Gary Johnson on non-interventionism...

[JoshLowry]

"Ron Paul, I think, really got labeled as a non-interventionist. And I would not apply that label to myself," he says. "Although I believe we should be out of Iraq and Afghanistan and we should be looking at significant reductions in defense spending, I would say that we should be very vigilant as to national defense."

http://mobile.salon.com/politics/war_room/2010/11/23/ron_paul_2012/index.html

Does Gary think that Ron supports a weak national defense?

[GunnyFreedom]

Either that or he's soft on noninterventionism in Korea.

[MRoCkEd]

Sounds like he just has a different definition of non-interventionism.

[Jeremy]

Maybe he was thinking "isolationist."

[JoshLowry]

Sounds like he just has a different definition of non-interventionism.

No kidding.


Governor Johnson supports the right of NotTheUSA to exist as a sovereign country and believes that the United States should protect that right militarily if needed. http://ouramericainitiative.com/issues/defense-and-the-middle-east-war.html

[JoshLowry]

Maybe he was thinking "isolationist."

I thought the same, but the more I hear, the less I like.

[Yieu]

He may have waffled and revealed that he's not quite as libertarian as he led on to be. I hope we don't get caught up in candidates that aren't true to their word. Not saying GJ isn't, he may have a good explanation for this...

[Matt Collins]

Maybe he's doing the same thing that Rand did and couching his words very carefully? Maybe his definition of "strong national defense" is the exact same definition as Ron's but he just wants to label it something different?


I don't know GJ personally though so I don't know what he is really saying, trying to say, or what he is leaving out. :cool:

[akforme]

Gary's comments about Ron have often left me with a bad taste in my mouth. He's more worried being labeled then believing in something... minus pot.

[specsaregood]

No kidding.


Governor Johnson supports the right of Country NotTheUSA to exist as a sovereign country and believes that the United States should protect that right militarily if needed.
http://ouramericainitiative.com/issues/defense-and-the-middle-east-war.html

Gary Johnson is clearly a douchebag.

[Travlyr]

Isn't interventionism required in order to maintain the dollar as the world's reserve currency? Aren't the two ideas synonymous?

[ExPatPaki]

Christians seem to love Israel, even though Israel hates Christians.

[specsaregood]

Christians seem to love Israel, even though Israel hates Christians.

It is rather amusing isn't it.

[sailingaway]

"Ron Paul, I think, really got labeled as a non-interventionist. And I would not apply that label to myself," he says. "Although I believe we should be out of Iraq and Afghanistan and we should be looking at significant reductions in defense spending, I would say that we should be very vigilant as to national defense."

http://mobile.salon.com/politics/war_room/2010/11/23/ron_paul_2012/index.html

Does Gary think that Ron supports a weak national defense?

He's happy to draw a line between them by pretending so. Irritated me when I read it.

[trey4sports]

Gary Johnsons stated stance on issues is much closer to Ron Paul than Rand Pauls stated positions similarity to Ron Paul



Similarity To Ron Paul In Terms Of Stated Positions

Gary Johnson > Rand Paul



.........Yet Rand continually is praised and Gary is labeled a fake/weak/douche?

[GunnyFreedom]

expanding on my above post,

Korea is just the one place where I have encountered so many principled noninterventionists make an exception. If someone is honestly a noninterventionist "except for one situation" then in my experience Korea has always been that exception.

I know nothing of GJ's stance on Korea, so that is pure speculation. Myself I am a noninterventionist to include Korea. Korea is, however, the one exception I allow in other noninterventionists without calling BS on them.

And I am not just saying that because of the recent attack. See my post from May of 2009:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=2146613&postcount=7

And my earlier one from January of 2008 which affirms that I myself really am noninterventionist on Korea:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=97853&highlight=korea

So yes, I myself remain noninterventionist on Korea, but I am more sympathetic to others who support Korean intervention than any others in the world.

This above with GJ is nothing more than pure speculation, I honestly have no clue what he feels about intervention or where. I only speculated Korea because of all the principled noninterventionists I have ever encountered, that has always been the one exception that keeps popping up in people with otherwise perfect policy.

That does NOT include that f'n neocon gingritch of course :mad: He just wants to blow everyone away in the world who does not worship at the feet of the USA. :mad:

[GunnyFreedom]

Oy, nm. looks like he's pro interventionism just so long as it's to protect Israel.

[awake]

Foreign interventionism should be replaced with the doctrine of peaceful independence. "Isolationism" should be combated the same way...

[Wren]

YouTube - Gary Johnson The New Ron Paul! pt.2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2zXaPIc5bMc)

>>4:15

Gary Johnson believes that the Iraqis owe us... for killing a couple million innocent people, turning that country into a war zone, polluting their land w/ depleted uranium, among a hundred other things?

