Why is Gary Johnson Being Pushed by the Media?

[RonPaulFanInGA]

CNN: Forget Palin, here's Gary Johnson (http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/11/10/friedersdorf.johnson.gop/)

Politico: The next Ron Paul, and/or the anti-Palin (http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1110/The_next_Ron_Paul_andor_the_antiPalin.html)

TNR: The next Ron Paul (http://www.tnr.com/article/magazine/78543/Gary-johnson-2012-republican-candidate-new-mexico?passthru=MWFjY2RkZDlmYWRlY2U5YmIyYTk1N2NhZD czMzA2ZDc)

Why are CNN, Politico and the disgusting TNR (newsletter people) seemingly so determined to declare Gary Johnson the inheritor of Ron Paul's movement and supporters? Does anyone trust these sources' intentions?

[MyLibertyStuff]

CNN: Forget Palin, here's Gary Johnson (http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/11/10/friedersdorf.johnson.gop/)

Politico: The next Ron Paul, and/or the anti-Palin (http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1110/The_next_Ron_Paul_andor_the_antiPalin.html)

TNR: The next Ron Paul (http://www.tnr.com/article/magazine/78543/Gary-johnson-2012-republican-candidate-new-mexico?passthru=MWFjY2RkZDlmYWRlY2U5YmIyYTk1N2NhZD czMzA2ZDc)

Why are CNN, Politico and the disgusting TNR (newsletter people) seemingly so determined to declare Gary Johnson the inheritor of Ron Paul's movement and supporters? Does anyone trust these sources intentions?

I have no idea. I met Gary Johnson, and although he is a good guy, he does not have anywhere near the knowledge or ability of Libertarians like Ron Paul.

[specsaregood]

Why are CNN, Politico and the disgusting TNR (newsletter people) seemingly so determined to declare Gary Johnson the inheritor of Ron Paul's movement and supporters? Does anyone trust these sources' intentions?

This is rhetorical, right?

[JoshLowry]

This is rhetorical, right?

I think he is asking a valid question.

Johnson's foreign policy seems to align with much of the MSM.


Governor Johnson supports the right of Israel to exist as a sovereign country and believes that the United States should protect that right militarily if needed.

[Imaginos]

It's a divide and conquer strategy.
This time, the establishment is trying to stop Ron Paul by splitting his supporters.
Johnson is good (than others who are 100% sell out political whores) but Ron Paul is uber-supreme.
Let us focus, focus, and focus.

[Brett85]

I think he is asking a valid question.

Johnson's foreign policy seems to align with much of the MSM.

Johnson supports withdrawing from Iraq and Afghanistan. He just isn't a 100% pure non interventionalist like Ron Paul.

[specsaregood]

I think he is asking a valid question.

Perhaps so, in my mind I knew the reason the moment I saw that TNR article promoting him. --pull support away from Ron.

So if my thinking is correct, the question I would ask is: how do we combat it?
do we fight it? eg: ban Johnson discussion here, not promote him, leave nasty comments about him on articles?
or perhaps embrace him, but in a limited: Johnson for VP! promotion.....

[speciallyblend]

It's a divide and conquer strategy.
This time, the establishment is trying to stop Ron Paul by splitting his supporters.
Johnson is good (than others who are 100% sell out political whores) but Ron Paul is uber-supreme.
Let us focus, focus, and focus.

I think this is closer to the truth^^^^^^^^^^^^^^, Ron Paul 2012!

[TonySutton]

Now that the mid terms are over it is time for people to start declaring their intent to run for president. I think part of the reason the MSM is talking about Gary Johnson is because he has clearly signaled that he will run for president. (without actually saying it)

[JoshLowry]

Thinking about a subforum for Johnson supporters so our members can discuss with them why intervening in the foreign affairs of other nations is a bad idea.

;)

[FrankRep]

I think he is asking a valid question.

Johnson's foreign policy seems to align with much of the MSM.

So many Ron Paul Forums members were pushing for Gary Johnson that I didn't even think to check his Foreign Policy.
Usually they'd rip apart any candidate that even hints at interventionism.

