The case for voting for Gary Johnson.

[Sam I am]

If Ron Paul doesn't win the Republican Nomination, then I will most likely vote for Gary Johnson in the general.

Now, I have yet do do very much in-depth study on Gary Johnson, but unless, I find him to be sufficiently worse than Mitt Romney, or Barack Obama, the details of his politics really aren't that important to me.

The important part for me is that the general public might start to take third parties seriously. If the Libertarian party gets 15%-20% of the vote one year, maybe that will embolden people who currently vote democratic or republican, to vote Libertarian the next election cycle.

It will make the Republican establishment have less faith in the idea that they will always get the conservative vote merely because their only opponent is a democrat.

Generally speaking, the relative success of a third party candidate has the potential to shake the entire political system.


and for those of you who might not like Gary Johnson, if your vote is the vote that puts Gary Johnson into office, can you really say that you'd be worse off than if Obama or Romney won?

[thoughtomator]

I don't vote for fascists no matter how kind and efficient one might be. Johnson's underlying governing philosophy is no different from Obama or Romney, he just wants to do it less expensively. At this point in time that's not a good thing, as the next term of Obama or Romney will blow up the present fascist system faster than a term of Johnson would.

For example, despite having been directly educated in the issue by knowledgeable experts, Johnson still can't find any crimes committed by titans of the financial system in the continuing aftermath of historic, epic, systemwide fraud.

Johnson has been clear time and time again as to where he stands - the only things he wants to change are those that are not cost-efficient for the government. In other words, his dispute with R/D parties is not about the relationship of government to the people, as ours is, but merely in the details of how the present system is administered.

As a real resumption of the rule of law and the supremacy of the Constitution is not on the table with any of them, better that we live through the crisis of the self-destruction of the fascist system rather than force the next generation to suck up that hit. It's our responsibility and our cross to bear. I for one am ready to bear it.

And of course the last thing we need is for Libertarians to be holding the bag when the shit hits the fan sometime during the next President's term.

[JohnAshman]

I don't vote for fascists no matter how kind and efficient one might be. Johnson's underlying governing philosophy is no different from Obama or Romney, he just wants to do it less expensively. At this point in time that's not a good thing, as the next term of Obama or Romney will blow up the present fascist system faster than a term of Johnson would.
[/QUOTE]

Is this another attempt to claim that Ron Paul is less close to the Robamney twins than Johnson? Because if so, I'd like more back up and less opinion.

[Travlyr]

Gary Johnson has a record as Governor of New Mexico of not pardoning non-violent prisoners, building prisons, and privatizing/corporatizing them. No Thanks.

[thoughtomator]

Is this another attempt to claim that Ron Paul is less close to the Robamney twins than Johnson? Because if so, I'd like more back up and less opinion.

I am NOT going to do basic Internet searches for you if you're too lazy to get the facts and compare/contrast yourself. http://google.com go verify everything for yourself

I'm already tired of the invasion of Gary Johnson campaign staff here.

[Travlyr]

I am NOT going to do basic Internet searches for you if you're too lazy to get the facts and compare/contrast yourself. http://google.com go verify everything for yourself

I'm already tired of the invasion of Gary Johnson campaign staff here.

Yeah, no kidding. People who do their own homework are the winners. GOOGLE.com is easy.

[cheapseats]

Gary Johnson has a record as Governor of New Mexico of not pardoning non-violent prisoners, building prisons, and privatizing/corporatizing them. No Thanks.


That is true, and horrible. A champion of Liberty AND decriminalization of Marijuana had it within his literal grasp to pardon non-violent drug "offenders", and he opted for more prison space...shopped it out to MERCENARIES, no less.

Now. Bear in mind that I am NOT weighing this against Mother Theresa. Bear in mind that I am weighing this against people who virtually guarantee MORE WAR...whereas Gary Johnson calls for immediate withdrawal from Afghanistan, without ANY equivocation about "regional stability" (unknown AT LEAST since Biblical times).

I decided that Gary Johnson did not release non-violent drug offenders because, after wrongly serving hard HARD time in federal penitentiaries, those non-violent Druggies will be CHANGED. Talk about SLIM possibilities...the possibility lies between very slim and ZERO, that not one of those (highly unemployable) Ex-Cons would not commit [FILL IN THE HORRID BLANK], catapulting the WILLIE HORTON card into Gary Johnson's kitchen sink.

Calculated? Absolutely. Cowardly? Kinda. PRACTICAL. You betcha. HE did not create The Game that Rand Apologists defend playing. Rand could be quixotically championing elimination of TSA, rather than its privatization.

Leaving wrongly (but lawfully) incarcerated people in prison is really, really bad. Leaving American Soldiers in harm's way because we have no stateside jobs for them . . . is that WORSE, or the SAME level of really really bad? Would you rather hang or fry?

Johnson is not talking MORE War. Romney IS talking more war. Obama, Nobel Peace Prize?! Not even an APPEARANCE of propriety.

I believe GOVERNMENT = NECESSARY EVIL. Anarchists do NOT believe that.

Stipulating that Government IS a Necessary Evil...a reasonable stipulation, given that America has ALWAYS had Governance and that there is not a glimmer of a chance of her having NONE in any of our lifetimes...Gary Johnson, pitted against Barack Obama and Mitt Romney, IS the Lesser Evil. At the very LEAST, he is that.

[Travlyr]

Stipulating that Government IS a Necessary Evil...a reasonable stipulation, given that America has ALWAYS had Governance and that there is not a glimmer of a chance of her having NONE in any of our lifetimes...Gary Johnson, pitted against Barack Obama and Mitt Romney, IS the Lesser Evil. At the very LEAST, he is that.

At the very least, he is that. A sad state of affairs.

[Respect38]

At the very least, he is that. A sad state of affairs.

Actually... I think that means that, in the worst case scenario, he's the lesser of three evils.

In the best case scenario, he's the savior that this country needs.

[Travlyr]

Actually... I think that means that, in the worst case scenario, he's the lesser of three evils.

In the best case scenario, he's the savior that this country needs.
LOL. The saviour of this country is Separation of Money and State. Please ... Let People Live. Please.

[cheapseats]

At the very least, he is that. A sad state of affairs.


No doubt about that.

Now, what do we DO? What constitutes AT LEAST going down swinging?

It is NOT endorsing Romney. It is NOT Republican Par-taaay Unity.

Even IF one buys into JOIN 'EM TO BEAT 'EM, why wouldn't beleaguered Commoners press ALL possible options..."just" for leverage?

The Platform that people are hoping to influence via Rand's endorsement of Romney means DIDDLY-SQUAT without leverage. JUST WORDS. Unenforceable.

[misean]

At the very least, he is that. A sad state of affairs.

Maybe you worry about the hand that you are dealt. At no point in human history has there ever been a social system that you advocate for.

[Travlyr]

No doubt about that.

Now, what do we DO? What constitutes AT LEAST going down swinging?

It is NOT endorsing Romney. It is NOT Republican Par-taaay Unity.

Even IF one buys into JOIN 'EM TO BEAT 'EM, why wouldn't beleaguered Commoners press ALL possible options..."just" for leverage?

The Platform that people are hoping to influence via Rand's endorsement of Romney means DIDDLY-SQUAT without leverage. JUST WORDS. Unenforceable.

No! You don't join them to beat them. You join them because you believe you can't beat them and can profit from their bribes.

"If you can't beat them, then join them." Fuck that.


"The few who understand the system, will either be so interested in its profits, or so dependent on it's favors, that there will be no opposition from either class." - Rothschild Brothers of London, 1863

[JohnAshman]

I am NOT going to do basic Internet searches for you if you're too lazy to get the facts and compare/contrast yourself. http://google.com go verify everything for yourself

I'm already tired of the invasion of Gary Johnson campaign staff here.

Okay, well, I think Romney, Obama and Paul are all anti-immigration and are for centralized federal power over immigration, while Gary Johnson is for minimal government restrictions.

I think Romney likes to punish peiople for burning the flag, though I imagine Obama is close to Gary, so that's a tie.

