PDA

View Full Version : Johnson: The GOP Is a Dying Party. Thatís Why Iím Running Against Trump




CPUd
07-20-2016, 08:47 AM
The GOP Is a Dying Party. Thatís Why Iím Running Against Trump.

My Libertarian Party running mate, Bill Weld, is also a vastly better choice than Mike Pence.

By Gary Johnson


As a former Republican, Iím shocked that the party of Abraham Lincoln is nominating a man with a vision of America that doesnít even resemble that of the party I once knew. And his vice presidential pick, Mike Pence, who as governor of Indiana has left a record of division in his state, only makes matters worse.

Despite the calls at the GOP convention in Cleveland for national unity, Donald Trump sees our country as a land of exclusion. He wants Americans to act as powerless serfs bullied by someone who says he will protect them. Throughout world history, that has been the calling card of Big Government autocrats.

His character assaults are unbounded. His campaign has been one of serial attacks on opponents and climbing to the top by hurting people. And frankly, his immigration and trade policies appear to consist of the same strategies.

I was the Republican governor of a very Democratic state. I succeeded because I brought a brand of fiscal conservativism, together with respect for people with different lifestyles. Government must live within its means, and we have to respect one anotherís freedoms. Government should not incite culture wars that divide a stateís citizens as has Trumpís new running mate.

In Indiana, Governor Pence unwisely pushed a law that pitted religious freedom against the rights of gays and lesbians, and then backtracked on religious freedom. A better approach is to rely on the Constitutionís protections for free exercise of religion and for equal protection.

This is a decisive moment in the history of party politics in America. In the period leading up to the Civil War, American politics was dominated by a Democratic Party and the Whig Party. The controversy over slavery split the Whigs, and the party embraced nativism, opposing immigration and members of certain religious faiths.

The Republican Party is on its way to becoming like the Whigs. The Whigs died, then a new party came forward with an inspiring and positive vision for America.

...

Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/07/trump-vp-gary-johnson-bill-weld-libertarian-214069

AuH20
07-20-2016, 08:48 AM
No mention of Hillary. This guy is real piece of work. I love the Lincoln reference as well. You are such a bad ass radical, Gary.

Mr.NoSmile
07-20-2016, 08:54 AM
Then why did he run last time?

timosman
07-20-2016, 08:56 AM
No mention of Hillary. This guy is real piece of work. I love the Lincoln reference as well. You are such a bad ass radical, Gary.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y2KWfTWDs7Y

CPUd
07-20-2016, 08:57 AM
He's saving Clinton attacks for the debates. Trump will be hiding behind him like he hid behind Jeb when Rand was owning everyone in the debates.

euphemia
07-20-2016, 08:59 AM
Johnson thinks the EPA is a legitimate use of government.

CaptUSA
07-20-2016, 09:14 AM
Johnson thinks the EPA is a legitimate use of government.

Yeah, what are ya going to do? The other two think EVERYTHING is a legitimate use of government.

Gary really pisses me off with his "cost/benefit" approach to liberty, but at least that approach involves some restraint.

wizardwatson
07-20-2016, 09:20 AM
I really hate electoral politics. Such a useless distraction.

We spend 2 years after the election depressed that we got shafted again, and the next 2 years whining about how we're gonna get shafted when so-and-so gets elected.

Meanwhile the guys sitting in power go about shafting unhindered because everyone's focused on imaginary futures.

The strategic defeat of the electorate is so complete one could almost marvel if it wasn't the work of evil.

euphemia
07-20-2016, 09:34 AM
Yeah, what are ya going to do? The other two think EVERYTHING is a legitimate use of government.

Gary really pisses me off with his "cost/benefit" approach to liberty, but at least that approach involves some restraint.

The EPA is the least restrained of all government.

Gary Johnson is the same, or worse, than Obama. All he has is theory and opinions and most of them are wrong. As far as I can tell he has spent a lot of time and money on pot and technology. The first one tells me he is doing his best to get rich from politics. He is not a liberty candidate, no matter what anyone says.

We are really up a creek now.

timosman
07-20-2016, 10:06 AM
I really hate electoral politics. Such a useless distraction.

We spend 2 years after the election depressed that we got shafted again, and the next 2 years whining about how we're gonna get shafted when so-and-so gets elected.

Meanwhile the guys sitting in power go about shafting unhindered because everyone's focused on imaginary futures.

