Why didn't we get behind Gary Johnson?

[jmdrake]

What views on foreign policy, you mean being opposed to Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Iran and Syria from the beginning? Releasing ads against the drone strikes? Wanting to end many military bases around the world? Wanting to do all acts of war through the congress with a declaration? He isn't flawless on foreign policy like Ron is but he's still very strong on it and better than 99.9999% of all other politicians by far. His only flaws in foreign policy is that he would support legitimate humanitarian wars through the congress with a declaration and that he wouldn't end all military bases. The movement will go nowhere if someone with those views is considered bad on foreign policy.

Using federal dollars ( the tax money for matching funds is donated voluntarily) when your opponents are all using it and so you can further the ideas of liberty absolutely makes sense, Ron Paul should have done it, the ends justifies the means.

Okay. What makes Uganda more of a "legitimate humanitarian war" than Iraq? If we buy the "Saddam gassed his own people" argument (and that's actually questionable as the U.S. Army War college came to the opposition conclusion when Saddam was our boy), then there was at least a good of a reason to go to war with Iraq. And so Gary Johnson would ask for a congressional declaration of war in the Ugandan situation? Against who?

 

[erowe1]

Okay. What makes Uganda more of a "legitimate humanitarian war" than Iraq? If we buy the "Saddam gassed his own people" argument (and that's actually questionable as the U.S. Army War college came to the opposition conclusion when Saddam was our boy), then there was at least a good of a reason to go to war with Iraq. And so Gary Johnson would ask for a congressional declaration of war in the Ugandan situation? Against who?

Saddam's attacking the Kurds, which were also his own subjects, after the first Gulf War isn't questionable is it?

 

[TheTexan]

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.

If you had asked me a year ago I could have given you many examples. The gold standard is one example though. He doesn't like that idea. He doesn't think it would work. He believes the Federal Reserve serves a legitimate purpose, to provide for a sound currency.

He's wrong. Both pragmatically, and morally. The Federal Reserve is theft... plain and simple. And it doesn't work, and couldn't ever work.

You're right that the moral answer is also the pragmatic answer, but without a moral compass, it can be hard to come to the correct answer. This is one of those cases.

 

[sailingaway]

What views on foreign policy, you mean being opposed to Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Iran and Syria from the beginning? Releasing ads against the drone strikes? Wanting to end many military bases around the world? Wanting to do all acts of war through the congress with a declaration? He isn't flawless on foreign policy like Ron is but he's still very strong on it and better than 99.9999% of all other politicians by far. His only flaws in foreign policy is that he would support legitimate humanitarian wars through the congress with a declaration and that he wouldn't end all military bases. The movement will go nowhere if someone with those views is considered bad on foreign policy.

Using federal dollars ( the tax money for matching funds is donated voluntarily) when your opponents are all using it and so you can further the ideas of liberty absolutely makes sense, Ron Paul should have done it, the ends justifies the means.

It is not donated voluntarily, they keep it whether you say some can go there or not, you have no choice to get it back.

However, Ron did say in 1989 that while he still came down against matching funds as being stolen money, that in the case of a third party given all the imbalance of legal barriers and debate barriers etc, he didn't feel strongly about it, he might be talked into thinking if it was used to overcome that burden that it was ok. HE didn't accept it himself though, in 2008 or 2012.

 

[MelissaWV]

To put it very simply, I can't answer why "we" didn't, but I know why I didn't, and that's good enough for me.

 

[The Free Hornet]

Strokes my ego??? Don't even know what to say to that one. As for Gary, I watched several interviews with him, I did not see even one where he didn't bring up GM, and notice I said HE BROUGHT IT UP, he was not asked about it, he decided to make it part of the conversation. I rarely ever heard Ron speak of GM, sure, he'd respond when asked, but he never made it a point to bring it up, he'd focus mostly on wars, debt, fed, Patriot Act, etc.

