PDA

View Full Version : Why didn't we get behind Gary Johnson?




RandRevolution
02-04-2013, 02:20 AM
I remember lurking the opposing candidates forum during the general election and it was basically people constantly shitting on Gary Johnson. To not support Gary, someone who agrees with you on 99% of the issues, because of minor imperfection is pretty ridiculous but the fact that people were actually hostile towards someone who should be considered a hero is just disgusting. Not once did I actually see someone post any of his policies and I read nearly every GJ thread.

He supports

- Cut 1.4 trillion year one and balance the budget immediately
- Repeal the PATRIOT ACT, NDAA, Domestic drones
- Extremely pro 2nd-amendment
- Due process for both US citizens and foreigners
- Leave Afghanistan and Iraq immediately, end many military bases, don't go to war with Iran or Syria

That alone should be enough to earn our support and that's just the tip of the iceburg.

- Abolish the department of education, transporation and commerce, maybe another one I'm not sure
- Legalize marijuana and decriminalize other drugs
- Audit the federal reserve
- Opposed to going into Libya
- Opposed to the drone strikes
- Opposed to all bailouts, corporate welfare, cap and trade, card check
- Eliminate government support of Fannie and Freddie
-

And most importantly he has honest convictions. When the patriot act happened he wasn't speaking out in support of it, when Iraq was happening he was speaking out against it, same with drug policy, bailouts, having free market education and health care, 2nd amendmant etc

Is he as good as Ron Paul? No. Is he perfect? No. But if you refuse to vote for and act hostile towards anyone who isn't a 100% perfect libertarian then the movement will go nowhere.

The reasons I saw for why people weren't voting for Johnson were usually

- He built a few private prisons as governor. Yes this sucks, but was it him being in bed with the private prisons or an honest mistake? Obviously the latter, the private prisons are scared to death of his drug policy.
- He supports legitimate humanitarian warfare (not like Libya or Syria) through the congress with a declaration. I don't agree with it but it's a minor issue and still constitutional.
- He only wants to legalize weed and decriminalize other drugs. I agree all drugs should be legal, but shouldn't this be viewed as a huge step forward and a reason to support someone?
- He wanted a federal legalization of weed. Shouldn't this be viewed as a gigantic step forward instead of a reason to oppose him?
- He believes taxation isn't theft. Good luck getting anywhere if you refuse to vote for anyone who believes this.
- He's pro choice. Good job letting one of the biggest issues the establishment uses to create the illusion between republicans and democrats determine your vote, especially when it will never become legal due to it being highly profitable and the public becoming more and more in favor of it.

It's sad because the movement had huge momentum coming off the Ron Paul campaign, and what do they choose to do? Support the marketable 2-term governor who agrees with them on 99% of the issues? No, clutch at straws that Ron Paul will somehow still win the republican nomination despite not winning a contest, even after Ron openly said they didn't have enough and Rand went on endorsed Romney. Whatever, you would think after Romney officially wins the nomination the movement would start backing Gary Johnson? No, then it becomes all about how you can write in Ron Paul for president, someone who isn't running and is remaining intentionally silent for the entire general election, despite the fact that write ins won't count in many states and we won't know how many write ins he got until long after the election was over.

And worst of all is that Ron Paul absolutely would have endorsed Gary this election if it weren't for Rand 2016. He endorsed 3 left wing lunatics because they agreed with him on Iraq, Afghanistan, Drug war and the federal reserve. Then he went onto endorse Baldwin who I'm sure wasn't perfect either.

So yeah, this is the Achilles heel of the liberty movement and it's sad that all the momentum from the 2012 campaign was wasted due to people in the movement being perfectionists.

FrankRep
02-04-2013, 02:37 AM
No chance in hell of winning?


Gary Johnson Pulls One Million Votes, One Percent (http://reason.com/blog/2012/11/07/gary-johnson-pulls-one-million-votes-one)

Reason.com
Nov. 7, 2012

RandRevolution
02-04-2013, 02:41 AM
No chance in hell of winning?


Gary Johnson Pulls One Million Votes, One Percent (http://reason.com/blog/2012/11/07/gary-johnson-pulls-one-million-votes-one)

Reason.com
Nov. 7, 2012

isn't that the same kind of self fulfilling prophecy they used against Ron that we hated? Didn't it irritate you when people said they liked Ron Paul but weren't voting for him because he's unelectable? Obviously if we act hostile towards GJ, ignore him and don't vote for him he has no chance of winning.

It wasn't even about winning though, just about making a strong showing in the general election and keeping the momentum up. Unfortunately people either gave up, focused on getting Ron Paul the nomination after he admitted he didn't have enough delegates to win and then trying to write him in for no apparent reason. Or they focused on getting 1-2 liberty people into the congress, somehow Art Robinson who obviously had no chance of winning got his own forum but GJ didn't. At the very least he should have gotten our votes if not our support and money.

FrankRep
02-04-2013, 02:56 AM
isn't that the same kind of self fulfilling prophecy they used against Ron that we hated?

Ron Paul supports common sense. Libertarians don't win elections. Republicans and Democrats do.

Ron Paul ran as a Republican.


Listen to this excellent advice.


http://www.thenewamerican.com/images/stories/History/larrymcdonald.001.jpg (http://www.thenewamerican.com/culture/history/item/4684-kal-flight-007-remembered)
Ron Paul: "[Larry McDonald] was the most principled man in Congress."
- The Philadelphia Inquirer


Ron Paul on Congressman Larry McDonald (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_McDonald), the President of the John Birch Society (http://www.jbs.org/).



Ron Paul went to Congressman Larry McDonald, a Democrat, for advice on running for Congress. McDonald said, "Run in the party you think you can WIN because political parties are irrelevant." This made Ron Paul become a Republican.


Ron Paul explains:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lQQ--ju7Vxk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lQQ--ju7Vxk

RickyJ
02-04-2013, 04:22 AM
Because Johnson was not a true liberty candidate. The Liberty party is going to become even more irrelevant than they already are if they keep nominating people like Bob Barr and Gary Johnson for the presidency.

RandRevolution
02-04-2013, 04:27 AM
Because Johnson was not a true liberty candidate. The Liberty party is going to become even more irrelevant than they already are if they keep nominating people like Bob Barr and Gary Johnson for the presidency.

And why isn't he a true liberty candidate, because he isn't as perfect as Ron Paul? Doesn't going around the country speaking out about fiscal conservatism and the need to balance the budget, civil liberties, the benefits of free market health care and education, non-interventionist foreign policy, ending the war on drugs, stopping forms of corporatism like bailouts and corporate welfare and the 2nd amendment make him a liberty candidate?

You can't even compare Johnson to Barr, they are completely different in policy.

compromise
02-04-2013, 05:29 AM
Gary Johnson was too liberal on issues like secularism, abortion and gay marriage for a lot of conservatives that supported Ron Paul.
Also, as he was a Libertarian, he had no chance of winning.

As a result, a lot of people wrote in Ron Paul, didn't vote at all, voted for Goode, some even voted for Romney.

But really, why does it matter? The election was 4 months ago. We need to look at the future rather than dwelling over the past.

acptulsa
02-04-2013, 06:12 AM
'We' didn't get behind Johnson? Who says 'we' didn't get behind Johnson?

Who, exactly, is 'we'? You have a mouse in your pocket?

XTreat
02-04-2013, 06:33 AM
Because Johnson was not a true liberty candidate. The Liberty party is going to become even more irrelevant than they already are if they keep nominating people like Bob Barr and Gary Johnson for the presidency.


I wrote in Ron Paul, but not because I really had a problem with GJ. I would argue that GJ is at least as much a liberty candidate as Rand is, whom I also support. Not beause they are as pure or as principled as Ron, but because they are a very large step in the right direction.

Fukthenannystate
02-04-2013, 06:53 AM
I voted Gary Johnson.. I wouldn't have been able to sleep at night if I voted Obama or Romney.

ILUVRP
02-04-2013, 07:02 AM
I voted Gary Johnson.. I wouldn't have been able to sleep at night if I voted Obama or Romney.

me 2

Zarn Solen
02-04-2013, 07:11 AM
I wrote in Paul, because Johnson favors abortion. Johnson will never have my vote. How can anyone oppose these wars, but turn around and favor abortion?

There are some areas where there is a must for me. My guy or gal has to be pro-life, a constitutionalist, and favor liberty.

Lightweis
02-04-2013, 07:38 AM
How can Gary Johnson be a liberty candidate when he supports the murder of a million americans a year?

MikeStanart
02-04-2013, 07:43 AM
Why? Because I don't want to encourage the LP by giving them Presidential votes. As far as Liberty is concerned, the battle was over after the primary concluded.

erowe1
02-04-2013, 08:08 AM
I'm confused by the OP. It looks like it was written by someone who did support Johnson. But if so, then why say "we" didn't? Whoever wanted to did.

KingNothing
02-04-2013, 08:13 AM
Because Johnson was not a true liberty candidate. The Liberty party is going to become even more irrelevant than they already are if they keep nominating people like Bob Barr and Gary Johnson for the presidency.

Wow. Lumping Gary Johnson and Bob Barr into the same group? Really?

CT4Liberty
02-04-2013, 08:21 AM
In the spirit of liberty, people should always vote your conscience... if you feel the best candidate was GJ, by all means...vote GJ. I personally thought Ron Paul was the best candidate and I wrote him in.

All of this is meaningless without a large number of people voting for who they think is the best, not who a party tells them is the best. Obama + Romney got 98% of the vote. What we needed, wasnt 1 candidate to get 10-15% of the vote, but for any non-republican/democrat vote to equal that 10-15%. That would have sent shockwaves through both parties. They couldnt give a rats ass about 2% of the vote going elsewhere, thats a margin of error. So whether you voted GJ or Paul or Stewart Alexander, from the Socialist Party...really made no difference as long as you voted.

Dogsoldier
02-04-2013, 08:31 AM
I voted libertarian and I will do it again (Cause I am a libertarian just like Ron Paul) if the Reps nominate another status quo candidate. The Reps had better learn from this last election and get on our side or they will never win another election.

JoshLowry
02-04-2013, 08:41 AM
Because details.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?306055-Daniel-Hannan-British-MEP-on-Gary-Johnson&p=3433011&viewfull=1#post3433011

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?270064-Gary-Johnson-on-non-interventionism

Bastiat's The Law
02-04-2013, 09:03 AM
If you want to be taken seriously run in the GOP like Ron Paul.

sailingaway
02-04-2013, 09:03 AM
He is mushy, and seems to have no core principles beyond 'fiscal conservatism', that I was able to reason from. He has a cost benefit analysis for everything which is sort of 'as much as the other side will let me get away with without screaming too much' which of necessity always drops the crucial issues if the establishment screams too much. He doesn't seem to have an interest in sovereignty, which as government becomes more and more 'international' and removed from the dictates of individual citizens is a bad posture to have as president, imho. He was for NAFTA for example, then when running for president after it was unpopular partially retracted that, etc. Clearly, he is not a strict Constitutionalist. He believes in 'compassionate war' (not the right term, but going places with rich tactical or natural resources, where governments are also doing bad things to their people and bombing them to Kingdom Come to point out that killing people is bad.)

erowe1
02-04-2013, 09:06 AM
He is mushy, and seems to have no core principles beyond 'fiscal conservatism', that I was able to reason from.

I might have been more supportive of him if I really thought he cared a lot about fiscal conservatism. But it seemed to me like all he ever wanted to talk about was how great abortion and gay marriage are.

jasonxe
02-04-2013, 09:22 AM
B/c you can only vote for one person.

RandRevolution
02-04-2013, 09:23 AM
Because details.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?306055-Daniel-Hannan-British-MEP-on-Gary-Johnson&p=3433011&viewfull=1#post3433011

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?270064-Gary-Johnson-on-non-interventionism

More like because nitpicking a very vague remark from 2 years ago and using it as a reason not to vote against him despite him agreeing with you on 99% of the issues including the most important pressing ones.

schiffheadbaby
02-04-2013, 09:28 AM
I don't think Gary understand the insidious nature of the Federal Reserve system.

erowe1
02-04-2013, 09:28 AM
More like because nitpicking a very vague remark from 2 years ago and using it as a reason not to vote against him despite him agreeing with you on 99% of the issues including the most important pressing ones.

This ship has sailed. What's there to debate?

I took a different approach. I didn't vote. I'm still proud of that decision. I tried to persuade others to join me in that with posts here and in a letter to the editor in my local paper. But obviously a lot of people disagreed with me (although far more Americans voted for nobody than anybody). It's no skin off my back.

RandRevolution
02-04-2013, 09:36 AM
He is mushy, and seems to have no core principles beyond 'fiscal conservatism', that I was able to reason from. He has a cost benefit analysis for everything which is sort of 'as much as the other side will let me get away with without screaming too much' which of necessity always drops the crucial issues if the establishment screams too much. He doesn't seem to have an interest in sovereignty, which as government becomes more and more 'international' and removed from the dictates of individual citizens is a bad posture to have as president, imho. He was for NAFTA for example, then when running for president after it was unpopular partially retracted that, etc. Clearly, he is not a strict Constitutionalist. He believes in 'compassionate war' (not the right term, but going places with rich tactical or natural resources, where governments are also doing bad things to their people and bombing them to Kingdom Come to point out that killing people is bad.)

This is another thing I saw, people criticizing him for a cost-benefit analysis. Why is that a bad thing, it's just common sense, something you do before evaluating any situation that will always end up siding with liberty.

I don't agree with him on humanitarian wars, but that's major nitpicking and there is a distinct difference between GJ style humanitarian war and your typical humanitarian war. He would be doing it through the congress with a declaration for genuine humanitarian reasons, not to overthrow a government a few people at the top of the food chain don't like, like in Libya or Syria which he opposed.

I don't know how you can say he doesn't have core principles beyond fiscal conservatism because he has always shown to have strong core principles on free market education and health care, civil liberties, 2nd amendment and drug policy and to a lesser extent foreign policy and I say that because he didn't talk much about that compared to the other issues as governor as it was a national issue but he was against Iraq from the start, against Afghanistan, Iran, Syria, Libya, drone strikes and wants war through the congress with a declaration so I really can't understand how you can have beef with his foreign policy unless you're nitpicking, he is better than 99.999999% of all US politicians in that area.

