The new Gary Johnson ad

[RJ Liberty]

This ad was released for July 4th, but it only recently received some attention from the MSM, and only got posted to Twitter by the LP on July 8th (https://twitter.com/lpnational). One site (http://www.iagreetosee.com/portfolio/gary-johnsons-new-ad-libertarian-ad/) said it gave them goosebumps. Christian website Caffeinated Thoughts is calling (https://caffeinatedthoughts.com/2016/07/gary-johnson-drops-one-best-general-election-ads/) it "brilliant".


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FGJnHGsVNXw&feature=youtu.be

[LibertyEagle]

Since I don't support the traitorous Trans Pacific Partnership or world government, I will take Johnson's advice and not vote for him. Thanks Gary.

[Working Poor]

Since I don't support the traitorous Trans Pacific Partnership or worlsd government, I will take Johnson's advice and not vote for him. Thanks Gary.
I guess you don't think Trump will have his arms twisted if he gets elected.

[RandallFan]

Trump is 70 years old. He doesn't care. Johnson is 50 years old, rides bicycles & climbs mountains. I know which guy can be bought or deluded into thinking everyone wants utopia built.

[LibertyEagle]

I guess you don't think Trump will have his arms twisted if he gets elected.

There is certainly a chance. But, there is absolutely 0 chance Johnson/Weld won't vote for it. They have already stated they will.

[acptulsa]

The ad's not bad, though I don't understand why he didn't say 'Look me up on the web' at the end instead of giving Google a free plug.


There is certainly a chance. But, there is absolutely 0 chance Johnson/Weld won't vote for it. They have already stated they will.

Could this possibly be the same person who runs about the forum taking people to task for allegedly misrepresenting the positions of a certain other candidate?


“It is my understanding that the TPP does advance free trade,” says Johnson, “Is it a perfect document? Probably not. But based on my understanding of the document, I would be supporting it [though] in a perfect world there wouldn’t be a document like that, there would just be free trade.”

Not exactly an unqualified endorsement, considering it's 'based on (his current) understanding of the document'. In any case, it is anything but an ironclad promise to sign it into law in the event he's elected.

[helmuth_hubener]

The ad's not bad, though I don't understand why he didn't say 'Look me up on the web' at the end instead of giving Google a free plug. A shout-out to Ron Paul people. He used the same term in an interview I saw. "Google Gary Johnson!" Remember the Blimp!



Not exactly an unqualified endorsement, considering it's 'based on (his current) understanding of the document'. In any case, it is anything but an ironclad promise to sign it into law in the event he's elected. True. A very fair point. This particular statement is nuanced and moderate, not a complete endorsement of the TPP.

[acptulsa]

A shout-out to Ron Paul people. He used the same term in an interview I saw. "Google Gary Johnson!" Remember the Blimp!

Yeah, I caught that. I still don't think Google really needs the advertising.


True. A very fair point. This particular statement is nuanced and moderate, not a complete endorsement of the TPP.

I'm sure the Trump supporters don't consider it a fair point, because they all really like shouting hyperbole, then responding to anything anyone says with 'That's hyperbole!' in a perfect passive-aggressive manner. Or it would be, if hyperbole weren't too big a word for most of them to understand.

The fact is, Johnson doesn't know what's in the TPP, we don't know what's in it, and Trump doesn't know what's in it. Which makes it funny that Trump came out against it. After all, the whole sum total of Trump's foreign and economic policy is to 'cut better deals for America', and if all the difference the TPP actually makes is to allow the U.S. to export goods to the traditionally protected markets of the Orient, it is a better deal for America.

Of course, I don't know if that's all it is. All I know is that Johnson did not ever once say there was zero chance he would ever vote against it.

[dannno]

There is certainly a chance. But, there is absolutely 0 chance Johnson/Weld won't vote for it. They have already stated they will.

Interesting..

https://www.isidewith.com/candidate-guide/gary-johnson/economic/trans-pacific-partnership


He seems wish-washy on it to me. He was against it, then his advisers told him that on the balance it would help advance free trade even though it isn't all good and isn't totally free market.

