PDA

View Full Version : Gary Johnson plans to run against Rand in 2016




Matt Collins
11-04-2014, 11:04 AM
http://reason.com/blog/2014/11/04/gary-johnson-ill-run-in-2016-to-provide

CaptUSA
11-04-2014, 11:06 AM
Really? Gary John?

http://streetartgaryjohn.com/

Not concerned.

LawnWake
11-04-2014, 11:32 AM
Libertarians aren't liberals when it comes to social issues, they don't believe in state enforced "equality".

Rand isn't libertarian, but he's more libertarian than Gary Johnson.

Brett85
11-04-2014, 12:22 PM
I think even the Libertarian Party members will realize how unproductive it will be to nominate Johnson if Rand is the GOP nominee. I think there's probably enough pragmatic people in the Libertarian Party that they'll nominate Rand for the LP nomination rather than Johnson. I mean, they nominated Bob Barr for crying out loud. Rand is certainly more libertarian than Bob Barr.

jllundqu
11-04-2014, 12:22 PM
Gary Johnson again? How did he do last cycle? About .5%? Nice

Brett85
11-04-2014, 12:24 PM
Gary Johnson again? How did he do last cycle? About .5%? Nice

He got about 1%. That would be enough to cost Rand the election in a close race. Rand's people are going to have to work with the Libertarian Party and convince them to nominate Rand.

William Tell
11-04-2014, 12:24 PM
Yay! gotta have a pro baby killing candidate!
There is no liberty without the right for parents, oh, sorry I mean WOMEN to kill their kids.:rolleyes:

Peace&Freedom
11-04-2014, 12:48 PM
He got about 1%. That would be enough to cost Rand the election in a close race. Rand's people are going to have to work with the Libertarian Party and convince them to nominate Rand.

Not just "Rand's people." RAND has to announce he's seeking the LP nomination, and show up to get it at their convention in 2016, same goes for fthe CP. No party nomination, major or minor, is phoned in to anybody, especially if they're not even running on that party's platform.

Brett85
11-04-2014, 12:55 PM
Not just "Rand's people." RAND has to announce he's seeking the LP nomination, and show up to get it at their convention in 2016, same goes for fthe CP. No party nomination, major or minor, is phoned in to anybody, especially if they're not even running on that party's platform.

I don't know about that when Rand would still be actively seeking the Republican nomination at that time. I'm not sure if all of the primaries would even be over. But I just don't really think that Libertarian Party members would want to sabotage Rand's Presidential run by nominating Gary Johnson. I refuse to believe that they're that stupid.

Brett85
11-04-2014, 12:56 PM
No party nomination, major or minor, is phoned in to anybody, especially if they're not even running on that party's platform.

He's running on the LP Party's platform for the most part, just not the killing babies part.

NOVALibertarian
11-04-2014, 01:11 PM
If Rand Paul gets the GOP's nomination, the Libertarian Party should either nominate Rand Paul as well or just not field a candidate in 2016. Running someone that would take a percentage or so away from Rand would be perhaps the most shortsighted thing they could possibly do since Rand Paul will be the closest a "Libertarian" will ever come to the winning the White House.

robertwerden
11-04-2014, 01:15 PM
Big difference between Gary Johnson saying he will run and getting the Libertarian nomination.

CaptUSA
11-04-2014, 01:22 PM
But I just don't really think that Libertarian Party members would want to sabotage Rand's Presidential run by nominating Gary Johnson. I refuse to believe that they're that stupid.

Are you serious?! Of course they're that stupid. They sabotage themselves every chance they get.

NOVALibertarian
11-04-2014, 01:22 PM
Big difference between Gary Johnson saying he will run and getting the Libertarian nomination.

If recent history is any indication, they'll nominate the person with the largest name recognition amongst their pool of candidates. I can't see a bigger name than Gary Johnson seeking the nomination unless Rand Paul is revealed to be the antichrist and Ron Paul decides to pick up the lightsaber one more time to fight his son for the fate of the Republic.

I mean, who else would they nominate? The guy here who said he was finished with Rand Paul because Rand didn't outright call for the legalization of marijuana at an Evangelical conference (or w/e it was)?

Brian4Liberty
11-04-2014, 01:24 PM
Don't know that all libertarians would agree with Johnson on all of these positions...


...Johnson said:

"... Look, libertarians are flaming liberals when it comes to social issues, when it comes to civil liberties. A woman's right to choose, drug reform, immigration, marriage equality."

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsmax-Tv/Gary-Johnson-libertarian-president-change/2014/11/03/id/604938/

Peace&Freedom
11-04-2014, 01:25 PM
I don't know about that when Rand would still be actively seeking the Republican nomination at that time. I'm not sure if all of the primaries would even be over. But I just don't really think that Libertarian Party members would want to sabotage Rand's Presidential run by nominating Gary Johnson. I refuse to believe that they're that stupid.

