PDA

View Full Version : Gary Johnson Why not Gary Johnson?




aaroche26
10-09-2012, 04:52 PM
AA

sailingaway
10-09-2012, 05:00 PM
I don't think he's similar.

MelissaWV
10-09-2012, 05:02 PM
Reposted from previous "Why not Gary Johnson?"-style threads:

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



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


By managing marijuana like alcohol and tobacco – regulating, taxing and enforcing its lawful use – America will be better off. The billions saved on marijuana interdiction, along with the billions captured as legal revenue, can be redirected against the individuals committing real crimes against society.
Legislation. Regulation. Taxation. "Billions captured as legal revenue" by the Government. No, that's not quite the same.



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



Unchecked deficits are the single greatest threat to our national security.
No.



Enact the Fair Tax to tax expenditures, rather than income, with a 'prebate' to make spending on basic necessities tax free.
No.



Reduce or eliminate federal involvement in education; let states expand successful reforms such as vouchers and charter schools.
Which? It makes a difference.



The TSA should take a risk-based approach to airport security. Only high-risk individuals should be subjected to invasive pat-downs and full-body scans.
Oh good... so we are going to keep the TSA, pat-downs, and body scanners. They will only be used on "high-risk individuals," though, which will likely be defined by the TSA.



Government should not impose its values upon marriage. It should allow marriage equality, including gay marriage.
No.



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



There should be a two-year grace period for illegal immigrants to attain work visas so they can continue contributing to America and begin taking part in American society openly.
I point this out because he does restrict benefits of certain things to citizens throughout his site. How does this non-citizen and their family who is here on a two-year grace period (boy I bet no one will overstay that)... how do they send their kids to school or anything else to "take part in American society openly"?



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

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

aaroche26
10-09-2012, 05:06 PM
AA

MelissaWV
10-09-2012, 05:07 PM
He's a lot similar than Mitt Romney and President Obama. They differ on some issues, but it's the closest you'll get. The goal is to change the conversation. The drug war, the Fed, the budget and etc. The chance of Ron Paul serving the Gary Johnson administration is possible if Ron Paul is offered the opportunity and says yes.

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

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

Dick Chaney
10-09-2012, 05:26 PM
I'd like to see these anti-johnson people give me 5 reasons why Johnson would be dangerous to this country. For one, I don't want to hear the pro-choice bitching from the social conservatives, he said himself he would slash all federal funding to planned parenthood which would significantly reduce abortions in this country. And I also do not want to hear the "OH HES FOR HUMANITARIAN WARS, HES A WARMONGERER!!!" crap. He specifically said if an ally of ours had a credible threat to their national security (which GJ says the Iran-israel feud is not one of them), then we would possibly have grounds for intervention. Now please tell me why I'm delusional.

MelissaWV
10-09-2012, 05:32 PM
I'd like to see these anti-johnson people give me 5 reasons why Johnson would be dangerous to this country. For one, I don't want to hear the pro-choice bitching from the social conservatives, he said himself he would slash all federal funding to planned parenthood which would significantly reduce the occurrence of abortions in this country. And I also do not want to hear the "OH HES FOR HUMANITARIAN WARS, HES A WARMONGERER!!!" crap. He specifically said if an ally of ours had a credible threat to their national security (which GJ says the Iran-israel feud is not one of them), then we would possibly have grounds for intervention. Now, I'm done, now I'll give you all the floor to tell me why I'm crazy.

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

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

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


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

VIDEODROME
10-09-2012, 05:32 PM
End the Wars. End the IRS.

I can get behind those two things alone.

farreri
10-09-2012, 05:37 PM
It's because unfortunately, there's a lot of "No one but Paul!" people who actually take that literally. There's extremism on all sides.

Dick Chaney
10-09-2012, 05:39 PM
Strangely enough, simply disagreeing with him and refusing to vote for the lesser evil is enough to make one "anti-Johnson."