He isn't as strict a constitutionalist or as principled as Ron, but he's still very constitutional and principled especially compared to every other politician. This is the problem - people act hostile towards someone who goes around the country speaking for the cause of liberty because he isn't as perfect as Ron.

Gary Johnson should be considered a hero by the movement and it's really sad that he not only isn't considered a hero but gets shit on by people here and called things like "Scary Johnson" and is met with a complete lack of enthusiasm. The guy is rich - he didn't have to run for governor twice or form the Our America Initiative in 2009 and travel across 30 states, speaking at over 150 events about the ideas of the liberty movement or go all across the country campaigning for the ideas of the liberty movement when he ran for president in 2012 but he did it because he cares about the exact same things we care about.

RandRevolution
02-04-2013, 09:37 AM
This ship has sailed. What's there to debate?

I took a different approach. I didn't vote. I'm still proud of that decision. I tried to persuade others to join me in that with posts here and in a letter to the editor in my local paper. But obviously a lot of people disagreed with me (although far more Americans voted for nobody than anybody). It's no skin off my back.

It's just having a discussion about this like any other topic on this forum. Why didn't you vote when there was someone on the ballot who agreed with you on almost everything?

erowe1
02-04-2013, 09:39 AM
Gary Johnson should be considered a hero by the movement

He was. He even spoke at the Rally for the Republic. People here actively tried to draft him to run for a US Senate seat that he would have had a good chance of winning.

He pursued other plans.

RandRevolution
02-04-2013, 09:39 AM
I don't think Gary understand the insidious nature of the Federal Reserve system.

Well considering he wanted to audit it and later released ads calling for ending the federal reserve, that's something that deserves praise, not criticism for not being as good as Ron Paul on the issue of the federal reserve.

RandRevolution
02-04-2013, 09:42 AM
He was. He even spoke at the Rally for the Republic. People here actively tried to draft him to run for a US Senate seat that he would have had a good chance of winning.

He pursued other plans.

And yet he's still done 10000 times more for the cause of liberty than anyone here. He doesn't owe it to us to run for a senate seat, he doesn't owe it to us to do any of the stuff he's already done, people should be grateful for what he's done instead of hostile and unappreciative.

I mean this is really not so much about Johnson, it's about a fundamental problem with the movement - people being too perfectionist and refusing to vote for anything less than the spitting image of Ron Paul. It's hurt the movement already and it will hurt it even more if people continue to think that way.

erowe1
02-04-2013, 09:42 AM
It's just having a discussion about this like any other topic on this forum. Why didn't you vote when there was someone on the ballot who agreed with you on almost everything?

I did a cost-benefit analysis.

erowe1
02-04-2013, 09:44 AM
it's about a fundamental problem with the movement - people being too perfectionist and refusing to vote for anything less than the spitting image of Ron Paul. It's hurt the movement already and it will hurt it even more if people continue to think that way.

I agree that that problem exists. But I don't see how that has anything to do with voting for the LP.

RandRevolution
02-04-2013, 09:44 AM
I did a cost-benefit analysis.

Cost

- One less vote for someone who agrees with me on almost everything
- Higher percentage of the vote going to an establishment candidate

Benefit

???

Even a write in for Ron Paul makes more sense than not voting.

RandRevolution
02-04-2013, 09:45 AM
I agree that that problem exists. But I don't see how that has anything to do with voting for the LP.

Because people refused to vote LP in the general election because their nominee wasn't as perfect as Ron Paul.

erowe1
02-04-2013, 09:46 AM
Even a write in for Ron Paul makes more sense than not voting.

I don't see how.

Cost: something
Benefit: nothing

erowe1
02-04-2013, 09:47 AM
Because people refused to vote LP in the general election because their nominee wasn't as perfect as Ron Paul.

Maybe some did. But it didn't make any difference in anything.

RandRevolution
02-04-2013, 09:47 AM
I don't see how.

Cost: something
Benefit: nothing

How does voting GJ or Ron Paul cost the movement? And saying there is no benefit to it is saying voting is pointless which defeat the entire purpose of the grassroots in the first place.

erowe1
02-04-2013, 09:51 AM
How does voting GJ or Ron Paul cost the movement?

It's not the movement that votes. It's individuals. The cost of voting is something, such as time, and the risk of getting hit by a car on the way to the polling place. The benefit is nothing.

If you want to talk about affecting the percentages of the election but not the outcome, then the most important percentage we should help is the percentage of people who voted for nobody.

erowe1
02-04-2013, 09:52 AM
And since you mentioned writing in Ron Paul, what's the difference between doing that and voting third party?

RandRevolution
02-04-2013, 09:55 AM
Because Gary Johnson was actually running for president and wasn't remaining intentionally silent like Ron Paul was for the entire general election. Many states don't count write ins and we wouldn't know how many people wrote in a candidate until a while after the general election when it's irrelevant. Did we ever find out how many people wrote in Ron Paul in 2012?

JoshLowry
02-04-2013, 09:55 AM
More like because nitpicking a very vague remark from 2 years ago and using it as a reason not to vote against him despite him agreeing with you on 99% of the issues including the most important pressing ones.

You could respect the fact that some of us have paid closer attention to this than you. You're not sure two years later about what went on so disregarding it as "nitpicking" is a mistake.

There are many more details than the two links I shared. There were enough dots at the time to make a decision on my end that I decided I wouldn't support him.

However, if keeping Guantanamo open, and voicing support of pre-emptive war don't turn you off, well, you're a different political animal.

erowe1
02-04-2013, 09:56 AM
Because Gary Johnson was actually running for president and wasn't remaining intentionally silent like Ron Paul was for the entire general election. Many states don't count write ins and we wouldn't know how many people wrote in a candidate until a while after the general election when it's irrelevant. Did we ever find out how many people wrote in Ron Paul in 2012?

So what? I don't see how any of that has to do with anything. Either gesture was purely symbolic.

When our actions actually mattered, which was the Republican primaries, we acted.

Beyond that if somebody decided that they wanted to support liberty by holding their own general election in their basement, writing "liberty" on a piece of paper, and declaring that liberty won the election 1-0, then that person would have done just as much as anyone who went all the way to a polling place to do essentially the same thing, at less cost.

nobody's_hero
02-04-2013, 09:57 AM
Ron Paul supports common sense. Libertarians don't win elections. Republicans and Democrats do.


Maybe you didn't notice but Ron Paul didn't win either.

erowe1
02-04-2013, 10:00 AM
Maybe you didn't notice but Ron Paul didn't win either.

He was definitely in the hunt in Iowa.

kahless
02-04-2013, 10:05 AM
I could not compromise my values again by voting for any LP candidate for the purpose of the future of the LP party. I did that in 08 for the LP, voting for Barr after Ron lost the Republican primary and feel disgusted about it.

I liked Johnson but like allot of other people the abortion issue was a show stopper. So I ended up writing in Ron Paul as a protest vote which amounts to a "scatter" vote where I live.

fr33
02-04-2013, 10:15 AM
I gave him the support I felt he earned which was my vote and few suggestions that others do the same. This was only because he was the best one on the ballot.

RandRevolution
02-04-2013, 10:17 AM
You could respect the fact that some of us have paid closer attention to this than you. You're not sure two years later about what went on so disregarding it as "nitpicking" is a mistake.

There are many more details than the two links I shared. There were enough dots at the time to make a decision on my end that I decided I wouldn't support him.

However, if keeping Guantanamo open, and voicing support of pre-emptive war don't turn you off, well, you're a different political animal.

He just said that he isn't completely non-interventionist like Ron Paul is, that doesn't mean he supports preemptive war, you're getting a lot out of one vague sentence. After all he did oppose war with Iran. And he supports due process for non US citizens so his position on Guantanamo should be irrelevant,.

Why don't we do a cost benefit analysis on why you should support him?

Benefit
Cut 1.4 trillion year one
Repeal NDAA, PATRIOT act, domestic drones
Due process
Abolish department of education, transportation and commerce
Repeal Obama care
Extremely pro 2nd amendment
Anti-bailout and corporate welfare
Audit the federal reserve
Legalize marijuana and decriminalize other drugs
No war with Iran, Syria or Libya
Against drone strikes
War done through congress with a declaration
End many foreign military bases

Cost - if you can call it that since these are all things supported by every other politician not named Ron Paul, it wouldn't be a step backward at all
Supports real humanitarian war through the congress with a declaration
Said he wouldn't end all military bases or end all foreign aid

So a Gary Johnson presidency would be a colossal step forward for America and not one policy would be a step backwards. Your reasoning is that because it's only a massive step forward in most areas, not every single area, he is a bad candidate.

AgentforPathfinder
02-04-2013, 10:18 AM
This is what I was trying to explain earlier. If Goldman Sachs is going to give money to Republicans and Democrats, then we need to play both sides as well. In the Republican primaries, we'll have a Libertarian. In the Democrat primaries, we'll have a Libertarian. We'll campaign for both of them. If they fail, then we have a third party. Each needs effort. Eggs cannot be placed in one basket.

Aeroneous
02-04-2013, 10:20 AM
No chance in hell of winning?

This was undoubtedly true, but there was more to it. Ron Paul didn't have a chance in hell of winning once the RNC was over, but plenty of people wrote him in on principle. If we ask our candidates to vote and advocate on principle, I think we should do the same.

erowe1
02-04-2013, 10:25 AM
So a Gary Johnson presidency would be a colossal step forward for America and not one policy would be a step backwards

I don't see what that has to do with anything. The only possible outcomes of the general election were an Obama presidency or a Romney presidency. Voting for Johnson could not have produced a single one of the benefits you listed.

What you're asking people is why they chose to make a different symbolic gesture than you did.

NorfolkPCSolutions
02-04-2013, 10:34 AM
...because herding cats is a cast-iron bitch. That, of course, and the fact that GJ, while a viable candidate in many ways, had a few central faults, among them and most glaringly, he

WASN'T RON PAUL

and that would be the primary​ answer to your question.

JoshLowry
02-04-2013, 10:35 AM
He just said that he isn't completely non-interventionist like Ron Paul is, that doesn't mean he supports preemptive war, you're getting a lot out of one vague sentence. After all he did oppose war with Iran. And he supports due process for non US citizens so his position on Guantanamo should be irrelevant,.

Why don't we do a cost benefit analysis on why you should support him?

Benefit
Cut 1.4 trillion year one
Repeal NDAA, PATRIOT act, domestic drones
Due process
Abolish department of education, transportation and commerce
Repeal Obama care
Extremely pro 2nd amendment
Anti-bailout and corporate welfare
Audit the federal reserve
Legalize marijuana and decriminalize other drugs
No war with Iran, Syria or Libya
Against drone strikes
War done through congress with a declaration
End many foreign military bases

Cost - if you can call it that since these are all things supported by every other politician not named Ron Paul, it wouldn't be a step backward at all
Supports real humanitarian war through the congress with a declaration
Said he wouldn't end all military bases or end all foreign aid

So a Gary Johnson presidency would be a colossal step forward for America and not one policy would be a step backwards. Your reasoning is that because it's only a massive step forward in most areas, not every single area, he is a bad candidate.

I did not trust Johnson for a number of reasons. You're sticking with two points I brought up.

I also felt Johnson was trying to split Ron's support with email blasts showing Ron at 3%.

As I said, there were many details. I didn't list them all because that campaign is over. It probably wouldn't help as you appear to just want to harp about how he will perform perfectly if elected while disregarding damaging statements.

RandRevolution
02-04-2013, 10:39 AM
I did not trust Johnson for a number of reasons. You're sticking with two points I brought up.

I also felt Johnson was trying to split Ron's support with email blasts showing Ron at 3%.

As I said, there were many details. I didn't list them all because that campaign is over. It probably wouldn't help as you appear to just want to harp about how he will perform perfectly if elected while disregarding damaging statements.


And what reason would you have to not trust him on any of those issues considering he's been consistent on them for his entire political career and has taken so much time out of his life to go around the country promoting those ideas even when not running for office? It's not like he has anything to gain from lying about those things, there isn't a special interest group profiting off those views that is paying him.

I don't doubt that he did that because he was running against Ron Paul, I didn't really understand his whole strategy there as it obviously wouldn't work and it's not like it hurt him since he dropped out before Iowa and told supporters to vote Paul who they were all going to vote for anyway. Nitpicking.

RandRevolution
02-04-2013, 10:40 AM
I don't see what that has to do with anything. The only possible outcomes of the general election were an Obama presidency or a Romney presidency. Voting for Johnson could not have produced a single one of the benefits you listed.

What you're asking people is why they chose to make a different symbolic gesture than you did.

GJ having a strong showing would help promote the ideas of liberty his campaign was based on. Just like how the RP campaign did that despite not winning.

JoshLowry
02-04-2013, 10:42 AM
I don't doubt that he did that because he was running against Ron Paul, I didn't really understand his whole strategy there as it obviously wouldn't work and it's not like it hurt him since he dropped out before Iowa and told supporters to vote Paul who they were all going to vote for anyway. Nitpicking.

I'll hold the line. Call it whatever you want. Johnson was a wedge imo.

It's still to be determined if I may end up with egg on my face with Rand. That's enough risk for me.

The Free Hornet
02-04-2013, 10:44 AM
Gary Johnson was too liberal on issues like secularism, abortion and gay marriage for a lot of conservatives that supported Ron Paul.
Also, as he was a Libertarian, he had no chance of winning.

As a result, a lot of people wrote in Ron Paul, didn't vote at all, voted for Goode, some even voted for Romney.

But really, why does it matter? The election was 4 months ago. We need to look at the future rather than dwelling over the past.

Why does it matter? Because people use "issues like secularism, abortion and gay marriage" to drive a wedge between opponents of government. Stop falling for it and stop reinforcing it!