It's not stupidity, it's being non-beholden to a personality. The LP/CP does not exist for Rand, or to have its process held in suspended animation pending the outcome of the other party's nomination season. It's not clear they will re-nominate Johnson either (Harry Browne's back to back nominations were a kind of exceptional situation, it's usually 'one and done' in the LP).

William Tell
11-04-2014, 01:27 PM
Don't know that all libertarians would agree with Johnson on all of these positions...



...Johnson said:

"... Look, libertarians are flaming liberals when it comes to social issues, when it comes to civil liberties. A woman's right to choose, drug reform, immigration, marriage equality."



http://www.newsmax.com/Newsmax-Tv/Gary-Johnson-libertarian-president-change/2014/11/03/id/604938/

Yeah, but he managed to find people to support him last time. Lots of liberty people don't like Johnson, but I have not heard of any of his supporters from last time jumping ship. I did not vote for him.

Natural Citizen
11-04-2014, 01:44 PM
What's love got to do with it...

jllundqu
11-04-2014, 01:54 PM
One word. Virginia. Just look what the LP did in Virginia Governor's race. Hell the democratic party bigwigs heavily funded the LP candidate to split the conservative vote, which worked like a charm. LP got about 10% if I recall and ensured a Demoncratic win.... Nice

http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/judson-phillips-cold-hard-truth/2013/nov/6/miracle-ken-cuccinelli/

Christian Liberty
11-04-2014, 02:09 PM
If recent history is any indication, they'll nominate the person with the largest name recognition amongst their pool of candidates. I can't see a bigger name than Gary Johnson seeking the nomination unless Rand Paul is revealed to be the antichrist and Ron Paul decides to pick up the lightsaber one more time to fight his son for the fate of the Republic.

I mean, who else would they nominate? The guy here who said he was finished with Rand Paul because Rand didn't outright call for the legalization of marijuana at an Evangelical conference (or w/e it was)?

If Ron Paul decides to run against Rand I would vote for Ron. That would tell me Ron knows something that I don't. I trust Ron more than I trust Rand.

Barring that, though, Rand is way more libertarian than GJ is. I see no reason Johnson should get involved if Rand is the GOP nominee.


One word. Virginia. Just look what the LP did in Virginia Governor's race. Hell the democratic party bigwigs heavily funded the LP candidate to split the conservative vote, which worked like a charm. LP got about 10% if I recall and ensured a Demoncratic win.... Nice

http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/judson-phillips-cold-hard-truth/2013/nov/6/miracle-ken-cuccinelli/ Yeah, that was kind of a shame. Cuccinelli was better than most.

alucard13mm
11-04-2014, 02:14 PM
He should go after a Senate seat as a Republican or even a libertarian. How does the LP expect to win without getting people into senate, house or govern or under the LP banner. Gary will be the best tool to do that.

Matt Collins
11-04-2014, 02:19 PM
It could be accepted as a professional courtesy at the very least if one of the folks employed to moderate these boards chose to take the time to correct the slimy editorialization that Mr. Collins employs here
huh? say what? :rolleyes:

jmdrake
11-04-2014, 02:23 PM
Yeah, but he managed to find people to support him last time. Lots of liberty people don't like Johnson, but I have not heard of any of his supporters from last time jumping ship. I did not vote for him.

Last time it was Mitt Romney versus Barack Obama or some third party candidate. (I voted Virgil Goode of the Constitution Party). The time before that it was John McCain versus Barack Obama or some third party candidate. (I voted Chuck Baldwin of the Constitution Party). Now I'm guessing the average person who voted libertarian in both of those races (Bob Barr and then Gary Johnson) is at least as smart as me and will not vote third party if Rand Paul is the nominee.

jmdrake
11-04-2014, 02:24 PM
He should go after a Senate seat as a Republican or even a libertarian. How does the LP expect to win without getting people into senate, house or govern or under the LP banner. Gary will be the best tool to do that.

You mean actually govern as a libertarian?

Christian Liberty
11-04-2014, 02:26 PM
It's not stupidity, it's being non-beholden to a personality. The LP/CP does not exist for Rand, or to have its process held in suspended animation pending the outcome of the other party's nomination season. It's not clear they will re-nominate Johnson either (Harry Browne's back to back nominations were a kind of exceptional situation, it's usually 'one and done' in the LP).

If the LP were to endorse a true libertarian, like Judge Nap, Tom Woods, or something like that, then I'd agree with you. But Johnson isn't even really libertarian. That's the thing. If you want to be a purist, at least actually, you know, be a purist. If you aren't going to endorse Rand, and you are going to participate in the political process, you should at least offer something that is better than Rand. Which Gary Johnson is not, IMO.


Libertarians aren't liberals when it comes to social issues, they don't believe in state enforced "equality".

Rand isn't libertarian, but he's more libertarian than Gary Johnson.

This. libertarians are also at least sometimes against abortion on the grounds that it is murder.

Natural Citizen
11-04-2014, 02:32 PM
huh? say what? :rolleyes:

It's been resolved. In fact, I'll edit my posting to correspond. Have a good day.

erowe1
11-04-2014, 03:41 PM
Not just "Rand's people." RAND has to announce he's seeking the LP nomination, and show up to get it at their convention in 2016, same goes for fthe CP. No party nomination, major or minor, is phoned in to anybody, especially if they're not even running on that party's platform.

