Why didn't we get behind Gary Johnson?

[Confederate]

Santorum would fit in well with the CP as they both favor heavy federal involvement in terms of marriage and the abolition of pornography and related adult industries.

CP on marriage:

No civil government may legitimately authorize or define marriage or family relations, as affirmed by the 10th amendment, delegating to the people as our founders understood the family as necessary to the general welfare.

Also, the CP doesn't call for government eliminating pornography, although they do call for enforcement of existing obscenity laws. SCOTUS (surprisingly a good ruling) has ruled that obscene material is not covered by the 1st Amendment.

 

[FSP-Rebel]

CP on marriage:



Also, the CP doesn't call for government eliminating pornography, although they do call for enforcement of existing obscenity laws. SCOTUS (surprisingly a good ruling) has ruled that obscene material is not covered by the 1st Amendment.

I read the entire clip on their website pertaining to marriage and it seemed as if they favored a federal one man-one woman relationship standard and no acknowledgement of any gay or otherwise marriage. They're against co-habitation and having children out of wedlock. Yep, screw having a female roommate to split the bills in a shitty economy, vintage family above all.

Regarding obscenities, the 1st Amendment irregardless of what the SCOTUS says, protects all speech outside of child porn where there's a victim who couldn't consent involved. Obscenity to one isn't to another and these so-called obscenities are voluntarily traded and the actors aren't doing it against their will. I'm not much of a libertarian debater but these neanderthal policies just irk me.

 

[TheTexan]

I don't support Gary Johnson because he is a dishonest panderer who does not understand the importance of sound money, has extremely inconsistent solutions to problems due to his pragmatic approaches, supports interventionism, and really has no guiding philosophical foundation, he just kind of throws darts in the general direction of liberty and sometimes gets it right.

I would be happy if he won an election, but I would not want to give people the impression that he represents me, or libertarianism in general.

 

[RandRevolution]

I don't support Gary Johnson because he is a dishonest panderer who does not understand the importance of sound money, has extremely inconsistent solutions to problems due to his pragmatic approaches, supports interventionism, and really has no guiding philosophical foundation, he just kind of throws darts in the general direction of liberty and sometimes gets it right.

I would be happy if he won an election, but I would not want to give people the impression that he represents me, or libertarianism in general.

Give examples of this because it isn't true at all. Is he all about pragmatism? Sure. But his solutions are still consistent - because liberty is extremely pragmatic. His solutions for everything has always been less government. Education and health care, free marketify it or let the states deal with it. Fixing the economy, getting rid of regulations, cutting spending and abolishing the corporate tax. Let states deal with more of the issues like he said in one of the debates, I thought him saying letting states take control meant "50 laboratories of innovation" was an amazing line.

I'm happy Johnson used pragmatic arguments for liberty instead of the moral one, it's so much more effective. Some people still criticized him for that, seemingly not realizing he was arguing for liberty in the first place.

 

[erowe1]

no acknowledgement of any gay or otherwise marriage

Good.

 

[BlackJack]

Give examples of this because it isn't true at all. Is he all about pragmatism? Sure. But his solutions are still consistent - because liberty is extremely pragmatic. His solutions for everything has always been less government. Education and health care, free marketify it or let the states deal with it. Fixing the economy, getting rid of regulations, cutting spending and abolishing the corporate tax. Let states deal with more of the issues like he said in one of the debates, I thought him saying letting states take control meant "50 laboratories of innovation" was an amazing line.

I'm happy Johnson used pragmatic arguments for liberty instead of the moral one, it's so much more effective. Some people still criticized him for that, seemingly not realizing he was arguing for liberty in the first place.

You were presented with evidence earlier in this thread and you've ignored it.

Lay off the cheer-leading.

 

[jbauer]

I voted GJ. He had the money thing right. If we don't fix that we're all screwed before any of the other things matter.

 

[affa]

Because I support Ron Paul. Not Gary Johnson. Pretty simple.

 

[liveandletlive]

cuz he didnt read Hayek and Mises and Rothbard....

 

[jmdrake]

Santorum would fit in well with the CP as they both favor heavy federal involvement in terms of marriage and the abolition of pornography and related adult industries.

No he wouldn't. He's not honest regarding foreign policy.

 

[Sola_Fide]

I don't support Gary Johnson because he is a dishonest panderer who does not understand the importance of sound money, has extremely inconsistent solutions to problems due to his pragmatic approaches, supports interventionism, and really has no guiding philosophical foundation, he just kind of throws darts in the general direction of liberty and sometimes gets it right.

I would be happy if he won an election, but I would not want to give people the impression that he represents me, or libertarianism in general.

Same here. And I add to that he is pro-abortion, so he hasn't read Abortion And Liberty by Ron Paul, and doesn't understand the relationship between life and liberty.

 

[The Free Hornet]

Same here. And I add to that he is pro-abortion, so he hasn't read Abortion And Liberty by Ron Paul, and doesn't understand the relationship between life and liberty.

GJ signed a law against 3rd trimester abortions and has advocated againt the use of public funds. What the hell have you done?