Gary Johnson did more to stop abortion (not that I agree/disagree with NM's law, not having studied it) than damn near every so-called prolife picketer combined the vast bulk of which want NO penalties for abortion mothers much beyond praying for their souls or something. You're letting near meaningless labels cloud your thinking (including "libertarian").

If you use "no chance of winning" as the criteria, rest assured, you'll never get that chance so just give up now and save internet bandwidth for someone who doesn't quit so easily.

Confederate
02-04-2013, 10:44 AM
Gary Johnson:


Supports the murder of the unborn (Ron is better but also isn't truly 100% pro-life)
Wants to nationalize homosexual 'marriage'
Supports 'humanitarian wars'
Seems to have no understanding at all of the Fed
Comes across as dopey and uninteligent
Ran as as the LP candidate (validates the aforementioned point)

jmdrake
02-04-2013, 10:45 AM
He doesn't understand non-interventionist foreign policy. Sure he wouldn't send troops to Libya, but he would send them to Uganda to fight some washed up warlord that hasn't been seen in years.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-1ktig7Pwg

Compare with:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7DO73Ese25Y




I remember lurking the opposing candidates forum during the general election and it was basically people constantly shitting on Gary Johnson. To not support Gary, someone who agrees with you on 99% of the issues, because of minor imperfection is pretty ridiculous but the fact that people were actually hostile towards someone who should be considered a hero is just disgusting. Not once did I actually see someone post any of his policies and I read nearly every GJ thread.

He supports

- Cut 1.4 trillion year one and balance the budget immediately
- Repeal the PATRIOT ACT, NDAA, Domestic drones
- Extremely pro 2nd-amendment
- Due process for both US citizens and foreigners
- Leave Afghanistan and Iraq immediately, end many military bases, don't go to war with Iran or Syria

That alone should be enough to earn our support and that's just the tip of the iceburg.

- Abolish the department of education, transporation and commerce, maybe another one I'm not sure
- Legalize marijuana and decriminalize other drugs
- Audit the federal reserve
- Opposed to going into Libya
- Opposed to the drone strikes
- Opposed to all bailouts, corporate welfare, cap and trade, card check
- Eliminate government support of Fannie and Freddie
-

And most importantly he has honest convictions. When the patriot act happened he wasn't speaking out in support of it, when Iraq was happening he was speaking out against it, same with drug policy, bailouts, having free market education and health care, 2nd amendmant etc

Is he as good as Ron Paul? No. Is he perfect? No. But if you refuse to vote for and act hostile towards anyone who isn't a 100% perfect libertarian then the movement will go nowhere.

The reasons I saw for why people weren't voting for Johnson were usually

- He built a few private prisons as governor. Yes this sucks, but was it him being in bed with the private prisons or an honest mistake? Obviously the latter, the private prisons are scared to death of his drug policy.
- He supports legitimate humanitarian warfare (not like Libya or Syria) through the congress with a declaration. I don't agree with it but it's a minor issue and still constitutional.
- He only wants to legalize weed and decriminalize other drugs. I agree all drugs should be legal, but shouldn't this be viewed as a huge step forward and a reason to support someone?
- He wanted a federal legalization of weed. Shouldn't this be viewed as a gigantic step forward instead of a reason to oppose him?
- He believes taxation isn't theft. Good luck getting anywhere if you refuse to vote for anyone who believes this.
- He's pro choice. Good job letting one of the biggest issues the establishment uses to create the illusion between republicans and democrats determine your vote, especially when it will never become legal due to it being highly profitable and the public becoming more and more in favor of it.

It's sad because the movement had huge momentum coming off the Ron Paul campaign, and what do they choose to do? Support the marketable 2-term governor who agrees with them on 99% of the issues? No, clutch at straws that Ron Paul will somehow still win the republican nomination despite not winning a contest, even after Ron openly said they didn't have enough and Rand went on endorsed Romney. Whatever, you would think after Romney officially wins the nomination the movement would start backing Gary Johnson? No, then it becomes all about how you can write in Ron Paul for president, someone who isn't running and is remaining intentionally silent for the entire general election, despite the fact that write ins won't count in many states and we won't know how many write ins he got until long after the election was over.

And worst of all is that Ron Paul absolutely would have endorsed Gary this election if it weren't for Rand 2016. He endorsed 3 left wing lunatics because they agreed with him on Iraq, Afghanistan, Drug war and the federal reserve. Then he went onto endorse Baldwin who I'm sure wasn't perfect either.

So yeah, this is the Achilles heel of the liberty movement and it's sad that all the momentum from the 2012 campaign was wasted due to people in the movement being perfectionists.

RonPaulFanInGA
02-04-2013, 10:46 AM
Can't believe the Gary cheerleaders are still going on about this.

Feeding the Abscess
02-04-2013, 10:47 AM
Almost all of the problems I have with Rand Paul apply to Gary Johnson.

JoshLowry
02-04-2013, 10:48 AM
Gary Johnson:


Supports the murder of the unborn (Ron is better but also isn't truly 100% pro-life)
Wants to nationalize homosexual 'marriage'
Supports 'humanitarian wars'
Seems to have no understanding at all of the Fed
Comes across as dopey and uninteligent
Ran as as the LP candidate (validates the aforementioned point)



What's wrong with homosexual marriage? Leave people alone you dickbag.

Any more shitty posts like that and I'm axeing your stupid confederate account with your shit avatar.

(no ****)

The Free Hornet
02-04-2013, 10:51 AM
I wrote in Paul, because Johnson favors abortion. Johnson will never have my vote. How can anyone oppose these wars, but turn around and favor abortion?

GJ doesn't "favor" abortion. He signed a law outlawing 3rd trimester abortions in New Mexico.

And how can you even PRETEND to be a liberty lover or constitutionalist and maintain the illusion that if you don't try to criminalize something, you "favor" it. That is ass-backwards thinking and 100% contrary to any liberty philosophy. Telling us we favor anything we don't outlaw...


“ Well I support a woman’s right to choose up until viability of the fetus, as governor of New Mexico, I have signed a bill banning late term abortion [how many of those bills have the liars on this thread signed?], I’ve always favored parental notification, I’ve always favored counseling and I’ve always favored the notion that public funds should not be used for abortion. So running for Governor of New Mexico in a state that was 2:1 Democrat, I really didn’t get that vote in the primary, but I’d like to think that I got all of those votes in the general election and that’s a reality here also, for those individuals that hold that as their number one issue, I’m not going to get that vote, I would hope to get that vote if I were to move on to the general election.”
May 5, 2011 Fox News Republican Presidential Debate, Greenville, South Carolina

http://2012.presidential-candidates.org/Abortion.php

I see no source that he "favors" abortion. How come liars don't bother to use hyperlinks to a source? Just make a page out their with your lies, and link to it!

Confederate
02-04-2013, 10:51 AM
What's wrong with homosexual marriage? Leave people alone you dickbag.

Any more shitty posts like that and I'm axeing your stupid confederate account with your shit avatar.

(no ****)

I'm against nationalizing it (or any government recognition of it, for that matter). Ron Paul is as well...

JoshLowry
02-04-2013, 10:56 AM
Yea, ok.

sailingaway
02-04-2013, 11:04 AM
Can't believe the Gary cheerleaders are still going on about this.

Gary plans to run again. But it is interesting, given the OP's username.

Not sure why it is in this subforum.

RonPaulFanInGA
02-04-2013, 11:05 AM
Any more shitty posts like that and I'm axeing your stupid confederate account with your shit avatar.

Are you saying real Americans don't defend Israel?

asurfaholic
02-04-2013, 11:09 AM
Um

After ron paul lost the primary i think people just choose the next best thing in each our our individual minds. As it is supposed to be. Some people voted gj because of whatever reasons. Some wrote in ron paul as a symbol of defiance and a middle finger to the corrupt democratic process (me). Others voted obomba, others voted romney.


It is what it is. I am not a collective with every other person who supported the Ron Paul Revolution. I supported it for my own personal reasons. I also decided GJ wasnt worth my vote for personal reasons.

Maybe you should stop worrying about the past and focus on the future. You asked a question, you got your answers. Maybe its time to drop the GJ butthurt cryfest.

mport1
02-04-2013, 11:17 AM
Because Gary Johnson is a statist, not a libertarian. I can't in good conscious support somebody like that.

The LP is basically an irrelevant branch of the GOP and are a complete waste of time.

pcosmar
02-04-2013, 11:20 AM
WE?
I can't speak for "We".
I did not support him because I listened to him talk.

jmdrake
02-04-2013, 11:29 AM
Because Gary Johnson was actually running for president and wasn't remaining intentionally silent like Ron Paul was for the entire general election. Many states don't count write ins and we wouldn't know how many people wrote in a candidate until a while after the general election when it's irrelevant. Did we ever find out how many people wrote in Ron Paul in 2012?

Yeah. You're right. That's why I voted for Virgil Goode. And that's why in 2008 Ron encouraged people to vote for whichever third party candidate fit their values and why he did the "joint endorsement" of Chuck Baldwin, Cynthia McKinney and Ralph Nader before doing the single endorsement of Baldwin. (And he singly endorsed Baldwin because Bob Barr was being a jackass in demanding that Ron Paul singly endorse him). I think a good strategy going forward is to make sure there are a variety of third party candidates on the ballot in all 50 states so that the reported protest vote will be as high as possible. I'd love to see the day when neither the democrat nor the republican candidate breaks 33% of the popular vote.

Confederate
02-04-2013, 11:30 AM
Yeah. You're right. That's why I voted for Virgil Goode. And that's why in 2008 Ron encouraged people to vote for whichever third party candidate fit their values and why he did the "joint endorsement" of Chuck Baldwin, Cynthia McKinney and Ralph Nader before doing the single endorsement of Baldwin. (And he singly endorsed Baldwin because Bob Barr was being a jackass in demanding that Ron Paul singly endorse him). I think a good strategy going forward is to make sure there are a variety of third party candidates on the ballot in all 50 states so that the reported protest vote will be as high as possible. I'd love to see the day when neither the democrat nor the republican candidate breaks 33% of the popular vote.

I also think who Bob Barr is played into that. He's nowhere near being a liberty candidate.

It's funny how Barr endorses Gingrich this time around. Could it be he was still really butthurt Ron didn't endorse him?

sailingaway
02-04-2013, 11:34 AM
I also think who Bob Barr is played into that. He's nowhere near being a liberty candidate.

It's funny how Barr endorses Gingrich this time around. Could it be he was still really butthurt Ron didn't endorse him?

How many votes do you think he moved into Gingrich's column?

Barr is irrelevant to me.

loveableteddybear
02-04-2013, 11:38 AM
I voted for Virgil Goode because of 1, abortion, and 2, I'm getting more conservative as I get older and realize that though libertarianism is a superior political philosophy, that all political philosophies must be constrained by the Constitution, or the power of the gov't becomes arbitrary and tyrannical.

Confederate
02-04-2013, 11:39 AM
How many votes do you think he moved into Gingrich's column?

Barr is irrelevant to me.

Fixed.

erowe1
02-04-2013, 11:53 AM
GJ having a strong showing would help promote the ideas of liberty his campaign was based on. Just like how the RP campaign did that despite not winning.

If the results of the election are supposed to promote the ideas of liberty, then the best result possible would have been to maximize the number of people voting for nobody.

GJ did have a very strong showing, easily as strong as any of his supporters would have been justified in expecting. But I still didn't see nearly as much reporting in the MSM about him as I did about the low voter turnout.

erowe1
02-04-2013, 11:57 AM
GJ doesn't "favor" abortion. He signed a law outlawing 3rd trimester abortions in New Mexico.

I think GJ's approach to abortion could have turned out the same as RP's. But the thing is, GJ bent over backwards to sell himself as the pro-abortion, pro-gay, alternative to Ron Paul.

acptulsa
02-04-2013, 11:57 AM
If the results of the election are supposed to promote the ideas of liberty, then the best result possible would have been to maximize the number of people voting for nobody.

GJ did have a very strong showing, easily as strong as any of his supporters would have been justified in expecting. But I still didn't see nearly as much reporting in the MSM about him as I did about the low voter turnout.

If the majority of people equated not voting with the struggle for liberty, or even a yearning for liberty, the MSM wouldn't report it.

FSP-Rebel
02-04-2013, 11:58 AM
Santorum would fit in well with the CP as they both favor heavy federal involvement in terms of marriage and the abolition of pornography and related adult industries.

erowe1
02-04-2013, 11:59 AM
I voted for Virgil Goode because of 1, abortion, and 2, I'm getting more conservative as I get older and realize that though libertarianism is a superior political philosophy, that all political philosophies must be constrained by the Constitution, or the power of the gov't becomes arbitrary and tyrannical.

Isn't arrogating power to any group of people to write the Constitution that will constrain the policies of those who rule over some other group of people also arbitrary and tyrannical?

Confederate
02-04-2013, 12:03 PM
Santorum would fit in well with the CP as they both favor heavy federal involvement in terms of marriage and the abolition of pornography and related adult industries.

CP on marriage:


No civil government may legitimately authorize or define marriage or family relations, as affirmed by the 10th amendment, delegating to the people as our founders understood the family as necessary to the general welfare.

Also, the CP doesn't call for government eliminating pornography, although they do call for enforcement of existing obscenity laws. SCOTUS (surprisingly a good ruling) has ruled that obscene material is not covered by the 1st Amendment.

FSP-Rebel
02-04-2013, 12:15 PM
CP on marriage:



Also, the CP doesn't call for government eliminating pornography, although they do call for enforcement of existing obscenity laws. SCOTUS (surprisingly a good ruling) has ruled that obscene material is not covered by the 1st Amendment.
I read the entire clip on their website pertaining to marriage and it seemed as if they favored a federal one man-one woman relationship standard and no acknowledgement of any gay or otherwise marriage. They're against co-habitation and having children out of wedlock. Yep, screw having a female roommate to split the bills in a shitty economy, vintage family above all.

Regarding obscenities, the 1st Amendment irregardless of what the SCOTUS says, protects all speech outside of child porn where there's a victim who couldn't consent involved. Obscenity to one isn't to another and these so-called obscenities are voluntarily traded and the actors aren't doing it against their will. I'm not much of a libertarian debater but these neanderthal policies just irk me.

