RandRevolution
Member
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2012
- Messages
- 114
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.
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.
