Why didn't we get behind Gary Johnson?

Because Gary Johnson was actually running for president and wasn't remaining intentionally silent like Ron Paul was for the entire general election. Many states don't count write ins and we wouldn't know how many people wrote in a candidate until a while after the general election when it's irrelevant. Did we ever find out how many people wrote in Ron Paul in 2012?
 
More like because nitpicking a very vague remark from 2 years ago and using it as a reason not to vote against him despite him agreeing with you on 99% of the issues including the most important pressing ones.

You could respect the fact that some of us have paid closer attention to this than you. You're not sure two years later about what went on so disregarding it as "nitpicking" is a mistake.

There are many more details than the two links I shared. There were enough dots at the time to make a decision on my end that I decided I wouldn't support him.

However, if keeping Guantanamo open, and voicing support of pre-emptive war don't turn you off, well, you're a different political animal.
 
Because Gary Johnson was actually running for president and wasn't remaining intentionally silent like Ron Paul was for the entire general election. Many states don't count write ins and we wouldn't know how many people wrote in a candidate until a while after the general election when it's irrelevant. Did we ever find out how many people wrote in Ron Paul in 2012?

So what? I don't see how any of that has to do with anything. Either gesture was purely symbolic.

When our actions actually mattered, which was the Republican primaries, we acted.

Beyond that if somebody decided that they wanted to support liberty by holding their own general election in their basement, writing "liberty" on a piece of paper, and declaring that liberty won the election 1-0, then that person would have done just as much as anyone who went all the way to a polling place to do essentially the same thing, at less cost.
 
Last edited:
I could not compromise my values again by voting for any LP candidate for the purpose of the future of the LP party. I did that in 08 for the LP, voting for Barr after Ron lost the Republican primary and feel disgusted about it.

I liked Johnson but like allot of other people the abortion issue was a show stopper. So I ended up writing in Ron Paul as a protest vote which amounts to a "scatter" vote where I live.
 
I gave him the support I felt he earned which was my vote and few suggestions that others do the same. This was only because he was the best one on the ballot.
 
You could respect the fact that some of us have paid closer attention to this than you. You're not sure two years later about what went on so disregarding it as "nitpicking" is a mistake.

There are many more details than the two links I shared. There were enough dots at the time to make a decision on my end that I decided I wouldn't support him.

However, if keeping Guantanamo open, and voicing support of pre-emptive war don't turn you off, well, you're a different political animal.

He just said that he isn't completely non-interventionist like Ron Paul is, that doesn't mean he supports preemptive war, you're getting a lot out of one vague sentence. After all he did oppose war with Iran. And he supports due process for non US citizens so his position on Guantanamo should be irrelevant,.

Why don't we do a cost benefit analysis on why you should support him?

Benefit
Cut 1.4 trillion year one
Repeal NDAA, PATRIOT act, domestic drones
Due process
Abolish department of education, transportation and commerce
Repeal Obama care
Extremely pro 2nd amendment
Anti-bailout and corporate welfare
Audit the federal reserve
Legalize marijuana and decriminalize other drugs
No war with Iran, Syria or Libya
Against drone strikes
War done through congress with a declaration
End many foreign military bases

Cost - if you can call it that since these are all things supported by every other politician not named Ron Paul, it wouldn't be a step backward at all
Supports real humanitarian war through the congress with a declaration
Said he wouldn't end all military bases or end all foreign aid

So a Gary Johnson presidency would be a colossal step forward for America and not one policy would be a step backwards. Your reasoning is that because it's only a massive step forward in most areas, not every single area, he is a bad candidate.
 
Last edited:
This is what I was trying to explain earlier. If Goldman Sachs is going to give money to Republicans and Democrats, then we need to play both sides as well. In the Republican primaries, we'll have a Libertarian. In the Democrat primaries, we'll have a Libertarian. We'll campaign for both of them. If they fail, then we have a third party. Each needs effort. Eggs cannot be placed in one basket.
 
No chance in hell of winning?

This was undoubtedly true, but there was more to it. Ron Paul didn't have a chance in hell of winning once the RNC was over, but plenty of people wrote him in on principle. If we ask our candidates to vote and advocate on principle, I think we should do the same.
 
So a Gary Johnson presidency would be a colossal step forward for America and not one policy would be a step backwards

I don't see what that has to do with anything. The only possible outcomes of the general election were an Obama presidency or a Romney presidency. Voting for Johnson could not have produced a single one of the benefits you listed.