Ron didn't have to do that. Why does Rand?

William Tell
11-04-2014, 03:43 PM
Ron didn't have to do that. Why does Rand?

Ron did not win the LP nomination in 2012 or 2008. I think one or 2 LP delegates voted for him at their conventions though.

LawnWake
11-04-2014, 03:49 PM
This. libertarians are also at least sometimes against abortion on the grounds that it is murder.

Yeah like, I'm not against abortion up until a certain time because of reasons relating to personhood. But there's a perfectly valid libertarian argument AGAINST abortion. Ultimately I agree with Gary Johnson that abortion should be legal, but I don't consider his approach to the issue libertarian at all. Rand Paul is more libertarian than Johnson on abortion to me, and not because of WHAT he thinks, but because of WHY he thinks what he does. Likewise, my position on abortion is libertarian as well, even if my conclusion differs from Paul's.

erowe1
11-04-2014, 03:50 PM
Ron did not win the LP nomination in 2012 or 2008. I think one or 2 LP delegates voted for him at their conventions though.

But the LP said they wouldn't run a candidate against him if he won the GOP nomination.

William Tell
11-04-2014, 03:51 PM
But the LP said they wouldn't run a candidate against him if he won the GOP nomination.

No they did not.

JJ2
11-04-2014, 04:00 PM
He got about 1%. That would be enough to cost Rand the election in a close race. Rand's people are going to have to work with the Libertarian Party and convince them to nominate Rand.

It's true that Johnson getting 1% could be a real problem for Rand. But it's highly unlikely that Johnson would get 1% if Rand were the GOP nominee. It would probably be closer to 0.3% this time, as most (or least half) of those who voted for Johnson in 2012 would probably vote for Rand.

Christian Liberty
11-04-2014, 04:01 PM
Yeah like, I'm not against abortion up until a certain time because of reasons relating to personhood. But there's a perfectly valid libertarian argument AGAINST abortion. Ultimately I agree with Gary Johnson that abortion should be legal, but I don't consider his approach to the issue libertarian at all. Rand Paul is more libertarian than Johnson on abortion to me, and not because of WHAT he thinks, but because of WHY he thinks what he does. Likewise, my position on abortion is libertarian as well, even if my conclusion differs from Paul's.

I don't think Gary Johnson is even really thinking about it in moral terms. I think he's just thinking "its a controversial issue, so I'm going to be on the side of less government involvement." That's an instinct that normally works, but in this case its not really workable. Its not just because he's wrong, its that he isn't even thinking about it. Even the most diehard ancaps (which Gary Johnson is not) would oppose a law saying that it is now legal to kill Jews. I see the issue of killing the unborn as very similar.

Even as diehard anti-government control as I am, abortion is an issue I have a hard time really compromising on because of what I said above. Even still, I recognize that:

1. Its very hard to actually enforce anti-abortion laws.

2. The Federal government has no constitutional authority, barring a constitutional amendment, to interfere with the issue.

3. Republicans by and large are not really serious about personhood. This includes Rand Paul. To be honest, it probably includes Ron Paul to, to a certain extent. Until I hear someone saying that Scott Roeder should be released from prison because his actions were actually not murder but vigilante justice, I will consider that person to some extent a compromiser (ie. inconsistent) on the abortion issue.

4. I still prefer inconsistent pro-life candidates over blatantly pro-choice ones, in a vaccuum. Its an important issue to me, not "just another social issue that divides us."

5. Considering how blatantly awful the mainstream candidates are, it is possible that I could vote for a pro-choice candidate, but only if his position was at least as good as the other candidate and he was way better on other issues to make up for it.

6. Blockean evictionism is the one vaguely pro-choice argument that I actually understand and can at least consider to be a valid libertarian argument, even though I think its logically highly problematic. But, I don't really see how a libertarian could deny personhood to unborn children any more than they can to Jews, black people, etc. I can just imagine a "libertarian" in the 19th century saying "yeah, we support equal rights to all persons but blacks aren't people so we can enslave them." It really does sound the same to me, so its problematic and iffy.

7. I understand I am in the severe minority on this matter.

BuddyRey
11-04-2014, 04:04 PM
I don't know about that when Rand would still be actively seeking the Republican nomination at that time. I'm not sure if all of the primaries would even be over. But I just don't really think that Libertarian Party members would want to sabotage Rand's Presidential run by nominating Gary Johnson. I refuse to believe that they're that stupid.

They ran candidates in 2008 and 2012 against Ron Paul as well, when the latter was pretty much a gift-wrapped miracle from above to every libertarian-minded person following the elections. Yes, the Libertarian Party most assuredly is that stupid, not to mention selfishly invested in their own egos.