The strategic defeat of the electorate is so complete one could almost marvel if it wasn't the work of evil.

Not the evil, just your friendly PR department. :D

wizardwatson
07-20-2016, 10:51 AM
Not the evil, just your friendly PR department. :D

Edward Bernays would be so proud.

specsaregood
07-20-2016, 11:07 AM
The GOP Is a Dying Party. Trump

And GJ figured he would get a headstart on killing off the LP.

specsaregood
07-20-2016, 11:09 AM
Gary really pisses me off with his "cost/benefit" approach to liberty, but at least that approach involves some restraint.

Meh, it may sound like it involves restraint when spoken beforehand but in practice I think you would find that ends up with no restraints whatsoever. If anything we already have a cost/benefit approach in place and the costs of losing liberty always loses the argument.

CPUd
07-20-2016, 11:13 AM
Maybe the LP becomes the Republican Party, and the Republicans become the New Wig Party

https://i.imgur.com/zpG9NCk.jpg

dannno
07-20-2016, 11:21 AM
The EPA is the least restrained of all government.

What about the military industrial complex? The Fed? Gary Johnson wants to reign in our foreign policy, have a real audit of the Fed and is against quantitative easing/bailouts.

Most libertarians like clean air and water, we don't like that the Federal Govt. is in charge of it - we don't like the man made global warming brigade talking mistruths and instituting policy from it.. and the EPA is certainly is causing a lot of problems but I don't know if it is the biggest threat we face. Maybe top 3 or 5.

Here is Gary Johnson's position on climate change:

http://irregulartimes.com/2016/05/11/gary-johnsons-plan-of-inaction-on-climate-change/


“When it comes to global climate change, Gov. Johnson believes too many politicians are having the wrong debate. Is the climate changing? Probably so. Is man contributing to that change? Probably so. The important question, however, is whether the government’s efforts to regulate, tax and manipulate the marketplace in order to impact that change are cost-effective — or effective at all. Given the realities of global energy and resource use, there is little evidence that the burden being placed on Americans is making a difference that justifies the cost.”

Clearly some areas of disagreement, but when it comes to instituting policy he will for the most part be on our side.



Gary Johnson is the same, or worse, than Obama.

That is totally preposterous. He had an interview on Joe Rogan a few months ago that lasted about 3 hours, and I pretty much agreed with everything he said. For 3 hours. Certainly there were some un-said things and there are some issues I break away from him on, but he is a libertarian who believes in low taxes and small government. He is against the bailouts and quantitative easing and all of Obama's wars, including the war on drugs which is horribly damaging to our country domestically. To say he is worse than Obama is completely ridiculous.

AuH20
07-20-2016, 03:29 PM
If Gary had any type of integrity, he would also be bashing the excesses of HRC and the DNC. You can't exclusively attack one group because you look like a scheming schmuck.

r3volution 3.0
07-20-2016, 03:45 PM
What about the military industrial complex? The Fed? Gary Johnson wants to reign in our foreign policy, have a real audit of the Fed and is against quantitative easing.

Most libertarians like clean air and water, we don't like that the Federal Govt. is in charge of it - we don't like the man made global warming brigade talking mistruths and instituting policy from it.. and the EPA is certainly is causing a lot of problems but I don't know if it is the biggest threat we face. Maybe top 3 or 5.

Here is Gary Johnson's position on climate change:

http://irregulartimes.com/2016/05/11/gary-johnsons-plan-of-inaction-on-climate-change/



Clearly some areas of disagreement, but when it comes to instituting policy he will for the most part be on our side.




That is totally preposterous. He had an interview on Joe Rogan a few months ago that lasted about 3 hours, and I pretty much agreed with everything he said. For 3 hours. Certainly there were some un-said things and there are some issues I break away from him on, but he is a libertarian who believes in low taxes and small government. He is against the bailouts and quantitative easing and all of Obama's wars, including the war on drugs which is horribly damaging to our country domestically. To say he is worse than Obama is completely ridiculous.

Well said

...it's fun watching avowed supporters of the orange, warmongering socialist play purist when it comes to Johnson.

Natural Citizen
07-20-2016, 03:47 PM
He had an interview on Joe Rogan a few months ago....

Oh, hey, there was also a discussion that he had on private property...you know....like the most important thing for Individual Liberty...with Stossel the other day. Here's how that went...