Well that could be your perception. I would neither watch nor remember enough videos/interviews to form a conclusion. I don't doubt GJ is not as qualified as RP was. That said, when I see these culture war issues brought up as litmus tests... it irks me. Abortion especially is so stupid since the pro-lifers, by and large, don't want to do jack-shit about the issue beyond granting government more regulatory and oversight authority of health care. It is just like narcotic use, the users do not threaten TPTB as much as the economic actors in the black markets.

 

[Butchie]

Well that could be your perception. I would neither watch nor remember enough videos/interviews to form a conclusion. I don't doubt GJ is not as qualified as RP was. That said, when I see these culture war issues brought up as litmus tests... it irks me. Abortion especially is so stupid since the pro-lifers, by and large, don't want to do jack-shit about the issue beyond granting government more regulatory and oversight authority of health care. It is just like narcotic use, the users do not threaten TPTB as much as the economic actors in the black markets.

I agree, which is why I clearly stated in my post those were not make or break issues for me, which is exactly why I wished Gary didn't bring them up everytime someone stuck a microphone in his face.

 

[FrankRep]

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.

Ron Paul was a Republican Congressman in Texas. I consider that winning.

 

[fr33]

Some Johnson bashers might find yourself in quite a spell of cognitive dissonance if you plan on supporting Rand in the future.

Like I said, I voted for Johnson because he was the best on the ballot. I expect to do the same for Rand.

 

[erowe1]

Some Johnson bashers might find yourself in quite a spell of cognitive dissonance if you plan on supporting Rand in the future.

Like I said, I voted for Johnson because he was the best on the ballot. I expect to do the same for Rand.

The likelihood of my supporting Rand will decrease significantly if he decides to run in a third party.

 

[sailingaway]

Some Johnson bashers might find yourself in quite a spell of cognitive dissonance if you plan on supporting Rand in the future.

Like I said, I voted for Johnson because he was the best on the ballot. I expect to do the same for Rand.

I don't like Johnson, and I may vote for Rand. I have years to decide and will have more information then. Rand has backbone on NDAA and similar and I haven't seen GJ show backbone on anything. I've seen him practically ooze when Hannity interviewed him, in fact.

You are free to like GJ or not, or like Rand or not, but they aren't the same people.

 

[Reece]

I ended up voting for Gary Johnson. Nevertheless, I expect better from the Libertarian Party candidate. By having the name "Libertarian" I have much higher expectations for them to hold libertarian positions. A weak candidate hurts the value of the word libertarian.

I might have ended up writing in Ron Paul if I had lived in a state where they counted the write-ins for him though.

 

[fr33]

You are free to like GJ or not, or like Rand or not, but they aren't the same people.

You are right but it is the same justifications made by those that don't agree with some of Rand's stances or Johnson's. I voted for the best one on the ballot and Rand will be that again.

 

[Ekrub]

I voted for Gary. He did a fine job as Governor of New Mexico and I thought he would have made an excellent president. To be honest, I believe he probably would have accomplished more for liberty as President than Ron Paul (although Ron was my first choice as I agree a smudge more with Ron). I think he was an excellent liberty candidate. Unfortunately, when GJ ran in 2012 against Ron Paul, people here began resenting him and started bending over backwards to find reasons not to like him. If he runs as the LP candidate in 2016, I may well vote for him again, depending on how Rand does in the primary.

 

[nobody's_hero]

Ron Paul was a Republican Congressman in Texas. I consider that winning.

Does the republican party know that?

 

[Akus]

This thread is 14 pages long.
I didn't read all of them, but I can see that the worst enemy of liberty movement is liberty movement itself. I agree that arguing over voting/not voting for GJ is moot now that election is in the books, but reading this junior high BS about how I can't for for Gary because he's got cooties really makes me understand how much growing up we have to do. I don't want to belong to a group of fanbois. And this is what this thread wreaks of, Ron Paul fanbois, not actual Liberty followers.

I voted RP in primaries.
When those were over and it was Obama/Mitt/GJ, I voted Libertarian.

I am not GJ fanboi. I'm sure there are bones to pick with him. But he was an actual third voice (really second) in this conversation. If a different party made it to the Whitehouse, or, at least, to Congress, things would be better simply by changing the course of the rhetoric alone.