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

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

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

MelissaWV
10-09-2012, 05:40 PM
I think every politician makes mistakes due to perhaps lack of knowledge and understanding of the event, but I believe that those mistakes can be corrected and compensated for. Take Ron Paul for example, he voted for the Afghanistan War, once he learned of what was really going on, he was the staunchest advocate against it since. I think the same goes for Gary Johnson.

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

aaroche26
10-09-2012, 05:42 PM
AA

Dick Chaney
10-09-2012, 05:44 PM
So you are voting for someone whose Presidential learning curve includes "humanitarian intervention" via a military funded with a flat tax and the tax on marijuana. As long as we're clear about it.

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

MelissaWV
10-09-2012, 05:47 PM
I'm talking about changing the conversation. Vote or no vote for Gary Johnson. Let's get him on national TV for the Presidential debates. This means more coverage from the media towards the issues that count even if it's not 100% the same as Ron Paul. It will give Ron Paul more credibility, which would give him more media coverage to educate people.

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

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

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

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

VIDEODROME
10-09-2012, 05:48 PM
Does it seem like Gary Johnson is a warhawk?

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

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

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

MelissaWV
10-09-2012, 05:50 PM
Does it seem like Gary Johnson is a warhawk?

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

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

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

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

CaseyJones
10-09-2012, 05:53 PM
It's because unfortunately, there's a lot of "No one but Paul!" people who actually take that literally. There's extremism on all sides.
ah yes keeping ones word.... what extremism :rolleyes:

Dick Chaney
10-09-2012, 05:56 PM
Yes, getting another person on the national stage via a debate is going to bring the "issues" front and center. Except that the moderators decide which questions and topics will be covered. Except that the time constraints are largely gone and Gary will get talked over from every angle. Except that, as I mentioned, I'm not sure that Gary's tip-top on a lot of the issues.

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

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

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

MelissaWV
10-09-2012, 06:04 PM
If you vote for nothing you deserve nothing. However if you feel the need to throw the good governor (who has probably the best record of any governor in US history) into your little lesser-of-three evil paradigm, then please, be my guest. I'll be voting for Johnson in 2012 because I don't want to see my children drafted into World War 3.

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

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

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


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1v5WR22s8uc&feature=youtu.be

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

No, not interested, personally.

sailingaway
10-09-2012, 06:14 PM
I'm talking about changing the conversation. Vote or no vote for Gary Johnson. Let's get him on national TV for the Presidential debates. This means more coverage from the media towards the issues that count even if it's not 100% the same as Ron Paul. It will give Ron Paul more credibility, which would give him more media coverage to educate people.

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

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

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

misean
10-09-2012, 06:23 PM
So you are voting for someone whose Presidential learning curve includes "humanitarian intervention" via a military funded with a flat tax and the tax on marijuana. As long as we're clear about it.

He supports a consumption tax called the FAIR tax. I think it makes a lot of sense and it creates the right incentives. A flat tax would be great too. The people who think eliminating taxes anytime in the near future makes sense are braindead.

VIDEODROME
10-09-2012, 06:30 PM
He botched it, or he was pandering, or both. Or he is trying to speak to the NeoCons on ground they can understand and floundering.

I think he is also trying to sell his ideas through a language of Utilitarianism and pure analysis of cost versus benefit.

I think he did better on a later interview with Mancow and finally turned around the argument on the interviewer.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6TRBs4Hg-Vo&feature=related

CPUd
10-09-2012, 06:30 PM
Yes, getting another person on the national stage via a debate is going to bring the "issues" front and center. Except that the moderators decide which questions and topics will be covered. Except that the time constraints are largely gone and Gary will get talked over from every angle. Except that, as I mentioned, I'm not sure that Gary's tip-top on a lot of the issues.

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

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

They have to find new angles to start threads without people going negative on them in the first replies.

Some of the ones who were pushing GJ during the primaries are now thinking now that the RNC is over, they can get some of the organizational talent from the RP grassroots. And they have gotten some, and good for them, but unfortunately what they are not seeing is that many people here are not really focusing on the Presidential race anymore, and have shifted to getting their local candidates into office.