LawnWake
11-04-2014, 04:13 PM
I don't think Gary Johnson is even really thinking about it in moral terms. I think he's just thinking "its a controversial issue, so I'm going to be on the side of less government involvement." That's an instinct that normally works, but in this case its not really workable. Its not just because he's wrong, its that he isn't even thinking about it. Even the most diehard ancaps (which Gary Johnson is not) would oppose a law saying that it is now legal to kill Jews. I see the issue of killing the unborn as very similar.

Even as diehard anti-government control as I am, abortion is an issue I have a hard time really compromising on because of what I said above. Even still, I recognize that:

1. Its very hard to actually enforce anti-abortion laws.

2. The Federal government has no constitutional authority, barring a constitutional amendment, to interfere with the issue.

3. Republicans by and large are not really serious about personhood. This includes Rand Paul. To be honest, it probably includes Ron Paul to, to a certain extent. Until I hear someone saying that Scott Roeder should be released from prison because his actions were actually not murder but vigilante justice, I will consider that person to some extent a compromiser (ie. inconsistent) on the abortion issue.

4. I still prefer inconsistent pro-life candidates over blatantly pro-choice ones, in a vaccuum. Its an important issue to me, not "just another social issue that divides us."

5. Considering how blatantly awful the mainstream candidates are, it is possible that I could vote for a pro-choice candidate, but only if his position was at least as good as the other candidate and he was way better on other issues to make up for it.

6. Blockean evictionism is the one vaguely pro-choice argument that I actually understand and can at least consider to be a valid libertarian argument, even though I think its logically highly problematic. But, I don't really see how a libertarian could deny personhood to unborn children any more than they can to Jews, black people, etc. I can just imagine a "libertarian" in the 19th century saying "yeah, we support equal rights to all persons but blacks aren't people so we can enslave them." It really does sound the same to me, so its problematic and iffy.

7. I understand I am in the severe minority on this matter.

I disagree with your conclusion/position but I can appriate the insight into your thinking nonetheless. And despite your firm position you seem to be aware that it's still a complicated issue.

To be honest, I don't consider my stance on abortion 'pro-choice' and I don't necessarily think that 'for legalized abortion = por-choice'. Pro-choice is usually framed as a 'woman's rights issue', but how many people that support a 'woman's right to choose' also support any individual's right to choose to do heroin or not to do a seatbelt? I don't think it's a adequately founded position.

I just consider it a private property issue like any other (guns, etc). An unfertilized egg isn't a human (it's only half a human), a sperm isn't a human (only half) and a fertilized egg IS a human, but does not yet possess the cognitive properties necessary to be a person. Since people owner their body and its contents, people can remove any content they wish for aslong as they aren't innitiating force to a person by doing so. So for as long as the embryo/fetus (I'm crappy at details and forgot at what point they develop cognition) isn't yet a person, I don't consider it murder.

nobody's_hero
11-04-2014, 04:58 PM
Between the two, I wouldn't consider Gary unless Rand Paul did something incredibly stupid like ask Jesse Benton to play a role in his campaign. If that happens, I'm not wasting another summer trying to get a Paul nominated only to have him bow out to his opponents before the conventions are even done.

2016 is "Go hard or GTFO" as far as I'm concerned.

alucard13mm
11-04-2014, 05:01 PM
You mean actually govern as a libertarian?

What is the highest position a libertarian has held within the government?

RonPaulMall
11-04-2014, 05:06 PM
If recent history is any indication, they'll nominate the person with the largest name recognition amongst their pool of candidates. I can't see a bigger name than Gary Johnson seeking the nomination unless Rand Paul is revealed to be the antichrist and Ron Paul decides to pick up the lightsaber one more time to fight his son for the fate of the Republic.

I mean, who else would they nominate? The guy here who said he was finished with Rand Paul because Rand didn't outright call for the legalization of marijuana at an Evangelical conference (or w/e it was)?

Mary Ruwart? Gary Kubby? There are plenty of real libertarian choices, but the problem is many of the real libertarians left the LP in the wake of Ron Paul's two Presidential runs and the party is now dominated by the cosmotarians and 'pragmatists". If the LP nominates Gary, they are sabotaging themselves, not Rand. Gary is nothing more than a Rand Paul who can't win. If they nominated Ruwart or Kubby or another true believer, Libertarians and Anarcho-Capitalists might be tempted to pull the LP lever. But if Gary Johnson is the "alternative" then you might as well go with the version of Libertarian-light that actually has a chance of winning.

AlexAmore
11-04-2014, 05:08 PM
I just consider it a private property issue like any other (guns, etc). An unfertilized egg isn't a human (it's only half a human), a sperm isn't a human (only half) and a fertilized egg IS a human, but does not yet possess the cognitive properties necessary to be a person. Since people owner their body and its contents, people can remove any content they wish for aslong as they aren't innitiating force to a person by doing so. So for as long as the embryo/fetus (I'm crappy at details and forgot at what point they develop cognition) isn't yet a person, I don't consider it murder.

Cognitive properties is where you draw the line? So.....