Romney and Obama want to increase the MIC while Paul wants to cut it 15% and Gary 43%.

I guess Gary is closer to Obama and Romney in that he wouldn't allow states to outlaw sodomy.

[Travlyr]

Maybe you worry about the hand that you are dealt. At no point in human history has there ever been a social system that you advocate for.

I do not advocate for a social system. I simply advocate to be left alone unless I harm another human. Not social harm but actual harm.

[JohnAshman]

No! You don't join them to beat them. You join them because you believe you can't beat them and can profit from their bribes.

"If you can't beat them, then join them." Fuck that.

You seem to be on the side of statist, nationalist, anti-Rothbardian Ron Paul, so how haven't you joined them.

[JohnAshman]

That is true, and horrible. A champion of Liberty AND decriminalization of Marijuana had it within his literal grasp to pardon non-violent drug "offenders", and he opted for more prison space...shopped it out to MERCENARIES, no less.

Well, keep in mind there are truly a small percentage of drug offenders in jail, precisely because there wasn't enough space. Most of the people doing time on drug charges are doign so because they are violent people who have been arrested for or convicted numerous times of violent crimes. People doing hard time for drugs are generally doing so in the FEDERAL system and Gary had no power over that.

At the time, Gary's rationale was that regardless, they knew the law and violated it and so it was a legal conviction. He has since come to believe that nullification is the way to go. That if you nullify, you change the system. That you can't just wait on Congress to do the right thing.

I mean, yes, he should have been brave and made some pardons, but you should have seen the firestorm when he came out for legalizing marijuana. It was UGLY. Seriously UGLY. And his approval rating utterly tanked, so the people of the state were totally against it.

New Mexico has a terrible violent crime rate stemming from massive drug sales and transport. So, of course, people unwittingly make matters worse by trying even harder to clamp down on it.

[Travlyr]

You seem to be on the side of statist, nationalist, anti-Rothbardian Ron Paul, so how haven't you joined them.

Because in your own words:


You really haven't read anything Ron Paul has written, have you?

No, but his own positions betray him as not a true libertarian. And I repeat, thank God for that. True libertarians like Rothbard are completely out of touch with reality. I also prefer a little more pragmatism. I wouldn't vote for Ron Paul BECAUSE he was saying "pull out the troops now". Well, it's 4 years later and pulling them out slowly isn't working and they've had 4 years to man up, so, I'm now ready to support a "get out now" candidate. Besides, we're now bombing more civilians than terrorists and they're printing more every day.

Might be a good time to actually read.

[Travlyr]

No doubt about that.

Now, what do we DO? What constitutes AT LEAST going down swinging?

It is NOT endorsing Romney. It is NOT Republican Par-taaay Unity.

Even IF one buys into JOIN 'EM TO BEAT 'EM, why wouldn't beleaguered Commoners press ALL possible options..."just" for leverage?

The Platform that people are hoping to influence via Rand's endorsement of Romney means DIDDLY-SQUAT without leverage. JUST WORDS. Unenforceable.
You have to End The Fed. The focus must be on ending monopoly money. ASAP.

[thoughtomator]

LOL here's me caring about what some GJ staffer troll thinks:



wait for it...




wait for it...





wait for it...









(this might take a while)

[pcgame]

............

[cheapseats]

Gary Johnson is not libertarian. He is a centralist and thereby a statist.

Someone make a thread, the case for not voting GJ.


Mitt Romney is not libertarian. When people say NO MORE WAR, they might be lying...like Obama. When people OPENLY EMBRACE MORE WAR, like John McCain and Mitt Romney, it's a good idea to take them at face value.

Someone make a thread, the case for yanking support from Rand Paul and NOT "falling in line" as Republicans.

[pcgame]

...............

[JohnAshman]

Might be a good time to actually read.

I have been and what I've found isn't so flattering.

For instance, I found out that he has publicly attacked SCOTUS for upholding privacy rights because he wants to be able to legislate bedroom behavior in Texas.

And that he wants to ban flag burning. I mean, what would Rothbard say about THAT?

Banning abortion in contradiction to Rothbard.

Controlling and punishing immigraiton in contradiction to Rothbard.

Lots of interesting quotes.

[JohnAshman]

I have been debating on whether to vote for Gary Johnson or not.

Travylr's posts in this thread have convinced me to not vote for him.

Gary Johnson is not libertarian. He is a centralist and thereby a statist.

Someone make a thread, the case for not voting GJ.

Ron Paul is more of a statist than Gary Johnson!!!!

http://civilliberty.about.com/od/profiles/tp/6-Rights-Lost-Under-Ron-Paul.htm
http://www.conservativesnetwork.com/...onsistent-one/
http://thesantaanasentinel.wordpress...-inconsistent/
http://forums.hannity.com/showthread...-Inconsistency
http://www.godlikeproductions.com/fo...age1860518/pg1
http://supak.blogspot.mx/2011/12/ron...nsistency.html
http://www.spokesman.com/stories/201...-inconsistent/

He seriously wants to ban flag burning! Who but a statist would do that?

[Travlyr]

I have been and what I've found isn't so flattering.

For instance, I found out that he has publicly attacked SCOTUS for upholding privacy rights because he wants to be able to legislate bedroom behavior in Texas.

And that he wants to ban flag burning. I mean, what would Rothbard say about THAT?

Banning abortion in contradiction to Rothbard.

Controlling and punishing immigraiton in contradiction to Rothbard.

Lots of interesting quotes.
You are so full of shit that your eyes are turning brown. You haven't read anything Ron Paul has written. That much is obvious.

[JohnAshman]

You are so full of shit that your eyes are turning brown. You haven't read anything Ron Paul has written. That much is obvious.

I've read how he votes and I've read why he voted that way. That is where the rubber meets the road. Obama writes lots of pretty things, but then does someting entirely different. Just like Ron Paul.

Tell me what Rothbard would think of Ron Paul's policies.

You're talking about a man who puts earmarks for his district in the budget, then votes "no" so when it passes and his district gets all those earmarks, he can say that he's "never voted for earmarks". And never mention that he's inserted $billions worth.

[pcgame]

.........

[JohnAshman]

its true GJ has a libertarian following for vetoes

but he was in an executive position...and didn't do anything other then veto stuff and make prisons.

I am not sure if you are a GJ staffer, but making stuff up about RP does not represent GJ too well.

It is June and people can still change their minds to vote for GJ.

Not a "staffer" at all. What am I making up about Ron Paul?!?!? These are all documented. What specific thing do you think I am making up.

I am simply pointing out that buying into Paul fans who claim that somehow their candidate is pure and Johnson is a statist is not based in reality.

Both are flawed. But both are WAY better than the alternatives. And if Ron Paul gets the nomination, I will vote for him because it's his last chance to be Prez and would make a great segue for Gary who has plenty of time. But if not, I'll definitely vote for Gary because he knows how to run a government and has learned plenty from his successes AND his mistakes.

[JohnAshman]

"In 1997, Rep. Paul had already proposed a constitutional amendment:

SECTION 1. The States shall have power to prohibit the physical destruction of the flag of the United States and Congress shall have the power to prohibit destruction of federally owned flags."

Read the article - http://civilliberty.about.com/od/profiles/tp/6-Rights-Lost-Under-Ron-Paul.htm

There are plenty more just like them, it's not "made up".

[thoughtomator]

FYI everyone this same dickhead has been trolling dailypaul.com as well

http://www.dailypaul.com/user/56009

Get a life, loser. And take your GJ campaigning to a GJ site where it belongs.

[CaseyJones]

adios JohnAshman

[cheapseats]

I am not sure if you are a GJ staffer, but making stuff up about RP does not represent GJ too well.

It is June and people can still change their minds to vote for GJ.


He is not bashful about it...sez outright that he is a "Smart Richard".

Meaning...he'd KNOW that disparaging Ron Paul would not only turn Ron Paul Supporters AWAY from Gary Johnson, but pit them fiercely AGAINST Gary Johnson.

WOULDN'T he? Yes, he would.

Voila...



Get a life, loser. And take your GJ campaigning to a GJ site where it belongs.

Like clockwork.