The debate stuff is simply not going to happen, and I wish these people would stop using it as a reason to campaign for GJ. Like you said, it should have been started months ago, but instead of the GJ people hitting the streets where it mattered, they were posting a bunch of misleading stuff on the DP, and generally pissing people off.

VIDEODROME
10-09-2012, 06:33 PM
The debate stuff is simply not going to happen, and I wish these people would stop using it as a reason to campaign for GJ. Like you said, it should have been started months ago,

Well, I was holding out for whatever it was that Ron Paul might accomplish in Tampa. Now that is over and I'm looking for some direction in the presidential race and I've chosen Gary Johnson.

Jumbo Shrimp
10-09-2012, 07:22 PM
Pro-abortion and pro-gay marriage. No thanks.

Cleaner44
10-09-2012, 07:25 PM
Gary Johnson won't win so I find him to be a useful tool for breaking the back of the GOP. I would love to see him get a decent chunk of votes so the GOP will consider embracing libertarian ideas more.

farreri
10-09-2012, 07:46 PM
Pro-abortion and pro-gay marriage. No thanks.
Some people don't like freedom.

farreri
10-09-2012, 07:47 PM
ah yes keeping ones word.... what extremism :rolleyes:
If one's word is extreme, yes.

Jumbo Shrimp
10-09-2012, 08:22 PM
Some people don't like freedom.

Unborn children deserve a chance at life.

FindLiberty
10-09-2012, 08:31 PM
Gary Johnson won't win so I find him to be a useful tool for breaking the back of the GOP. I would love to see him get a decent chunk of votes so the GOP will consider embracing libertarian ideas more.

Yes. But the GOP won't ever actually yield it's power much less pretend to lean a bit towards Liberty, IMO. It's all an illusion debating between two R/D statists. Libertarian thoughts are hardly mentioned if at all, and history shows no session of congress or POTUS race winner has actually reduced existing government size, even by .001% in the past several decades. We only get to name our poison.

sailingaway
10-09-2012, 08:32 PM
Some people don't like freedom.

A lot of people here think life starts at conception. Murder isn't a 'liberty'. If you don't think life starts at conception, you have leeway, if you do, you don't.

fr33
10-09-2012, 09:53 PM
There's a lot of Ron Paul supporters that will probably never vote for president again.

*edit: if you believe what they are saying today, anyways.

sailingaway
10-09-2012, 10:05 PM
There's a lot of Ron Paul supporters that will probably never vote for president again.

*edit: if you believe what they are saying today, anyways.

When I learned about Ron Paul and how he had stayed true to his oath of office, and to representing the people not special interests for his entire career, I was galvanized. If he can do it, they all can. And if we have to grow our own, I still consider that the goal.

fr33
10-09-2012, 10:20 PM
When I learned about Ron Paul and how he had stayed true to his oath of office, and to representing the people not special interests for his entire career, I was galvanized. If he can do it, they all can. And if we have to grow our own, I still consider that the goal.If Ron Paul is your template, you might never vote again. There isn't another Ron Paul serving at this time. Justin Amash is close but still he isn't as strict as Ron Paul.

I didn't even agree with Ron Paul on everything. (His support for Marriage Protection Act and being too strict on immigration)
If I were as strict as some Ron Paul supporters, I wouldn't have supported Ron Paul.

sailingaway
10-10-2012, 01:13 PM
If Ron Paul is your template, you might never vote again. There isn't another Ron Paul serving at this time. Justin Amash is close but still he isn't as strict as Ron Paul.

I didn't even agree with Ron Paul on everything. (His support for Marriage Protection Act and being too strict on immigration)
If I were as strict as some Ron Paul supporters, I wouldn't have supported Ron Paul.

