Johnson. Looks quite different from Ron Paul and the Constitution.
 
People need to stop assuming Gary Johnson is Ron Paul 2.0...and to VERY carefully examine his policy positions.
People need to stop assuming a lot of people assume Gary Johnson is Ron Paul 2.0.

Since Gary would need a miracle to actually be elected, his views don't actually matter in that regard. But support for him gets him in the debates and maybe puts a couple wounds in the two-headed beast that guards the door liberty is trapped behind.

Imagine having a guy on the ballot and in the news with a good resume who says, "End the Fed." "Leave Afghanistan now." "Balance the budget now." ...and some people don't like that for reasons such as he and Ron Paul have different personal views on abortion but both wind up at a similar conclusion on what to do about it? That he wants to end the Afghan war but perhaps leave some bases in various places since they already exist?

People who are waiting for their perfect candidate are going to be waiting a long time.

while I will be voting Gary Johnson, I do not live in a battleground state, I would like to see all supporters who do not live in a battleground state join me, the rest I would urge to vote mittens, we all know whats at stake, we will not hold you accountable for your vote, in fact I would support your sacrafice for the nation and allowing all of us in states where it is decided anyway to express our dissatisfaction with the GOP while not losing the support of the tea party who we will be needing in the future. also I cant stand another ovoldamort presidency.
I don't vote for indefinite-detention gun grabbers. And certainly not ones who cheat and steal from and make A-bomb threats to Ron Paul.

Besides, as terrible as it is, I'd take Obama's foreign policy over what it looks like Romney has in store. McCain's convention speech was frightening. There's 200 countries in the world, and McCain probably wants to have U.S. troops stationed in all of them.
 
Last edited:

Like I said, there will never be another Ron Paul. Gary Johnson is not Ron Paul. But he's also not pro-war.

Sometimes you have to look beyond what's said, to see what someone is saying. What I see, is GJ not being as anti-war as Paul to keep the rhetoric down. But, that's just my opinion.

It's better to get some of what you want, than nothing at all. It's not like Johnson or Paul is going to become the next POTUS.
 
@Ocean's Banana: Again, for MOST of us, Write-in votes will be tossed away and never even counted because they won't meet the guidelines for counting in our respective states. Thus, if most of us write-in Ron, the vote is thrown away and doesn't count in any voting discrepancy of any kind. Gary's votes will be counted in my state.

*sigh* I have not made any claim or assertion contrary to anything you have said here.

I have no horse in the "Gary Johnson on-ballot vs. Ron Paul write-in" sweepstakes. I am not going to vote for POTUS this year. Everyone else, do as you please - with my blessing!

All I have said is that it would be noticed if there was a "Perot-level" chunk of (counted) votes that are for neither Romney nor Obama.

All I have said is that the media could not possibly hide a gaping 20% hole in the national vote totals for US President (someone else had suggested that they could & would do so, in the HYPOTHETICAL case of counted Ron Paul write-ins).

I have claimed nothing more or other than this. I haven't the vaguest notion how write-ins are handled in my own state, let alone anywhere else.

And I don't really care. It has nothing to do with what I was saying.
 
In 2008 Ron was planning to endorse Bob Barr, but Bob Barr stood him up. I remember that distinctly.
 
Ron has said he won't make an endorsement for president in 2012 because he wants people to make up their own minds. Plus, I suspect Ron has figured out that the libertarian party is already been co-opted. Look at 2008...Bob Barr was the LP nominee...did Ron endorse? No...he endorsed Chuck Baldwin.

If, Ron didn't support the LP party then, why would he now? Especially when the candidate (Gary Johnson) does not have a strong monetary/banking platform and he is wolf in sheeps clothing when it comes to foreign policy (see his quotes from my last post).

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...rters-hear-me-out./page9#post_message_4621092

You wanna know why BARR was nominated for the LP in 2008??
It is because a shit ton of us libertarians like me had to switch to the republican party to vote for Ron Paul!
So that left the LP vulnerable, and the neo-con made an attempt at take over.
Barr is a damn neo-con and did not get the votes of the libertarian voters..

That is why he endorsed Baldwin last time.

You need to go look into Ron Paul feelings on 3rd party. He fully supports the idea of a unified CP/LP liberty party.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top