Gary Johnson Why not Gary Johnson?

[aaroche26]

AA

 

[sailingaway]

I don't think he's similar.

 

[MelissaWV]

Reposted from previous "Why not Gary Johnson?"-style threads:

Sending our troops overseas to die is a pretty large issue. Several of his "good ideas" include some really awful execution. People keep saying he wants to legalize pot... and they're kind of right.

By making it a legal, regulated product, availability can be restricted, under-age use curtailed, enforcement/court/incarceration costs reduced, and the profit removed from a massive underground and criminal economy.

By managing marijuana like alcohol and tobacco – regulating, taxing and enforcing its lawful use – America will be better off. The billions saved on marijuana interdiction, along with the billions captured as legal revenue, can be redirected against the individuals committing real crimes against society.

Legislation. Regulation. Taxation. "Billions captured as legal revenue" by the Government. No, that's not quite the same.

Honest, effective education will be key to succeeding with this transition. America has cut teen cigarette use in half, not by criminalizing possession and use, but through a combination of honest education and sensible regulation.

^ That makes me laugh.

Unchecked deficits are the single greatest threat to our national security.

No.

Enact the Fair Tax to tax expenditures, rather than income, with a 'prebate' to make spending on basic necessities tax free.

No.

Reduce or eliminate federal involvement in education; let states expand successful reforms such as vouchers and charter schools.

Which? It makes a difference.

The TSA should take a risk-based approach to airport security. Only high-risk individuals should be subjected to invasive pat-downs and full-body scans.

Oh good... so we are going to keep the TSA, pat-downs, and body scanners. They will only be used on "high-risk individuals," though, which will likely be defined by the TSA.

Government should not impose its values upon marriage. It should allow marriage equality, including gay marriage.

No.

With workable employer verification systems, smarter border enforcement, and common sense, a national problem (illegal immigration) can be turned into a national benefit.

Yeah! E-verify!!! WOOHOO!!!

There should be a two-year grace period for illegal immigrants to attain work visas so they can continue contributing to America and begin taking part in American society openly.

I point this out because he does restrict benefits of certain things to citizens throughout his site. How does this non-citizen and their family who is here on a two-year grace period (boy I bet no one will overstay that)... how do they send their kids to school or anything else to "take part in American society openly"?

It is not a coincidence that the one element of our modern economy that has been uniquely left free of government interference has created equally unique growth and transformation. An Internet free of regulation and taxation has produced innovation and enhancements to quality of life almost unparalleled in human history.

^ Someone is not up on his current events.

I think it's more than a passing problem for me. I just don't agree with the guy, and on top of that he is a bit of a flake. His commercials do make an impact... but not the best one. It's almost like he really has no respect for the position or any of the things he's talking about. I get the impression, from Ron Paul, that he has given all of his positions serious thought and speaks about their implementation as if he is really going to have a shot at trying it.

 

[aaroche26]

AA

 

[MelissaWV]

He's a lot similar than Mitt Romney and President Obama. They differ on some issues, but it's the closest you'll get. The goal is to change the conversation. The drug war, the Fed, the budget and etc. The chance of Ron Paul serving the Gary Johnson administration is possible if Ron Paul is offered the opportunity and says yes.

If you're expecting someone who is exactly like Ron Paul for this upcoming election, then you better find he/she quick because election day is less than a month.

You are advocating voting for the lesser evil. I don't vote that way. You may if you'd like.

 

[Dick Chaney]

I'd like to see these anti-johnson people give me 5 reasons why Johnson would be dangerous to this country. For one, I don't want to hear the pro-choice bitching from the social conservatives, he said himself he would slash all federal funding to planned parenthood which would significantly reduce abortions in this country. And I also do not want to hear the "OH HES FOR HUMANITARIAN WARS, HES A WARMONGERER!!!" crap. He specifically said if an ally of ours had a credible threat to their national security (which GJ says the Iran-israel feud is not one of them), then we would possibly have grounds for intervention. Now please tell me why I'm delusional.