[nzapanda]

Voting for GJ will only throw a wrench into the liberty movement in multitude of ways.

[Peace Piper]

Voting for GJ will only throw a wrench into the liberty movement in multitude of ways.

And what will a vote for Romney, as Ron Paul's son advocates, do for the "liberty movement"?

I still can't believe Rand endorsed this buffoon before Florida.

Raimondo nails it pretty well:

Rand Paul’s Oedipal Drama

Ron vs. Rand: a study in betrayal
by Justin Raimondo, June 18, 2012

http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2012/06/17/rand-pauls-oedipal-drama/

"...In an alternately opaque and all-too-revealing interview with the Daily Paul web site, in which he tried to explain why he endorsed Mitt Romney, Sen. Paul actually said “It doesn’t mean anything.” I’m sure the Romney campaign will be quite glad to hear that.

However, a few minutes later he was infusing the endorsement with historic significance, telling his no doubt baffled and increasingly skeptical listeners it would open all kinds of doors for the “liberty movement,” among them the promise that “we are going to have a big influence over what happens with the platform.” Citing a laundry list of his own personal legislative goals – legalizing hemp, ending mandatory minimums for nonviolent crimes, auditing the Fed – he declared “we need to look beyond politics.”


I wouldn't vote for Romney if Ron Paul endorsed him, because Romney is a liar, fraud and warmonger.

F Willard- Gary Johnson 2012

[cheapseats]

Voting for GJ will only throw a wrench into the liberty movement in multitude of ways.


It should be EZPZ to rattle off the "Top Ten".

[PowerOfLiberty]

That is true, and horrible. A champion of Liberty AND decriminalization of Marijuana had it within his literal grasp to pardon non-violent drug "offenders", and he opted for more prison space...shopped it out to MERCENARIES, no less.

Now. Bear in mind that I am NOT weighing this against Mother Theresa. Bear in mind that I am weighing this against people who virtually guarantee MORE WAR...whereas Gary Johnson calls for immediate withdrawal from Afghanistan, without ANY equivocation about "regional stability" (unknown AT LEAST since Biblical times).

I decided that Gary Johnson did not release non-violent drug offenders because, after wrongly serving hard HARD time in federal penitentiaries, those non-violent Druggies will be CHANGED. Talk about SLIM possibilities...the possibility lies between very slim and ZERO, that not one of those (highly unemployable) Ex-Cons would not commit [FILL IN THE HORRID BLANK], catapulting the WILLIE HORTON card into Gary Johnson's kitchen sink.

Calculated? Absolutely. Cowardly? Kinda. PRACTICAL. You betcha. HE did not create The Game that Rand Apologists defend playing. Rand could be quixotically championing elimination of TSA, rather than its privatization.

Leaving wrongly (but lawfully) incarcerated people in prison is really, really bad. Leaving American Soldiers in harm's way because we have no stateside jobs for them . . . is that WORSE, or the SAME level of really really bad? Would you rather hang or fry?

Johnson is not talking MORE War. Romney IS talking more war. Obama, Nobel Peace Prize?! Not even an APPEARANCE of propriety.

I believe GOVERNMENT = NECESSARY EVIL. Anarchists do NOT believe that.

Stipulating that Government IS a Necessary Evil...a reasonable stipulation, given that America has ALWAYS had Governance and that there is not a glimmer of a chance of her having NONE in any of our lifetimes...Gary Johnson, pitted against Barack Obama and Mitt Romney, IS the Lesser Evil. At the very LEAST, he is that.

This was like spoken word.

[cheapseats]

Get a life, loser. And take your GJ campaigning to a GJ site where it belongs.


How shall Liberty folk know which Liberty Candidates pass muster in Liberty Forest?

If It is "simply" inappropriate to pimp a Plan B while Ron Paul's candidacy is still alive, then Rand Paul should be PERSONA NON GRATA for endorsing the Competition. There must be some OTHER guideline. Can you enlighten?

[V3n]

How shall Liberty folk know which Liberty Candidates pass muster in Liberty Forest?

If It is "simply" inappropriate to pimp a Plan B while Ron Paul's candidacy is still alive, then Rand Paul should be PERSONA NON GRATA for endorsing the Competition. There must be some OTHER guideline. Can you enlighten?

Are you able to promote Gary Johnson without bashing Rand Paul? I mean, is it even possible?
Because you don't seem able to do that.
If Gary Johnson is such a great Liberty Candidate, why aren't you able to speak on his merits, without trying to destroy others?

[cheapseats]

Are you able to promote Gary Johnson without bashing Rand Paul? I mean, is it even possible?
Because you don't seem able to do that.
If Gary Johnson is such a great Liberty Candidate, why aren't you able to speak on his merits, without trying to destroy others?


Sure, it's possible.

But "simply" promoting Gary Johnson AS A VIABLE PLAN B IF RON PAUL IS NOT ON THE NOVEMBER BALLOT gets me a ration of shit about traitorousness, 'cuz board namesake Ron Paul's hat is still in the ring.

Which brings me to RAND.

[V3n]

Sure, it's possible.

But "simply" promoting Gary Johnson AS A VIABLE PLAN B IF RON PAUL IS NOT ON THE NOVEMBER BALLOT gets me a ration of shit about traitorousness, 'cuz board namesake Ron Paul's hat is still in the ring.

Which brings me to RAND.

Well, thanks for the honest answer.

[mczerone]

adios JohnAshman

He didn't do anything wrong per site rules. He was debating the "libertarian merits" of GJ vs RP.

In the interim between the 08 and 12 campaigns, these forums were called "Liberty Forest". I hope that it can continue to be a place where all liberty-minded people can coalesce and discuss current events and political candidates.

RP is not an infallible christ of liberty, and his record should be open to scrutiny. If new members can't come in and say e.g. That GJ has a comparable pro/con list to RP, then how is the membership of the board going to remain fluid? And if membership declines or stagnates, the networking value of the site will suffer.

There are a ton of people that are more "offensive" than this poster was. There's also this neat little "ignore" tool that you can use to avoid hearing from people that bother you.

Banning was too harsh, even of this guy was a troll. And if he was honestly just a GJ supporter, why not let him stick around and get educated about our diverse opinions of liberty?

[MrWalker]

Ill just inflict a little thing here; http://wredlich.com/ny/2011/12/the-problem-with-gary-johnson-roger-stone/

It absolutely amazes me how people can fall for anything.

[Sam I am]

//

[Nathan Hale]

In the interim between the 08 and 12 campaigns, these forums were called "Liberty Forest". I hope that it can continue to be a place where all liberty-minded people can coalesce and discuss current events and political candidates.

RP is not an infallible christ of liberty, and his record should be open to scrutiny. If new members can't come in and say e.g. That GJ has a comparable pro/con list to RP, then how is the membership of the board going to remain fluid? And if membership declines or stagnates, the networking value of the site will suffer.

HEAR HEAR! As Ron Paul himself warned, this movement should never have turned into a cult of personality.

[cheapseats]

its true GJ has a libertarian following for vetoes

but he was in an executive position...and didn't do anything other then veto stuff and make prisons.




He inherited a deficit, balanced the budget and bequeathed a surplus.

If those would be his "only" accomplishments at the national level, I could live with that. Ideology and fifty cents will get you a phone call, IF you can find a pay-phone.

[cheapseats]

You don't join them to beat them. You join them because you believe you can't beat them and can profit from their bribes.



Agreed, tho bribes are not the only glue.

There is the LIFESTYLE...the POSITION...jetsetting & hobnobbing, moving & shaking. PLUS wealth & security.

It's all very seductive...all very hard to RISK, once obtained.

[psi2941]

I don't know why people here are bashing Johnson, he is clearly the best of the three. I want to vote for him but my state might be a toss up state, and i just can't let the republicans get away with nominating a guy with a new lip service . so i have to vote for obama. but if michigan turns out to be a solid blue state i'll be voting for Johnson.

[Feeding the Abscess]

I don't know why people here are bashing Johnson, he is clearly the best of the three. I want to vote for him but my state might be a toss up state, and i just can't let the republicans get away with nominating a guy with a new lip service . so i have to vote for obama. but if michigan turns out to be a solid blue state i'll be voting for Johnson.