[Dripping Rain]

So many Ron Paul Forums members were pushing for Gary Johnson that I didn't even think to check his Foreign Policy.
Usually they'd rip apart any candidate that even hints at interventionism.

same here
Except for his pro abortion position I never knew about his fp until Josh brought it up. Its good to know that people here vet candidates even those with great credentials

[RonPaulFanInGA]

same here
Except for his pro abortion position I never knew about his fp until Josh brought it up. Its good to know that people here vet candidates even those with great credentials

I too didn't know about the foreign policy. Like someone said above, I figured if he was an interventionist he'd be ripped to shreds here. I thought foreign policy and drugs were his two main positives and that is what all the buzz was about.

For me, Johnson is wrong on abortion and illegal immigration. Right on vetoing wasteful spending. If Ron Paul doesn't run, and Gary Johnson does, odds are I will vote for Johnson. But I can't get excited about his candidacy, and active, like I did and would with Ron Paul.

[JoshLowry]

See, I just don't know if Gary is playing the game to fool neocons or if he's really in sheeps clothing ala a humble, no nation building, George Bush foreign policy of 2000.

That's why it was so much easier to support Ron over Rand or Johnson. It's too easy to get fooled by a potential candidate that way.

We need to stick to our guns on non-interventionism.

[specsaregood]

Thinking about a subforum for Johnson supporters so our members can discuss with them why intervening in the foreign affairs of other nations is a bad idea.

;)

I think a subforum is a great idea/necessity. It isn't like GJ info isn't going to all be posted here anyways.

I argue we embrace his candidacy. And if the time comes, push him to accept a minor role/step aside for Dr. PAul. If we embrace him and support him early, we will have more influence when the time comes for him to support the Doc.

[low preference guy]

See, I just don't know if Gary is playing the game to fool neocons or if he's really in sheeps clothing ala a humble, no nation building, George Bush foreign policy of 2000.


i think he is just playing. he probably thinks "alright, i'm going to say a few words about israel, and once i am president i'll slash the deficit and end the federal war on drugs".

but even if he was better on foreign policy, he is still miles behind Ron Paul. for example, he doesn't even talk about getting rid of the income tax, and thinks nafta et al are free trade agreements.

[Dripping Rain]

i think he is just playing. he probably thinks "alright, i'm going to say a few words about israel, and once i am president i'll slash the deficit and end the federal war on drugs".

but even if he was better on foreign policy, he is still miles behind Ron Paul. for example, he doesn't even talk about getting rid of the income tax, and thinks nafta et al are free trade agreements.

I saw him at the R4R and he seemed too preachy ie arrogant. I thank him for supporting the good Doc but I doubt we could change his mind about a lot of things if anything at all.
I hope Ron runs and saves us the division that will happen if he doesnt.

[Dripping Rain]

If Ron Paul doesn't run, and Gary Johnson does, odds are I will vote for Johnson. But I can't get excited about his candidacy, and active, like I did and would with Ron Paul.

I guess same here. Unless Demint also runs the lesser of two evils for me would be demint. They both have the same fp but at least demint is pro life and anti illegal immig

[socialvirus]

Gary Johnson seems miles ahead of most other political shills running for president or other elected office, but he says somethings I do not agree with, like liking most of the things GWB did in his presidency.

Really? Black Water, TARP, Bailouts, No Child Left Behind, two illegal wars, and also standing passive while intelligence carried out covert false flag terror attacks? Not that I expect him to make the last point while running for office, (Deborah Medina, hello!) I don't think its wise to speak well of GWB he was just another corporatist like Obama anyhow.

[JoshLowry]

If Ron Paul doesn't run, and Gary Johnson does, odds are I will vote for Johnson. But I can't get excited about his candidacy, and active, like I did and would with Ron Paul.

Good summary.

[Wren]

If he is going to run for president and totally ignore our cause, then I don't trust him at all. We have worked hard to get RP recognized, I wouldn't vote for anyone else.

[BamaFanNKy]

Yawn. Really? You guys prefer just one voice preaching the same message as opposed to multiple voice. Strategy wise you need multiple people to have a chance of winning. Not one.

Also, some on here are so passionate about Ron that they have no watched him in recent media interviews. His age is showing. Gary is not perfect but, I doubt he's a big Pro-Israel guy. In fact, he's dodged the question in most interviews saying it's complex.