I think he would actually read it before he signed it, and if they tried to slip in some BS last minute then I don't think he would let that pass.

I wouldn't be surprised if in its current state, the TPP advances free trade, on the balance, and GJ's "advisers" may be correct that it does. But they always slip in the really bad stuff right at the end, and I trust Gary Johnson more than anybody else running to oppose anything egregious that may be added last minute.

Trump says he is against it now, but I don't know what the guy's motivations are and he doesn't communicate that he really understands a lot about free markets. Maybe he does and he is keeping it secret or something, I just don't have the guy pinned.

[LibertyEagle]

The ad's not bad, though I don't understand why he didn't say 'Look me up on the web' at the end instead of giving Google a free plug.

Could this possibly be the same person who runs about the forum taking people to task for allegedly misrepresenting the positions of a certain other candidate?

Not exactly an unqualified endorsement, considering it's 'based on (his current) understanding of the document'. In any case, it is anything but an ironclad promise to sign it into law in the event he's elected.

Did he, or did he not say, that he intended to approve the TPP, if President? Yes or no?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YrHBw1RcLY4
6 minute mark

[acptulsa]

Did he, or did he not say, that he intended to approve the TTP, if President? Yes or no?

He did not say whether or not he intended to support it as president.

Unlike Trump, he seems to be intent on reading the thing before making an unequivocal yes or no decision on it. And since it's top secret and he isn't allowed to read it at the moment, he has said he believes in free trade and if it promotes free trade then and only then he is for it.

If all it functionally does is open Oriental markets to our goods, and Trump has said he wants to make better deals for America, and that would be a better deal for America, was Trump wrong to reject it even though he, too, has not read it? Yes or no?

[LibertyEagle]

Interesting..

https://www.isidewith.com/candidate-guide/gary-johnson/economic/trans-pacific-partnership

He seems wish-washy on it to me. He was against it, then his advisers told him that on the balance it would help advance free trade even though it isn't all good and isn't totally free market.

I think he would actually read it before he signed it, and if they tried to slip in some BS last minute then I don't think he would let that pass.

I wouldn't be surprised if in its current state, the TPP advances free trade, on the balance, and GJ's "advisers" may be correct that it does. But they always slip in the really bad stuff right at the end, and I trust Gary Johnson more than anybody else running to oppose anything egregious that may be added last minute.

Trump says he is against it now, but I don't know what the guy's motivations are and he doesn't communicate that he really understands a lot about free markets. Maybe he does and he is keeping it secret or something, I just don't have the guy pinned.

Danno, you need to check it out more. It would cede even more of our sovereignty to international ruling bodies.

[acptulsa]

Danno, you need to check it out more. It would cede even more of our sovereignty to international ruling bodies.

Oh, so you have read it. By all means, post it so we can read it too.

Mods, can we get a split thread? Because once again LE seems intent on hijacking a thread, and it seems to me this one is supposed to be about a television commercial...

[LibertyEagle]

He did not say whether or not he intended to support it as president.

Oh yes, he did. This is what he said:


Based on people that have been advising me, that I do hold in very high esteem, I'm being told that the Trans Pacific Partnership would in fact advance free trade, and so I would support that document.

[bunklocoempire]

Who has seen this add on cable tv? (mainstream tv)

[acptulsa]

Oh yes, he did. This is what he said:

He would based on what he was told about it.

Now tell me where he said he will regardless of what he finds when he reads it.

You are so busy trying to stir up a lynch mob that you're completely ignoring the intricacies of the English language. But to anyone with ears to hear, he is only saying that he supports much of what he has heard about it. Which is not the same thing. Candidates do this all the time. He is for free trade, he has heard this supports free trade, if it does then he's for it. How else can a candidate reveal his position on something he is not allowed to read? To take a poll of his supporters (who also don't know what the hell's in the thing) and make an unequivocal statement based on the result? Is that any way to run a nation?

Now. Care to share how you happen to know this treaty will 'cede even more of our sovereignty to international ruling bodies'?