What you're asking people is why they chose to make a different symbolic gesture than you did.
 
Last edited:
...because herding cats is a cast-iron bitch. That, of course, and the fact that GJ, while a viable candidate in many ways, had a few central faults, among them and most glaringly, he

WASN'T RON PAUL

and that would be the primary​ answer to your question.
 
He just said that he isn't completely non-interventionist like Ron Paul is, that doesn't mean he supports preemptive war, you're getting a lot out of one vague sentence. After all he did oppose war with Iran. And he supports due process for non US citizens so his position on Guantanamo should be irrelevant,.

Why don't we do a cost benefit analysis on why you should support him?

Benefit
Cut 1.4 trillion year one
Repeal NDAA, PATRIOT act, domestic drones
Due process
Abolish department of education, transportation and commerce
Repeal Obama care
Extremely pro 2nd amendment
Anti-bailout and corporate welfare
Audit the federal reserve
Legalize marijuana and decriminalize other drugs
No war with Iran, Syria or Libya
Against drone strikes
War done through congress with a declaration
End many foreign military bases

Cost - if you can call it that since these are all things supported by every other politician not named Ron Paul, it wouldn't be a step backward at all
Supports real humanitarian war through the congress with a declaration
Said he wouldn't end all military bases or end all foreign aid

So a Gary Johnson presidency would be a colossal step forward for America and not one policy would be a step backwards. Your reasoning is that because it's only a massive step forward in most areas, not every single area, he is a bad candidate.

I did not trust Johnson for a number of reasons. You're sticking with two points I brought up.

I also felt Johnson was trying to split Ron's support with email blasts showing Ron at 3%.

As I said, there were many details. I didn't list them all because that campaign is over. It probably wouldn't help as you appear to just want to harp about how he will perform perfectly if elected while disregarding damaging statements.
 
I did not trust Johnson for a number of reasons. You're sticking with two points I brought up.

I also felt Johnson was trying to split Ron's support with email blasts showing Ron at 3%.

As I said, there were many details. I didn't list them all because that campaign is over. It probably wouldn't help as you appear to just want to harp about how he will perform perfectly if elected while disregarding damaging statements.


And what reason would you have to not trust him on any of those issues considering he's been consistent on them for his entire political career and has taken so much time out of his life to go around the country promoting those ideas even when not running for office? It's not like he has anything to gain from lying about those things, there isn't a special interest group profiting off those views that is paying him.

I don't doubt that he did that because he was running against Ron Paul, I didn't really understand his whole strategy there as it obviously wouldn't work and it's not like it hurt him since he dropped out before Iowa and told supporters to vote Paul who they were all going to vote for anyway. Nitpicking.
 
I don't see what that has to do with anything. The only possible outcomes of the general election were an Obama presidency or a Romney presidency. Voting for Johnson could not have produced a single one of the benefits you listed.

What you're asking people is why they chose to make a different symbolic gesture than you did.

GJ having a strong showing would help promote the ideas of liberty his campaign was based on. Just like how the RP campaign did that despite not winning.
 
I don't doubt that he did that because he was running against Ron Paul, I didn't really understand his whole strategy there as it obviously wouldn't work and it's not like it hurt him since he dropped out before Iowa and told supporters to vote Paul who they were all going to vote for anyway. Nitpicking.

I'll hold the line. Call it whatever you want. Johnson was a wedge imo.

It's still to be determined if I may end up with egg on my face with Rand. That's enough risk for me.
 
Gary Johnson was too liberal on issues like secularism, abortion and gay marriage for a lot of conservatives that supported Ron Paul.
Also, as he was a Libertarian, he had no chance of winning.

As a result, a lot of people wrote in Ron Paul, didn't vote at all, voted for Goode, some even voted for Romney.

But really, why does it matter? The election was 4 months ago. We need to look at the future rather than dwelling over the past.

Why does it matter? Because people use "issues like secularism, abortion and gay marriage" to drive a wedge between opponents of government. Stop falling for it and stop reinforcing it!

Gary Johnson did more to stop abortion (not that I agree/disagree with NM's law, not having studied it) than damn near every so-called prolife picketer combined the vast bulk of which want NO penalties for abortion mothers much beyond praying for their souls or something. You're letting near meaningless labels cloud your thinking (including "libertarian").