Fact is, Gary Johnson campaigns (speaks like) Rand more than Ron. Granted, many on this board said the same things about Rand they are now saying about Gary Johnson. Then again, I've liked Gary Johnson since he came out against Bush in 2004 and was the lone GOP governor who didn't endorse GWB.

[MRoCkEd]

It will work out if both of them run, preaching similar messages at the debates, and then Gary drops out to endorse Ron before the primaries.

But if Gary running means Ron doesn't, or that his support is split, that is not good at all.

[RonPaulFanInGA]

It will work out if both of them run, preaching similar messages at the debates, and then Gary drops out to endorse Ron before the primaries.

That would be fine, except we all know people will start promoting Gary Johnson money bombs and telling people it's not fair that Ron Paul has had so many but Johnson hasn't and the Paul supporters won't help Johnson's money bombs and blah, blah, blah. It's the Rand Paul-Peter Schiff arguments on a much greater scale. The end result is going to be a blow to Ron Paul's overall fundraising, which isn't good.


But if Gary running means Ron doesn't, or that his support is split, that is not good at all.

The split is inevitable if they're both running. The question is: how big will it be? I imagine Johnson's candidacy would go as far as Jim Gilmore's in 2008; but any split only serves to hurt. A house divided cannot stand.

[BamaFanNKy]

That would be fine, except we all know people will start promoting Gary Johnson money bombs and telling people it's not fair that Ron Paul has had so many but Johnson hasn't and the Paul supporters won't help Johnson's money bombs and blah, blah, blah. It's the Rand Paul-Peter Schiff arguments on a much greater scale. The end result is going to be a blow to Ron Paul's overall fundraising, which isn't good.



The split is inevitable if they're both running. The question is: how big will it be? I imagine Johnson's candidacy would go as far as Jim Gilmore's in 2008; but any split only serves to hurt.

You are operating on the notion that either are running. It's 2010. Let's wait 3 months till the first GOP debate.

[johnrocks]

Ron Paul is my #1 guy and will remain so but at the same time, it's good to have younger ones in the wings such as Gary Johnson and hopefully Rand Paul, I am betting that that apple did not fall far from the tree; at least that is my hope.

[Imaginos]

That would be fine, except we all know people will start promoting Gary Johnson money bombs and telling people it's not fair that Ron Paul has had so many but Johnson hasn't and the Paul supporters won't help Johnson's money bombs and blah, blah, blah. It's the Rand Paul-Peter Schiff arguments on a much greater scale. The end result is going to be a blow to Ron Paul's overall fundraising, which isn't good.

The split is inevitable if they're both running. The question is: how big will it be? I imagine Johnson's candidacy would go as far as Jim Gilmore's in 2008; but any split only serves to hurt. A house divided cannot stand.
+1
We should pour everything we got for Ron Paul.
Why settle for less when we can get the real thing?
This is like comparing one dollar McDonald's burger to filet mignon.
Just because you love red meat (liberty/constitution/libertarianism) doesn't mean every foods made with beef is equal.
Ron Paul is uber-supreme (filet mignon) and all the others are half-assed pretenders (one dollar burgers).
Again, let us focus, focus, and focus.

[Tyr]

The question shouldn't be why is the MSM pushing Senor Johnson, the question should be why is he being pushed on Ron Paul Forums? He's a competitor to Dr. Paul, and IMO a poor one at that.

[EndSlavery]

I'm new here so please don't take this as trolling. I support Ron Paul AND Gary Johnson completely. I believe that Ron and Gary have come to an agreement about who will try for the nomination in 2012. Trust me, they are aware of how fragile our movement is and _will not_ allow what few resources we have to be wasted on fighting each other.

To answer the question in the OP, I think the fact that GJ has been basically campaigning for an entire year now, while at the same time Ron has given no indication that he will run means the media is just trying to talk about people who are going to run. This is good for the liberty movement. Ron has more name recognition than Gary, so we need GJ to get coverage like this if it is he that is going to run.

Ultimately, Ron Paul is a national hero and nobody (at the moment) is going to match him in spreading the message of liberty from a position of power. GJ can't match it but I think he can do a good enough job to make serious noise in the primary and hell, maybe even win it.