Can I just kill a person in a coma? The whole point of being in a state of cognition is that you are self aware. People in a coma are not self aware. Chairs aren't self aware and so we don't care about using them to fuel a fire. I would suspect that consistency is something you value and your position doesn't seem consistent with a civilized society (we don't murder coma patients). Would you like to move the goalposts?

Crashland
11-04-2014, 05:54 PM
Edit: NEVERMIND lol I failed to read the article and now have nothing to say.

Christian Liberty
11-04-2014, 06:04 PM
I disagree with your conclusion/position but I can appriate the insight into your thinking nonetheless. And despite your firm position you seem to be aware that it's still a complicated issue.

To be honest, I don't consider my stance on abortion 'pro-choice' and I don't necessarily think that 'for legalized abortion = por-choice'. Pro-choice is usually framed as a 'woman's rights issue', but how many people that support a 'woman's right to choose' also support any individual's right to choose to do heroin or not to do a seatbelt? I don't think it's a adequately founded position.

Valid point. I remember having a conversation like that with my pro-choice high school english teacher (WRT: heroin use), she used the whole "pro-lifers don't believe in women's bodily freedom" argument, yet she didn't suppprt legalizing heroin. Hypocrite.



I just consider it a private property issue like any other (guns, etc). An unfertilized egg isn't a human (it's only half a human), a sperm isn't a human (only half) and a fertilized egg IS a human, but does not yet possess the cognitive properties necessary to be a person. Since people owner their body and its contents, people can remove any content they wish for aslong as they aren't innitiating force to a person by doing so. So for as long as the embryo/fetus (I'm crappy at details and forgot at what point they develop cognition) isn't yet a person, I don't consider it murder.

I would say personhood begins at conception, and thus that it is murder. And yes, that means it should be punished by death. Pro-lifers that reject this (Unless they are against the death penalty in general, and support the same penalty they would support for any other murder) are hypocrites.

That's the weird thing about this issue. ONLY extreme positions are logically consistent. Moderate positions are logically absurd. That's true for many issues. But especially this one.

Jeremy
11-04-2014, 07:30 PM
I seriously don't understand why he would want to do that. What does he hope to achieve? Imagine if Rand lost by a slim margin. The LP would be hated by millions of libertarians across the country.

muh_roads
11-04-2014, 07:30 PM
Oh Gary. Can't you run for Senate or something? You would be useful there.

twomp
11-04-2014, 10:11 PM
They ran candidates in 2008 and 2012 against Ron Paul as well, when the latter was pretty much a gift-wrapped miracle from above to every libertarian-minded person following the elections. Yes, the Libertarian Party most assuredly is that stupid, not to mention selfishly invested in their own egos.

LOL!! In 2008, they ran against John McCain and Obama. In 2012, they ran against Mitt Romney and Obama. Seems to me you are pretty stupid yourself. Then again, most of the GOP rank and file are pretty damn stupid so you aren't alone.

BuddyRey
11-04-2014, 10:28 PM
LOL!! In 2008, they ran against John McCain and Obama. In 2012, they ran against Mitt Romney and Obama. Seems to me you are pretty stupid yourself. Then again, most of the GOP rank and file are pretty damn stupid so you aren't alone.

The stupidness and selfishness I'm referring to isn't the fact that they went up against the 4 candidates of the two general elections you just mentioned (and, FYI, I voted for the Libertarian in both of those general elections), but rather their fumbling the ball by not urging their voters to register Republican and help Ron Paul cinch that GOP nomination. They could have co-nominated and helped to elect the first consciously libertarian President in U.S. history, but because he chose to run under a Republican banner, their pride was hurt, and they sacrificed their own self-interests just to spite him.

Your hasty assumption that I'm part of the "GOP rank and file" is not only unfair, but grossly inaccurate. Ron Paul is the first, and only Republican Presidential candidate I have ever voted for.

Peace&Freedom
11-04-2014, 11:06 PM
The stupidness and selfishness I'm referring to isn't the fact that they went up against the 4 candidates of the two general elections you just mentioned (and, FYI, I voted for the Libertarian in both of those general elections), but rather their fumbling the ball by not urging their voters to register Republican and help Ron cinch that GOP nomination. They could have co-nominated and helped to elect the first consciously libertarian President in U.S. history, but because he chose to run under a Republican banner, their pride was hurt, and they sacrificed their own self-interests just to spite him.

Good grief, LP activists led the charge for Paul in getting his grassroots campaign going in 2007 (I speak as a then state LP Chair, who started one of the first 5 Ron Paul meetups in the country). I brought up the concept of cross-nomination (among other independent support for Paul) in a phone call with Lou Moore at the time, and he blew it off. It was the Paul campaign that did not pursue outreach to the LP or CP for the purposes of cross nomination. Nor did the campaign think such a strategy would work, so your issue is with Paul Inc, not the LP. The candidate has to approach the party and make the alliance a two-way street, and Paul did not do so, in two election cycles.