I wouldn't necessarily have come to all the same conclusions Ron did, but his overall principled coherence, consistency and predictability on not just 'platform' but fallbacks made him the best candidate I've ever reviewed. And I would support those close enough to my standard to inspire my support, at whatever level. Better a Congressional candidate who is the real deal, than a presidential candidate who is not anything special, for example. But I think there are a lot like me and we will, over time, grow our own. In a sense this is an incubation period, but people are entering the ring, and more will with time.

jmdrake
10-10-2012, 05:12 PM
Why not Gary Johnson? Because he supports "humanitarian war" (oxymoron if there ever was one) and he's clueless (or dishonest) about the fed.

See: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?392259-Video-Gary-Johnson-We-Own-the-Federal-Reserve

I'm voting Virgil Goode.

http://www.goodeforpresident2012.com/

If Andre Barnett was on the ballot in my state, I'd vote for him.

http://www.andrebarnett2012.com/
http://reformparty.org/candidates/andre-nigel-barnett/

MelissaWV
10-10-2012, 05:31 PM
If Ron Paul is your template, you might never vote again. There isn't another Ron Paul serving at this time. Justin Amash is close but still he isn't as strict as Ron Paul.

I didn't even agree with Ron Paul on everything. (His support for Marriage Protection Act and being too strict on immigration)
If I were as strict as some Ron Paul supporters, I wouldn't have supported Ron Paul.

This is where I think the disconnect is.

People seem to think I'm nitpicking and not voting for Gary, even though I would agree with him on most things. That's not it. Like you said, I don't even agree 100% with Ron, though I am far more confident that he's going to leave me with a way out.

Instead of this:

Ron ... Gary .................................................. .....................Romney/Obama

I see it more like

Ron .................................................. ..........Gary................Romney/Obama

Gary is still better than Romney or Obama in several ways to me, but he's not that close to Ron, and I disagree with Gary Johnson on the big issues that are important to me in choosing who to vote for. So I'm not voting for him.

VIDEODROME
10-10-2012, 05:46 PM
I'd still like to think Ron Paul would be in a Johnson Cabinet easily. Ron Paul as Secretary of State or Treasury or even appointed to replace Bernanke would be nice.

iamse7en
10-10-2012, 06:34 PM
Okay with humanitarian, non-defense wars for the military-industrial complex. But the biggest reason for me is his marital affair. My vote is important to me, and I make the decision based on principle. There is a lot to like about Gary Johnson, but marital infidelity is a deal-breaker for me. And I do realize this invalidates 90% of politicians. So be it. I also don't think he properly represents conservative, family values like Ron does.

Icymudpuppy
10-10-2012, 08:38 PM
It's kind of like people who are going to vote against I-502 in WA because it doesn't make Marijuana 100% uncontrolled, or vote against medical marijuana. They would rather we have the drug war going full speed ahead than compromise on an improvement over current conditions. Seriously folks, GJ may not be perfect, but he's not evil and he's not owned like Obamney. He would not go to war without a congressional declaration. It's not the president's job to determine why to go to war anyway. That is congress' responsibility.

fr33
10-10-2012, 10:06 PM
This is where I think the disconnect is.

People seem to think I'm nitpicking and not voting for Gary, even though I would agree with him on most things. That's not it. Like you said, I don't even agree 100% with Ron, though I am far more confident that he's going to leave me with a way out.

Instead of this:

Ron ... Gary .................................................. .....................Romney/Obama

I see it more like

Ron .................................................. ..........Gary................Romney/Obama

Gary is still better than Romney or Obama in several ways to me, but he's not that close to Ron, and I disagree with Gary Johnson on the big issues that are important to me in choosing who to vote for. So I'm not voting for him.I don't disagree with you on that.

But I also realize what the general public perception will be towards the voting results for Johnson and the results for no-name write-ins. The Johnson votes will be reported and will mostly be thought of as Ron Paul supporters. The no-name write-ins will only be discussed amongst ourselves here. If any media talks about those no-confidence votes, they'll be sure to mention that "every election Mickey Mouse receives votes" etc like they always do. I want to send a message with my vote because that's all I can do.

MozoVote
10-10-2012, 10:13 PM
Johnson finally won his case to remain on the Pennsylvania ballot

http://paindependent.com/2012/10/libertarian-johnson-secures-place-on-ballot/