Gary has THE STRONGEST fiscal track record of the presumed candidates. We are lucky to have him (quasi) running for president, articulating the message of freedom alongside Ron Paul.

[nobody's_hero]

Ron Paul must run again. Johnson can wait 4 more years, if Ron Paul runs. If Ron Paul doesn't win next time, it wouldn't matter who runs in 2016 because we will be too far gone (if we aren't already).

I would be open to Johnson running as Ron Paul's VP, but that's about it.

Ron Paul or bust.

[Bruehound]

To the original question, the burst of coverage and attention may very well be the result of Johnson having a competent team around him that are working the media. This doesnt happen by accident and although a large part of the media is agenda driven there is an equally as large a faction that is just plain lazy and being spoon fed.

[DjLoTi]

ok, so honestly, Gary Johnson really doesn't pull a lot of crowds. At SRLC he had like 10 people, all of which were YAL members. Ron Paul can probably pull thousands of people at nearly any city

[Distinguished Gentleman]

Because, although he is a good man, he is looking like an absolute train wreck of a (political) candidate. He's a lethargic speaker and debater. He is running for a republican nomination, yet is pro choice, pro pot, and doesn't go to church any more. He is simply not dangerous to liberal interests at all.

The tea party will be utterly divided by him. I'm imagining a scenario in which he runs, we support him and he fails spectacularly in Iowa despite our best efforts. Our second choice ( a Demint type) fails because because his support is split, and a typical republican wins the nomination.

[Dripping Rain]

Ron Paul must run again. Johnson can wait 4 more years, if Ron Paul runs. If Ron Paul doesn't win next time, it wouldn't matter who runs in 2016 because we will be too far gone (if we aren't already).

I would be open to Johnson running as Ron Paul's VP, but that's about it.

Ron Paul or bust.

Agree. But VP? IMO There are way better candidates for VP, with more credibility like Judge Napolitano and Peter Schiff. Those are the people we should be really push for VP

[Dripping Rain]

What ticks me off here is that it seems Johnson will pretty much be cashing in on what took Ron decades to build
like some others said he will be competing with Ron for the same resource sources and will cut into Ron's base playing spoiler. I suspect Ron Paul will win Iowa this go around. But what if we lose by 1 or 2 points because of Johnson. I dont care if Johnson runs its his choice. But I hope he is in it to advance freedom and not his own ego ie if the polls show him pulling from Ron he should endorse the Good Doc instead. This may well become Bob Barr 2.0 if he doesnt weigh his actions.

[RonPaulFanInGA]

Agree. But VP? IMO There are way better candidates for VP, with more credibility like Judge Napolitano and Peter Schiff.

A two-term Governor has more credibility as a VP than those two.

[Meatwasp]

See, I just don't know if Gary is playing the game to fool neocons or if he's really in sheeps clothing ala a humble, no nation building, George Bush foreign policy of 2000.

That's why it was so much easier to support Ron over Rand or Johnson. It's too easy to get fooled by a potential candidate that way.

We need to stick to our guns on non-interventionism.

darn right kiddo!

[Dripping Rain]

A two-term Governor has more credibility as a VP than those two.

How about a 3 term Governor because Rick Perry is by that the most credible person in the world. maybe in the eye of the ignorant. Not in my eyes though.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

Ron Paul or bust.

That. As soon as Ron Paul is off the stage I am signing off and heading back to the individualist cave because I have absolutely zero hope we will organize into a viable liberty strategy. I will bequeath my bag of magic pixie fairy dust to the eternally vigilant minded who prefer eternal politicking over liberty.

[klamath]

I think they are starting to fear RP especially after Rand won and it is an attempt to divide the libertarian/republican wing of the republican party. I will keep saying it. GJ IS RP's worst enemy because he is directly competing for the exact same votes as RP. GJ pulling just one percent can cost RP the first primaries and therefore the nomination.
People almost had me convinced GJ was just going to run and then drop out but everything is pointing otherwise. A guy that used "I" as many times as GJ did at the RTR rally and a guy that has no interest in senator but is heading for the presidency has an ego that would not let him drop out.
As far as I am concerned GJ cannot win the republican nomination for these reasons alone but he CAN spoil it for RP.
When was the last president that was a single divorced man?
What republican president has been prochoice?
What republican president has said I don't bother to go to church.
What republican president has made legalizing weed one of the top planks of his platform?What president has a history of long term drug use in his past?