Stossel: Should Jewish bakers should be forced to bake wedding cakes for Nazi customers?

Johnson: That would be my contention, yes


Of course, we all know what being forced to do something really means. Right? Like at the barrel of the government's gun? Heh. So, yeah. A real champion of Individual Liberty, that Johnson guy is. Danged Captain America right there, boys.

AuH20
07-20-2016, 03:49 PM
Well said

...it's fun watching avowed supporters of the orange, warmongering socialist play purist when it comes to Johnson.

Gary Johnson is not tethered by the constraints of either major party. He is afforded the luxury of being 'pure', but instead decides to play a puzzling role of schemer.

Natural Citizen
07-20-2016, 03:51 PM
The EPA is the least restrained of all government.

Gary Johnson is the same, or worse, than Obama. All he has is theory and opinions and most of them are wrong. As far as I can tell he has spent a lot of time and money on pot and technology. The first one tells me he is doing his best to get rich from politics. He is not a liberty candidate, no matter what anyone says.

We are really up a creek now.

Agreed. I contend that many of his more relevant and critical positions are more consistent with the foundation for cultural Marxism than that of the foundation for the principles of Individual Liberty. And one could certainly create a thread to make a legitimate case for that here if one felt moved to do so. But you know...people want to smoke the wacky weed and he's their man.

dannno
07-20-2016, 03:54 PM
Oh, hey, there was also a discussion that he had on private property...you know....like the most important thing for Individual Liberty...with Stossel the other day. Here's how that went...


Stossel: Should Jewish bakers should be forced to bake wedding cakes for Nazi customers?

Johnson: That would be my contention, yes


Of course, we all know what being forced to do something really means. Right? Like at the barrel of the government's gun? Heh. So, yeah. A real champion of Individual Liberty, that Johnson guy is.

Yes, I know he isn't a principled libertarian like Ron Paul, but if I had to make a list of liberties I could live with or without, bakers being able to not bake cakes for gay weddings probably falls about #483 on the list.

Gary Johnson does very well on my top 100 list of liberties I cherish most (not just selfish liberties for myself, but for the betterment of society as a whole) much better than Hillary and better than Trump.

r3volution 3.0
07-20-2016, 03:54 PM
Gary Johnson is not tethered by the constraints of either major party. He is afforded the luxury of being 'pure', but decides to play a puzzling role.

He isn't trying to be "pure."

...though he is, obviously, infinitely closer to the libertarian ideal than Trumpllary.

He's trying to dramatically increase the LP's share of the vote, so that the party might actually achieve something in the future.

According to the polls, it's working.

All libertarians should be cheering him on.

Natural Citizen
07-20-2016, 03:59 PM
Yes, I know he isn't a principled libertarian like Ron Paul, but if I had to make a list of liberties I could live with or without, bakers being able to not bake cakes for gay weddings probably falls about #483 on the list.

What? That is THE one, man. It's the most important one. You call it baking gay wedding cakes but the principle is far, far, far more critical and relevant to the concept of Individual Liberty than that. We're talking about the primary foundation for the principels of Individual Liberty itself. Johnson's position is patently contrary to it.


Gary Johnson does very well on my top 100 list of liberties I cherish most (not just selfish liberties for myself, but for the betterment of society as a whole) much better than Hillary and better than Trump.

His position is contrary to the primary foundation for the principels of Individual Liberty at its core.

euphemia
07-20-2016, 04:07 PM
...though he is, obviously, infinitely closer to the libertarian ideal than Trumpllary.

Trump does not claim to be libertarian. Johnson does, and he's not telling the truth.



All libertarians should be cheering him on.

No, they shouldn't. Johnson is all about big government. The budget of New Mexico was bigger when he left office than when he took it. Limited government libertarian he ain't.

dannno
07-20-2016, 04:13 PM
What? That is THE one, man. It's the most important one. You call it baking gay wedding cakes but the principle is far, far, far more critical and relevant to the concept of Individual Liberty than that. We're talking about the primary foundation for the principels of Individual Liberty itself. Johnson's position is patently contrary to it.



His position is contrary to the primary foundation for the principels of Individual Liberty at its core.

Right, we have a LONG way to go before we are going to get any sort of 'principles' in the legislative process so right now we have to settle for moving in the right direction.

