He supports a consumption tax called the FAIR tax. I think it makes a lot of sense and it creates the right incentives. A flat tax would be great too. The people who think eliminating taxes anytime in the near future makes sense are braindead.
Gary Johnson Why not Gary Johnson?
- Thread starter aaroche26
- Start date
-
- Tags
- gary johnson
He supports a consumption tax called the FAIR tax. I think it makes a lot of sense and it creates the right incentives. A flat tax would be great too. The people who think eliminating taxes anytime in the near future makes sense are braindead.
VIDEODROME
Member
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2007
- Messages
- 5,407
He botched it, or he was pandering, or both. Or he is trying to speak to the NeoCons on ground they can understand and floundering.
I think he is also trying to sell his ideas through a language of Utilitarianism and pure analysis of cost versus benefit.
I think he did better on a later interview with Mancow and finally turned around the argument on the interviewer.
I think he is also trying to sell his ideas through a language of Utilitarianism and pure analysis of cost versus benefit.
I think he did better on a later interview with Mancow and finally turned around the argument on the interviewer.
CPUd
Member
- Joined
- May 12, 2012
- Messages
- 22,978
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
They have to find new angles to start threads without people going negative on them in the first replies.
Some of the ones who were pushing GJ during the primaries are now thinking now that the RNC is over, they can get some of the organizational talent from the RP grassroots. And they have gotten some, and good for them, but unfortunately what they are not seeing is that many people here are not really focusing on the Presidential race anymore, and have shifted to getting their local candidates into office.
The debate stuff is simply not going to happen, and I wish these people would stop using it as a reason to campaign for GJ. Like you said, it should have been started months ago, but instead of the GJ people hitting the streets where it mattered, they were posting a bunch of misleading stuff on the DP, and generally pissing people off.
VIDEODROME
Member
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2007
- Messages
- 5,407
Well, I was holding out for whatever it was that Ron Paul might accomplish in Tampa. Now that is over and I'm looking for some direction in the presidential race and I've chosen Gary Johnson.
Jumbo Shrimp
Banned
- Joined
- Sep 4, 2012
- Messages
- 618
Pro-abortion and pro-gay marriage. No thanks.
Some people don't like freedom.
If one's word is extreme, yes.ah yes keeping ones word.... what extremism
Jumbo Shrimp
Banned
- Joined
- Sep 4, 2012
- Messages
- 618
Unborn children deserve a chance at life.
FindLiberty
Member
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2007
- Messages
- 5,439
Yes. But the GOP won't ever actually yield it's power much less pretend to lean a bit towards Liberty, IMO. It's all an illusion debating between two R/D statists. Libertarian thoughts are hardly mentioned if at all, and history shows no session of congress or POTUS race winner has actually reduced existing government size, even by .001% in the past several decades. We only get to name our poison.
sailingaway
Member
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2010
- Messages
- 72,103
A lot of people here think life starts at conception. Murder isn't a 'liberty'. If you don't think life starts at conception, you have leeway, if you do, you don't.
sailingaway
Member
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2010
- Messages
- 72,103
When I learned about Ron Paul and how he had stayed true to his oath of office, and to representing the people not special interests for his entire career, I was galvanized. If he can do it, they all can. And if we have to grow our own, I still consider that the goal.
fr33
Member
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2012
- Messages
- 9,471
If Ron Paul is your template, you might never vote again. There isn't another Ron Paul serving at this time. Justin Amash is close but still he isn't as strict as Ron Paul.
I didn't even agree with Ron Paul on everything. (His support for Marriage Protection Act and being too strict on immigration)
If I were as strict as some Ron Paul supporters, I wouldn't have supported Ron Paul.
sailingaway
Member
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2010
- Messages
- 72,103
I wouldn't necessarily have come to all the same conclusions Ron did, but his overall principled coherence, consistency and predictability on not just 'platform' but fallbacks made him the best candidate I've ever reviewed. And I would support those close enough to my standard to inspire my support, at whatever level. Better a Congressional candidate who is the real deal, than a presidential candidate who is not anything special, for example. But I think there are a lot like me and we will, over time, grow our own. In a sense this is an incubation period, but people are entering the ring, and more will with time.
jmdrake
Member
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2007
- Messages
- 52,001
Why not Gary Johnson? Because he supports "humanitarian war" (oxymoron if there ever was one) and he's clueless (or dishonest) about the fed.
See: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?392259-Video-Gary-Johnson-We-Own-the-Federal-Reserve
I'm voting Virgil Goode.
http://www.goodeforpresident2012.com/
If Andre Barnett was on the ballot in my state, I'd vote for him.
http://www.andrebarnett2012.com/
http://reformparty.org/candidates/andre-nigel-barnett/
See: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?392259-Video-Gary-Johnson-We-Own-the-Federal-Reserve
I'm voting Virgil Goode.
http://www.goodeforpresident2012.com/
If Andre Barnett was on the ballot in my state, I'd vote for him.
http://www.andrebarnett2012.com/
http://reformparty.org/candidates/andre-nigel-barnett/
MelissaWV
Member
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2008
- Messages
- 17,200
This is where I think the disconnect is.
People seem to think I'm nitpicking and not voting for Gary, even though I would agree with him on most things. That's not it. Like you said, I don't even agree 100% with Ron, though I am far more confident that he's going to leave me with a way out.
Instead of this:
Ron ... Gary .......................................................................Romney/Obama
I see it more like
Ron ............................................................Gary................Romney/Obama
Gary is still better than Romney or Obama in several ways to me, but he's not that close to Ron, and I disagree with Gary Johnson on the big issues that are important to me in choosing who to vote for. So I'm not voting for him.
VIDEODROME
Member
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2007
- Messages
- 5,407
I'd still like to think Ron Paul would be in a Johnson Cabinet easily. Ron Paul as Secretary of State or Treasury or even appointed to replace Bernanke would be nice.
iamse7en
Member
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2010
- Messages
- 1,333
Okay with humanitarian, non-defense wars for the military-industrial complex. But the biggest reason for me is his marital affair. My vote is important to me, and I make the decision based on principle. There is a lot to like about Gary Johnson, but marital infidelity is a deal-breaker for me. And I do realize this invalidates 90% of politicians. So be it. I also don't think he properly represents conservative, family values like Ron does.
Last edited:
Icymudpuppy
Member
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2009
- Messages
- 4,497
It's kind of like people who are going to vote against I-502 in WA because it doesn't make Marijuana 100% uncontrolled, or vote against medical marijuana. They would rather we have the drug war going full speed ahead than compromise on an improvement over current conditions. Seriously folks, GJ may not be perfect, but he's not evil and he's not owned like Obamney. He would not go to war without a congressional declaration. It's not the president's job to determine why to go to war anyway. That is congress' responsibility.
Similar threads