[LibertyEagle]

lol. Whatever you say, Tulsa.

[Working Poor]

I am voting for GJ I want to see if someone who claims to be anti-war can pull it off and I won't know unless I vote for him. I want to see if someone will do what they say they will do. I think the republicans will force Trump to run with some jerk and Hillary is already a jerk and I just can't vote for either one of them. I want to see pot be legalized in my life time I know Trump and Hillary will not do that.

[69360]

The ad is meh.

I'm tired of reading TPP in every thread about Johnson. Your pet issue is getting old quick.

[Natural Citizen]

The ad is meh.

I'm tired of reading TPP in every thread about Johnson. Your pet issue is getting old quick.

TPP is being protested all over the globe. And for good reason. It's a big deal. The problem with America is that most folks can't be bothered. Seems like most are caught up in the side show.

[Suzanimal]

My feelings for Johnson aside, I didn't care for the ad. It didn't really tell me anything.

[acptulsa]

TPP is being protested all over the globe. And for good reason. It's a big deal. The problem with America is that most folks can't be bothered. Seems like most are caught up in the side show.

Seems to me the reason it is being protested is it's too good a deal for the U.S. Which makes it funny that Trump is against it. I guess a good deal for America is only a good deal for America if he negotiates it.

In Japan the big issue seems to be that we can send them rice cheaper than they can grow it, and the TPP would end those tariffs which protect local growers. Otherwise, the big issue seems to be either environmental concerns or intellectual property rights, which many people overseas think will raise the prices they pay for pharmaceuticals.

So, why should Americans be up in arms about any of that?


My feelings for Johnson aside, I didn't care for the ad. It didn't really tell me anything.

Me, too. That said, none of the ads talk about their candidate in any substantive way. At least this one found a way to tap into the negative feelings toward his two best-known opponents without going overtly negative.

[Natural Citizen]

Seems to me the reason it is being protested is it's too good a deal for the U.S.

No, it's a bit more complex than that.

[euphemia]

“It is my understanding that the TPP does advance free trade,” says Johnson, “Is it a perfect document? Probably not. But based on my understanding of the document, I would be supporting it [though] in a perfect world there wouldn’t be a document like that, there would just be free trade.”

This is exactly the opposite of what he should be saying. He should say, "We don't need a document to have free trade. I will not act as if we do. No TPP"

It's just like Obamacare. As soon as someone suggests repeal, some media goon asks, "What will you replace it with." The correct answer would be: "Nothing."

[acptulsa]

No, it's a bit more complex than that.

Well, I figured. But considering all we know about it is what was leaked on wikileaks and it has been amended a few times since then, I'm having trouble finding out what those complications are.

How about you? Got specifics? Or are you taking its general horribleness as an article is f faith?

[Natural Citizen]

Well, I figured. But considering all we know about it is what was leaked on wikileaks and it has been amended a few times since then, I'm having trouble finding out what those complications are.

How about you? Got specifics? Or are you taking its general horribleness as an article is f faith?

It's an illegal transfer of power. Not practical to sacrifice the constitution even if the possibility exists that there may be a few good things within the managed deal.

[acptulsa]

It's an illegal transfer of power. Not practical to sacrifice the constitution even if the possibility exists that there may be a few good things within the managed deal.

Is it?

Assuming they don't bypass the Senate, as they're threatening to do, how?

And if that's what you're talking about, it's an effort to ram it through before Obama leaves office. So what does Johnson have to do with that? Has anyone asked him about whether he approves of bypassing the Senate, or are we just assuming that if he says something nice about TPP he approves of the way they're trying to pass it?

[Natural Citizen]

Is it?

Yes. Patently.




Assuming they don't bypass the Senate, as they're threatening to do, how?

There are no what ifs. They've threatened to bypass the Senate. Just Power isn't an arbitrary affair to be defined by those who have been delegated.



Has anyone asked him about whether he approves of bypassing the Senate, or are we just assuming that if he says something nice about TPP he approves of the way they're trying to pass it?