[ExPatPaki]

Gary Johnson believes that the Iraqis owe us... for killing a couple million innocent people, turning that country into a war zone, polluting their land w/ depleted uranium, among a hundred other things?

This kind of nutball thinking happens when you support Israel and get AIPAC money.

[Elwar]

Johnson is just repeating the same thing that everyone in the media has been feeding us. That Ron Paul is weak on defense and is an isolationist.

He's not as Ron Paul savvy as us hard core Ron Paul supporters.

[specsaregood]

Gary Johnsons stated stance on issues is much closer to Ron Paul than Rand Pauls stated positions similarity to Ron Paul
Similarity To Ron Paul In Terms Of Stated Positions
Gary Johnson > Rand Paul
.........Yet Rand continually is praised and Gary is labeled a fake/weak/douche?

Back your claims up. You probably just don't know how to read between the lines. For example: how much foreign intervention is Rand going to vote for if he sticks to his stated platform of a balanced budget and no new taxes AND require a declaration of war? I'm guessing: none.

[Romulus]

Gary is NO Ron Paul, that's for sure.

Sounds like he's pandering big time. Even worse, marginalizing RP for his own gain. F that.

[sailingaway]

Gary is NO Ron Paul, that's for sure.

Sounds like he's pandering big time. Even worse, marginalizing RP for his own gain. F that.

That last is something I have heard from him again and again. He wants RP's supporters, but clearly considers himself far better than RP.

[itshappening]

I can't work out whether he's trying to soft sell himself to the likes of Hannity like Rand does, or whether he actually believes this stuff?

I still think he'd be an amazing candidate if RP decides not to run. He is the only one RP has said good things about.

[Fredom101]

GJ talks out of both sides of his mouth. HUGE difference between him and RP.

Big Government Gary is not going to bring us freedom. :(

[itshappening]

I dont see how he is big gov as he is the only one talking honestly about slashing budgets by up to 40%

none of them will have the balls to come out with this

if nothing else, if RP doesn't run we need Johnson in the debates to show how much hypocritical the rest of the field are

[trey4sports]

in the last 20 years we have had candidates who are 20, 30, 40% pro-freedom at best (with the exception of Ron Paul) and here we have a candidate who is heads and shoulders above the rest and you wont support him because he isn't 100% liberty???????????

Are you fucking kidding me?

Do you think this country magically elected a socialist overnight? NO, it's been a slow process and the paradigm has slowly moved to the far left.

[JoshLowry]

in the last 20 years we have had candidates who are 20, 30, 40% pro-freedom at best (with the exception of Ron Paul) and here we have a candidate who is heads and shoulders above the rest and you wont support him because he isn't 100% liberty???????????

Are you fucking kidding me?

Do you think this country magically elected a socialist overnight? NO, it's been a slow process and the paradigm has slowly moved to the far left.

Disclaimer: Gary Johnson is a great candidate. He sounds like he is about 80% of the way there. I'd really like for him to expand on his thoughts about defense. It's a pretty big unknown to me.

Ron Paul, who hasn't officially announced yet either, will make an even better candidate.

Johnson's foreign policy that I know of makes it an easy decision on which candidate I will be supporting over the other.

[specsaregood]

in the last 20 years we have had candidates who are 20, 30, 40% pro-freedom at best (with the exception of Ron Paul) and here we have a candidate who is heads and shoulders above the rest and you wont support him because he isn't 100% liberty???????????

Are you fucking kidding me?


Well for some of us, we can't stomach supporting somebody that supports killing in the name of another country -- not in the defense of the US. Sorry, but its a bit of a sticking point with me.

[ExPatPaki]

Well for some of us, we can't stomach supporting somebody that supports killing in the name of another country -- not in the defense of the US. Sorry, but its a bit of a sticking point with me.

Not just killing, but torturing, starving, raping, stealing land, and bulldozing people's homes.

[Fredom101]

Not just killing, but torturing, starving, raping, stealing land, and bulldozing people's homes.

Exactly.
If GJ even supports this 1%, he is 100% NOT pro-liberty to me.

[AParadigmShift]

Maybe he's doing the same thing that Rand did and couching his words very carefully?

And this is why so very many of us had/have concerns over Rand. But, for the most part, we've left those concerns to be played out by vote in the Senate.

I'm wondering though, if the good senior Doctor chooses not run, how many of us will extend the same generous courtesy to the likes of Johnson?

All this reaffirms my position that there's something to be said for RP, far above all the rest.

[low preference guy]

Isn't interventionism required in order to maintain the dollar as the world's reserve currency? Aren't the two ideas synonymous?

Linking the dollar to gold is interventionism?

