Gary Johnson VIDEO - Gary Johnson Wants Your Vote If Ron Paul Is Not On The Ballot, But....

[Lishy]

Thing is, although Johnson is a cool guy, he is running at the wrong time of history. He has less chances of winning than Paul!

 

[azxd]

that is certainly true, but we both know that any kind of write-in campaign isn't going to achieve much. While Gary is a very poor mans Ron Paul he is, at least, someone who will say the right things.

If you feel so strongly about this, vote for the man ... I'm sticking with Paul, and will write his name in, if necessary.

You can do as you please

 

[RonPaulMall]

If you feel so strongly about this, vote for the man ... I'm sticking with Paul, and will write his name in, if necessary.

You might want to check the rules in your state first. It is rare for states that allow write ins to actually read the names. Frequently they pull out the write in ballots, toss them in a pile and count how many there are, then once any named candidate accumulates more votes than total write in ballots, they stop worrying about the write ins. They never actually record who you voted for because didn't reach the threshold where it could have mattered. So in that scenario, you might write in Ron Paul, but his name or the number of votes he got wouldn't be recorded. You might as well write in Mickey Mouse.

If Paul doesn't make the ballot, and you don't want to vote for anybody else, I'd suggest not voting at all. Not voting is taking the moral high ground anyway.

 

[LimitedGovernment]

If Paul doesn't make the ballot, and you don't want to vote for anybody else, I'd suggest not voting at all. Not voting is taking the moral high ground anyway.

This makes no sense to me.

Voting is the means by which we demonstrate that we're not just voices on the sidelines.

 

[Bastiat's The Law]

I grew weary of him babbling about "cost-benefit" analysis just in the couple of debates he was in.

That doesn't worry me in the slightest. What worries me is when he talks about going into Africa on humanitarian missions.

 

[Bastiat's The Law]

Thing is, although Johnson is a cool guy, he is running at the wrong time of history. He has less chances of winning than Paul!

There are a lot of forms of winning. Even if Paul doesn't get the nomination, we've already had victories in several states and will continue to be a political force in them. I think Gary polling 5%, 7%, 10%, in a three race would be be winning, especially if got into the debates.

 

[Bastiat's The Law]

I like Gary, but there's something just "off" on his televised appearances.

 

[LimitedGovernment]

I like Gary, but there's something just "off" on his televised appearances.

People have had similar objections to Ron Paul and his stage & interview rpesece. We should be focusing on policy and outcomes. If voting Johnson gets more attention for the causes of limited government, I'm for it.

 

[cocrehamster]

Johnson should not be talking about Ron Paul not having a chance. There's a much higher probability of Ron Paul being the next president than Johnson. If Ron was not running and he endorsed him I'd vote for him though.

 

[Cleaner44]

I think there is value in our votes being counted for either Ron as the Republican nominee or Gary as the Libertarian nominee. Four years ago I wrote in Ron but there is much to be said for a 7+% vote for Johnson. Moot point though... Ron will beat Mittens!

 

[thoughtomator]

Gary Johnson is not a libertarian and is not Ron Paul-like in any significant way. Johnson particularly refuses to become educated in the key financial issues that plague our country. GJ is more of a business manager Democrat type. His main virtue is that he is relatively non-corrupt, which, while a good thing, is not an adequate substitute for the revolution.

 

[Victor Grey]

I won't support Gary Johnson, and I won't for one single reason.

Strategy.

Gary Johnson comes out openly in favor of gay marriage and abortion. Verbatim.

Not "leave it up to the states" , not "I support civil unions", not "get the federal government out of it",
not potatoe/patato who givesaflippedauto, he comes out openly for gay marriage and abortion.

No dancing around it or giving a softened response. He chooses to charge openly and straightforward into an unnecessary minefield. That could be entirely avoided with some simple rewording on the issue. Potato, patato. Wordplay; appeal to federalism. Same vegetable, different soupbowl. All that negative backlash being basically removed entirely with a dash of tact.

His open and untactfully spoken support for those social issues that appeal if you're running as a democrat primary candidate, but not a republican, when bear in mind he is going to have to mingle with some socialcons, will kill him in having any chance in heck, of ever winning a Republican run for president. That is the only way he's ever to make actual political successes; running as a GOP party nominee. Unless the social equivalent to an asteroid strike happens or something, those two parties are here to stay as the major political parties.


Democrats and social liberals, don't vote for libertarians; not ones running in their own party. Not near to what at least some certain portion of current people on "the political right" are willing to tolerate.
Yes dems and the left might clap for him if he says those things, (oh yes sweet Gary he respects the rights of ect. ect.) but to actually vote for that guy who's going to take the welfare? Oh no. Too far there Gary, too far.