He's the least bad option of the three, for sure, but as a Libertarian standard bearer, he's dreadful. That said, he's reading Economics In One Lesson and For A New Liberty, so there's always the possibility he'll improve.

[sailingaway]

He didn't do anything wrong per site rules. He was debating the "libertarian merits" of GJ vs RP.

In the interim between the 08 and 12 campaigns, these forums were called "Liberty Forest". I hope that it can continue to be a place where all liberty-minded people can coalesce and discuss current events and political candidates.

RP is not an infallible christ of liberty, and his record should be open to scrutiny. If new members can't come in and say e.g. That GJ has a comparable pro/con list to RP, then how is the membership of the board going to remain fluid? And if membership declines or stagnates, the networking value of the site will suffer.

There are a ton of people that are more "offensive" than this poster was. There's also this neat little "ignore" tool that you can use to avoid hearing from people that bother you.

Banning was too harsh, even of this guy was a troll. And if he was honestly just a GJ supporter, why not let him stick around and get educated about our diverse opinions of liberty?

This comment is only with reference to the bolded parts above, although I will say that even when this was 'Liberty Forest' "Ron Paul forums" was the subtitle as Liberty Forest is now.

I do see a divide, not as in an 'antithetical to work together' but as in a 'coming from a different place' between some of those in the liberty movement as a group and Ron Paul supporters in a group (for the moment dividing them in two.)

I wasn't a 'libertarian', as I thought, before Ron Paul's 2007 run. Many here werent, some not until this run. Ron essentially IS our standard. He has a holistic set of principles he always works from. Some here define libertarianism differently (some define it simply as a larger set of options of thought amongst which Ron Paul's are a subset). But to say to a Ron Paul supporter that we should support any candidate because he is actually 'more' pure to some standard they prefer begs the point that what we see as the best around is Ron, not their standard. To many of us, deviation from the principles Ron has stayed true to is the lack of 'purity', that being our standard.

For me, when Rand came around, I was willing he have his own principles in the vicinity of Ron's if they hit my hot buttons, I would just have to analyze his different principles and make sure he stayed true to those, so I knew what I was getting and that he had the sand to stand up for at least HIS issues. I didn't need a clone to Ron. (I'm not pushing Rand at the moment, by the way, just explaining the vetting process I went through.)

What gets me about Gary is not just specific deviations from Ron (although vacuum in certain areas where I do have hot buttons like civil liberties makes me wonder 'why bother') but that he doesn't seem to work from prime principles so he can even be pinned down on values and can be predictable.

I just throw it out there.

[cheapseats]

I don't know why people here are bashing Johnson...


I do.

[cheapseats]

...Ron essentially IS our standard...


Ron Paul will shortly be out of "active" politics.

For Ron Paul Devotees, NO ONE will fill Ron Paul's shoes...EVER. Same with Grateful Dead Heads. Same with people who swoon over ELVIS...or quite differently over FRANK SINATRA.

Ron Paul was ODD GLUE. People found certain compromises palatable because of something unthreatening about HIM.

PRO CHOICE and ANTI ABORTION, for example, are irreconcilably different. Why would ANYONE who believes that Abortion Hysterics are misguided at best and flaming hypocrites at worst CONTINUE to put aside that GLARINGLY different core principle for a "lesser" candidate?

They WOULDN'T. They WON'T. Libertarian-leaning and Hardright-leaning are "naturally" at odds.

[sailingaway]

Ron Paul will shortly be out of "active" politics.

For Ron Paul Devotees, NO ONE will fill Ron Paul's shoes...EVER. Same with Grateful Dead Heads. Same with people who swoon over ELVIS...or quite differently over FRANK SINATRA.

Ron Paul was ODD GLUE. People found certain compromises palatable because of something unthreatening about HIM.

PRO CHOICE and ANTI ABORTION, for example, are irreconcilably different. Why would ANYONE who believes that Abortion Hysterics are misguided at best and flaming hypocrites at worst CONTINUE to put aside that GLARINGLY different core principle for a "lesser" candidate?

They WOULDN'T. They WON'T. Libertarian-leaning and Hardright-leaning are "naturally" at odds.

Abortion is 100% about when you individually believe life begins. If you believe it begins at conception a woman has no more right to 'choose' to kill her baby than an adult has a right to kill another for food after a shipwreck. There were cases on it. You could draw straws or something for who would be eaten if all voluntarily agree in advance, but people couldn't just gang up and kill someone. Even when they 'needed to' to live.

On the other hand if you don't believe life begins until, as one person here stated his belief 'sentience' attached (although I am not sure how you measure that moment in the unborn) then you might think there is only one 'person' in the abortion equation to consider. But it isn't an issue of 'choice', it is an issue of the definition of 'life'.

[TheTexan]

I don't vote for fascists no matter how kind and efficient one might be. Johnson's underlying governing philosophy is no different from Obama or Romney, he just wants to do it less expensively. At this point in time that's not a good thing, as the next term of Obama or Romney will blow up the present fascist system faster than a term of Johnson would.

This


For example, despite having been directly educated in the issue by knowledgeable experts, Johnson still can't find any crimes committed by titans of the financial system in the continuing aftermath of historic, epic, systemwide fraud.

and that


Johnson has been clear time and time again as to where he stands - the only things he wants to change are those that are not cost-efficient for the government. In other words, his dispute with R/D parties is not about the relationship of government to the people, as ours is, but merely in the details of how the present system is administered.

As a real resumption of the rule of law and the supremacy of the Constitution is not on the table with any of them, better that we live through the crisis of the self-destruction of the fascist system rather than force the next generation to suck up that hit. It's our responsibility and our cross to bear. I for one am ready to bear it.

and these

[Travlyr]

I really do not want to be the thorn in the side of Gary Johnson. However, on inauguration day, Gary will be shown the wizard behind the curtain and his platform will be... whatever they tell him it is. That is why they 'Blacked Out' Ron Paul. Ron Paul has already peaked behind the curtain and they KNOW he will not sacrifice his principles to conform. Gary Johnson is incapable of delivering freedom to Americans because he himself doesn't understand it. Freedom comes from ending the Fed. Freedom comes from Separation of Money and State. Freedom only comes from Separation of Money and State as advocated by Hayek, Rothbard, and Paul. Separation of Currency and State is the most important issue of our day.

[TheTexan]

Separation of Currency and State is the most important issue of our day.

And this too

[hammy]

No. One. But. Paul.

Let me be real here, and lay out a case (without going into GJ's political standpoints) why we should all vote for Ron Paul.

Can Gary Johnson win in November?
No.

Can Ron Paul win in November?
No.

Will you vote for Mitt Romney or Obama?
No.

So it's between GJ and Ron Paul?
Yes.

But neither can win?
Correct.

With whom are you ideologically closer?
Ron Paul.

So, should you vote for Ron Paul?
I guess but I also want to support the libertarian party.

Do you want to support a mediocre Republican/Democratic Candidate?
No.

Then why would you support a mediocre Libertarian Candidate?
Because I want to grow the Libertarian base, to let people know we are out here.

Why grow the base in the wrong/stilted direction?
Some spotlight is better than no spotlight.

So it's compromise?
No it's... *sigh*... yes.

Did Ron Paul ever compromise?
*Sigh*...no mom.

Did our founders compromise on our freedom?
No! Ok I get it.

So... no one but Paul?
No one but Paul!

[Respect38]

No. One. But. Paul.

Let me be real here, and lay out a case (without going into GJ's political standpoints) why we should all vote for Ron Paul.

Can Gary Johnson win in November?
No.

Wrong, he can mathematically win, and if he gets to the debates, he could get a significant amount of disgruntled Rs, Ds, as well as a significant amount of the independent vote.


Can Ron Paul win in November?
No.

The convention has not occurred yet, but based on this answer, I'm assuming you are using the scenario where Ron Paul does not get the GOP nomination.


Will you vote for Mitt Romney or Obama?
No.

Same...


So it's between GJ and Ron Paul?
Yes.