 

[MelissaWV]

I'd like to see these anti-johnson people give me 5 reasons why Johnson would be dangerous to this country. For one, I don't want to hear the pro-choice bitching from the social conservatives, he said himself he would slash all federal funding to planned parenthood which would significantly reduce the occurrence of abortions in this country. And I also do not want to hear the "OH HES FOR HUMANITARIAN WARS, HES A WARMONGERER!!!" crap. He specifically said if an ally of ours had a credible threat to their national security (which GJ says the Iran-israel feud is not one of them), then we would possibly have grounds for intervention. Now, I'm done, now I'll give you all the floor to tell me why I'm crazy.

Strangely enough, simply disagreeing with him and refusing to vote for the lesser evil is enough to make one "anti-Johnson."

It could not be because an individual has their own reasons for disagreeing, like I took the time to outline above.

As for that credible threat... we can agree to disagree on what constitutes one.

He says he supports U.S. military intervention in Uganda to root out the Lords Resistance Army and kill its leader, Joseph Kony. He thinks the drone war in Pakistan and Yemen creates more enemies than it eliminates, but doesn’t want to take drone strikes off the proverbial “table.” He wants to “completely withdraw our military presence” from Afghanistan, but wants to keep our military bases there. In fact, U.S. military bases should be maintained throughout the Middle East, he says, even though America faces “no military threats.” He supports “humanitarian intervention.”

 

[VIDEODROME]

End the Wars. End the IRS.

I can get behind those two things alone.

 

[farreri]

It's because unfortunately, there's a lot of "No one but Paul!" people who actually take that literally. There's extremism on all sides.

 

[Dick Chaney]

Strangely enough, simply disagreeing with him and refusing to vote for the lesser evil is enough to make one "anti-Johnson."

It could not be because an individual has their own reasons for disagreeing, like I took the time to outline above.

As for that credible threat... we can agree to disagree on what constitutes one.

I think every politician makes mistakes due to perhaps lack of knowledge and understanding of the event, but I believe that those mistakes can be corrected and compensated for. Take Ron Paul for example, he voted for the Afghanistan War, however, once he learned more of what was really going on, he was and still is America's greatest advocate towards ending it. I think the same goes for Gary Johnson.

 

[MelissaWV]

I think every politician makes mistakes due to perhaps lack of knowledge and understanding of the event, but I believe that those mistakes can be corrected and compensated for. Take Ron Paul for example, he voted for the Afghanistan War, once he learned of what was really going on, he was the staunchest advocate against it since. I think the same goes for Gary Johnson.

So you are voting for someone whose Presidential learning curve includes "humanitarian intervention" via a military funded with a flat tax and the tax on marijuana. As long as we're clear about it.

 

[aaroche26]

AA

 

[Dick Chaney]

So you are voting for someone whose Presidential learning curve includes "humanitarian intervention" via a military funded with a flat tax and the tax on marijuana. As long as we're clear about it.

If that means preventing world war 3, then yes. Any man who gets shut out of the debates and receives zero corporate funding can't be that bad of a guy.

 

[MelissaWV]

I'm talking about changing the conversation. Vote or no vote for Gary Johnson. Let's get him on national TV for the Presidential debates. This means more coverage from the media towards the issues that count even if it's not 100% the same as Ron Paul. It will give Ron Paul more credibility, which would give him more media coverage to educate people.

As for the lesser of no evils. Ron Paul isn't an angel either. His management skills are poor.

Yes, getting another person on the national stage via a debate is going to bring the "issues" front and center. Except that the moderators decide which questions and topics will be covered. Except that the time constraints are largely gone and Gary will get talked over from every angle. Except that, as I mentioned, I'm not sure that Gary's tip-top on a lot of the issues.

Lobbying for third party inclusion in the debates could have been started quite some time ago, or maybe it was and there just wasn't much of a concerted effort?

Regardless, your topic is not "Gary should be in the debates." It poses the question "Why not Gary Johnson?" which seems to ask why more people are not supporting him. I gave my response. I thought that was the point

 

[VIDEODROME]

Does it seem like Gary Johnson is a warhawk?