Adding a GJ forum to these forums will do nothing to help RP but will do a lot help GJ steal votes from RP. If people want to know about GJ they can go to any of the GJ sites people have set up. Having a GJ forum here on a high traffic RP site is just aiding GJ syphon votes from RP. Even GJ pulling votes away from RP in early polling could cause RP not to run because he would be discouraged by his low poll numbers.
If RP doesn't run then I might vote for GJ but I will never have the excitement I had for RP.

[Imperial]

Agree. But VP? IMO There are way better candidates for VP, with more credibility like Judge Napolitano and Peter Schiff. Those are the people we should be really push for VP

Wait, so let us compare some resumes:

Gary Johnson
Two-term Governor of a swing state with a strong fiscal conservative record in office and a maverick streak on other issues

Peter Schiff

A billionaire Senate candidate who did not win his primary and predicted the economic crisis

Andrew Napolitano

Former judge and cable news pundit who specializes in Constitutional issues.

Both Napolitano and Schiff do not bring anything new to the ticket- they havesimilar bases of support with Dr. Paul, and both simply repeat Paul's two big talking points: economic prescience and constitutional law.

Gary Johnson delivers a Dem-leaning swing state and appeals to liberals. While he can't consolidate traditional conservatives behind Paul, Schiff and Napolitano would likely have similar issues with their status in the Ron Paul camp.

[Inkblots]

Peter Schiff

A billionaire Senate candidate who did not win his primary and predicted the economic crisis


I largely agree with your argument, but I just want to point out that while Peter Schiff may be many things, a billionaire isn't one of them.

[Dripping Rain]

Wait, so let us compare some resumes:

Gary Johnson
Two-term Governor of a swing state with a strong fiscal conservative record in office and a maverick streak on other issues

Peter Schiff

A billionaire Senate candidate who did not win his primary and predicted the economic crisis

Andrew Napolitano

Former judge and cable news pundit who specializes in Constitutional issues.

Both Napolitano and Schiff do not bring anything new to the ticket- they havesimilar bases of support with Dr. Paul, and both simply repeat Paul's two big talking points: economic prescience and constitutional law.

Gary Johnson delivers a Dem-leaning swing state and appeals to liberals. While he can't consolidate traditional conservatives behind Paul, Schiff and Napolitano would likely have similar issues with their status in the Ron Paul camp.

oh really?
now wait a minute. Youre saying Judge Napolitano draws only from the RP base? and schiff?
well at one tea party rally in Columbus Ohio the Judge drew more than 10,000 people. Not even Dr paul can draw that many in a non election season.
I do not know a single interventionist and/or neocon who doesnt love the Judge. You have to understand that Judge Napolitano is a great spokesman for Liberty as well as being a popular Nationally recognized figure. Last but not least He is a Judge, a profession most people trust.

[DeadheadForPaul]

I hate to say it, but Ron is too old.

I realized that 2008 will be his last legitimate shot at the Presidency, and chances are that he knows this too.

A presidential campaign is exhausting, and I bet he was worn down from that last one

The American public and media will never give him a chance due to his age. They gave McCain crap about age, and his age at the time of the 2008 election was much lower than what Ron's will be by 2012

If Ron runs, I will half-heartedly support him, but it will be difficult to get excited about a campaign doomed to fail
If he doesn't run, I will be supporting the most liberty-friendly candidate, which will probably be Johnson

[TruckinMike]

CNN: Forget Palin, here's Gary Johnson (http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/11/10/friedersdorf.johnson.gop/)

...Why are CNN, Politico and the disgusting TNR (newsletter people) seemingly so determined to declare Gary Johnson the inheritor of Ron Paul's movement and supporters? ...

For the same reason they had Ron Paul on their shows in the '08 campaign. To divide and conquer.