Effectively. You could also make the argument for Virgil Goode, but he has a mediocre voting record, as well as less chance to win it all than Gary Johnson.


But neither can win?
Correct.

Incorrect as stated above. Neither candidate has reached a point where he "cannot win".


With whom are you ideologically closer?
Ron Paul.

Once again, this assumes the context that neither can win, which is incorrect, therefore this is null.


So, should you vote for Ron Paul?
I guess but I also want to support the libertarian party.

Same...


Do you want to support a mediocre Republican/Democratic Candidate?
No.

Same...


Then why would you support a mediocre Libertarian Candidate?
Because I want to grow the Libertarian base, to let people know we are out here.

...mediocre candidate? What? I'm going to assume that you weren't referring to Gary Johnson, just looking at what he's been able to do so far.


Why grow the base in the wrong/stilted direction?
Some spotlight is better than no spotlight.

I... same.


So it's compromise?
No it's... *sigh*... yes.

Some compromise is good--it's sad that people have got it in there mind that any compromise = bad. Gary's message is a message of freedom.


Did Ron Paul ever compromise?
*Sigh*...no mom.

What exactly does this prove? Ron Paul may have never compromised, but has that lack of compromise gotten him anywhere that he wouldn't have gotten to? Who knows, maybe the lack of any kind of compromise may have hurt him in the long run.


Did our founders compromise on our freedom?
No! Ok I get it.

Once again, what is this supposed to prove? If you're going to imply that the founders never compromised at all, have you ever heard of the Connecticut Compromise?


So... no one but Paul?
No one but Paul!

...so, where's the part where I find out why I'm supposed to give Robamney a half-vote?

[Feeding the Abscess]

Anyone have any news on Gary's experience with Economics In One Lesson and For A New Liberty?

[Nathan Hale]

I really do not want to be the thorn in the side of Gary Johnson. However, on inauguration day, Gary will be shown the wizard behind the curtain and his platform will be... whatever they tell him it is. That is why they 'Blacked Out' Ron Paul. Ron Paul has already peaked behind the curtain and they KNOW he will not sacrifice his principles to conform. Gary Johnson is incapable of delivering freedom to Americans because he himself doesn't understand it.

It's a conspiracy! RUN!!!!

[Travlyr]

It's a conspiracy! RUN!!!!

Why do you not know who is in charge? How do you not know who is in charge? They tell you straight up. What is the deal with people not doing their homework?

CNBC admits We're all Slaves to the Central Bankers (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?381569-CNBC-Admits-global-government-run-by-central-bankers)

And frankly I am not concerned with prison building Libertarian Gary Johnson who believes that Abe Lincoln was a great president becoming president. He has zero chance. I am simply bringing some truth to the table. Do some of your own research. It is not that hard.

[Nathan Hale]

Why do you not know who is in charge? How do you not know who is in charge? They tell you straight up. What is the deal with people not doing their homework?

CNBC admits We're all Slaves to the Central Bankers (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?381569-CNBC-Admits-global-government-run-by-central-bankers)

And frankly I am not concerned with prison building Libertarian Gary Johnson who believes that Abe Lincoln was a great president becoming president. He has zero chance. I am simply bringing some truth to the table. Do some of your own research. It is not that hard.

Sorry, the Rothschilds and the Rockefellers told me at the last Bohemian Grove gathering that you're full of it. Then we all took a black helicopter to the Bilderberg meeting where I got inducted into Skull and Bones and learned that central bankers are actually working via the Aspen Institute to grow Van Jones into a 300 foot tall monster capable of terrorizing Los Angeles.

[Travlyr]

Sorry, the Rothschilds and the Rockefellers told me at the last Bohemian Grove gathering that you're full of it. Then we all took a black helicopter to the Bilderberg meeting where I got inducted into Skull and Bones and learned that central bankers are actually working via the Aspen Institute to grow Van Jones into a 300 foot tall monster capable of terrorizing Los Angeles.

Incredible. You are either totally ignorant of the world in which you live, or you are a shill for the central bankers. Which is it? Do you actually believe the nightly news?

[Respect38]

He's also tweeted (https://twitter.com/GovGaryJohnson/status/218417507533463553) that he would appoint judges like Judge Andrey Napolitano to the Supreme Court.

I'd say that this is one of the more overlooked things--if Gary Johnson wins, we could very well have several liberty-minded judges in the Supreme Court for years to come.

Even if don't like Gary Johnson more than Robamney (and I don't see how you could...) you'd still surely appreciate that a Johnson term would at least mean more judges like these being in the Supreme Court.

[HardyMacia]

This isn't about Ron Paul vs Gary Johnson. It's about Liberty. Both are great standard bearers for liberty. I can pull out just as many anti-liberty things Paul has done as Johnson. It's depressing listening to people on the liberty forums bashing Johnson. Is he perfect? No. Is Paul perfect? No. This infighting in the liberty movement isn't going to keep the campaign for liberty alive through November.

I'm not going to say their are government plants trying to subvert the liberty movement by, but if I wanted to destroy it then having plants destroy it from the inside out would be the way to do it. They would push useless things like write-in for Ron Paul which are votes that aren't counted and put liberty activists on the side line just at the most important time between September and November when the masses of people actually start to pay attention to politics. Imagine the 50k write-in voters instead out campaigning for some with the libertarian credentials and track record of Johnson - we could get Johnson into the debates against Obamney and then lid would be ripped right off the old parties.

Keep up the infighting and trolling though because that's what is best for liberty.

[Travlyr]

This isn't about Ron Paul vs Gary Johnson. It's about Liberty. Both are great standard bearers for liberty. I can pull out just as many anti-liberty things Paul has done as Johnson. It's depressing listening to people on the liberty forums bashing Johnson. Is he perfect? No. Is Paul perfect? No. This infighting in the liberty movement isn't going to keep the campaign for liberty alive through November.

I'm not going to say their are government plants trying to subvert the liberty movement by, but if I wanted to destroy it then having plants destroy it from the inside out would be the way to do it. They would push useless things like write-in for Ron Paul which are votes that aren't counted and put liberty activists on the side line just at the most important time between September and November when the masses of people actually start to pay attention to politics. Imagine the 50k write-in voters instead out campaigning for some with the libertarian credentials and track record of Johnson - we could get Johnson into the debates against Obamney and then lid would be ripped right off the old parties.

Keep up the infighting and trolling though because that's what is best for liberty.

If what you say is true, then why didn't Gary Johnson drop out and endorse Ron Paul early on in the race instead of running against him? Ron Paul clearly had the largest following and best funding. Gary's dropping out and working for Ron Paul when he had the opportunity would have been an act of uniting the liberty movement. Perhaps it would have put us over the top in Iowa when we needed the momentum the most.

[Imperial]

Did our founders compromise on our freedom?
No! Ok I get it.

So... no one but Paul?
No one but Paul!

Actually, they did. Thousands of Loyalists were tarred and feathered and had their property stolen. Not to mention how we screwed over the Native Americans. The Founders were human like anyone else.


I really do not want to be the thorn in the side of Gary Johnson. However, on inauguration day, Gary will be shown the wizard behind the curtain and his platform will be... whatever they tell him it is. That is why they 'Blacked Out' Ron Paul. Ron Paul has already peaked behind the curtain and they KNOW he will not sacrifice his principles to conform. Gary Johnson is incapable of delivering freedom to Americans because he himself doesn't understand it.

This is absolutely ridiculous. Paul has made compromises just like Johnson. He endorsed Lamar Smith in 2010 (author of SOPA) and he is probably not going to endorse a 3rd party candidate this time around. He is not a 'pure' libertarian- he has shown himself to be fine with limiting marriage via state action.

I don't mean that to discredit him. Sometimes you have to make compromises, and your ideology should probably not be perfectly taken from the pages of one of Rothbard's books. I have had the honor to vote for Dr. Paul several times. And while I will not be voting for Johnson in 2012 as it stands, it is maddeningly frustrating to see the circular firing squad come out at someone who is so solid on our general principles. If you can't bring yourself, ideologically, to vote for Johnson, Rand, Massie, or Amash, you really aren't looking to win elections but pontificate.