"based on what I know, I would sign TPP." - Johnson. I imagine that Johson is aware that they've threatened to bypass the Senate

[acptulsa]

Yes. Patently.




There are no what ifs. They've threatened to bypass the Senate. Just Power isn't an arbitrary affair to be defined by those who have been delegated.



"based on what I know, I would sign TPP." - Johnson.

Now that you have that out of your system, tell me what about it would be an 'illegal transfer of power' if the Senate passed it and President Johnson signed it.

Edit to your edit: Your imagination aside, what evidence do you have that he was signaling his approval of bypassing Congress when he talked about free trade and the TPP's imperfect move toward that.

[satchelmcqueen]

lets see, we have only 3 choices. ill not vote for trump or hillary. johnson gets mine even though i think he is off on some of his issues. his way would be miles better than the other two. why cant you guys see that this is the only choice? minor or major disagreements with him is nothing compared to the other 2.

[acptulsa]

lets see, we have only 3 choices. ill not vote for trump or hillary. johnson gets mine even though i think he is off on some of his issues. his way would be miles better than the other two. why cant you guys see that this is the only choice? minor or major disagreements with him is nothing compared to the other 2.

Of course, not everyone is limited to three choices. But I am, and would like to be a part of the revolution.

Assuming we can pull our heads out of the media's ass long enough to have the revolution we need. Which won't happen as long as we assume that if Johnson thinks a treaty might turn out worth passing, that means he wants us to ignore the Constitution in the way we pass it.

[dannno]

lets see, we have only 3 choices. ill not vote for trump or hillary. johnson gets mine even though i think he is off on some of his issues. his way would be miles better than the other two. why cant you guys see that this is the only choice? minor or major disagreements with him is nothing compared to the other 2.

Because wedding cakes are a slippery slope :p


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5h6l8aLBT4w

[acptulsa]

Because wedding cakes are a slippery slope :p

Whereas targeting people for law enforcement surveillance based on their religion and politicians suing reporters for libel aren't.

[Natural Citizen]

Now that you have that out of your system, tell me what about it would be an 'illegal transfer of power' if the Senate passed it and President Johnson signed it.

Again, they've threatened to bypass the Senate. That's where we are. There is no waiting around and contemplating ifs and maybes. To make such a threat that they've made to bypas the Senate is a threat to illegally transfer power. And it is a threat to function outside the parameters of the constitution. A threat to function outside the parameters of Just Powers. Outside of the constraint of consent. On top of that, it's a secret document. Consent is, then, null.



Your imagination aside...

No, I'm providing the facts. You're looking to play divide and conquer. I won't play that game. What I will do, though, should you continue inviting it, is bury you in your own bullsht, acptulsa. I'm trying to be reasonable with you. But it doesn't seem like you're looking to extend the courtesy. Of all people on this board to play divide and conquer with, why do you want to pick me to play it with?

[acptulsa]

Again, they've threatened to bypass the Senate. There is no waiting around and contemplating ifs and maybes. To make such a threat that they made to bypas the Senate is a threat to illegally transfer power. And it is a threat to function outside the parameters of the constitution. A threat to function outside the parameters of Just Powers. Outside of the constraint of consent. On top of that, it's a secret document. Consent is, then, null.

Are you ever going to say what that has to do with Johnson? Are you going to link where Johnson said he would sign a treaty that hit his desk before the Senate saw it? You going to prove any interviewer has asked him about TPP since this 'fast track' crap came up? You going to make the case why we should all assume everyone who ever thought the TPP had promise is therefore complicit in this fast track crap?

You see him say the treaty might work, in an interview that might have been done before fast track came up, and say outright that's an endorsement of fast track, then accuse me of passing out bullshit?

[Natural Citizen]

Are you ever going to say what that has to do with Johnson? Are you going to link where Johnson said he would sign a treaty that hit his desk before the Senate saw it? You going to prove any interviewer has asked him about TPP since this 'fast track' crap came up? You going to make the case why we should all assume everyone who ever thought the TPP had promise is therefore complicit in this fast track crap?