TheTexan
02-04-2013, 12:21 PM
I don't support Gary Johnson because he is a dishonest panderer who does not understand the importance of sound money, has extremely inconsistent solutions to problems due to his pragmatic approaches, supports interventionism, and really has no guiding philosophical foundation, he just kind of throws darts in the general direction of liberty and sometimes gets it right.

I would be happy if he won an election, but I would not want to give people the impression that he represents me, or libertarianism in general.

RandRevolution
02-04-2013, 12:42 PM
I don't support Gary Johnson because he is a dishonest panderer who does not understand the importance of sound money, has extremely inconsistent solutions to problems due to his pragmatic approaches, supports interventionism, and really has no guiding philosophical foundation, he just kind of throws darts in the general direction of liberty and sometimes gets it right.

I would be happy if he won an election, but I would not want to give people the impression that he represents me, or libertarianism in general.

Give examples of this because it isn't true at all. Is he all about pragmatism? Sure. But his solutions are still consistent - because liberty is extremely pragmatic. His solutions for everything has always been less government. Education and health care, free marketify it or let the states deal with it. Fixing the economy, getting rid of regulations, cutting spending and abolishing the corporate tax. Let states deal with more of the issues like he said in one of the debates, I thought him saying letting states take control meant "50 laboratories of innovation" was an amazing line.

I'm happy Johnson used pragmatic arguments for liberty instead of the moral one, it's so much more effective. Some people still criticized him for that, seemingly not realizing he was arguing for liberty in the first place.

erowe1
02-04-2013, 12:43 PM
no acknowledgement of any gay or otherwise marriage

Good.

BlackJack
02-04-2013, 01:00 PM
Give examples of this because it isn't true at all. Is he all about pragmatism? Sure. But his solutions are still consistent - because liberty is extremely pragmatic. His solutions for everything has always been less government. Education and health care, free marketify it or let the states deal with it. Fixing the economy, getting rid of regulations, cutting spending and abolishing the corporate tax. Let states deal with more of the issues like he said in one of the debates, I thought him saying letting states take control meant "50 laboratories of innovation" was an amazing line.

I'm happy Johnson used pragmatic arguments for liberty instead of the moral one, it's so much more effective. Some people still criticized him for that, seemingly not realizing he was arguing for liberty in the first place.

You were presented with evidence earlier in this thread and you've ignored it.

Lay off the cheer-leading.

jbauer
02-04-2013, 01:44 PM
I voted GJ. He had the money thing right. If we don't fix that we're all screwed before any of the other things matter.

affa
02-04-2013, 01:54 PM
Because I support Ron Paul. Not Gary Johnson. Pretty simple.

liveandletlive
02-04-2013, 02:12 PM
cuz he didnt read Hayek and Mises and Rothbard....

jmdrake
02-04-2013, 03:15 PM
Santorum would fit in well with the CP as they both favor heavy federal involvement in terms of marriage and the abolition of pornography and related adult industries.

No he wouldn't. He's not honest regarding foreign policy.

Sola_Fide
02-04-2013, 03:28 PM
I don't support Gary Johnson because he is a dishonest panderer who does not understand the importance of sound money, has extremely inconsistent solutions to problems due to his pragmatic approaches, supports interventionism, and really has no guiding philosophical foundation, he just kind of throws darts in the general direction of liberty and sometimes gets it right.

I would be happy if he won an election, but I would not want to give people the impression that he represents me, or libertarianism in general.

Same here. And I add to that he is pro-abortion, so he hasn't read Abortion And Liberty by Ron Paul, and doesn't understand the relationship between life and liberty.

The Free Hornet
02-04-2013, 03:51 PM
Same here. And I add to that he is pro-abortion, so he hasn't read Abortion And Liberty by Ron Paul, and doesn't understand the relationship between life and liberty.

GJ signed a law against 3rd trimester abortions and has advocated againt the use of public funds (http://2012.presidential-candidates.org/Abortion.php). What the hell have you done?

You come here and lie about the guy without even a link.

Is Ron Paul pro-crack for not wanting a federal role in drugs?
Is Ron Paul pro-prostitution for not wanting a federal role in that? Or gambling?

Most in the pro-life movement are anything but, and they want no penalty for abortion. How are the pro-life/anti-abortion protestors in this video - with one exception - NOT PRO-FUCKING CHOICE?:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uk6t_tdOkwo


The argument can be made that Ron Paul is pro-choice in that he is pro-letting the states decide. He also thinks the woman "should" be able to choose, but that is qualified by a section cut off (obviously, that baby should not be killed or should have a choice):


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KvafiiYSH7s

Of course, none of this will keep liars without links from subdividing people into pro-choice or pro-life based on some arbitrary line they rarely delineate.

Butchie
02-04-2013, 04:07 PM
I might have been more supportive of him if I really thought he cared a lot about fiscal conservatism. But it seemed to me like all he ever wanted to talk about was how great abortion and gay marriage are.

Bingo, and to be clear those are not make or break issues for me, but that's just the point, if you're going to make those issues a major plank of your platform, you're not getting my vote.

The Free Hornet
02-04-2013, 04:11 PM
Also, Ron Paul has stated that woman who suffer from "honest rape" (http://jezebel.com/5882692/ron-paul-generously-offers-victims-of-honest-rape-the-right-to-abortion) be allowed the morning after pill which can kill a fertilized egg (AKA abortion):


The Morning-After Pill

Brand Name: Plan B

Promoted As: Emergency contraception

When Used: Within 72 hours after sex

How It Works: Suppresses ovulation and thins uterine lining to prevent implantation

Does It Kill a Baby? Sometimes

Side Effects: Similar to birth control pills - nausea, headache, abdominal pain, but also more serious concerns such as blood clotting and heart problems that could lead to hospitalization or even death

www.christianliferesources.com/article/the-abortion-pill-and-the-morning-after-pill-are-they-the-same-1023 (http://www.christianliferesources.com/article/the-abortion-pill-and-the-morning-after-pill-are-they-the-same-1023)

Ron Paul's position on the states has led many to conclude he is pro-choice (WRT abortion). Of course, the rape/incest exceptions that politicians love to embrace are just as much bullshit as everything else in the pro-life movement. The rape/incest exception is unambiguously a pro-choice concession.

Either you support charging the mother with first degree murder, or you are wasting everybody's time. All you're doing is boosting the anti-contraception/anti-premarital sex movement and you get a big THANK YOU from the AMA for continuing to promote the over regulation of their industry which keeps as many practicioners out as possible.

The Free Hornet
02-04-2013, 04:18 PM
Bingo, and to be clear those are not make or break issues for me, but that's just the point, if you're going to make those issues a major plank of your platform, you're not getting my vote.

What is your cutoff for "major plank"? Where is your link?

http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/issues

How is GJ's opinion on these matters any stronger or weaker than RP's?

The difference is that one guy strokes your ego and the other one gives it the brush off. Get over it. The people selecting politicians on this basis will eff things up again in 2016.

RandRevolution
02-04-2013, 04:18 PM
You were presented with evidence earlier in this thread and you've ignored it.

Lay off the cheer-leading.

No I wasn't, give me examples of how his cost-benefit analysis leads to inconsistent solutions to problems because his solutions to problems are all pro-liberty. Letting states decide, free market health and education, cutting spending, ending regulation, abolishing the corporate tax, legalization and decriminalization. All of his solutions that come from cost-benefit analysis mean less government and more freedom.

Seriously explain to me how his cost-benefit analysis leads to inconsistent solutions to problems. It's so ridiculous that people are criticizing him for advocating the pragmatism of liberty instead of the morality when he is advocating liberty in the first place.

RandRevolution
02-04-2013, 04:22 PM
Bingo, and to be clear those are not make or break issues for me, but that's just the point, if you're going to make those issues a major plank of your platform, you're not getting my vote.

I don't think you were listening to a lot of Gary Johnson interviews because he talked about abortion very little and gay marriage not that much either. He mainly talked about and his ads were mainly about the fiscal crisis, civil liberties, drug policy, Obamacare and foreign policy. I don't think he even released a single ad on abortion. I mean, he was actually warning about how a dollar collapse is going to happen in all his interviews - how can you not love someone like that?

erowe1
02-04-2013, 04:24 PM
How is GJ's opinion on these matters any stronger or weaker than RP's?

They might not be different. But if GJ wanted us to think they were the same, he only has himself to blame for people thinking otherwise. He was the one who made such a big deal out of differentiating himself as the pro-gay pro-abortion alternative to Ron Paul. Throughout the primaries that was his whole sales pitch.

erowe1
02-04-2013, 04:25 PM
I don't think you were listening to a lot of Gary Johnson interviews because he talked about abortion very little and gay marriage not that much either. He mainly talked about and his ads were mainly about the fiscal crisis, civil liberties, drug policy, Obamacare and foreign policy. I don't think he even released a single ad on abortion. I mean, he was actually warning about how a dollar collapse is going to happen in all his interviews - how can you not love someone like that?

Admittedly, I never tried to endure listening to him in an interview. But his Facebook posts during the primaries sure were dominated by those issues.

anaconda
02-04-2013, 04:26 PM
I think part of the reason was that Ron Paul supporters were behind him through the convention, which left little time and money to campaign for Gary. It also seems like the bulk of the Paul supporters joined his resolve to join and change the Republican Party.

misean
02-04-2013, 04:27 PM
They might not be different. But if GJ wanted us to think they were the same, he only has himself to blame for people thinking otherwise. He was the one who made such a big deal out of differentiating himself as the pro-gay pro-abortion alternative to Ron Paul. Throughout the primaries that was his whole sales pitch.

Those are the libertarian positions for most Libertarians.

erowe1
02-04-2013, 04:28 PM
Seriously explain to me how his cost-benefit analysis leads to inconsistent solutions to problems. It's so ridiculous that people are criticizing him for advocating the pragmatism of liberty instead of the morality when he is advocating liberty in the first place.

I find it ironic that you're still using this line when there's no possible way that anybody weighing voting for Gary Johnson with a cost benefit analysis would be able to justify doing it.

erowe1
02-04-2013, 04:31 PM
Those are the libertarian positions for most Libertarians.

I'm talking about during GJ's campaign as a Republican candidate.

And again, whatever libertarians or Libertarians think about those things, GJ can't have it both ways. When he chose to try to draw those voters with a pro-abortion pro-gay sales pitch, turning off anti-abortion anti-gay people is part of the calculation he made.

Butchie
02-04-2013, 04:35 PM
What is your cutoff for "major plank"? Where is your link?

http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/issues

How is GJ's opinion on these matters any stronger or weaker than RP's?

The difference is that one guy strokes your ego and the other one gives it the brush off. Get over it. The people selecting politicians on this basis will eff things up again in 2016.

Strokes my ego??? Don't even know what to say to that one. As for Gary, I watched several interviews with him, I did not see even one where he didn't bring up GM, and notice I said HE BROUGHT IT UP, he was not asked about it, he decided to make it part of the conversation. I rarely ever heard Ron speak of GM, sure, he'd respond when asked, but he never made it a point to bring it up, he'd focus mostly on wars, debt, fed, Patriot Act, etc.

misean
02-04-2013, 04:36 PM
I'm talking about during GJ's campaign as a Republican candidate.

And again, whatever libertarians or Libertarians think about those things, GJ can't have it both ways. When he chose to try to draw those voters with a pro-abortion pro-gay sales pitch, turning off anti-abortion anti-gay people is part of the calculation he made.

That's true.

It's extraordinarily ridiculous that anyone votes mainly on either one of those issues, though I get that people do.

Also voting for Johnson made sense from a cost/benefit if you were in an already decided state and wanted to show that there is support for free market ideas. It would show there is a market for liberty minded candidates.

erowe1
02-04-2013, 04:40 PM
Also voting for Johnson made sense from a cost/benefit if you were in an already decided state and wanted to show that there is support for free market ideas. It would show there is a market for liberty minded candidates.

I find it hard to believe that the benefits you could get by increasing that number by one vote could possibly be as great as the cost of taking time out of your day to vote.

Albeit, some people were voting anyway for down ticket races, in which case the cost of that minuscule effort of additionally voting for GJ would be just as small as the benefit of increasing his results by one.

But even then, for making a statement, that's not as good as the statement you make by voting for nobody. Imagine if they had one of these elections and none of us participated.

RandRevolution
02-04-2013, 04:40 PM
I find it ironic that you're still using this line when there's no possible way that anybody weighing voting for Gary Johnson with a cost benefit analysis would be able to justify doing it.

What, why, because as you said voting doesn't do anything? Why are you so hostile towards Gary Johnson? Do you not agree with him on the vast majority of the issues or do you not like him because he isn't as perfect as Ron Paul? This is my biggest problem with this whole thing, that so many people are hostile and unappreciative towards Gary Johnson who has done 10000 times more for the liberty movement than anyone here.

misean
02-04-2013, 04:46 PM
But even then, for making a statement, that's not as good as the statement you make by voting for nobody. Imagine if they had one of these elections and none of us participated.

Do you know what it would say? It would say there is an entire voting bloc of apathetic people that candidates shouldn't worry about. The guy who said what you are repeating is an idiot, at least when it comes to political philosophy. I don't care if RP likes him.

erowe1
02-04-2013, 04:46 PM
What, why, because as you said voting doesn't do anything? Why are you so hostile towards Gary Johnson? Do you not agree with him on the vast majority of the issues or do you not like him because he isn't as perfect as Ron Paul? This is my biggest problem with this whole thing, that so many people are hostile and unappreciative towards Gary Johnson who has done 10000 times more for the liberty movement than anyone here.

There are over 6 billion people I didn't vote for for president. I'm not hostile towards any of them.

Humanae Libertas
02-04-2013, 04:46 PM
I personally could not have supported Johnson, mainly for his views on foreign policy. I mean, for goodness sake...he referred to non-interventionism as "isolationism". We all heard that line before. That was strike one for me. Strike two was him accepting Federal taxpayer dollars to fund his campaign. And this guy claims he is a libertarian, really? Plus this guy is not a philosophical libertarian, so I could not support someone who tries to taunt himself as one, when he is not.