The issue is not party pride, it's the fact that a different party has the right to not be Republican-centric, which some people here fail to grasp. Paul did not approach the LP for help, despite the widespread help he got from LP members in both campaigns, and the LP is not an auxiliary of the GOP. The party does not exist to auto-nominate candidates who do not go to them to get nominated. The prideful faction here is the group that thinks the cult of Paul should trump everything else, and act like spoiled brats when other organizations do not unilaterally bow to it.

puppetmaster
11-05-2014, 01:22 AM
He got about 1%. That would be enough to cost Rand the election in a close race. Rand's people are going to have to work with the Libertarian Party and convince them to nominate Rand. the message of liberty is popular...even to the libertarian faction.

Galileo Galilei
11-05-2014, 01:29 AM
My takes:

1) Johnson has gone idiot.

2) Johnson is less libertarian than Rand

3) JFK pardoned practically every federal drug prisoner in America.

4) Johnson didn't pardon any marijuana prisoners in New Mexico.

Bastiat's The Law
11-05-2014, 01:46 AM
Gary is an ego case. F that guy!

trumptarget
11-05-2014, 02:06 AM
haha.. gary john...

LawnWake
11-05-2014, 04:16 AM
Cognitive properties is where you draw the line? So.....

Can I just kill a person in a coma? The whole point of being in a state of cognition is that you are self aware. People in a coma are not self aware. Chairs aren't self aware and so we don't care about using them to fuel a fire. I would suspect that consistency is something you value and your position doesn't seem consistent with a civilized society (we don't murder coma patients). Would you like to move the goalposts?

A person in a coma hasn't necessarily lost their cognitive abilities, they're just unconscious. They're about as self aware as you are when you're sleeping. They can awaken from a coma and be a person. A vegetable has, and in cases of vegetables I think it turns into a private property issue of their legal guardian.

unknown
11-05-2014, 06:00 AM
He got about 1%. That would be enough to cost Rand the election in a close race. Rand's people are going to have to work with the Libertarian Party and convince them to nominate Rand.

^ this.

JohnM
11-05-2014, 03:31 PM
It's true that Johnson getting 1% could be a real problem for Rand. But it's highly unlikely that Johnson would get 1% if Rand were the GOP nominee. It would probably be closer to 0.3% this time, as most (or least half) of those who voted for Johnson in 2012 would probably vote for Rand.

Indeed. I voted for Gary Johnson in 2012 but with very little enthusiasm.

There are things about Rand that I am not very happy about, but given a choice of Rand and Gary, I'd vote for Rand.

Indeed, I would be pretty tempted to vote for Rand even if Gary Johnson was the Republican Party candidate and had a real chance of winning, and Rand was the LP candidate and had no choice at all.

Maltheus
11-05-2014, 03:39 PM
Between the two, I wouldn't consider Gary unless Rand Paul did something incredibly stupid like ask Jesse Benton to play a role in his campaign. If that happens, I'm not wasting another summer trying to get a Paul nominated only to have him bow out to his opponents before the conventions are even done.

2016 is "Go hard or GTFO" as far as I'm concerned.

Same here. Gary is alright, but he's not libertarian enough to be idealistic over, so I'd rather go with the guy who does actually have a shot at working the system.

Although, I still think the movement is better off with Rand in the Senate.

Vanguard101
11-05-2014, 04:20 PM
I'm 100 percent sure that the ancaps that do not vote, will support Rand. There are more of them than retards voting for the LP imo

CaptainAmerica
11-05-2014, 05:47 PM
Count Dooku is running? big surprise

CaptainAmerica
11-05-2014, 05:48 PM
I seriously don't understand why he would want to do that. What does he hope to achieve? Imagine if Rand lost by a slim margin. The LP would be hated by millions of libertarians across the country.

Gary Johnson needs to sell his name because he probably has no other job, plus he was there to make Ron Paul look like a fringe, thats what his goal seems to be again...im sure someones paying him behind closed doors to try to take a chunk of voters away from the libertarian message

H. E. Panqui
11-06-2014, 06:42 AM
As a long-time Libertarian Party member I'm pretty sure I will support Bill Still in 2016 for the LP nomination. It's about time a monetary REALIST is heard..The Republicrat monetary THEORISTS like Rand Paul, Gary Johnson, etc. Republicrats ad nauseam, have always COMPLETELY dominated the microphones....working their popcorn holes about illion$ absent an honest understanding of the hideous origin and nature of even one!..

I could see myself maybe supporting Jesse Ventura too..but no more stinking Republicans and Democrats for me...ever...(i violated that oath for Ron Paul but NO WAY for Rand..)

cajuncocoa
11-06-2014, 08:27 AM
Good grief, LP activists led the charge for Paul in getting his grassroots campaign going in 2007 (I speak as a then state LP Chair, who started one of the first 5 Ron Paul meetups in the country). I brought up the concept of cross-nomination (among other independent support for Paul) in a phone call with Lou Moore at the time, and he blew it off. It was the Paul campaign that did not pursue outreach to the LP or CP for the purposes of cross nomination. Nor did the campaign think such a strategy would work, so your issue is with Paul Inc, not the LP. The candidate has to approach the party and make the alliance a two-way street, and Paul did not do so, in two election cycles.