[cheapseats]

If what you say is true, then why didn't Gary Johnson drop out and endorse Ron Paul early on in the race instead of running against him?

When Gary Johnson RIGHTLY-AS-IN-CORRECTLY deemed "racing" for the Republican nomination to be futile and bailed on the Republican Party, he DID say he would endorse Ron Paul IF Ron Paul was the GOP nominee.




Ron Paul clearly had the largest following and best funding.

The mind REELS to think how much better Ron Paul would have fared as the Libertarian Party nominee. That nomination WAS HIS FOR THE ASKING.




Gary's dropping out and working for Ron Paul when he had the opportunity would have been an act of uniting the liberty movement.

We are back to the preposterously self-serving "argument" that all would be swell if "only" everyone who TRULY cared about Liberty would embrace this dubious-at-best strategy of TAKING CONTROL of the Republican Par-taaay...miraculously without becoming LIKE the scum with whom You-not-you "must" PLAY POLITICS = MAKE DEALS, in order to "get ahead" in the club that caters particularly to the Richest & Least Famous.

They DO vote, and most of 'em are NOT Limousine Liberals. Most of 'em vote Republican.



Perhaps it would have put us over the top in Iowa when we needed the momentum the most.

Holy Moly...now IOWA is Gary Johnson's fault?!

When Iowa "happened", Gary Johnson was best known for saying that his neighbor's dog had created more shovel-ready projects than Barack Obama:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sPYOvOcBgOg


Are "we" disregarding the UNNECESSARY fumbling of the Newsletter hot potato? Are "we" overlooking that Ron Paul went HOME TO LAKE JACKSON on the cusp of the Iowa Caucuses? Are "we" forgetting that diligent and determined Volunteers were inexplicably told in the 11th hour to NOT Watch The Vote?

[Respect38]

This dailypaul post (http://www.dailypaul.com/242672/considerations-on-a-ron-paul-3rd-party-or-write-in-campaign-and-the-future-of-the-liberty-movement) really says everything I feel.

Basically, a very small number of states actually count write-in votes without having the candidate register for write-in votes.

Therefore, only you will know that you voted for Ron Paul. Nobody else will know, nobody else will care.

[Revolution9]

Sure, it's possible.

But "simply" promoting Gary Johnson AS A VIABLE PLAN B IF RON PAUL IS NOT ON THE NOVEMBER BALLOT gets me a ration of shit about traitorousness, 'cuz board namesake Ron Paul's hat is still in the ring.

Which brings me to RAND.

Why don't you just can it pal./ Yer on psychobabble autoblither max. It is totally tiresome and you aren't making any headway at all.

Rev9

[Revolution9]

He didn't do anything wrong per site rules. He was debating the "libertarian merits" of GJ vs RP.\
\

He was a frikkin' liar and did so on purpose.

Rev9

[Revolution9]

This dailypaul post (http://www.dailypaul.com/242672/considerations-on-a-ron-paul-3rd-party-or-write-in-campaign-and-the-future-of-the-liberty-movement) really says everything I feel.

Basically, a very small number of states actually count write-in votes without having the candidate register for write-in votes.

Therefore, only you will know that you voted for Ron Paul. Nobody else will know, nobody else will care.

And who the frak cares about a vote for Johnson in the bigger scheme. RP will get more write-ins that GJ gets votes. Guaranteed. Johnson ain't winning shit.

Rev9

[Revolution9]

He's the least bad option of the three, for sure, but as a Libertarian standard bearer, he's dreadful. That said, he's reading Economics In One Lesson and For A New Liberty, so there's always the possibility he'll improve.

On the Presidential trail and FINALLY reading something cogent. Well whoopitty frakkin' dooo. My son knew more than GJ does when he was 12 years old.

Rev9

[Revolution9]

Wrong, he can mathematically win, and if he gets to the debates, he could get a significant amount of disgruntled Rs, Ds, as well as a

hehehehehe..hehehehehh..heheheh.. Seriously? No frikkin' way. Yer delusional.

Rev9

[Revolution9]

Sorry, the Rothschilds and the Rockefellers told me at the last Bohemian Grove gathering that you're full of it.
\
Yer not funny. Yer just parading ignorance in full glory pretending it to be enlightenment. It just shows what software you run for reality parsing. It has many firewalls that do not allow critical info to pass the barrier.

Rev9

[Revolution9]

Anyone have any news on Gary's experience with Economics In One Lesson and For A New Liberty?

He fell asleep. The first two pages were more info than he could handle at once. Needs a more decisive chin to be able to contain important info in his brainpan.

Rev9

[Respect38]

And who the frak cares about a vote for Johnson in the bigger scheme. RP will get more write-ins that GJ gets votes. Guaranteed. Johnson ain't winning shit.

Rev9

Oh, I like what I'm hearing.

How much are you willing to bet? Because Gary Johnson is guaranteed to get more votes than Ron Paul.

I don't usually bet, but whenever someone gives me a bet that I'm guaranteed to win, how can you turn that down?


hehehehehe..hehehehehh..heheheh.. Seriously? No frikkin' way. Yer delusional.

Rev9

I think you're a bit confused, based on the lack of actual points coming from your side. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem)

[cheapseats]

Why don't you just can it pal.

Got my reasons. I expect YOU have reasons for thousands and thousands and thousands of posts, too.

In comparison with most Tough Guys, yer downright TALKATIVE.




Yer on psychobabble autoblither max.

Whereas YOU are a BLUSTERER.




It is totally tiresome

Ignore it.




and you aren't making any headway at all.


Seems Gary Johnson IS making some headway.



JohnsonFest?: To appear at BOTH PaulFest and FreedomFest

June 22nd, 2012


Libertarian Presidential Candidate Governor Gary Johnson and Vice-Presidential running mate Judge Jim Gray are scheduled to speak at BOTH Paul Festival and Freedom Festival 2012 near Tampa Florida August 24 to 27.

Paul Festival organizers announced earlier today:


Johnson and Judge Jim Gray Confirmed to Speak: CHICAGO, IL – Paul Festival announced today they had confirmed former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson to their list of speakers. Johnson joins an already packed collection of liberty advocates for the festival featuring vendors, speakers and live music.

See: http://paulfestival.org/78-news-a-press/232-paul-festival-announces-gary-johnson

Previously Johnson had been announced as a keynote speaker at Freedom Festival, a concurrent event to be held at Fantasy of Flight (about 40 minutes east of Tampa).

http://www.freedomfestival2012.com

Judge Jim Gray is expected to speak at this event as well.

Specific program details have not yet been posted for either event, but IPR has learned that Johnson is scheduled (subject to change) to introduce the Steve Miller Band at Freedom Fest on Friday night, and has been initially awarded a key slot at PaulFest the following night.

Details to follow (film at 11) as they are released.

(If you didn’t get the 1970s TV news reference, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_at_11)


http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2012/06/johnsonfest-to-appear-at-both-paulfest-and-freedomfest/

[Nathan Hale]

Incredible. You are either totally ignorant of the world in which you live, or you are a shill for the central bankers. Which is it? Do you actually believe the nightly news?

Kill your television! :rolleyes:

[Nathan Hale]

If what you say is true, then why didn't Gary Johnson drop out and endorse Ron Paul early on in the race instead of running against him? Ron Paul clearly had the largest following and best funding. Gary's dropping out and working for Ron Paul when he had the opportunity would have been an act of uniting the liberty movement. Perhaps it would have put us over the top in Iowa when we needed the momentum the most.

Gary followed the plan perfectly. He stayed in the primary when it was perfectly fine to have multiple liberty voices in the race and dropped out before voting started and moved into position as the LP backup, acknowledging that he would demure if it turned out that Paul won the GOP nod.

[cheapseats]

And who the frak cares about a vote for Johnson in the bigger scheme.

YOU don't support or like Gary Johnson, and YOU don't value votes for him. Others DO like Gary Johnson. Still others don't LIKE Gary Johnson but will vote for him if Ron Paul is NOT on the ballot, "only" because Gary Johnson IS better than either Obama or Romney.