You see him say the treaty might work, in an interview that might have been done before fast track came up, and say outright that's an endorsement of fast track, then accuse me of passing out bull$#@!?

No, acptulsa. My initial comment in the thread was simply this....


TPP is being protested all over the globe. And for good reason. It's a big deal. The problem with America is that most folks can't be bothered. Seems like most are caught up in the side show.

You took it upon yourself to change the terms of controversy into an argument about Johnson. You're the one begging questions. You. You did that.

[acptulsa]

No, acptulsa. My initial comment in the thread was simply this....



You took it upon yourself to change the terms of controversy into an argument about Johnson. You're the one begging questions. You. You did that.

What's the title of this thread? How did TPP even come up in this thread?

Is or is not this your first post in this thread, complete with the quote that you chose to appear in it as a signal that you were responding to that comment?



The ad is meh.

I'm tired of reading TPP in every thread about Johnson. Your pet issue is getting old quick.

TPP is being protested all over the globe. And for good reason. It's a big deal. The problem with America is that most folks can't be bothered. Seems like most are caught up in the side show.

And now you're going to tell us Johnson had nothing to do with it, and you just wanted to pop off with a completely unrelated conversation?

[Natural Citizen]

What's the title of this thread? How did TPP even come up in this thread?

Is or is not this your first post in this thread, complete with the quote that you chose to appear in it as a signal that you were responding to that comment?



And now you're going to tell us Johnson had nothing to do with it, and you just wanted to pop off with a completely unrelated conversation?

You're just here to start trouble these days, aren't you, acptulsa. That's really all you're looking for, isn't it? To create drama? That's what the game of divide and conquer is all about, isn't it? You should consider the downside. That's good advice, man.

I'm just going to exit the thread and leave you to wallow in your ego. Your ego won't get you far, though. Not in the long run.

I'll see you around the board.

[acptulsa]

You're just here to start trouble, aren't you, acptulsa. That's really all you're looking for, isn't it? To creat drama? You should consider the downside. That's good advice, man.

Downside? There's a downside to calling bullshit when I see it on this forum?

You seemed to think calling bullshit was a fine idea back in post 34...


No, I'm providing the facts. You're looking to play divide and conquer. I won't play that game. What I will do, though, should you continue inviting it, is bury you in your own bullsht, acptulsa. I'm trying to be reasonable with you. But it doesn't seem like you're looking to extend the courtesy. Of all people on this board to play divide and conquer with, why do you want to pick me to play it with?

...before I conclusively proved you were the one who was full of it.

When are you going to begin trying to be reasonable?

[Natural Citizen]

Heh. Okay. If you say so, man.

Later...

[acptulsa]

Heh. Okay. If you say so, man.

Everyone who has patience enough to read this thread and no ulterior dog in this fight would say so. The proof is right there in the color and font of their choosing.

[Natural Citizen]

Everyone who has patience enough to read this thread and no ulterior dog in this fight would say so. The proof is right there in the color and font of their choosing.

Okay, acptulsa. Sure thing, man.

[acptulsa]

Later...

Or maybe sooner...

[Natural Citizen]

Or maybe sooner...

Okay, then, acptulsa. I'll be on the lookout. Thank You.

[RonPaulGeorge&Ringo]

Who has seen this add on cable tv? (mainstream tv)

Ha! Since when does the Libertarian Party spend any of their advertising budget on actual advertising? That money is all for advertising consultants.

[LibertyEagle]

lets see, we have only 3 choices. ill not vote for trump or hillary. johnson gets mine even though i think he is off on some of his issues. his way would be miles better than the other two. why cant you guys see that this is the only choice? minor or major disagreements with him is nothing compared to the other 2.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=sessions+trans+pacific+partnership

[acptulsa]

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=sessions+trans+pacific+partnership

And if you saw Jeff Sessions drinking water, would you die of dehydration?

[satchelmcqueen]

so to those not voting for johnson based on issues thatll probably turn out to be the same outcome by all 3 candidates, what do you plan to do to get us away from where we are now with obama?