TMike

[Natalie]

//

[Knightskye]

CNN: Forget Palin, here's Gary Johnson (http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/11/10/friedersdorf.johnson.gop/)

Politico: The next Ron Paul, and/or the anti-Palin (http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1110/The_next_Ron_Paul_andor_the_antiPalin.html)

TNR: The next Ron Paul (http://www.tnr.com/article/magazine/78543/Gary-johnson-2012-republican-candidate-new-mexico?passthru=MWFjY2RkZDlmYWRlY2U5YmIyYTk1N2NhZD czMzA2ZDc)

Why are CNN, Politico and the disgusting TNR (newsletter people) seemingly so determined to declare Gary Johnson the inheritor of Ron Paul's movement and supporters? Does anyone trust these sources' intentions?

The CNN article was an op-ed by Conor Friedersdorf, who thinks of himself as "more of a libertarian than a conservative," yet supports government health care schemes.

Today is another matter, because I cannot express this thought otherwise: I now think of myself as a libertarian more than a conservative when I reflect on how my ideological beliefs map onto the political coalitions whose success I desire.

They won't reverse the trend, so much as ignore it -- the better to pass agenda items like a health care bill that thankfully covers more Americans, but leaves unaddressed many of the worst pathologies of the status quo and acts as a stark giveaway to influential industry players.
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2010/08/pragmatically-toward-libertarianism.html

Politico hates Sarah Palin.

TNR is a progressive blog. Progressives like Ron Paul for his stances on war, drugs, and civil liberties.

Nothing fishy.

[thasre]

Can I just say I'm a little sick of the anti-Johnson contingency here?

God forbid that people who find Ron Paul a little too extreme for their tastes (or who can't swallow their pride and admit that they misjudged him in 2010) might look to a candidate who's not Romney, Huckabee, Palin, Gingrich, Santorum, or any of the other has-beens, wanna-bes, and just out-and-out losers vying for the Republican nomination. You know what? If some of the more establishment types want to throw some support behind Johnson because they think he's less totally repulsive than the others, I think that's actually a great thing.

It would have been completely inconceivable two years ago that a man like Johnson would have been given anything but the finger in the media, and now that we've gotten our movement to a point where he actually earns respect, I'm not supposed to take that as a sign of progress?!?

The same fucking people who twist their way through all kinds of mental contortions trying to justify believing that Glenn 'Debra Medina supports terrorists and hates America' Beck is on our side now expect me to distrust Johnson as some sort of a Manchurian Candidate because the MSM haven't completely derailed him yet?

Grow up!

I know Johnson is less absolutely perfect than Ron Paul, but I'd also like to believe the rEVOLution about more than just getting Pauls elected to office and then fellating them over the internet until they die.

[Natalie]

//

[BarryDonegan]

When a former governor spends a year on the campaign trail, there is a good chance he will receive some press.

[Fredom101]

I think he is asking a valid question.

Johnson's foreign policy seems to align with much of the MSM.

Yep, and he doesn't come out against the income tax or the war on drugs either. Very mainstream. :(

[Brian4Liberty]

The MSM likes Johnson because he is open borders and apparently deferential to the interests of Israel over the US. Considering that those positions apply to 95% of our politicians, and that Johnson is better on other issues, Johnson is preferable to most of our choices.

The neo-cons like to have as many candidates as possible in the Primary. Too many liberty minded candidates is not something we should probably worry about. As much as we like to strongly debate our minor differences, we should remember that we have much bigger differences with Bankster tools like Obama and Romney.

[Dripping Rain]

As much as we like to strongly debate our minor differences, we should remember that we have much bigger differences with Bankster tools like Obama and Romney.

I may have been a little too hard on Johnson. but QFT

[trey4sports]

Can I just say I'm a little sick of the anti-Johnson contingency here?

God forbid that people who find Ron Paul a little too extreme for their tastes (or who can't swallow their pride and admit that they misjudged him in 2010) might look to a candidate who's not Romney, Huckabee, Palin, Gingrich, Santorum, or any of the other has-beens, wanna-bes, and just out-and-out losers vying for the Republican nomination. You know what? If some of the more establishment types want to throw some support behind Johnson because they think he's less totally repulsive than the others, I think that's actually a great thing.

It would have been completely inconceivable two years ago that a man like Johnson would have been given anything but the finger in the media, and now that we've gotten our movement to a point where he actually earns respect, I'm not supposed to take that as a sign of progress?!?