Some don't like Gary Johnson BECAUSE he is better than both Obama and Romney, and they are eyeing the corner office for their boy Rand in 2016...in the manner of people who plan Chinese Checker moves assuming no one ELSE will move any marbles.

In the BIGGER big picture, American Politics is as a grain of sand.




RP will get more write-ins that GJ gets votes. Guaranteed.

How ya gonna COUNT those write-ins?

Or will it simply be OBVIOUS on your say-so, that Ron Paul got more invisible write-ins than Gary Johnson got verifiable votes?

Guaranteeing something that cannot be proven falls under the BLUSTER umbrella.




Johnson ain't winning shit.

D'ya mean he ain't winning any MORE shit? 'Cuz he DID win the governorship of New Mexico (as an 'R' in a 'D' state), and he breezed to REELECTION despite his heavy heavy VETO hand.

[qh4dotcom]

I donated my hard earned money to Gary Johnson and he'll be getting my vote in November but I have this to say. GJ also took the oath to defend the Natural born citizen requirements of the Constitution...and like the Pauls and rest of Congress he has been silent on the eligibility issue and not doing his job. GJ complained a lot about his exclusion from the Republican debates. The media called Donald Trump a conspiracy theorist for talking about Obama's eligibility...and after they did he surged to #1 in the polls...and got a multi-million dollar contract renewed. GJ would have also likely surged in the polls and qualified for the debates had he done his job. Polls show half the country has doubts about Obama's eligibility....half the Republican voters did not have a candidate who shared their beliefs whom to vote for in the primaries...that was a golden opportunity missed for Ron Paul and Gary Johnson because they were too afraid to do their jobs and too afraid of the big bad media.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/04/poll-48-of-iowa-republicans-say-obama-wasnt-born-in-us.php

[TheTexan]

Gary/Rand they're both garbage.

Even if they were good candidates, which they're not, politics is simply another system of control. It cannot be won. This is politics:

http://blog.timesunion.com/funiciello/files/2012/04/6-human-hamster-wheel.jpg

Ron Paul's political campaign at least got some people off the human treadmill; Rand/Gary will do no such thing.

[cheapseats]

Gary/Rand they're both garbage.

Even if they were good candidates, which they're not, politics is simply another system of control. It cannot be won. This is politics:

http://blog.timesunion.com/funiciello/files/2012/04/6-human-hamster-wheel.jpg

Ron Paul's political campaign at least got some people off the human treadmill...


Byyyy . . . WORKING WITHIN THE REPUBLICAN PARTY?

[cheapseats]

Knee-jerk Detractors will enjoy the RICK PERRY MOMENT, when Gary Johnson struggles to come up with MUAMMAR GADDAFI's name (which is spelled variantly, still, after all these years).





R O N P A U L F L I X
DEFEATING THE MEDIA BLACKOUT SINCE 2007

Israel Anderson Interview with Gary Johnson

http://ronpaulflix.com/2012/06/israel-anderson-interview-with-gary-johnson/

[Feeding the Abscess]

Byyyy . . . WORKING WITHIN THE REPUBLICAN PARTY?

No, by saying taxation is theft, everything government does is a mandate, and numerous other anti-state phrases. As well as recommending Lysander Spooner and even Thoreau in live, national TV interviews, and numerous anarchists in his books. Giving interviews that say the government has nothing, that the only thing it can do is steal at the point of a gun, and saying self-government, not the Constitution, is his ultimate goal.

[cheapseats]

No, by saying taxation is theft, everything government does is a mandate, and numerous other anti-state phrases. As well as recommending Lysander Spooner and even Thoreau in live, national TV interviews, and numerous anarchists in his books. Giving interviews that say the government has nothing, that the only thing it can do is steal at the point of a gun, and saying self-government, not the Constitution, is his ultimate goal.


First, if Gary Johnson would more closely mimic Ron Paul, Ron Paul Diehards would be MORE insulted and derisive.

Second, Ron Paul's "way" IS FAILING TO SECURE THE CORNER OFFICE.

No amount of spin of the REVISED EXPECTATIONS variety substitutes for being Top Dog Decider.

[Feeding the Abscess]

First, if Gary Johnson would more closely mimic Ron Paul, Ron Paul Diehards would be MORE insulted and derisive.

Second, Ron Paul's "way" IS FAILING TO SECURE THE CORNER OFFICE.

No amount of spin of the REVISED EXPECTATIONS variety substitutes for being Top Dog Decider.

Ron Paul's "way" isn't to win political office, it's to spread ideas.


Ideas are very important to the shaping of society. In fact, they are more powerful than bombs or armies or guns. And this is because ideas are capable of spreading without limit. They are behind all the choices we make. They can transform the world in a way that governments and armies cannot. Fighting for liberty with ideas makes more sense to me than fighting with guns or politics or political power. With ideas, we can make real change that lasts.

[Respect38]

Ron Paul's "way" isn't to win political office, it's to spread ideas.

Yeah, both are great, though. He's already done the latter, so why is that a reason not to continue to try the former?

[Feeding the Abscess]

Yeah, both are great, though. He's already done the latter, so why is that a reason not to continue to try the former?

Because, to win an election, you have to limit your ability to do the latter. You can't talk about eliminating the drug war, bringing all the troops home, eliminating the income tax and replacing it with nothing, calling government roads theft, calling Medicare a mandate in a response to a question about Obamacare, and win any office anywhere. Case in point, the official campaign was putting out commercials about securing the border while Ron was on the trail saying open borders is the goal, and that we should work towards it.

Perhaps in a few decades, if we continue to grow our numbers. But by that point, the answer wouldn't be in politics; the answer would be to dissolve politics.

[jay_dub]

Well, I just did it. I joined the Gary Johnson talk forum.

This doesn't mean I have abandoned Dr. Paul in any way. I'm one of the few still hoping for a miracle in Tampa. I've got to be real, though. If RP is not on the ballot, my vote will go to Gary Johnson.

The GJ forum is pretty dead, but if anyone wants to go check it out, here's the link. (Hope it's ok to post it)

http://garyjohnsongrassroots.com/index.php

[rockandrollsouls]

Be careful posting that, you could be banned.

That being said, if Ron is not on the ballot (and I do hope the lawsuit does some good and we can nominate him from the floor,) but if that doesn't happen and he is not on the ballot, my vote will be going to GJ.

And though I was temp-banned for being unfairly portrayed as a ship jumper and Johnson supporter, I haven't even joined the GJ forums yet. The Ron Paul forums have always been the central forum for ALL liberty candidates (back to 2007) and I'm not liking the divide we have among freedom candidates now.

I'll be staying here and supporting all liberty candidates. What needs to happen is the mods need to stop acting like Gestapo and welcome anyone willing to fight for liberty. The way it USED to be. Divided, we will fall. Remember it.


Well, I just did it. I joined the Gary Johnson talk forum.

This doesn't mean I have abandoned Dr. Paul in any way. I'm one of the few still hoping for a miracle in Tampa. I've got to be real, though. If RP is not on the ballot, my vote will go to Gary Johnson.

The GJ forum is pretty dead, but if anyone wants to go check it out, here's the link. (Hope it's ok to post it)

http://garyjohnsongrassroots.com/index.php

[jay_dub]

Be careful posting that, you could be banned.

That being said, if Ron is not on the ballot (and I do hope the lawsuit does some good and we can nominate him from the floor,) but if that doesn't happen and he is not on the ballot, my vote will be going to GJ.

And though I was temp-banned for being unfairly portrayed as a ship jumper and Johnson supporter, I haven't even joined the GJ forums yet. The Ron Paul forums have always been the central forum for ALL liberty candidates (back to 2007) and I'm not liking the divide we have among freedom candidates now.

I'll be staying here and supporting all liberty candidates. What needs to happen is the mods need to stop acting like Gestapo and welcome anyone willing to fight for liberty. The way it USED to be. Divided, we will fall. Remember it.

At some point, one has to make a decision about November. I won't vote for either Romney or Obama.

If Ron is not on the ballot, GJ is, IMO, the best alternative choice. It's not like the lesser of 2 evils.