[MRoCkEd]

Gary is great on the issues and I would vote for him in a second if Ron wasn't running.

He wants to slash the budget, end both wars, and end the drug war. He's the only elected official I've seen who believes this besides Ron Paul.

But yes, he's not as well-versed on libertarian ideology. For instance, he didn't realize there were people who opposed the civil war. Likewise, he probably just assumes Israel is an important ally like 99% of other people based on propaganda.

Gary approaches these issues from a consequentialist business model. I'm sure he could be shifted on areas of disagreement if he is presented with the facts.

Still, the government Johnson envisions is something libertarians can only dream of.

He doesn't motivate me like Ron Paul does, though. I hope both of them are running to spread the same message, and then the one with the least amount of traction (probably Gary) drops out and endorses the other one before the primaries.

[specsaregood]

Linking the dollar to gold is interventionism?

I'm pretty sure he was referring to the petrodollar.

[Humanae Libertas]

More and more he's starting to sound like a dumb mainstream Republican. We don't need more Republican garbage Johnson. I've always been suspicious of him since he started appearing this year.

[Liberty_Mike]

I can't work out whether he's trying to soft sell himself to the likes of Hannity like Rand does, or whether he actually believes this stuff?


I've met him and had to the opportunity to talk to him. I am almost positive he says things to try soft selling himself to the likes of Hannity and the other guys at Fox News. He is trying to get as much publicity as he can to set himself up for a potential run in 2012. If he gets on these guys' good side right now, he can get invited back to their shows in the future, which will help him gain a lot of ground. I can say Johnson is definitely one of us, and everyone here who is being a hard critic needs to meet Johnson and listen to him speak before making more harsh judgment. I definitely love skepticism when it comes to politicians, but I do not appreciate blind skepticism. Don't use a couple interviews from Hannity or other major media sources to form your opinion on Johnson. Unfortunately, I think there are quite a few people here who are willing to dismiss anyone whose last name isn't Paul, without doing some in depth research. Everyone should check out his speech from Ron Paul's "Rally for the Republic" in 2008.

Part 1
YouTube - Ron Paul Rally For The Republic Gary Johnson Part 1-b2EhAVQS2V8 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FKSZsheJFzI)

Part 2
YouTube - Ron Paul Rally For The Republic Gary Johnson Part 2-qcu8jWD2Qs0 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-E3Hh7uKYU&feature=related)

[JoshLowry]

I can say Johnson is definitely one of us, and everyone here who is being a hard critic needs to meet Johnson and listen to him speak before making more harsh judgment. I definitely love skepticism when it comes to politicians, but I do not appreciate blind skepticism. Don't use a couple interviews from Hannity or other major media sources to form your opinion on Johnson. Unfortunately, I think there are quite a few people here who are willing to dismiss anyone whose last name isn't Paul, without doing some in depth research.

I also have met him and had to the opportunity to talk to him.

It is not blind skepticism. That would imply that we have no reason to be cautious. Those are his quotes.

There are reasons to be hesitant when we have a better option on the table.

[MRoCkEd]

FWIW, Gary Johnson endorsed humanitarian war in his Weekly Standard interview.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/yes-gary-johnson-endorsed-humanitarian-war_522029.html


TWS: So, you think that the United States, even if it weren’t in its own narrow national interest, even if we weren’t threatened by the [other] country, but there was a genocide going on—a clear genocide—it would be the right thing to do to go in and stop that?

GARY JOHNSON: Yes. Yes, I do.

[sailingaway]

I also have met him and had to the opportunity to talk to him.

It is not blind skepticism. That would imply that we have no reason to be cautious. Those are his quotes.

There are reasons to be hesitant when we have a better option on the table.

If by better option you mean Ron, I'd say there is no question. Gary for Senator as better than others, I can see. Gary as president, not so long as we have a Paul, because I truly do think Rand is and will be better.

[ClayTrainor]

As time goes on, it becomes more and more clear that Ron Paul is likely to be the only politician i'll ever be able to invest any trust in.

[RonPaulFanInGA]

Gary Johnson would be 'just a guy' except for the people who feel the need to promote him on a potential primary rival's grassroots website.

You know if Ron Paul and Johnson end up both running; they'll be here promoting Johnson money bombs, suggesting "co-money bombs", etc. And it'll be only slightly less annoying than if a Sarah Palin supporter came here and asked us all to donate to Palin.

Ron Paul is hovering around 10%. Gary Johnson is between 'N/A' and 1%. And Paul is a superior candidate in policy too. Seems a no-brainer.


He doesn't motivate me like Ron Paul does, though.

Yep. With Ron Paul I'll donate and work hard. With Johnson only: the extent of my activism likely ends at simply voting for him.