If you use "no chance of winning" as the criteria, rest assured, you'll never get that chance so just give up now and save internet bandwidth for someone who doesn't quit so easily.
 
Gary Johnson:

  • Supports the murder of the unborn (Ron is better but also isn't truly 100% pro-life)
  • Wants to nationalize homosexual 'marriage'
  • Supports 'humanitarian wars'
  • Seems to have no understanding at all of the Fed
  • Comes across as dopey and uninteligent
  • Ran as as the LP candidate (validates the aforementioned point)
 
He doesn't understand non-interventionist foreign policy. Sure he wouldn't send troops to Libya, but he would send them to Uganda to fight some washed up warlord that hasn't been seen in years.



Compare with:





I remember lurking the opposing candidates forum during the general election and it was basically people constantly shitting on Gary Johnson. To not support Gary, someone who agrees with you on 99% of the issues, because of minor imperfection is pretty ridiculous but the fact that people were actually hostile towards someone who should be considered a hero is just disgusting. Not once did I actually see someone post any of his policies and I read nearly every GJ thread.

He supports

- Cut 1.4 trillion year one and balance the budget immediately
- Repeal the PATRIOT ACT, NDAA, Domestic drones
- Extremely pro 2nd-amendment
- Due process for both US citizens and foreigners
- Leave Afghanistan and Iraq immediately, end many military bases, don't go to war with Iran or Syria

That alone should be enough to earn our support and that's just the tip of the iceburg.

- Abolish the department of education, transporation and commerce, maybe another one I'm not sure
- Legalize marijuana and decriminalize other drugs
- Audit the federal reserve
- Opposed to going into Libya
- Opposed to the drone strikes
- Opposed to all bailouts, corporate welfare, cap and trade, card check
- Eliminate government support of Fannie and Freddie
-

And most importantly he has honest convictions. When the patriot act happened he wasn't speaking out in support of it, when Iraq was happening he was speaking out against it, same with drug policy, bailouts, having free market education and health care, 2nd amendmant etc

Is he as good as Ron Paul? No. Is he perfect? No. But if you refuse to vote for and act hostile towards anyone who isn't a 100% perfect libertarian then the movement will go nowhere.

The reasons I saw for why people weren't voting for Johnson were usually

- He built a few private prisons as governor. Yes this sucks, but was it him being in bed with the private prisons or an honest mistake? Obviously the latter, the private prisons are scared to death of his drug policy.
- He supports legitimate humanitarian warfare (not like Libya or Syria) through the congress with a declaration. I don't agree with it but it's a minor issue and still constitutional.
- He only wants to legalize weed and decriminalize other drugs. I agree all drugs should be legal, but shouldn't this be viewed as a huge step forward and a reason to support someone?
- He wanted a federal legalization of weed. Shouldn't this be viewed as a gigantic step forward instead of a reason to oppose him?
- He believes taxation isn't theft. Good luck getting anywhere if you refuse to vote for anyone who believes this.
- He's pro choice. Good job letting one of the biggest issues the establishment uses to create the illusion between republicans and democrats determine your vote, especially when it will never become legal due to it being highly profitable and the public becoming more and more in favor of it.

It's sad because the movement had huge momentum coming off the Ron Paul campaign, and what do they choose to do? Support the marketable 2-term governor who agrees with them on 99% of the issues? No, clutch at straws that Ron Paul will somehow still win the republican nomination despite not winning a contest, even after Ron openly said they didn't have enough and Rand went on endorsed Romney. Whatever, you would think after Romney officially wins the nomination the movement would start backing Gary Johnson? No, then it becomes all about how you can write in Ron Paul for president, someone who isn't running and is remaining intentionally silent for the entire general election, despite the fact that write ins won't count in many states and we won't know how many write ins he got until long after the election was over.

And worst of all is that Ron Paul absolutely would have endorsed Gary this election if it weren't for Rand 2016. He endorsed 3 left wing lunatics because they agreed with him on Iraq, Afghanistan, Drug war and the federal reserve. Then he went onto endorse Baldwin who I'm sure wasn't perfect either.

So yeah, this is the Achilles heel of the liberty movement and it's sad that all the momentum from the 2012 campaign was wasted due to people in the movement being perfectionists.
 
Back
Top