But I don't see too many people understanding this. They're too concerned about some bullshit manufactured issue like abortion or gay marriage or some such to see the big picture. We can change a political landscape if we actually roll collectively into one big fist. Who here would honestly argue that Mitt or Obama 2.0 is a better option then, yes, imperfect, yes, sometimes maybe even controversial, Gary Johnson? How many of you are big enough (wo)men to understand what Liberty is about.

It's about being left alone and doing your own thing. Not about bickering over trite hot button topics that some Washington think tank manufactured specifically knowing we would be too immature and too self-opinionated to just bounce it off. Like a bullet off Superman's chest.

All of you who wrote in RP, knowing full well that this does nothing and who couldn't vote for Gary Johnson for some superficial reasons are not in a Liberty camp. You're just fanbois and, honestly, I'd rather you write in Justin Bieber or one of the Kardashians, because at least there is no pretense that you're supposedly politically involved.

YOU are the reason Ron Paul lost, and Libertarian Party achieved nothing.
YOU are the reason why Liberty movement stagnated and dissipated as soon as it was all over for Ron Paul.
NOT some sinister conspiracy against us.

And if anyone tells me to go to Hell over this, you've just made my point for me.

 

[MelissaWV]

I don't vote for the lesser evil just to demonstrate that I have no standards and am willing to vote for anyone with an "L" by their name. The liberty movement did not stagnate; it achieved a variety of victories, and people are busy readying for more. You seem to be speaking much more for yourself than any group as a whole. I'm not sure why it's so awful for you to conceive of people actually disagreeing with Johnson on some pretty large things, and not being interested in voting FOR (yes we still cast ballots FOR people, and not AGAINST others) Gary Johnson.

If you want to vote FOR Gary Johnson, and you agree with him enough of the time, or you find it a grand and wonderful step towards getting a third party president someday, cool. Just bear in mind precisely who the "successful" third party candidates have been in our nation's history. It's a mixed bag. Voting just because someone is third party is akin to voting straight R or D; it ignores the person in favor of a "statement."

 

[Akus]

I don't vote for the lesser evil just to demonstrate that I have no standards and am willing to vote for anyone with an "L" by their name. The liberty movement did not stagnate; it achieved a variety of victories, and people are busy readying for more. You seem to be speaking much more for yourself than any group as a whole. I'm not sure why it's so awful for you to conceive of people actually disagreeing with Johnson on some pretty large things, and not being interested in voting FOR (yes we still cast ballots FOR people, and not AGAINST others) Gary Johnson.

If you want to vote FOR Gary Johnson, and you agree with him enough of the time, or you find it a grand and wonderful step towards getting a third party president someday, cool. Just bear in mind precisely who the "successful" third party candidates have been in our nation's history. It's a mixed bag. Voting just because someone is third party is akin to voting straight R or D; it ignores the person in favor of a "statement."

 

[MelissaWV]

Keep telling yourself that.

 

[RandRevolution]

I don't like Johnson, and I may vote for Rand. I have years to decide and will have more information then. Rand has backbone on NDAA and similar and I haven't seen GJ show backbone on anything. I've seen him practically ooze when Hannity interviewed him, in fact.

You are free to like GJ or not, or like Rand or not, but they aren't the same people.

See, this is the problem, people critisize GJ for reasons that don't exist. He was constantly speaking out against the NDAA, PATRIOT act and drones and even released campaign videos on it. Yet somehow he has no backbone on it.

He goes around the country (including going to over 30 states at 150 stops when he wasn't running for office) to speak about the ideas of our movement: Fiscal conservatism, civil liberties, the benefits of free markets including free market health care and education, 2nd amendment rights, anti-war, drug policy reform and transparency and people here either act hostile towards him or act unappreciative and unenthusiastic over small quibbles about him or his policy. He should be considered a hero by people here because that's exactly what he is, he has done 10000 times more for the movement than anyone here and yet people act that way towards him because he isn't as good or as big a hero as Ron Paul.