Gary Johnson moves us WAAY over in the right direction. Sorry, but the CRA was passed about 50 years ago and we haven't had any semblence of property rights since then.

There is no way a candidate can win the Presidency today if they want to run on a campaign of being able to post "no blacks allowed" signs on businesses. We have to educate a lot of people first on what liberty means and why it's important because in 95%+ of the population's mind our country made a lot of progress due to those laws and they don't want to go back. Like Gary Johnson said, it's a black hole issue.

In the mean time I'd like lower taxes, less foreign empire and a smaller government, please.

Natural Citizen
07-20-2016, 04:13 PM
Gary Johnson does very well on my top 100 list of liberties I cherish most (not just selfish liberties for myself, but for the betterment of society as a whole) much better than Hillary and better than Trump.

And this. Heh. I forgot to touch on this. I'll mention it given rev3's thought there in terms of this anti-moral means justifying the end and given that his thought reminded me that I didn't touch on it.

Let's mention "the pursuit of Happiness." And what that really means. The common good, as you reference, dannno, is fundamentally and principally the sum of the well being of all Individuals acting voluntarily. Now, sure, the Individual may volunteer alone and the Individual may join a group of Individuals and volunteer either Individually or cooperatively in order to create rules for themselves. An Individual or any group of Individuals, which I agree with you on, should be able to organize for the purpose of making rules for themselves. But only if their rules don't prohibit me from equally doing the same for the purpose of enjoyment of my equal, unalienable rights. Especially the right to freedom of choice.

That right cannot should not be sacrificed by way of any subordination to any Government-over-Man philosophical principle or equally coercive system. Of course, Johnson's position is patently contrary to that. Admittedly and observably. Is it not?

euphemia
07-20-2016, 04:16 PM
Interesting how Johnson says he's running against Trump, but not against Hillary Clinton. He never tried to run as a Republican. What a joke.

Natural Citizen
07-20-2016, 04:25 PM
Interesting how Johnson says he's running against Trump, but not against Hillary Clinton. He never tried to run as a Republican. What a joke.


Mm. Yep. You know, if Johnson weren't running under the banner of Liberty, I likely wouldn't even pop my mouth off about him. But he is running under that banner. And it's compounded by the fact that people around here, of all people, are okay with him being the face for making Liberty a household name. My gosh. I've given up on elections of this magnitude and party politics. It's become nothing but a big ole game of divide and conquer. The foundation for the principles of Individual Liberty, and, consequently, Individual Liberty, itself, are what are critical to defend now more than ever. We're back to working from the ground up now. And, unfortunately, virtue is eroding within the Liberty movement itself. And that's a major problem. And Johnson's moral position is patently contrary to the very foundation that provides for the principles of Individual Liberty itself.

r3volution 3.0
07-20-2016, 04:28 PM
Trump does not claim to be libertarian. Johnson does, and he's not telling the truth.

Gary is a libertarian running as a libertarian; Trump is a progressive running as a conservative.

Socialized medicine, bank bailouts, Keynesian stimulus, the Fed, protectionism, the Iraq War, the Libya War, the PATRIOT ACT, drug prohibition.

^^^things which Trump supports and Gary opposes

http://arteinteractivo.frontera0.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Nuff_Said_Bernie_Mac_Oceans13_zpsf12237a7-1024x680.png

Natural Citizen
07-20-2016, 04:54 PM
He isn't trying to be "pure."

Pure? Ha! He isn't even trying to be fundamental. Much less pure. I wouldn't even have the audacity to mention the word pure given that his position is patently contrary to the primary foundation for the principles of Individual Liberty itself.



According to the polls, it's working.

All libertarians should be cheering him on.

Mm. Yeah. It might be working. Admittedly, the general public are easily led astray. I'll give you folks that much. It's true. Deception, unfortunately, is the new name of the game. No doubt about it. But people should be kicking themselves in the rear end for organizing against the primary foundation for the principles of Individual Liberty by promoting this guy in its name. Not cheering. If they're cheering, then, the cultural Marxists have won.

r3volution 3.0
07-20-2016, 05:05 PM
Pure? Ha! He isn't even trying to be fundamental. Much less pure. I wouldn't even have the audacity to mention the word pure given that his position is patently contrary to the primary foundation for the principles of Individual Liberty itself.

I appreciate that you see the extension of the CRA to sexual orientation as the most important issue facing the country.