RandRevolution
02-04-2013, 04:47 PM
I'm talking about during GJ's campaign as a Republican candidate.

And again, whatever libertarians or Libertarians think about those things, GJ can't have it both ways. When he chose to try to draw those voters with a pro-abortion pro-gay sales pitch, turning off anti-abortion anti-gay people is part of the calculation he made.

I really don't know what to say because this entire idea has been concoct in your own head. He didn't release a single video about abortion in either of his campaigns and it was something he hardly talked about in interviews. By any objective standard gay marriage and abortion were not even close to being the major issues of his campaign. And this is missing the bigger picture - that he agrees with us on the vast majority of the issues yet so many people here act hostile towards him and refused to vote for him.

erowe1
02-04-2013, 04:51 PM
Do you know what it would say? It would say there is an entire voting bloc of apathetic people that candidates shouldn't worry about. The guy who said what you are repeating is an idiot, at least when it comes to political philosophy. I don't care if RP likes him.

I don't think it connotes apathy.

I'm not sure what guy you're talking about.

erowe1
02-04-2013, 04:52 PM
I really don't know what to say because this entire idea has been concoct in your own head. He didn't release a single video about abortion in either of his campaigns and it was something he hardly talked about in interviews. By any objective standard gay marriage and abortion were not even close to being the major issues of his campaign. And this is missing the bigger picture - that he agrees with us on the vast majority of the issues yet so many people here act hostile towards him and refused to vote for him.

I definitely didn't concoct it. But I think you and I had different exposures to him. I never saw a video or interview.

loveableteddybear
02-04-2013, 04:52 PM
I really don't know what to say because this entire idea has been concoct in your own head. He didn't release a single video about abortion in either of his campaigns and it was something he hardly talked about in interviews. By any objective standard gay marriage and abortion were not even close to being the major issues of his campaign. And this is missing the bigger picture - that he agrees with us on the vast majority of the issues yet so many people here act hostile towards him and refused to vote for him.
Well, I don't dislike him and I would have been a big booster if RP wasn't running.

erowe1
02-04-2013, 04:53 PM
Well, I don't dislike him and I would have been a big booster if RP wasn't running.

I think the OP is about the general election. RP wasn't running.

RandRevolution
02-04-2013, 04:54 PM
I personally could not have supported Johnson, mainly for his views on foreign policy. I mean, for goodness sake...he referred to non-interventionism as "isolationism". We all heard that line before. That was strike one for me. Strike two was him accepting Federal taxpayer dollars to fund his campaign. And this guy claims he is a libertarian, really? Plus this guy is not a philosophical libertarian, so I could not support someone who tries to taunt himself as one, when he is not.

What views on foreign policy, you mean being opposed to Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Iran and Syria from the beginning? Releasing ads against the drone strikes? Wanting to end many military bases around the world? Wanting to do all acts of war through the congress with a declaration? He isn't flawless on foreign policy like Ron is but he's still very strong on it and better than 99.9999% of all other politicians by far. His only flaws in foreign policy is that he would support legitimate humanitarian wars through the congress with a declaration and that he wouldn't end all military bases. The movement will go nowhere if someone with those views is considered bad on foreign policy.

Using federal dollars ( the tax money for matching funds is donated voluntarily) when your opponents are all using it and so you can further the ideas of liberty absolutely makes sense, Ron Paul should have done it, the ends justifies the means.

RandRevolution
02-04-2013, 04:55 PM
I definitely didn't concoct it. But I think you and I had different exposures to him. I never saw a video or interview.

So you had an extremely limited perspective of what the major issues of his campaign were and are not really qualified to say abortion and gay marriage were the main issues of his campaign.

RandRevolution
02-04-2013, 04:57 PM
I find it hard to believe that the benefits you could get by increasing that number by one vote could possibly be as great as the cost of taking time out of your day to vote.

Albeit, some people were voting anyway for down ticket races, in which case the cost of that minuscule effort of additionally voting for GJ would be just as small as the benefit of increasing his results by one.

But even then, for making a statement, that's not as good as the statement you make by voting for nobody. Imagine if they had one of these elections and none of us participated.

If the movement got behind Gary Johnson, doing something as simple as giving him his own board here like Art Robinson got, then it wouldn't be one vote, it would be several thousand.

erowe1
02-04-2013, 05:02 PM
So you had an extremely limited perspective of what the major issues of his campaign were and are not really qualified to say abortion and gay marriage were the main issues of his campaign.

You asked why people didn't support him. Each person's judgment of him is bound to be based on whatever that person was exposed to, which will naturally be limited. My impression that all he seemed to care about were abortion and gay marriage was based on what I saw. If the only people who didn't think that were people who already supported him enough to want to watch videos of him, then that doesn't say anything about the impression he created in selling himself to others.

erowe1
02-04-2013, 05:07 PM
If the movement got behind Gary Johnson, doing something as simple as giving him his own board here like Art Robinson got, then it wouldn't be one vote, it would be several thousand.

But my choice only pertains to my one vote.

And even still, several thousand votes is still irrelevant. Again, even looking at it from that macro-perspective of this website's admins, I don't see how a cost benefit analysis would have warranted a special forum for GJ. The potential benefits of doing that were zero, while the costs would have been at least something.

If GJ wants to live by cost benefit analysis, then he'll die by it too.

I don't remember Art Robinson. But let me guess, he was running as a Republican.

jmdrake
02-04-2013, 05:09 PM
What views on foreign policy, you mean being opposed to Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Iran and Syria from the beginning? Releasing ads against the drone strikes? Wanting to end many military bases around the world? Wanting to do all acts of war through the congress with a declaration? He isn't flawless on foreign policy like Ron is but he's still very strong on it and better than 99.9999% of all other politicians by far. His only flaws in foreign policy is that he would support legitimate humanitarian wars through the congress with a declaration and that he wouldn't end all military bases. The movement will go nowhere if someone with those views is considered bad on foreign policy.

Using federal dollars ( the tax money for matching funds is donated voluntarily) when your opponents are all using it and so you can further the ideas of liberty absolutely makes sense, Ron Paul should have done it, the ends justifies the means.

Okay. What makes Uganda more of a "legitimate humanitarian war" than Iraq? :confused: If we buy the "Saddam gassed his own people" argument (and that's actually questionable as the U.S. Army War college came to the opposition conclusion when Saddam was our boy), then there was at least a good of a reason to go to war with Iraq. And so Gary Johnson would ask for a congressional declaration of war in the Ugandan situation? Against who?

erowe1
02-04-2013, 05:12 PM
Okay. What makes Uganda more of a "legitimate humanitarian war" than Iraq? :confused: If we buy the "Saddam gassed his own people" argument (and that's actually questionable as the U.S. Army War college came to the opposition conclusion when Saddam was our boy), then there was at least a good of a reason to go to war with Iraq. And so Gary Johnson would ask for a congressional declaration of war in the Ugandan situation? Against who?

Saddam's attacking the Kurds, which were also his own subjects, after the first Gulf War isn't questionable is it?

TheTexan
02-04-2013, 05:47 PM
Give examples of this because it isn't true at all. Is he all about pragmatism? Sure. But his solutions are still consistent - because liberty is extremely pragmatic. His solutions for everything has always been less government. Education and health care, free marketify it or let the states deal with it. Fixing the economy, getting rid of regulations, cutting spending and abolishing the corporate tax. Let states deal with more of the issues like he said in one of the debates, I thought him saying letting states take control meant "50 laboratories of innovation" was an amazing line.

I'm happy Johnson used pragmatic arguments for liberty instead of the moral one, it's so much more effective. Some people still criticized him for that, seemingly not realizing he was arguing for liberty in the first place.

If you had asked me a year ago I could have given you many examples. The gold standard is one example though. He doesn't like that idea. He doesn't think it would work. He believes the Federal Reserve serves a legitimate purpose, to provide for a sound currency.

He's wrong. Both pragmatically, and morally. The Federal Reserve is theft... plain and simple. And it doesn't work, and couldn't ever work.

You're right that the moral answer is also the pragmatic answer, but without a moral compass, it can be hard to come to the correct answer. This is one of those cases.

sailingaway
02-04-2013, 07:11 PM
What views on foreign policy, you mean being opposed to Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Iran and Syria from the beginning? Releasing ads against the drone strikes? Wanting to end many military bases around the world? Wanting to do all acts of war through the congress with a declaration? He isn't flawless on foreign policy like Ron is but he's still very strong on it and better than 99.9999% of all other politicians by far. His only flaws in foreign policy is that he would support legitimate humanitarian wars through the congress with a declaration and that he wouldn't end all military bases. The movement will go nowhere if someone with those views is considered bad on foreign policy.

Using federal dollars ( the tax money for matching funds is donated voluntarily) when your opponents are all using it and so you can further the ideas of liberty absolutely makes sense, Ron Paul should have done it, the ends justifies the means.


It is not donated voluntarily, they keep it whether you say some can go there or not, you have no choice to get it back.

However, Ron did say in 1989 that while he still came down against matching funds as being stolen money, that in the case of a third party given all the imbalance of legal barriers and debate barriers etc, he didn't feel strongly about it, he might be talked into thinking if it was used to overcome that burden that it was ok. HE didn't accept it himself though, in 2008 or 2012.

MelissaWV
02-04-2013, 07:13 PM
To put it very simply, I can't answer why "we" didn't, but I know why I didn't, and that's good enough for me.

The Free Hornet
02-04-2013, 07:42 PM
Strokes my ego??? Don't even know what to say to that one. As for Gary, I watched several interviews with him, I did not see even one where he didn't bring up GM, and notice I said HE BROUGHT IT UP, he was not asked about it, he decided to make it part of the conversation. I rarely ever heard Ron speak of GM, sure, he'd respond when asked, but he never made it a point to bring it up, he'd focus mostly on wars, debt, fed, Patriot Act, etc.

Well that could be your perception. I would neither watch nor remember enough videos/interviews to form a conclusion. I don't doubt GJ is not as qualified as RP was. That said, when I see these culture war issues brought up as litmus tests... it irks me. Abortion especially is so stupid since the pro-lifers, by and large, don't want to do jack-shit about the issue beyond granting government more regulatory and oversight authority of health care. It is just like narcotic use, the users do not threaten TPTB as much as the economic actors in the black markets.

Butchie
02-04-2013, 07:48 PM
Well that could be your perception. I would neither watch nor remember enough videos/interviews to form a conclusion. I don't doubt GJ is not as qualified as RP was. That said, when I see these culture war issues brought up as litmus tests... it irks me. Abortion especially is so stupid since the pro-lifers, by and large, don't want to do jack-shit about the issue beyond granting government more regulatory and oversight authority of health care. It is just like narcotic use, the users do not threaten TPTB as much as the economic actors in the black markets.

I agree, which is why I clearly stated in my post those were not make or break issues for me, which is exactly why I wished Gary didn't bring them up everytime someone stuck a microphone in his face.

FrankRep
02-04-2013, 08:50 PM
This was undoubtedly true, but there was more to it. Ron Paul didn't have a chance in hell of winning once the RNC was over, but plenty of people wrote him in on principle. If we ask our candidates to vote and advocate on principle, I think we should do the same.

Ron Paul was a Republican Congressman in Texas. I consider that winning.

fr33
02-04-2013, 09:13 PM
Some Johnson bashers might find yourself in quite a spell of cognitive dissonance if you plan on supporting Rand in the future.

Like I said, I voted for Johnson because he was the best on the ballot. I expect to do the same for Rand.

erowe1
02-04-2013, 09:15 PM
Some Johnson bashers might find yourself in quite a spell of cognitive dissonance if you plan on supporting Rand in the future.

Like I said, I voted for Johnson because he was the best on the ballot. I expect to do the same for Rand.

The likelihood of my supporting Rand will decrease significantly if he decides to run in a third party.

sailingaway
02-04-2013, 09:16 PM
Some Johnson bashers might find yourself in quite a spell of cognitive dissonance if you plan on supporting Rand in the future.

Like I said, I voted for Johnson because he was the best on the ballot. I expect to do the same for Rand.

I don't like Johnson, and I may vote for Rand. I have years to decide and will have more information then. Rand has backbone on NDAA and similar and I haven't seen GJ show backbone on anything. I've seen him practically ooze when Hannity interviewed him, in fact.

You are free to like GJ or not, or like Rand or not, but they aren't the same people.

Reece
02-04-2013, 09:25 PM
I ended up voting for Gary Johnson. Nevertheless, I expect better from the Libertarian Party candidate. By having the name "Libertarian" I have much higher expectations for them to hold libertarian positions. A weak candidate hurts the value of the word libertarian.

I might have ended up writing in Ron Paul if I had lived in a state where they counted the write-ins for him though.

fr33
02-04-2013, 09:25 PM
You are free to like GJ or not, or like Rand or not, but they aren't the same people.You are right but it is the same justifications made by those that don't agree with some of Rand's stances or Johnson's. I voted for the best one on the ballot and Rand will be that again.

Ekrub
02-04-2013, 09:30 PM
I voted for Gary. He did a fine job as Governor of New Mexico and I thought he would have made an excellent president. To be honest, I believe he probably would have accomplished more for liberty as President than Ron Paul (although Ron was my first choice as I agree a smudge more with Ron). I think he was an excellent liberty candidate. Unfortunately, when GJ ran in 2012 against Ron Paul, people here began resenting him and started bending over backwards to find reasons not to like him. If he runs as the LP candidate in 2016, I may well vote for him again, depending on how Rand does in the primary.

nobody's_hero
02-05-2013, 02:24 PM
Ron Paul was a Republican Congressman in Texas. I consider that winning.

Does the republican party know that?