The issue is not party pride, it's the fact that a different party has the right to not be Republican-centric, which some people here fail to grasp. Paul did not approach the LP for help, despite the widespread help he got from LP members in both campaigns, and the LP is not an auxiliary of the GOP. The party does not exist to auto-nominate candidates who do not go to them to get nominated. The prideful faction here is the group that thinks the cult of Paul should trump everything else, and act like spoiled brats when other organizations do not unilaterally bow to it.I owe you another +rep

CaptUSA
11-06-2014, 08:42 AM
The party does not exist to auto-nominate candidates who do not go to them to get nominated.

I'm actually trying to figure why it does exist. It certainly isn't to win elections. I was an active member of the LP for over 20 years with the naïve belief that if we could get the message out, we could start winning. After all, the libertarian message seemed to align with the winning side of nearly every issue in poll after poll.

The problem with the LP, (and it rears its head in these forums as well), is that there are so many factions that continually fight each other over who is rightly entitled to hold the helm of the ideology. It's a circular firing squad. I became finally became disillusioned after discovering that the party is not really about trying to restore liberty, but more about a fighting ground for contrarians. I hope one day they'll be something different, but I haven't seen any evidence of that as of yet.

eleganz
11-06-2014, 04:25 PM
Gary Johnson lost a top 2016 staffer because he said he knew he wasn't going to win but wanted to run anyway.

erowe1
11-06-2014, 04:27 PM
Gary Johnson lost a top 2016 staffer because he said he knew he wasn't going to win but wanted to run anyway.

What did that staffer want him to say?

philipped
11-06-2014, 06:39 PM
I'm actually trying to figure why it does exist. It certainly isn't to win elections. I was an active member of the LP for over 20 years with the naïve belief that if we could get the message out, we could start winning. After all, the libertarian message seemed to align with the winning side of nearly every issue in poll after poll.

The problem with the LP, (and it rears its head in these forums as well), is that there are so many factions that continually fight each other over who is rightly entitled to hold the helm of the ideology. It's a circular firing squad. I became finally became disillusioned after discovering that the party is not really about trying to restore liberty, but more about a fighting ground for contrarians. I hope one day they'll be something different, but I haven't seen any evidence of that as of yet.

So with that being said the Republican Party will become the "libertarian party" (emphasis on the lower cases on both words).

cajuncocoa
11-06-2014, 07:56 PM
I'm actually trying to figure why it does exist. It certainly isn't to win elections. I was an active member of the LP for over 20 years with the naïve belief that if we could get the message out, we could start winning. After all, the libertarian message seemed to align with the winning side of nearly every issue in poll after poll.

The problem with the LP, (and it rears its head in these forums as well), is that there are so many factions that continually fight each other over who is rightly entitled to hold the helm of the ideology. It's a circular firing squad. I became finally became disillusioned after discovering that the party is not really about trying to restore liberty, but more about a fighting ground for contrarians. I hope one day they'll be something different, but I haven't seen any evidence of that as of yet.
Did you ever consider that the PTB in both major parties don't want that message to get out?

When Ron Paul delegates won the right to be heard at the party convention, their voice was silenced. Along the way, our people had all sorts of dirty tricks played against them. Bones were literally broken.

The "inroads" that some think are being made in the GOP are with a watered-down libertarian message at best. Even that only goes so far. How many times has it been said on this board that Rand is only saying this or that because it's the only way he can win the nomination? Even with that, the establishment isn't happy with him (and libertarians are grinning and bearing it, even as we're told he doesn't need us, and doesn't want us).

i guess that's why the LP exists. Whether they have a chance of winning or not, they give those of us looking for freedom and liberty something other than lip service. Just in case the establishment pisses on Rand as they did to his father.

JJ2
11-06-2014, 09:57 PM
Gary Johnson lost a top 2016 staffer because he said he knew he wasn't going to win but wanted to run anyway.

That reminds me of all the questions from the media in 2012 to Ron asking him why he was running when he knew he couldn't win, etc. Ugh, awful memories, lol. I hope we don't have to put up with any of that with Rand running!

dillo
11-06-2014, 10:31 PM
abortion is the great divide among libertarian leaning individuals imo

JohnM
11-07-2014, 04:11 AM
I'm actually trying to figure why it does exist. It certainly isn't to win elections.

And it is very, very unlikely that the LP will ever start winning elections.

It probably exists for a variety of reasons, most of which are not very good.

There is, in my opinion, only one good reason for the existence of a party which cannot win elections, and that is to educate the general public and get the message of liberty out into the country.

Whether forming a political party is the most helpful way of doing that is, of course, open to debate. I suspect that Ron Paul managed to get a much more effective hearing for libertarianism by seeking the nomination of the Republican Party in 2008 than by being the Libertarian nominee in 1988.