I don't think he is eager to rush off to war and spread our military thin around the world.

But suppose he followed due process and went to war only with a Congressional declaration? Might that Declaration include a War Tax? Or War Bonds?

If he followed a process that demanded specifics about what we're sending our military to do upfront that would still be an improvement. The current method seems to simply consist of "Go get 'em!!" and getting mired in hellhole countries for years.

 

[MelissaWV]

Does it seem like Gary Johnson is a warhawk?

I don't think he is eager to rush off to war and spread our military thin around the world.

But suppose he followed due process and went to war only with a Congressional declaration? Might that Declaration include a War Tax? Or War Bonds?

If he followed a process that demanded specifics about what we're sending our military to do upfront that would still be an improvement. The current method seems to simply consist of "Go get 'em!!" and getting mired in hellhole countries for years.

You're right. That would be a wonderful stand to take. Unfortunately, that's not the one he's been taking. If he meant something totally different, he botched it bigtime.

 

[CaseyJones]

It's because unfortunately, there's a lot of "No one but Paul!" people who actually take that literally. There's extremism on all sides.

ah yes keeping ones word.... what extremism

 

[Dick Chaney]

Yes, getting another person on the national stage via a debate is going to bring the "issues" front and center. Except that the moderators decide which questions and topics will be covered. Except that the time constraints are largely gone and Gary will get talked over from every angle. Except that, as I mentioned, I'm not sure that Gary's tip-top on a lot of the issues.

Lobbying for third party inclusion in the debates could have been started quite some time ago, or maybe it was and there just wasn't much of a concerted effort?

Regardless, your topic is not "Gary should be in the debates." It poses the question "Why not Gary Johnson?" which seems to ask why more people are not supporting him. I gave my response. I thought that was the point

If you vote for nothing you deserve nothing. However if you feel the need to throw the good governor (who has probably the best record of any governor in US history) into your little lesser-of-three evil paradigm, then please, be my guest. I'll be voting for Johnson in 2012 for what it's worth because I don't want to see my children drafted into World War 3. As Ron Paul said, vote for your conscience, and I damn well plan to do that.

 

[MelissaWV]

If you vote for nothing you deserve nothing. However if you feel the need to throw the good governor (who has probably the best record of any governor in US history) into your little lesser-of-three evil paradigm, then please, be my guest. I'll be voting for Johnson in 2012 because I don't want to see my children drafted into World War 3.

1. You do realize, as I just pointed out, that Johnson doesn't really want to stop wars. He just wants to fight more justified ones. People still die even in "humanitarian" efforts. See: Somalia.

2. If I vote for someone I don't agree with on the major and crucial issues, I deserve the awful things that person is going to do. What part of "you can vote for whomever you want" is so difficult? You agree with him. Good for you. What is perplexing is how on these threads (that pop up every single day without fail), which even ASK why people don't support him, talking about disagreeing with Gary Johnson is a sin lol

3. I don't put all my eggs in one basket. I am working at the local level on a variety of things, with people I don't totally agree with.



Kony's involved in genocide, of course, so we should send in a strike force... in the Gary Johnsonverse. Don't worry. He assures us that it's not a threat to national security. He'd just go in there because they're doing bad stuff.

No, not interested, personally.

 

[sailingaway]

I'm talking about changing the conversation. Vote or no vote for Gary Johnson. Let's get him on national TV for the Presidential debates. This means more coverage from the media towards the issues that count even if it's not 100% the same as Ron Paul. It will give Ron Paul more credibility, which would give him more media coverage to educate people.

As for the lesser of no evils. Ron Paul isn't an angel either. His management skills are poor.

He doesn't believe in central management. I consider that a SELLING point, but yeah, it has allowed problems to occur where a more hands on person would have been in a position to correct them.

I am not interested in Johnson, though. I think the LP should have picked a person who works from core principles, both this time and last time. They could have capitalized on principled voters.