And that, is political reality. Dems like social programs even more than the GOP likes war and defense spending. Yes even more, and that's saying a lot.


The Dems to me (speaking of them as a political party), are lost cause. The genuine folks who are honest about actually being against war and government intrusion ect. are starting to abandon the party. They just get worse and worse, without even having something like the current so-slowly-but-steadily growing libertarian splinter-section of the GOP coming off from of it's own ship of suck. Heck, Kucinich isn't even in there anymore. He was a big government loving dem, but at least he was serious and genuine on war. Pete's sakes it takes rabid work over the course of years to get ~10-20% of the GOP's crowd so far. No dice at all on the dem side.

At least the GOP is showing some signs of positive change over time.

Now do understand where I'm personally coming from when I talk about Gary's statement; I really don't care myself, to support the denial of gay individuals from voluntary contract rights. That isn't my angle. I'm not really out to attack gay marriage. I support the rights for gay community. Similar any social or moral feelings one way or another aren't relevant. This isn't about my feelings on these issues.

But to other people, your regular usual GOP voters, it does matter if you openly support those issues. I recognize this. This is very important.

Strategically, Gary is pandering to the wrong crowd. I feel at a unneeded possibly lethal politically cost. He's doing it at expense to the crowd that is needed be pandered to, to win; specifically, those wishy-washy on the issue social-cons republicans, who will turn out and vote for anything with an R next to it like a big team-minded herd, who are quite easily pleased with an candidate, provided they are saying the right words and avoiding the few wrong ones, and who could care less at all, about actual results in any manner toward their little pet social issues. Yes those people. Those people who you will have to win over or beat out in the primaries to get that flood of herd-mentality supporter behind a candidate by automatic default.

That's just how it is.

It's like this ok...
like it or not, (and like it, dangit) if Paul's the nominee, remember all those people who cheered on Santorum, they are going to be casting that general election vote for Ron Paul the POTUS. In droves. Why? The Letter R, and little else.

All you got to do with that crowd, after you've bested them in the primary battle, is just not intentionally go out of your way to peeve 'em off where they'd stay home.

You don't have to like them. Just don't go out of the way to unnecessarily rile them. Personally I feel that we can overgrow and best them on the war issue and other topics, that is a battle that can be won. But why add fights that aren't needed to be fought.

Talking like Gary directly to their hand-countable button-pushing issues, when you Don't Neeed to, definitely doesn't help to win them over in a primary, and it sure isn't going to be useful in a general election. It's politically tactless. It's myopic.
It think it's the two issues that could provoke an otherwise soft-support voting R, to stay home.

He's isolating inner-GOP soft-support for the candidates of libertarian ideology, because of their little pet issues, that otherwise would of been satisfied by some simple wording. And... then we're back to not expanding in influence and steering the national conversation.

It's hard enough to get ahead with these people on the issues of foreign wars or state's rights on drug law. Why carry yet another burden to bear, that doesn't need to be added, and unlike the others can be so easily dodged and deflected from election impact while basically still supporting the same vegetable?

Gagflammit I want to WIN! I want to Succeed! His methods are a stumblingblock that didn't have to of even existed.

You can claim he's being honest in how he chooses to approach things, and that it's politicking to do otherwise. Yes.
It is what it is folks. It'll keep being what it is. For a long time from now until some grey folks aren't with us anymore.
It's an unnecessary pointless drag that doesn't help the movement imo. It's a net loss.

That is why I don't support Gary Johnson.
I worry he's going to try and become the GOP's "token libertarian nominee" in the future, and he will fail miserably where the stage is set overwise.

I don't want the unnecessary baggage.

Thing is, although Johnson is a cool guy, he is running at the wrong time of history. He has less chances of winning than Paul!

 

[phill4paul]

NOBP

 

[TheTexan]

I like Gary, but there's something just "off" on his televised appearances.

His rhetoric of today is great, but his actions as Governor.. not so much.

He seems to be deliberately copying Ron Paul's policies. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but for what reason? Political expediency, or genuine inspiration?

I have to say I'm not buying it. I'm going with political expediency.

I also thought it was funny that he thought his calorie counting legislation would be "good", but his successors calorie counting legislation would be "bad". (near the end of the interview)

 

[Mises_to_Paul]

Johnson is better than almost everyone else, but he approaches governance from a perspective of utility, rather than a perspective of natural rights and the NAP.

This leads to some problems, even though he the utility approach leads to the correct conclusion in many cases.

Put it this way. I don't believe the government should "run the farm", but I believe Gary Johnson could "run the farm" better than the other major players (Ron Paul of course would not run the farm at all).

 

[Bastiat's The Law]

I think it would be great for the liberty movement if we could get Johnson polling in the double digits.

 

[speciallyblend]

I will support Gary over obama lite.