Akus
02-05-2013, 06:06 PM
This thread is 14 pages long.
I didn't read all of them, but I can see that the worst enemy of liberty movement is liberty movement itself. I agree that arguing over voting/not voting for GJ is moot now that election is in the books, but reading this junior high BS about how I can't for for Gary because he's got cooties really makes me understand how much growing up we have to do. I don't want to belong to a group of fanbois. And this is what this thread wreaks of, Ron Paul fanbois, not actual Liberty followers.

I voted RP in primaries.
When those were over and it was Obama/Mitt/GJ, I voted Libertarian.

I am not GJ fanboi. I'm sure there are bones to pick with him. But he was an actual third voice (really second) in this conversation. If a different party made it to the Whitehouse, or, at least, to Congress, things would be better simply by changing the course of the rhetoric alone.

But I don't see too many people understanding this. They're too concerned about some bullshit manufactured issue like abortion or gay marriage or some such to see the big picture. We can change a political landscape if we actually roll collectively into one big fist. Who here would honestly argue that Mitt or Obama 2.0 is a better option then, yes, imperfect, yes, sometimes maybe even controversial, Gary Johnson? How many of you are big enough (wo)men to understand what Liberty is about.

It's about being left alone and doing your own thing. Not about bickering over trite hot button topics that some Washington think tank manufactured specifically knowing we would be too immature and too self-opinionated to just bounce it off. Like a bullet off Superman's chest.

All of you who wrote in RP, knowing full well that this does nothing and who couldn't vote for Gary Johnson for some superficial reasons are not in a Liberty camp. You're just fanbois and, honestly, I'd rather you write in Justin Bieber or one of the Kardashians, because at least there is no pretense that you're supposedly politically involved.

YOU are the reason Ron Paul lost, and Libertarian Party achieved nothing.
YOU are the reason why Liberty movement stagnated and dissipated as soon as it was all over for Ron Paul.
NOT some sinister conspiracy against us.

And if anyone tells me to go to Hell over this, you've just made my point for me.

MelissaWV
02-05-2013, 06:14 PM
I don't vote for the lesser evil just to demonstrate that I have no standards and am willing to vote for anyone with an "L" by their name. The liberty movement did not stagnate; it achieved a variety of victories, and people are busy readying for more. You seem to be speaking much more for yourself than any group as a whole. I'm not sure why it's so awful for you to conceive of people actually disagreeing with Johnson on some pretty large things, and not being interested in voting FOR (yes we still cast ballots FOR people, and not AGAINST others) Gary Johnson.

If you want to vote FOR Gary Johnson, and you agree with him enough of the time, or you find it a grand and wonderful step towards getting a third party president someday, cool. Just bear in mind precisely who the "successful" third party candidates have been in our nation's history. It's a mixed bag. Voting just because someone is third party is akin to voting straight R or D; it ignores the person in favor of a "statement."

Akus
02-05-2013, 06:51 PM
I don't vote for the lesser evil just to demonstrate that I have no standards and am willing to vote for anyone with an "L" by their name. The liberty movement did not stagnate; it achieved a variety of victories, and people are busy readying for more. You seem to be speaking much more for yourself than any group as a whole. I'm not sure why it's so awful for you to conceive of people actually disagreeing with Johnson on some pretty large things, and not being interested in voting FOR (yes we still cast ballots FOR people, and not AGAINST others) Gary Johnson.

If you want to vote FOR Gary Johnson, and you agree with him enough of the time, or you find it a grand and wonderful step towards getting a third party president someday, cool. Just bear in mind precisely who the "successful" third party candidates have been in our nation's history. It's a mixed bag. Voting just because someone is third party is akin to voting straight R or D; it ignores the person in favor of a "statement."
http://hostthenpost.org/uploads/7e60293a4b93c87dd49337edb2d6e7d1.jpg (http://hostthenpost.org)

MelissaWV
02-05-2013, 06:56 PM
Keep telling yourself that.

RandRevolution
02-06-2013, 12:14 AM
I don't like Johnson, and I may vote for Rand. I have years to decide and will have more information then. Rand has backbone on NDAA and similar and I haven't seen GJ show backbone on anything. I've seen him practically ooze when Hannity interviewed him, in fact.

You are free to like GJ or not, or like Rand or not, but they aren't the same people.

See, this is the problem, people critisize GJ for reasons that don't exist. He was constantly speaking out against the NDAA, PATRIOT act and drones and even released campaign videos on it. Yet somehow he has no backbone on it.

He goes around the country (including going to over 30 states at 150 stops when he wasn't running for office) to speak about the ideas of our movement: Fiscal conservatism, civil liberties, the benefits of free markets including free market health care and education, 2nd amendment rights, anti-war, drug policy reform and transparency and people here either act hostile towards him or act unappreciative and unenthusiastic over small quibbles about him or his policy. He should be considered a hero by people here because that's exactly what he is, he has done 10000 times more for the movement than anyone here and yet people act that way towards him because he isn't as good or as big a hero as Ron Paul.

RandRevolution
02-06-2013, 12:15 AM
I don't vote for the lesser evil just to demonstrate that I have no standards and am willing to vote for anyone with an "L" by their name. The liberty movement did not stagnate; it achieved a variety of victories, and people are busy readying for more. You seem to be speaking much more for yourself than any group as a whole. I'm not sure why it's so awful for you to conceive of people actually disagreeing with Johnson on some pretty large things, and not being interested in voting FOR (yes we still cast ballots FOR people, and not AGAINST others) Gary Johnson.

If you want to vote FOR Gary Johnson, and you agree with him enough of the time, or you find it a grand and wonderful step towards getting a third party president someday, cool. Just bear in mind precisely who the "successful" third party candidates have been in our nation's history. It's a mixed bag. Voting just because someone is third party is akin to voting straight R or D; it ignores the person in favor of a "statement."

But why do you consider Johnson a lesser of three evils (which I saw a lot of people call him) given everything he supports I mentioned in the OP? Isn't he a lesser of two goods compared to Ron Paul?

CPUd
02-06-2013, 02:15 AM
Can't believe the Gary cheerleaders are still going on about this.

Me, neither. The sockpuppetry is strong in this thread.

RandRevolution
02-06-2013, 03:24 AM
Me, neither. The sockpuppetry is strong in this thread.

Do you not consider someone who travels around the country even when not campaigning, when he has no need to other than genuinely caring about these things given that he's rich, to speak about the ideas of our movement: Fiscal conservatism, civil liberties, the benefits of free markets including free market health care and education, 2nd amendment rights, anti-war, drug policy reform and transparency a hero? Does he not agree with you on the vast majority of issues and is he not better than every other politician in America not named Ron or Rand Paul by far?

And the election was ages ago, had I signed up then and asked this question I would be accused of being a Johnson shill so I didn't. But what would the purpose of this thread be now if I'm a sockpuppet for him, to get people to support him 4 years from now if he runs in 2016? I would prefer Rand over him in the primary but hell yes I would support him a third party again.

If you support Rand you should support Gary, I mean Gary's views are more in line with the liberty movement than Rand's are and I fucking love Rand and am aware he doesn't genuinely believe some of the things he stands for like drug policy but is doing it to get elected.

CPUd
02-06-2013, 03:46 AM
http://i.imgur.com/GDmuJum.jpg

nasaal
02-06-2013, 07:54 AM
Something about purity and such I imagine. I like Gary Johnson. He's not a perfect Libertarian or anything, but he seems an awesome dude who has been very successful in life and sticks up for most free market ideals. He champions small government for the most part as well. This group didn't get behind him for a number of reasons I'm sure. Not pure enough, simply not Ron Paul. Libertarian party doesn't deserve support and all that.

QuickZ06
02-06-2013, 08:36 AM
How relevant has Johnson been since the election? Now Paul, yeah about that Gray Johnson......

satchelmcqueen
02-06-2013, 04:49 PM
i voted for gary. i to wish we could have got behind him.

erowe1
02-06-2013, 04:59 PM
I think people who are disappointed with GJ's performance are asking too much. He doubled, tripled, or quadrupled the number of votes that almost every other LP candidate has ever gotten. I can't imagine that he did that without the help of a lot of Ron Paul supporters. Seems like looking a gift horse in the mouth to say that wasn't enough.

MelissaWV
02-06-2013, 05:55 PM
Something about purity and such I imagine. I like Gary Johnson. He's not a perfect Libertarian or anything, but he seems an awesome dude who has been very successful in life and sticks up for most free market ideals. He champions small government for the most part as well. This group didn't get behind him for a number of reasons I'm sure. Not pure enough, simply not Ron Paul. Libertarian party doesn't deserve support and all that.

There were no fewer than a dozen threads where I bothered to pull Gary Johnson's own points from his own website and point out how I disagreed with them. They were not just social issues. It has become incredibly irrelevant to repost the same thing; obviously the same people making the same sort of thread over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again do not care.

I predict this is not the last "BUT WHYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY" thread we will see on the forums. Not even close.

parocks
02-06-2013, 06:06 PM
This thread is 14 pages long.
I didn't read all of them, but I can see that the worst enemy of liberty movement is liberty movement itself. I agree that arguing over voting/not voting for GJ is moot now that election is in the books, but reading this junior high BS about how I can't for for Gary because he's got cooties really makes me understand how much growing up we have to do. I don't want to belong to a group of fanbois. And this is what this thread wreaks of, Ron Paul fanbois, not actual Liberty followers.

I voted RP in primaries.
When those were over and it was Obama/Mitt/GJ, I voted Libertarian.

I am not GJ fanboi. I'm sure there are bones to pick with him. But he was an actual third voice (really second) in this conversation. If a different party made it to the Whitehouse, or, at least, to Congress, things would be better simply by changing the course of the rhetoric alone.

But I don't see too many people understanding this. They're too concerned about some bullshit manufactured issue like abortion or gay marriage or some such to see the big picture. We can change a political landscape if we actually roll collectively into one big fist. Who here would honestly argue that Mitt or Obama 2.0 is a better option then, yes, imperfect, yes, sometimes maybe even controversial, Gary Johnson? How many of you are big enough (wo)men to understand what Liberty is about.

It's about being left alone and doing your own thing. Not about bickering over trite hot button topics that some Washington think tank manufactured specifically knowing we would be too immature and too self-opinionated to just bounce it off. Like a bullet off Superman's chest.

All of you who wrote in RP, knowing full well that this does nothing and who couldn't vote for Gary Johnson for some superficial reasons are not in a Liberty camp. You're just fanbois and, honestly, I'd rather you write in Justin Bieber or one of the Kardashians, because at least there is no pretense that you're supposedly politically involved.

YOU are the reason Ron Paul lost, and Libertarian Party achieved nothing.
YOU are the reason why Liberty movement stagnated and dissipated as soon as it was all over for Ron Paul.
NOT some sinister conspiracy against us.

And if anyone tells me to go to Hell over this, you've just made my point for me.

I went with write in Ron Paul. My state was a state where the writeins were counted. The dominant voices here on RPF were "write in Ron Paul" not Gary Johnson. The best result would've been for everyone to get behind GJ. But that didn't happen at all. And once it became clear that we were split, it became "which do you prefer", and Ron Paul was who I preferred, so I went that way.

I don't know why Ron Paul supporters didn't decide to back the candidate who was actually on the ballot, except that many "liberty supporters" don't really care too much about winning. Here, winning wasn't really even something that was likely to happen. "Liberty supporters" aren't great voters, but do other things well, like protesting, contributing money, etc. It's a problem.

HigherVision
02-06-2013, 06:27 PM
Maybe some did. But it didn't make any difference in anything.

Sure it did. We could have had maybe two or three times more votes for a liberty candidate and have really made a splash. But instead Ron Paul supporters remained loyalists to the party that hates our guts.

Oh well, at least we'll maybe have Rand in 2016. Then we can finally get this war with Iran going.

sailingaway
02-06-2013, 06:29 PM
Sure it did. We could have had maybe two or three times more votes for a liberty candidate and have really made a splash. But instead Ron Paul supporters remained loyalists to the party that hates our guts.

If we had, Romney would have won. Not voting for Gary Johnson is not the same as voting for Romney

MelissaWV
02-06-2013, 06:29 PM
Sure it did. We could have had maybe two or three times more votes for a liberty candidate and have really made a splash. But instead Ron Paul supporters remained loyalists to the party that hates our guts.

It is now February. Thankfully, people are working hard on getting folks elected, and supporting those that did, instead of getting bogged down in debating why someone got 1% instead of 2%. That would be just silly.

acptulsa
02-06-2013, 06:31 PM
Oh well, at least we'll maybe have Rand in 2016. Then we can finally get this war with Iran going.

I don't know exactly what it is you're smoking, but I can certainly see where your screen name comes from.

Good $#!+ you found. Glad you're enjoying it.

gerryb1
02-06-2013, 06:59 PM
Better question:
Why haven't we taken over every GOP unit in the country?

Don't give bullcrap about them not liking you. Show up. Win. They don't need to like you, but you will probably find it is not as hostile as you think.

HigherVision
02-06-2013, 07:51 PM
I don't know exactly what it is you're smoking, but I can certainly see where your screen name comes from.

Good $#!+ you found. Glad you're enjoying it.

"When I pressed Sen. Paul about the potential scenario that U.S. military intervention could be the only thing that could stop Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, he responded that he would take nothing off the table when it comes to preventing a nuclear Iran." - http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2013/02/03/Rand-Breaks-With-Ron-All-Options-On-Table-To-Prevent-Nuclear-Iran?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+BreitbartFeed+%28Breitbart+Fe ed%29

BTW if I were smoking what you're referring to Rand, unlike Gary Johnson, would have me put in jail.

HigherVision
02-06-2013, 07:53 PM
It is now February. Thankfully, people are working hard on getting folks elected, and supporting those that did, instead of getting bogged down in debating why someone got 1% instead of 2%. That would be just silly.

I don't think it's that silly when you consider that in order to win with the LP we'd only need around 34% of the vote to win. Most conservatives will never vote for a libertarian, in or outside their party. Go talk to a few of them and see.