The Commissiion on Presidential Debates will base their decision on who can get in the debates on polling done after Labor Day. There's no need to abandon Ron. Tampa will be over and done with by the time of the polling. We'll know for sure whether Ron makes the ballot or not by then.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

3. INDICATORS OF ELECTORAL SUPPORT

The CPD's third criterion requires that the candidate have a level of support of at least 15% (fifteen percent) of the national electorate as determined by five selected national public opinion polling organizations, using the average of those organizations' most recent publicly-reported results at the time of the determination.

C. APPLICATION OF CRITERIA

The CPD's determination with respect to participation in the CPD's first-scheduled debate will be made after Labor Day 2012, but sufficiently in advance of the first-scheduled debate to allow for orderly planning. Invitations to participate in the vice-presidential debate will be extended to the running mates of each of the presidential candidates qualifying for participation in the CPD's first presidential debate. Invitations to participate in the second and third of the CPD's scheduled presidential debates will be based upon satisfaction of the same multiple criteria prior to each debate.

http://www.debates.org/index.php?page=candidate-selection-process

[cheapseats]

At some point, one has to make a decision about November. I won't vote for either Romney or Obama.

If Ron is not on the ballot, GJ is, IMO, the best alternative choice. It's not like the lesser of 2 evils.

The Commissiion on Presidential Debates will base their decision on who can get in the debates on polling done after Labor Day. There's no need to abandon Ron. Tampa will be over and done with by the time of the polling. We'll know for sure whether Ron makes the ballot or not by then.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

3. INDICATORS OF ELECTORAL SUPPORT

The CPD's third criterion requires that the candidate have a level of support of at least 15% (fifteen percent) of the national electorate as determined by five selected national public opinion polling organizations, using the average of those organizations' most recent publicly-reported results at the time of the determination.

C. APPLICATION OF CRITERIA

The CPD's determination with respect to participation in the CPD's first-scheduled debate will be made after Labor Day 2012, but sufficiently in advance of the first-scheduled debate to allow for orderly planning. Invitations to participate in the vice-presidential debate will be extended to the running mates of each of the presidential candidates qualifying for participation in the CPD's first presidential debate. Invitations to participate in the second and third of the CPD's scheduled presidential debates will be based upon satisfaction of the same multiple criteria prior to each debate.

http://www.debates.org/index.php?page=candidate-selection-process




B. 2012 NONPARTISAN SELECTION CRITERIA

The CPD's nonpartisan criteria for selecting candidates to participate in the 2012 general election presidential debates are:

1. EVIDENCE OF CONSTITUTIONAL ELIGIBILITY

The CPD's first criterion requires satisfaction of the eligibility requirements of Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution. The requirements are satisfied if the candidate:

a. is at least 35 years of age;

b. is a Natural Born Citizen of the United States and a resident of the United States for fourteen years; and

c. is otherwise eligible under the Constitution.


2. EVIDENCE OF BALLOT ACCESS

The CPD's second criterion requires that the candidate qualify to have his/her name appear on enough state ballots to have at least a mathematical chance of securing an Electoral College majority in the 2012 general election. Under the Constitution, the candidate who receives a majority of votes in the Electoral College, at least 270 votes, is elected President regardless of the popular vote.

3. INDICATORS OF ELECTORAL SUPPORT

The CPD's third criterion requires that the candidate have a level of support of at least 15% (fifteen percent) of the national electorate as determined by five selected national public opinion polling organizations, using the average of those organizations' most recent publicly-reported results at the time of the determination.

C. APPLICATION OF CRITERIA

The CPD's determination with respect to participation in the CPD's first-scheduled debate will be made after Labor Day 2012, but sufficiently in advance of the first-scheduled debate to allow for orderly planning. Invitations to participate in the vice-presidential debate will be extended to the running mates of each of the presidential candidates qualifying for participation in the CPD's first presidential debate. Invitations to participate in the second and third of the CPD's scheduled presidential debates will be based upon satisfaction of the same multiple criteria prior to each debate.


Adopted: October 20, 2011

http://www.debates.org/index.php?page=candidate-selection-process



ImplausibleEndeavors ‏@MindOfMo
‪#CommissionOnPresidentialDebates‬ requires 15% popular vote AND EVIDENCE OF CONSTITUTIONAL ELIGIBILITY to be in ‪#PresidentialDebates‬. Hmmm...


ImplausibleEndeavors ‏@MindOfMo
‪#GaryJohnson‬ is AT LEAST as close to 15% popularity as ‪#BarackObama‬ is to having evidence of Constitutional eligibility. ‪#PresidentialDebate‬

[Nathan Hale]

Ron Paul's "way" isn't to win political office, it's to spread ideas.

That's BS - Paul has stated quite clearly that he wanted to work within the system and win the seat. Yes, spreading ideas is great and all, but Paul ran for the Presidency because he wanted to run for the Presidency, not because of some losertarian circa 80's and 90's plan to educate people out of the system. It's why his PACs and supporters have focused so much on picking up House and Senate seats. This is about using the system to win the system - those delegate wars at state conventions weren't about education.

[TheTexan]

That's BS - Paul has stated quite clearly that he wanted to work within the system and win the seat. Yes, spreading ideas is great and all, but Paul ran for the Presidency because he wanted to run for the Presidency, not because of some losertarian circa 80's and 90's plan to educate people out of the system. It's why his PACs and supporters have focused so much on picking up House and Senate seats. This is about using the system to win the system - those delegate wars at state conventions weren't about education.

You have zero idea of what you're talking about

[cheapseats]

You have zero idea of what you're talking about


Is it not true that you are an Anarchist who came in from the cold only because Ron Paul is so very [everything wonderful hyperbole], but that you fundamentally reject ALL government and ALL candidates?

[cheapseats]

Gary Johnson addresses Freedom Fest crowd in Las Vegas

JULY 14, 2012BY: KARL DICKEY


Speaking Saturday at the annual Freedom Fest in Las Vegas, Libertarian Party presidential candidate and former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson charged that the greatest threats to freedom in the U.S. today are not foreign aggressors, but the federal government itself. The crowd is full of Libertarians, Republicans, Democrats and Independents who are interested in networking and learning what they can do to find freedom in an unfree world.

Johnson's speech follows:

“We have reached a sad point in history at which Americans’ freedom is not being threatened from outside, but rather from our own government and the politicians who run it. Yes, there are many around the world, whether they be terrorists or nations who harbor them, who would do us harm if given the opportunity, and who would love to rob us of our liberties. But with a national defense that represents almost half the entire world’s military spending, we are well-equipped to deal with those external threats.

“What we are failing to deal with is the fact that Congress and the past several Presidents have systematically done to freedom and liberty what no foreign enemy could do. If another nation robbed us of hundreds of billions of dollars of wealth, it would be an outrage we would not tolerate. Yet, we have watched helplessly as the politicians and the Federal Reserve have done precisely the same thing by racking up trillions in debt, devaluing our currency with wrong-headed monetary policies, and placed our dollars on the verge of collapse.

“If a foreign aggressor threatened to take away our rights to privacy, due process under the Constitution, or the fundamental liberties granted in the Bill of Rights, it would be an act of war. Yet, we need the government’s permission and must endure its probing to board an airplane, we can be stopped and frisked for simply walking down the street in New York, and we have government drones flying over farms in the Midwest to make sure manure is being disposed of legally.

“We can be detained indefinitely by our own government under the guise of protecting us. Our cell phones and internet can be monitored. And even our reading habits can be examined at our public libraries.

“If Iran actually acted to do those things to us, we would be launching missiles in an instant. But, in reality, Iran nor any other foreign aggressor has done anything to us – and probably can’t – to rival the loss of freedom and rights we are suffering at the hands of Washington, D.C.

“To a former Republican, the sad irony of these realities is that it is impossible to lay the blame for the destruction of our liberties on one of the two major parties more than the other. They are equally guilty, and equally willing to continue to spend, tax and legislate freedom into oblivion.”


http://www.examiner.com/article/gary-johnson-addresses-freedom-fest-crowd-las-vegas