You come here and lie about the guy without even a link.

Is Ron Paul pro-crack for not wanting a federal role in drugs?
Is Ron Paul pro-prostitution for not wanting a federal role in that? Or gambling?

Most in the pro-life movement are anything but, and they want no penalty for abortion. How are the pro-life/anti-abortion protestors in this video - with one exception - NOT PRO-FUCKING CHOICE?:




The argument can be made that Ron Paul is pro-choice in that he is pro-letting the states decide. He also thinks the woman "should" be able to choose, but that is qualified by a section cut off (obviously, that baby should not be killed or should have a choice):



Of course, none of this will keep liars without links from subdividing people into pro-choice or pro-life based on some arbitrary line they rarely delineate.

 

[Butchie]

I might have been more supportive of him if I really thought he cared a lot about fiscal conservatism. But it seemed to me like all he ever wanted to talk about was how great abortion and gay marriage are.

Bingo, and to be clear those are not make or break issues for me, but that's just the point, if you're going to make those issues a major plank of your platform, you're not getting my vote.

 

[The Free Hornet]

Also, Ron Paul has stated that woman who suffer from "honest rape" be allowed the morning after pill which can kill a fertilized egg (AKA abortion):

The Morning-After Pill

Brand Name: Plan B

Promoted As: Emergency contraception

When Used: Within 72 hours after sex

How It Works: Suppresses ovulation and thins uterine lining to prevent implantation

Does It Kill a Baby? Sometimes

Side Effects: Similar to birth control pills - nausea, headache, abdominal pain, but also more serious concerns such as blood clotting and heart problems that could lead to hospitalization or even death

www.christianliferesources.com/article/the-abortion-pill-and-the-morning-after-pill-are-they-the-same-1023

Ron Paul's position on the states has led many to conclude he is pro-choice (WRT abortion). Of course, the rape/incest exceptions that politicians love to embrace are just as much bullshit as everything else in the pro-life movement. The rape/incest exception is unambiguously a pro-choice concession.

Either you support charging the mother with first degree murder, or you are wasting everybody's time. All you're doing is boosting the anti-contraception/anti-premarital sex movement and you get a big THANK YOU from the AMA for continuing to promote the over regulation of their industry which keeps as many practicioners out as possible.

 

[The Free Hornet]

Bingo, and to be clear those are not make or break issues for me, but that's just the point, if you're going to make those issues a major plank of your platform, you're not getting my vote.

What is your cutoff for "major plank"? Where is your link?

http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/issues

How is GJ's opinion on these matters any stronger or weaker than RP's?

The difference is that one guy strokes your ego and the other one gives it the brush off. Get over it. The people selecting politicians on this basis will eff things up again in 2016.

 

[RandRevolution]

You were presented with evidence earlier in this thread and you've ignored it.

Lay off the cheer-leading.

No I wasn't, give me examples of how his cost-benefit analysis leads to inconsistent solutions to problems because his solutions to problems are all pro-liberty. Letting states decide, free market health and education, cutting spending, ending regulation, abolishing the corporate tax, legalization and decriminalization. All of his solutions that come from cost-benefit analysis mean less government and more freedom.

Seriously explain to me how his cost-benefit analysis leads to inconsistent solutions to problems. It's so ridiculous that people are criticizing him for advocating the pragmatism of liberty instead of the morality when he is advocating liberty in the first place.

 

[RandRevolution]

Bingo, and to be clear those are not make or break issues for me, but that's just the point, if you're going to make those issues a major plank of your platform, you're not getting my vote.

I don't think you were listening to a lot of Gary Johnson interviews because he talked about abortion very little and gay marriage not that much either. He mainly talked about and his ads were mainly about the fiscal crisis, civil liberties, drug policy, Obamacare and foreign policy. I don't think he even released a single ad on abortion. I mean, he was actually warning about how a dollar collapse is going to happen in all his interviews - how can you not love someone like that?

 

[erowe1]

How is GJ's opinion on these matters any stronger or weaker than RP's?

They might not be different. But if GJ wanted us to think they were the same, he only has himself to blame for people thinking otherwise. He was the one who made such a big deal out of differentiating himself as the pro-gay pro-abortion alternative to Ron Paul. Throughout the primaries that was his whole sales pitch.

 

[erowe1]

I don't think you were listening to a lot of Gary Johnson interviews because he talked about abortion very little and gay marriage not that much either. He mainly talked about and his ads were mainly about the fiscal crisis, civil liberties, drug policy, Obamacare and foreign policy. I don't think he even released a single ad on abortion. I mean, he was actually warning about how a dollar collapse is going to happen in all his interviews - how can you not love someone like that?

Admittedly, I never tried to endure listening to him in an interview. But his Facebook posts during the primaries sure were dominated by those issues.

 

[anaconda]

I think part of the reason was that Ron Paul supporters were behind him through the convention, which left little time and money to campaign for Gary. It also seems like the bulk of the Paul supporters joined his resolve to join and change the Republican Party.