If we had, Romney would have won. Not voting for Gary Johnson is not the same as voting for Romney

But why are so many Ron Paul supporters stuck on staying with the republican party now that the 2012 election is over and Ron isn't even in the party any more? It seems like a lot of Ron Paul supporters are more loyal to the GOP than Ron himself was. He did a good job of using it as a vehicle to get the message out, but now that that's over why stick around? The LP got more votes than it ever has in the last election. Why not build it up and let the dinosaur GOP die a slow painful death? Americans are going to thoroughly hate both major parties by the end of 2016 most likely. I think we have a real opportunity now to build the liberty movement up rather than let certain people water it down.

sailingaway
02-06-2013, 08:16 PM
But why are so many Ron Paul supporters stuck on staying with the republican party now that the 2012 election is over and Ron isn't even in the party any more? It seems like a lot of Ron Paul supporters are more loyal to the GOP than Ron himself was. He did a good job of using it as a vehicle to get the message out, but now that that's over why stick around? The LP got more votes than it ever has in the last election. Why not build it up and let the dinosaur GOP die a slow painful death? Americans are going to thoroughly hate both major parties by the end of 2016 most likely. I think we have a real opportunity now to build the liberty movement up rather than let certain people water it down.

Because we have a foothold and some candidates, and leadership positions in states. I don't think it should be the only string in our bow, the GOP is expert at cheating, as we discovered.

GOP wants us gone from the party. Gone we can't trouble them. But I have doubts about that being the winning path, given the corruption, even though I support /donate/work for it. I just think we need several paths.

Besides, Gary Johnson isn't enticing. That is just the truth. THe LP has had some really good candidates, but not in the last two cycles. There is nothing to draw us anywhere else.

At least that is how I see it.

MelissaWV
02-06-2013, 08:30 PM
I don't think it's that silly when you consider that in order to win with the LP we'd only need around 34% of the vote to win. Most conservatives will never vote for a libertarian, in or outside their party. Go talk to a few of them and see.
...


So you got 1%, and with absolutely everyone else voting for Ron or wishing they had, you still would have not broken double digits. You "only" need 34% of the vote to win.

And the plan to get that huge percentage of the vote is... to whine about not having gotten it months ago.

Sounds legit.

Meanwhile you are so oblivious to the elections that were won, or are on the verge of being won, that you have to embarrass yourself by asking what's been accomplished.

* * *

ETA:

I guess the much shorter question is: what are you doing to get your local Libertarians ballot access and help them win elections?

idiom
02-06-2013, 08:43 PM
Why didn't we get behind Gary Johnson?

Because when push comes to shove he can't budget his way out of a paper bag.

fr33
02-06-2013, 09:05 PM
While I do also lament that we didn't all support him just for the sake of a stronger showing for what the media perceives as "libertarianism", these threads really never get anywhere. It's been argued over and over again.

parocks
02-07-2013, 10:32 AM
Sure it did. We could have had maybe two or three times more votes for a liberty candidate and have really made a splash. But instead Ron Paul supporters remained loyalists to the party that hates our guts.

Oh well, at least we'll maybe have Rand in 2016. Then we can finally get this war with Iran going.

Libertarian Party is nice to have as a protest vote. But Ron Paul was there for that. The serious people are bringing the Liberty to the GOP.

parocks
02-07-2013, 10:42 AM
I don't think it's that silly when you consider that in order to win with the LP we'd only need around 34% of the vote to win. Most conservatives will never vote for a libertarian, in or outside their party. Go talk to a few of them and see.



But why are so many Ron Paul supporters stuck on staying with the republican party now that the 2012 election is over and Ron isn't even in the party any more? It seems like a lot of Ron Paul supporters are more loyal to the GOP than Ron himself was. He did a good job of using it as a vehicle to get the message out, but now that that's over why stick around? The LP got more votes than it ever has in the last election. Why not build it up and let the dinosaur GOP die a slow painful death? Americans are going to thoroughly hate both major parties by the end of 2016 most likely. I think we have a real opportunity now to build the liberty movement up rather than let certain people water it down.

Libertarians never win. Anything. Independents win sometimes. Libertarians, never.

The home of conservatives is in the GOP.

erowe1
02-07-2013, 10:42 AM
Libertarian Party is nice to have as a protest vote. But Ron Paul was there for that. The serious people are bringing the Liberty to the GOP.

Seriously. If we wanted to make that statement, then we made it in the GOP primaries, caucuses, and conventions. The establishment noticed us there. Whatever was to happen in the fall had no potential to add anything to that.

The people that really need to rethink things aren't the small-government Republicans who made the wrong choice about which meaningless vote to cast in the general election. It's the Libertarians who refused to get involved in the GOP to help Ron when they actually had a chance to make a difference in something and then complained when the Ron Paul supporters they didn't help when it really counted didn't help them when it didn't.

sylcfh
02-07-2013, 01:48 PM
The LP was downright nasty to Paul after '88.

gerryb1
02-07-2013, 03:12 PM
Libertarians never win. Anything. Independents win sometimes. Libertarians, never.

The home of conservatives is in the GOP.

Exactly. If you're not down with this route, you really shouldn't be involved in electoral politics.

sylcfh
02-07-2013, 03:45 PM
This is about as close as it can get.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Monds

supermario21
02-07-2013, 03:47 PM
Was Gary even a serious candidate? I was sick of those stupid peace T-shirts he wore at virtually every appearance. Also as many of said his pro-government positions on abortion and gay marriage really didn't seem libertarian to me.

Dr.3D
02-07-2013, 03:57 PM
I didn't vote for Johnson because I had said, come hell or high water or even a blizzard in hell, I was going to vote for Ron Paul. NOBP!!!

Gravik
02-07-2013, 04:56 PM
I voted Gary Johnson.. I wouldn't have been able to sleep at night if I voted Obama or Romney.

Same.

libertariantexas
02-07-2013, 05:41 PM
Exactly. If you're not down with this route, you really shouldn't be involved in electoral politics.

You comment makes no sense at all, which makes me wonder if you are qualified to discuss politics at all, let alone pass judgment on others.

We were all for Ron Paul during the PRIMARY.

After he lost the primary, to "support the GOP" meant to go out and campaign for Mitt Romney, an atrociously bad candidate if you are libertarian or conservative.

The question was about why we didn't support Gary Johnson AFTER Ron was out of the race- at that point our choices were Obama, Romney, and Johnson (in Texas, at least- I know there were motley minor candidates in other states- but I doubt many of us was voting for the Prohibition Party or the Green Party). I guess I could have also cast an uncounted vote for Ron Paul, which would have been the height of folly.

So after Ron Paul lost the nomination, I DID NOT SUPPORT MITTENS.

I gave my support to Gary Johnson, as he was clearly the best remaining candidate.

sailingaway
02-07-2013, 05:57 PM
it is fine if that is what you wanted to do, but others didn't want to vote for Gary Johnson because they didn't like him as a candidate.

I wrote in Ron Paul.

erowe1
02-07-2013, 06:08 PM
We were all for Ron Paul during the PRIMARY.

I know a lot of Libertarians who weren't.

sailingaway
02-07-2013, 06:09 PM
I know a lot of Libertarians who weren't.

me too. Some even tried to imply he was racist etc.

LibertyEagle
02-20-2013, 07:35 AM
What's wrong with homosexual marriage? Leave people alone you dickbag.

Any more shitty posts like that and I'm axeing your stupid confederate account with your shit avatar.

(no ****)

Ron didn't want to nationalize homosexual marriage, either.

wgadget
02-20-2013, 08:15 AM
Yep, I supported GJ in the general.

Btw, GJ is doing a GOOGLE HANGOUT today. Just heard it on Bloomberg.

LibertyEagle
02-20-2013, 08:17 AM
Does the republican party know that?

This is the kind of statement that causes me to shake my head. The Republican Party is comprised of whomever is in it. If good men and women sit on the sidelines and let the bad guys take it over, guess what? It's the same story with the "tea party". We get our panties in a bunch because someone else took what we started and really made it into something. WE DIDN'T. We just sat and let others run off with it. Yeah, we bitched, but that did nothing. If we wanted to keep it, or to take it back, all we had to do is get in there and get involved. We could have started setting up our own tea party events and inviting speakers, etc. But, WE DIDN'T.

FrankRep
02-20-2013, 08:20 AM
We were all for Ron Paul during the PRIMARY.

I know a lot of Libertarians who weren't.

Wow. I question the common sense and sanity of the "Libertarians" who think Ron Paul is too big government for them.

wgadget
02-20-2013, 09:36 AM
This is the kind of statement that causes me to shake my head. The Republican Party is comprised of whomever is in it. If good men and women sit on the sidelines and let the bad guys take it over, guess what? It's the same story with the "tea party". We get our panties in a bunch because someone else took what we started and really made it into something. WE DIDN'T. We just sat and let others run off with it. Yeah, we bitched, but that did nothing. If we wanted to keep it, or to take it back, all we had to do is get in there and get involved. We could have started setting up our own tea party events and inviting speakers, etc. But, WE DIDN'T.

Did WE have the big name sheeple propagandists (Hannity, Levin, Limbaugh) on our side, promoting the RON PAUL LIBERTARIAN aspect of the Tea Party? No, WE did not. The money usually wins in this corporatocracy, sadly.

The minute I attended a WSB Radio Tea Party event featuring Herman Cain, I knew the movement had been hijacked.

cajuncocoa
02-20-2013, 09:46 AM
Did WE have the big name sheeple propagandists (Hannity, Levin, Limbaugh) on our side, promoting the RON PAUL LIBERTARIAN aspect of the Tea Party? No, WE did not. The money usually wins in this corporatocracy, sadly.

The minute I attended a WSB Radio Tea Party event featuring Herman Cain, I knew the movement had been hijacked.There are more of them than there are of us. Once the plan to hijack the TP was set in motion, it was impossible to stop.

FrankRep
02-20-2013, 09:48 AM
Did WE have the big name sheeple propagandists (Hannity, Levin, Limbaugh) on our side, promoting the RON PAUL LIBERTARIAN aspect of the Tea Party? No, WE did not. The money usually wins in this corporatocracy, sadly.

The minute I attended a WSB Radio Tea Party event featuring Herman Cain, I knew the movement had been hijacked.

They seem to be supportive of Rand Paul. There's a lesson to be learned here.

I'm a constitutionalist, not a libertarian by the way.

Brett85
02-20-2013, 09:50 AM
I would never support any politician who supports abortion rights.

compromise
02-20-2013, 09:58 AM
Gary Johnson missed a good opportunity to run for an open Senate seat in New Mexico. He was polling pretty well (http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_NM_1215925.pdf) and would have had a good chance at beating the Dem. In 2014, he'll have to go up against an incumbent, so it'll be much harder for him to win. Rove and McConnell would have been happy because that'd be one more seat for the Republicans in a blue state and so would grassroots conservatives and libertarians who would have another Senator to stand with Rand Paul, Mike Lee, Ted Cruz and Jeff Flake.

Instead, he chose to piss off the establishment by running against Romney and piss off the grassroots by not becoming the next Tea Party Senator from New Mexico.

kcchiefs6465
02-20-2013, 10:24 AM
Ron didn't want to nationalize homosexual marriage, either.
From what I understand, Ron Paul wanted government out of marriage altogether. It is a religious ceremony and should be left as such. If homosexuals want to marry what right does anyone to tell them they can't? It's when the benefits afforded to married couples come into discussion that it becomes a controversey.

ronpaulfollower999
02-20-2013, 10:27 AM
Outside of abstaining, Gary Johnson was the best choice in the 2012 general. Though, I would've preferred R. Lee Wrights.

kcchiefs6465
02-20-2013, 10:28 AM
As to the OP, the reason I didn't support GJ is because of his views on foreign policy. I'm not sure if you have noticed, but it's a big deal to me. Pretty much a deal breaker depending on what exactly they say and do.

Make no doubt about it, the collapse of our empire will occur because of military adventurism. GJ did not seem firm enough to stop our meddling. I agreed with him on a lot of other issues, though.

JoshLowry
02-20-2013, 10:28 AM
What's wrong with homosexual marriage? Leave people alone you dickbag.

Any more shitty posts like that and I'm axeing your stupid confederate account with your shit avatar.

(no ****)

Ron didn't want to nationalize homosexual marriage, either.

Sorry, I do not mean to imply I favor nationalizing it. Yes, government should stay out of it.

lx43
02-20-2013, 01:34 PM
Gary Johnson missed a good opportunity to run for an open Senate seat in New Mexico. He was polling pretty well (http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_NM_1215925.pdf) and would have had a good chance at beating the Dem. In 2014, he'll have to go up against an incumbent, so it'll be much harder for him to win. Rove and McConnell would have been happy because that'd be one more seat for the Republicans in a blue state and so would grassroots conservatives and libertarians who would have another Senator to stand with Rand Paul, Mike Lee, Ted Cruz and Jeff Flake.

Instead, he chose to piss off the establishment by running against Romney and piss off the grassroots by not becoming the next Tea Party Senator from New Mexico.

This. He had no chance of winning the Presidency and could have made a good run at becoming a US Senator--a powerful position. Instead he blew his political capital on running for the LP. With that said, it pleases me is he may have help to deny Flip flop the presidency.

notsure
02-20-2013, 06:30 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aTch7InkZjo


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Y1egV2Q2FE


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lTWUctBpUxs

Gary Johnson is a phony, and the LP tried to break up the Ron Paul vote.

LopTarDaBoo
02-20-2013, 11:46 PM
Few simple reasons:

* He never seemed up to the task when he was on stage, in interviews, on radio shows. His message was wishy washy and muddled. I saw him trip up several times (Palin style) in TV interviews. It's OK for someone running for a lower office to not have every issue down, but Presidential candidates have to be able to hold their ground and win people over with their conviction and knowledge.

* He allowed himself to be easily derailed to the classic BS Libertarian issues like pot legalization. He was a non-factor on critical issues like the bailouts, corporatism, regulatory corruption, etc.. Those issues were _begging_ for an opinion to be voiced and all I get to hear about is pot?

* The Libertarian party is too dysfunctional and unfocused to bother supporting. Have you ever been to one of their meetings? It's beyond depressing. Johnson was above average for the Libertarian ticket, but Paul was obviously where the resources needed to be focused and we did that.