NACBA
11-07-2014, 10:10 AM
http://coxrare.files.wordpress.com/2014/11/screen-shot-2014-11-07-at-10-03-42-am.png?w=772
W. James Antle III, Rare Contributor
Posted on November 7, 2014 10:09 am

Republican Ed Gillespie will not be the next senator from Virginia. He lost to incumbent Democratic Sen. Mark Warner by about 0.77 percentage points.
Libertarian Robert Sarvis, widely regarded as a spoiler in Virginia’s 2013 gubernatorial election as well, received 2.45 percent of the vote.
“It seems only fitting that we Democrats stop licking our bruises long enough to say thanks to Mr. Sarvis,” a Virginia Democrat wrote in a Washington Post letter to the editor.
North Carolina Republican Thom Tillis did manage to unseat incumbent Democratic Sen. Kay Hagan. But Libertarian Sean Haugh’s 3.75 percent of the vote was more than double Tillis’ margin of victory.
And former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson told Newsmax he was planning to run for president again in 2016 to provide a real libertarian alternative to… Rand Paul.
The liberty movement, made up of constitutional conservatives and small-l libertarians, is trying to figure out how best to insert liberty and limited government into the mainstream political debate.

Read more at http://rare.us/story/gary-johnsons-foolish-rand-stand/#RKMIdrSxA0wRvwMy.99

Christian Liberty
11-07-2014, 10:16 AM
Is there any good reason for me to care that Gillespie lost?

VIDEODROME
11-07-2014, 11:32 AM
They ran candidates in 2008 and 2012 against Ron Paul as well, when the latter was pretty much a gift-wrapped miracle from above to every libertarian-minded person following the elections. Yes, the Libertarian Party most assuredly is that stupid, not to mention selfishly invested in their own egos.

I think on principle, Gary feels he can participate in the debates, unlike last time when he got shafted even more than Ron Paul.

I also wonder if the outcome of this could be an outreach to someone like Rand Paul to get the Libertarian candidate in as the VP or another cabinet position, whether it is Gary or someone else.

surf
11-07-2014, 12:44 PM
I owe you another +repme too. well said Peace&Freedom.

Rand, nor any other republican or democrat, are not entitled to votes or support. if Rand goes neocon, he'll lose many of us.

i'm hoping none of you hear trot out the "wasted vote" line. I voted for GJ last time and wrote in Ron in '08 even though i'm an "elected" republican here.

Ron Paul is a libertarian and so am I. there is no need to belittle libertarians... many of us were essentially the momentum and force that kick-started the '08 campaign.

that said, i'm still planning on being a delegate to at least a few upcoming conventions supporting Rand for '16.

H. E. Panqui
11-07-2014, 12:57 PM
Surf pretends: "if Rand goes neocon, he'll lose many of us."

:roll:

Good grief!!..he's already swabbed stinking romney's arse..stinking mcconnell...apologized for the stinking drug war...pledged $upport to the crazed, murderous IZraelis..WHAT DOES IT TAKE TO GET THE 'NEOCON' LABEL?!?

NOVALibertarian
11-07-2014, 01:03 PM
Surf pretends: "if Rand goes neocon, he'll lose many of us."

:roll:

Good grief!!..he's already swabbed stinking romney's arse..stinking mcconnell...apologized for the stinking drug war...pledged $upport to the crazed, murderous IZraelis..WHAT DOES IT TAKE TO GET THE 'NEOCON' LABEL?!?

That doesn't make one a Neo-Conservative. Grow up.

specsaregood
11-07-2014, 01:09 PM
I think on principle, Gary feels he can participate in the debates, unlike last time when he got shafted even more than Ron Paul.


I'll predict the same thing as I predicted months ago. If Randal secures the GOP nomination, all of a sudden the debates commission will change their position and let in every single 3rd party presidential candidate they can think of.

satchelmcqueen
11-07-2014, 07:18 PM
i say bring it on with gary. the more libertarians we have on stage the better. i think in the end gary will help rand when it matters. he helped ron in case you forgot. he was the only one on stage to name ron as the guy he looks up to.

surf
11-07-2014, 09:10 PM
Surf pretends: "if Rand goes neocon, he'll lose many of us."

:roll:

Good grief!!..he's already swabbed stinking romney's arse..stinking mcconnell...apologized for the stinking drug war...pledged $upport to the crazed, murderous IZraelis..WHAT DOES IT TAKE TO GET THE 'NEOCON' LABEL?!?ok, i'd like to change it to more neocon....

RandallFan
11-07-2014, 09:51 PM
Gary Johnson is the perfect candidate to run. The last thing Rand needs is Pat Buchanan or Perot or Huckabee running bashing illegal immigration, trade or gay marriage. Gary Johnson's condescending views on illegal immigration are great for the GOP.

idiom
11-08-2014, 02:27 AM
Oh Gary. Can't you run for Senate or something? You would be useful there.

Surely this would make more sense, run for senate or congress from Utah, possibly as independent. Get elected on Rands coat-tails instead of opposing him.

LP people should be identifying ways to land their first national candidates, by overturning dem incumbents on the Randslide, possibly getting the Repubs not to field a candidate.

Or run as GOP, get elected, then change parties for 2018 and get re-elected on your amazing record.