[JoshLowry]

If by better option you mean Ron, I'd say there is no question. Gary for Senator as better than others, I can see. Gary as president, not so long as we have a Paul, because I truly do think Rand is and will be better.

I'm actually more confident that Gary will run than Ron at this point. (Only because I met with GJ and picked up on a few cues.)



Yep. With Ron Paul I'll donate and work hard. With Johnson only: the extent of my activism likely ends at simply voting for him.

+1

[low preference guy]

Gary is young. He should wait.

[Elwar]

Ending the IRS and ending the Fed and bringing all troops home tends to get more grassroots support than tinkering with the tax code and auditing the Fed while bringing most troops home...

That's why there's only 1 grassroots website for Gary Johnson right now...people support his stances, but they're not going to be painting the side of their house for him.

[Imaginos]

I do not think Gary Johnson is one of us.
He did some good things and probably better than many straight up neocons but I just don't think he's serious about constitution.

[trey4sports]

I really like Gary Johnson. I think Gary is a better candidate for Prez than Rand Paul too.

You guys jump on Garys ass because he wont say end the FED, end the IRS, and bring our troops home. Yet Rand Paul has NEVER said he would end FED, and he constantly dodges that question when asked. He's never said anything about ending the IRS, and he has even said that we shouldn't legalize marijuana (at least Gary has the balls to say pot shouldnt be illegal)

There are so many instances where Gary is willing to speak out on controversial issues that Rand wont touch yet he catches flack because his last name isn't Paul! Rand wont even say we should withdraw our troops from Afghanistan he says we "should have a national debate"

look, i get the fact that you have to "play the game" in order to get elected but Gary has a LONG tradition of being pro liberty (vetoed more bills as governor than all others combined during his tenure) and aside from that why the blind Rand worshiping? I'm sure he'll be great but he sure as hell wont take the controversial positions head-on like Gary has.

Gary is on record as:

opposing both major wars
opposing the federal war on drugs
auditing the fed (even said "end the fed" in his RFR speech)
opposing the patriot act

[MRoCkEd]

I really like Gary Johnson. I think Gary is a better candidate for Prez than Rand Paul too.

You guys jump on Garys ass because he wont say end the FED, end the IRS, and bring our troops home. Yet Rand Paul has NEVER said he would end FED, and he constantly dodges that question when asked. He's never said anything about ending the IRS, and he has even said that we shouldn't legalize marijuana (at least Gary has the balls to say pot shouldnt be illegal)

There are so many instances where Gary is willing to speak out on controversial issues that Rand wont touch yet he catches flack because his last name isn't Paul! Rand wont even say we should withdraw our troops from Afghanistan he says we "should have a national debate"

look, i get the fact that you have to "play the game" in order to get elected but Gary has a LONG tradition of being pro liberty (vetoed more bills as governor than all others combined during his tenure) and aside from that why the blind Rand worshiping? I'm sure he'll be great but he sure as hell wont take the controversial positions head-on like Gary has.

Gary is on record as:

opposing both major wars
opposing the federal war on drugs
auditing the fed (even said "end the fed" in his RFR speech)
opposing the patriot act

Great, but we're comparing Gary to Ron, not Rand.

[trey4sports]

Great, but we're comparing Gary to Ron, not Rand.

you are, i'm not.

[teacherone]

"google johnson!"

i can see it now ;)

[EndSlavery]

Johnson has stated repeatedly that the United States needs to bring its defense spending down to a level that is sensible and commensurate with its population. This position precludes wars of intervention. All he is doing is trying to get himself publicity with Fox and these other neocon warlovers.

I'm not sure, really, how his rhetoric is different from when Rand stated, on his campaign website "I believe in a strong national defense. It is the number one function of the federal government as defined by the Constitution. Under my budget, the defense budget would rise substantially as a percentage of the federal budget."

This is a statement that will trick violent people into supporting a position that is actually calling for vast reductions in the size of government. Johnson is basically doing the same, and I think people who attack him for this will regret it later.

[MRoCkEd]

Um, I'm pretty sure he's just being honest. If he really wanted to "trick violent people" into voting for him, he would pretend to support the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.

[sailingaway]

I'm actually more confident that Gary will run than Ron at this point. (Only because I met with GJ and picked up on a few cues.)



+1

I meant rated as a candidate. I agree Gary PLANS to run, and Ron still may not, depending on what he gets into in his committee.

[EndSlavery]

Um, I'm pretty sure he's just being honest. If he really wanted to "trick violent people" into voting for him, he would pretend to support the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.

But that would be a lie, if Rand outright said he supports the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. There is a very important difference between lying and couching your language in a way that appears one way to a set of people you'd like to vote for you but actually is honest and consistent with your true beliefs. Rand did this in his race and Johnson is doing it now.