* He ran his campaign on debt. Nothing pisses me off more than a candidate who is running just to pay down his debt.

So like most people on this board, I have respect for Gary, and wish he had the sense to run for Senate instead.

Victor Grey
02-21-2013, 10:22 AM
* He ran his campaign on debt. Nothing pisses me off more than a candidate who is running just to pay down his debt.


Really?

When it's a 3rd party candidate in question to me that makes it worse. Let's be real, you're gonna lose 3rd party, the point you're getting at is to gain support.
At best in the end you either spend it as it comes in, or you might reserve a small lump, let people complain about that because they will, and put it into an endowment of some sort or into a political organization like Ron Paul did for C4L going forward post campaign.

But you don't go into debt. Not when there isn't any viable possibilities that would motivate you to do so. To my knowledge there hardly ever are anyway.

Running into debt third party, is insulting to me.

RonPaulFanInGA
02-21-2013, 10:54 AM
Can we call this thread the "FINAL" opinion on Gary Johnson?

Sayzak
02-23-2013, 01:19 PM
In short: He isn't inspiring. At least not ne arly to the magnitude that Ron Paul is.

More specifically, in two parts:

1. He doesn't appeal to conservatives as much as Ron Paul does.

2. He doesn't have a long enough track record.

MelissaWV
02-23-2013, 01:27 PM
My God... this is still going on....

EBounding
02-23-2013, 01:41 PM
So what's Gary Johnson doing for the cause of liberty now that the election is over?



Exactly.

FrankRep
02-23-2013, 01:47 PM
So what's Gary Johnson doing for the cause of liberty now that the election is over?
Here's the only real news I see about him.

Gary Johnson resumes role as chair of Our America Initiative (issues advocacy organization)
http://www.examiner.com/article/gary-johnson-resumes-role-as-chair-of-issues-advocacy-organization

Gary Johnson reboots with libertarian non-campaign campaign
http://newmexico.watchdog.org/16814/gary-johnson-reboots-with-libertarian-non-campaign-campaign/

Our America Initiative
http://ouramericainitiative.com/

FrankRep
02-23-2013, 01:55 PM
Gary Johnson resumes role as chair of Our America Initiative (issues advocacy organization)
http://www.examiner.com/article/gary-johnson-resumes-role-as-chair-of-issues-advocacy-organization

Gary Johnson reboots with libertarian non-campaign campaign
http://newmexico.watchdog.org/16814/gary-johnson-reboots-with-libertarian-non-campaign-campaign/

Our America Initiative
http://ouramericainitiative.com/


Gary Johnson's Our America Initiative Promotes Abortion as a "Choice" (http://ouramericainitiative.com/issues/abortion)

Foolish.



Abortion

Life is precious and needs to be protected. Deciding to have an abortion is a very difficult decision. We believe that ultimately it is a woman’s right to make such a decision during the early stage of pregnancy.

EBounding
02-23-2013, 03:09 PM
Here's the only real news I see about him.

Gary Johnson resumes role as chair of Our America Initiative (issues advocacy organization)
http://www.examiner.com/article/gary-johnson-resumes-role-as-chair-of-issues-advocacy-organization

Gary Johnson reboots with libertarian non-campaign campaign
http://newmexico.watchdog.org/16814/gary-johnson-reboots-with-libertarian-non-campaign-campaign/

Our America Initiative
http://ouramericainitiative.com/

And of course it's really just all about him. Exhibit A:

http://ouramericainitiative.com/wp-content/uploads/logo1.gif

*facepalm*

RandRevolution
02-25-2013, 06:41 AM
And of course it's really just all about him. Exhibit A:

http://ouramericainitiative.com/wp-content/uploads/logo1.gif

*facepalm*
Dude, why are you being so hostile towards him? This is a guy who agrees with you on 99% of the issues and you're (for some reason) criticizing the logos of his activist group designed to promote the issues this movement is based on? He doesn't have to go around the country speaking in favor of our ideas, he could retire and travel the world if he wants to.

Of course an activist group's website started by Gary Johnson, featuring Gary Johnson, that has Gary Johnson going around the country to over 30 states at over 150 stops when not running for president is going to have pictures of Gary Johnson and shit on the site. Why are you criticizing him for this?

This man is a hero. The attitude people like you have towards him is just so irrational I don't get it.

RandRevolution
02-25-2013, 06:42 AM
Gary Johnson's Our America Initiative Promotes Abortion as a "Choice" (http://ouramericainitiative.com/issues/abortion)

Foolish.



Abortion

Life is precious and needs to be protected. Deciding to have an abortion is a very difficult decision. We believe that ultimately it is a woman’s right to make such a decision during the early stage of pregnancy.

Good job letting a manufactured issue used by the MSM to distract from everything this movement is based off of determine your vote.

erowe1
02-26-2013, 05:03 PM
Sorry for bumping this thread.

I just wanted to say, the more posts I see from the OP, on pretty much every topic that comes up, the more annoying his use of the word "we" in this thread title is.

Athan
02-26-2013, 05:19 PM
I remember lurking the opposing candidates forum during the general election and it was basically people constantly shitting on Gary Johnson. To not support Gary, someone who agrees with you on 99% of the issues, because of minor imperfection is pretty ridiculous but the fact that people were actually hostile towards someone who should be considered a hero is just disgusting.
...
So yeah, this is the Achilles heel of the liberty movement and it's sad that all the momentum from the 2012 campaign was wasted due to people in the movement being perfectionists.

Coming from someone who DID vote for Gary, I think it came down to Gary Johnson simply splitting the ticket and dividing our efforts. Libertarian party members channeled support for him and did not help to take out neo-cons in primaries. I like Gary, but starting in November/December of 2011 his strategy really became ineffective and dragged down Ron's efforts as well. The strategy just got worse as time went on and I think a lot of people that will vote for Gary Johnson in any other office just got pissed at him and his ardent supporters. His supporters were actually campaigning HERE and on Ron Paul sites to give up on Ron before Ron called it quits. I mean... if I was in HIS shoes, I would have stepped down in late November, and gotten myself ready for a Senate office.

Gary just ****ed up strategically. He basically created infighting even if it was not intentional. I mean he can be president, but we need to have a little bit of an agreement which members need to be a standard bearer if you aren't really gaining ground.

idiom
02-26-2013, 05:28 PM
A pretty basic requirement is someone who has the self discipline to not get their campaign into massive irreconcilable debt.

What is the point of electing someone who thinks debt is okay and can't control budgets they are given.

TNforPaul45
02-26-2013, 05:50 PM
Why didn't we get behind Gary Johnson? Because he said that he was more effective than Ron who "never passed a single piece of legislation in his tenure in congress." A Statement that hurt Ron's feelings so much that he felt motivated to make it the first sentence of his Farewell Address.

If Gary had just been a bit more kind, he would have had an army​ behind him.

Okie RP fan
02-26-2013, 07:59 PM
I would have voted for Gary if OK allowed him to be on the ballot, purely out of protest.

However, overall I was never truly impressed with Gary Johnson. He always acted like he had a chip on his shoulder and was clueless in regard to foreign policy for the better part of his candidacy.

I<3Liberty
03-10-2013, 09:28 PM
I supported and voted for Gary Johnson. Ron Paul didn't do his write-in paperwork, so it appeared to me as if he wanted us to support someone else. Personally, I liked Gary Johnson -- he was definitely a better speaker (although sometimes he was a little too goofy to be considered professional.) I felt there were some things he had a better position on than Ron Paul, but I agree he was lacking in a few areas. Judge Jim Gray was great, as well. I wished he would have done more talking because people took him a lot more seriously than Gary.

sailingaway
03-10-2013, 09:32 PM
I supported and voted for Gary Johnson. Ron Paul didn't do his write-in paperwork, so it appeared to me as if he wanted us to support someone else. Personally, I liked Gary Johnson -- he was definitely a better speaker (although sometimes he was a little too goofy to be considered professional.) I felt there were some things he had a better position on than Ron Paul, but I agree he was lacking in a few areas. Judge Jim Gray was great, as well. I wished he would have done more talking because people took him a lot more seriously than Gary.

I don't think Gary was a better speaker at all, and he didn't interview as if he had any backbone at all, unlike Ron. I was really surprised when they were in that first debate in SC at how bad Gary was because his supporters had kept saying over and over that he spoke better than Ron, and he really seemed uncomfortable in his own skin, imho. But opinions can differ, I guess.

NoOneButPaul
03-10-2013, 10:05 PM
The better question is why didn't Gary run for Senate instead... I imagine he would have chimed in for Rand last week and would have been 1 more good guy in the Senate. The fact he didn't take the automatic Senate seat really made me question his motives.

No doubt he would have carried his state.

Christian Liberty
03-10-2013, 10:09 PM
What I think of Gary is actually similar to what I think of Rand, although a bit different. Both of them have some libertarian sentiments, are a heck of a lot better than the other choices, but need to become more hardcore like Ron Paul.

Brian4Liberty
03-10-2013, 10:17 PM
Just saw this thread. What fun.

How about a what if? What role would Gary have played during Rand's filibuster if had actually run for Senate and won? Would he have been up there right from the start like Mike Lee? Or would he have reluctantly gone up there like Rubio and Flake? Guess we'll never know, because Gary made a couple of strategic mistakes. Not running for Senate was one. Listening to campaign advisers who wanted him to be critical of Ron was another.

It seems like Gary did learn a lot about "libertarian" theory during the process. His message was much better (clearer) by the end. If he wants to run for Senate, he will get a fair amount of support from Ron Paul fans.

Christian Liberty
03-11-2013, 10:57 AM
Speaking as someone who probably disagrees with Ron Paul maybe 5-10% of the time while agreeing with him 90-95%, saying Gary agrees with the libertarian view 99% of the time, even if you throw him all of the controversial issues (I don't, I think he's wrong on abortion for one) is overly generous. Considering the issues that are actually likely to be changeable in four years, his biggest problem (Much like Rand) is not going all out on Ron's foreign policy. However, when it comes to harder-core libertarian theory, he just isn't very good. He wants to arrest dealers of hard drugs. He's OK with "Humanitarian Wars" (This one was one the President could probably actually change). He looks at things from "Cost benefit analysis" and while this leads to a lot of libertarian views, he'll reject the philosophy as soon as it doesn't fit that analysis anymore. He's utilitarian. He doesn't really understand why decentralization is truly important. He supports FairTax (This one is really, really frustrating, no tax that takes 23% of anything is justifiable, period.) Overall, he was the guy I wanted to vote for in 2012 (I was only 17 during election season... I tried to convince other people to vote for Gary but I don't think I convinced anyone.) Unlike Romney or Obama, I can't imagine Johnson actually making anything worse, and he'd probably have made a few things better. So I would definitely have voted for him. But he's no Ron Paul. Much like Rand, Gary doesn't even deserve to be mentioned in the same sentence as. Ron Paul.

I<3Liberty
03-11-2013, 04:24 PM
Speaking as someone who probably disagrees with Ron Paul maybe 5-10% of the time while agreeing with him 90-95%, saying Gary agrees with the libertarian view 99% of the time, even if you throw him all of the controversial issues (I don't, I think he's wrong on abortion for one) is overly generous. Considering the issues that are actually likely to be changeable in four years, his biggest problem (Much like Rand) is not going all out on Ron's foreign policy. However, when it comes to harder-core libertarian theory, he just isn't very good. He wants to arrest dealers of hard drugs. He's OK with "Humanitarian Wars" (This one was one the President could probably actually change). He looks at things from "Cost benefit analysis" and while this leads to a lot of libertarian views, he'll reject the philosophy as soon as it doesn't fit that analysis anymore. He's utilitarian. He doesn't really understand why decentralization is truly important. He supports FairTax (This one is really, really frustrating, no tax that takes 23% of anything is justifiable, period.) Overall, he was the guy I wanted to vote for in 2012 (I was only 17 during election season... I tried to convince other people to vote for Gary but I don't think I convinced anyone.) Unlike Romney or Obama, I can't imagine Johnson actually making anything worse, and he'd probably have made a few things better. So I would definitely have voted for him. But he's no Ron Paul. Much like Rand, Gary doesn't even deserve to be mentioned in the same sentence as. Ron Paul.

The fairtax would tax consumption which I believe is a good idea because everyone that consumes will pay taxes and it will encourage people to be more conservative with resources and not just go impulse buy a load of crap. This is something (in my opinion) the greens and eco-liberals and few eco-republicans would like. Also, the percentage could be decreased as spending becomes more efficient. I do agree with you on the "cost benefit analysis" -- I was annoyed by that, as well and felt it left him too narrow-minded when working through issues. Judge Jim Gray incorporated more philosophy into his reasoning, but he did this mostly through videos and social media where he had few followers compared to Gary. I really wish he would have shared a Facebook, Twitter and Google+ page with Gary, so people heard more from both of them.

Gary did change his position on wars and even talked about the Kony thing later on. Again, I think the cost benefit analysis left him narrow-minded and he lacked the philosophy Dr. Paul had. He attempted to adopt more of Dr. Paul's views as time went on.

I know it's a super-controversial issue and there's so much more to it, but I do agree with Gary's position on abortion. At quickening, the fetus can feel pain and it is capable of living separate from the mother, so I believe it then becomes an issue of euthansia of an individual not aborting a fetus. Yes, laws are not going to resolve the issue, but it's setting some realistic boundaries. Dr. Paul was for leaving it to the states, but I think there does need to be cutoff at the point where the fetus is no longer dependent on the mother since at that point, it is possible to do a C-section (which is faster and less risky for the mother than abortion) and allow the baby to be kept alive in the NICU. It's a win/win scenario.

Bastiat's The Law
03-11-2013, 04:59 PM
The better question is why didn't Gary run for Senate instead... I imagine he would have chimed in for Rand last week and would have been 1 more good guy in the Senate. The fact he didn't take the automatic Senate seat really made me question his motives.

No doubt he would have carried his state.
Very True. I won't take him or anyone seriously unless they run in the fashion as our other liberty candidates have, i.e. Republicans.