The same fucking people who twist their way through all kinds of mental contortions trying to justify believing that Glenn 'Debra Medina supports terrorists and hates America' Beck is on our side now expect me to distrust Johnson as some sort of a Manchurian Candidate because the MSM haven't completely derailed him yet?

Grow up!

I know Johnson is less absolutely perfect than Ron Paul, but I'd also like to believe the rEVOLution about more than just getting Pauls elected to office and then fellating them over the internet until they die.

Right on man. Rand paul won't touch half the issues gary will yet people condemn gary because he isn't perfect. Fucking ridicolous.....

From what I've seen gary is much better than rand

[raistlinkishtar]

Gary Johnson is for totally removing the southern border with Mexico. He is probably John McCain's hero.

...and on foreign policy he is "isolationist" which is an antisemitic position in congress.

Not sure where his "base" will come from.

[raistlinkishtar]

people condemn gary because he isn't perfect. Fucking ridicolous.....


He has one imperfection, and boy is it a vote killer. He would see the entire united states flooded with as many Mexicans as could be crammed into the country.

National integrity is of primary importance to me and many others. I need a prosperous (and safe) nation for my kids to grow up. Gary Johnson would end all that.

[trey4sports]

He has one imperfection, and boy is it a vote killer. He would see the entire united states flooded with as many Mexicans as could be crammed into the country.

National integrity is of primary importance to me and many others. I need a prosperous (and safe) nation for my kids to grow up. Gary Johnson would end all that.

Would open borders be so bad if we didn't have a welfare state?

either way both paul and johnson will help move the debate farther to our side

[klamath]

Right on man. Rand paul won't touch half the issues gary will yet people condemn gary because he isn't perfect. Fucking ridicolous.....

From what I've seen gary is much better than rand

It is not Rand against GJ it is GJ against RP. GJ gets comdemed when I are forced to pick between the two. RP comes out on top.

[raistlinkishtar]

Would open borders be so bad if we didn't have a welfare state?


Marxist occupied Washington won't give Gary the same support ending the welfare state as they will opening the borders. I wouldn't risk opening the border on the off chance he'd be successful ending the welfare state. I'll vote to keep the borders somewhat closed (ie against Johnson if put to it).

[Tyr]

He has one imperfection, and boy is it a vote killer. He would see the entire united states flooded with as many Mexicans as could be crammed into the country.

National integrity is of primary importance to me and many others. I need a prosperous (and safe) nation for my kids to grow up. Gary Johnson would end all that.

What's he care? He'll hire most of them soon as they jump the fence like he does currently.

Anyhow I fully agree with you, it's a vote killer and I too want my children growing up in a safe prosperous nation, NOT a 3rd world dump.

[trey4sports]

Marxist occupied Washington won't give Gary the same support ending the welfare state as they will opening the borders. I wouldn't risk opening the border on the off chance he'd be successful ending the welfare state. I'll vote to keep the borders somewhat closed (ie against Johnson if put to it).

The net drain on the economy from illegal immigration is minimal compared to most programs. I saw a stat that showed the net "drain" to the economy was 3 billion annually, which is chump change compared to most programs.

[Knightskye]

Yep, and he doesn't come out against the income tax or the war on drugs either. Very mainstream. :(

Gary Johnson didn't come out against the war on drugs?

BAHAHAHAHA.

[raistlinkishtar]

The net drain on the economy from illegal immigration is minimal compared to most programs. I saw a stat that showed the net "drain" to the economy was 3 billion annually, which is chump change compared to most programs.

you are right that other programs are huge drains but to call illegal immigration chump change is to minimize a huge problem!

FAIR's non-government stat is bigger than the government stat (about 100 times bigger)
http://www.fairus.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=16661&security=1601&news_iv_ctrl=1007

Also, the FUTURE costs of illegal immigration simply continue to grow year after year even if we stopped it all today. This doesn't include all the illegal aliens that bring all their family and anchor babies "legally" to live off the system. It doesn't include all the "legal" immigration that simply doesn't help American workers because we've got 10% unemployment in this country.

Don't you see how illegal immigration is killing this nation financially?