I, however, don't.

I care about things that actually matter: like the Fed, the debt, the wars, the police state, etc.

....aka things on which Gary takes the libertarian view.


Mm. Yeah. It might be working. Admittedly, the general public are easily led astray. I'll give you folks that much. It's true. Deception, unfortunately, is the new name of the game. No doubt about it. But people should be kicking themselves in the rear end for organizing against the primary foundation for the principles of Individual Liberty by promoting this guy in its name. Not cheering. If they're cheering, then, the cultural Marxists have won.

Yea, it would be just terrible if a strongly (though not perfectly) libertarian candidate got some traction.

The world would be so much better off if the presidential debate stage were dominated by people who reject libertarianism in every respect.

Natural Citizen
07-20-2016, 05:07 PM
I appreciate that you see the extension of the CRA to sexual orientation as the most important issue facing the country.



That's not the issue. And it's disingenuous for you to even attampt to create the illusion that it is. It's deceptive.

Occam's Banana
07-20-2016, 05:13 PM
[...] if I had to make a list of liberties I could live with or without, bakers being able to not bake cakes for gay weddings probably falls about #483 on the list.

Forcing someone to bake cakes for gay weddings is merely a particular form of forcing X to provide Y for Z.

If not being forced to do so is a liberty you can live without, then you have essentially just announced your willingness to live without liberty at all.

Anyone who thinks that Johnson's approval of forcing bakers to bake cakes for gays applies (or would be applied) only to bakers and cakes and gays - as if that particular combination constitutes a special case of some kind, distinct from any other X or Y or Z - is seriously deluded ...

r3volution 3.0
07-20-2016, 05:14 PM
I appreciate that you see the extension of the CRA to sexual orientation as the most important issue facing the country.That's not the issue. And it's disingenuous for you to even attampt to create the illusion that it is. It's deceptive.

Let's review:



Yes, I know he isn't a principled libertarian like Ron Paul, but if I had to make a list of liberties I could live with or without, bakers being able to not bake cakes for gay weddings probably falls about #483 on the list.What? That is THE one, man. It's the most important one. You call it baking gay wedding cakes but the principle is far, far, far more critical and relevant to the concept of Individual Liberty than that. We're talking about the primary foundation for the principels of Individual Liberty itself. Johnson's position is patently contrary to it.

Natural Citizen
07-20-2016, 05:22 PM
Let's review:

Bull. You're being deceptive again. You're spinning so fast that you're doing donuts, man. Sexual orientation is not the issue.

Would you prefer that I start a topic on it for clarity in the Johnson section? A nice thorough one? Because I can get really, really thorough on what the issue actually is. I'm not one of these drones around here who will roll over and let someone create a deceptive and false illusion of the terms of controversy. I'll tell you what the terms of controversy are precisely and welcome anyone to disagree.

euphemia
07-20-2016, 05:29 PM
Gary is a libertarian running as a libertarian; Trump is a progressive running as a conservative.

Then Johnson is being dishonest, and he's pandering to social progressives.

r3volution 3.0
07-20-2016, 05:29 PM
Bull. You're being deceptive again. You're spinng so fast that you're doing donuts, man. Sexual orientation is not the issue.

Would you prefer that I start a topic on it for clarity?

Dannno said that the issue of business owners being forced to serve gay customers is not very important.

You responded that it was the most important issue, did you not?

Natural Citizen
07-20-2016, 05:38 PM
Dannno said that the issue of business owners being forced to serve gay customers is not very important.

You responded that it was the most important issue, did you not?

dannno minimized the issue by stimulating the illusion that the issue was merely business owners being forced to serve gay customers and that it wasn't very important.

I don't care whether people are gay or not. I straightened the facts out on what the issue actually is in scope and at its core for the purpose of forwarding the fact that coercion and force at the barrel of government's gun to enforce principles that are patently contrary to the very principles of Individual Liberty, which is government's only role to protect, is a very, very important issue.

Gary Johnson's position is patently contrary to the primary foundation that establishes the very principles of Individual Liberty itself. As such; he is no friend of Individual Liberty. The principles of Individual Liberty are not to be accepted or rejected piece meal. The foundation that provides for the philosophy of Individual Liberty must either be accepted or rejected in whole. It's the only way to truly benefit from it.

Period.

Play spin games with someone else. I'm not the one.

r3volution 3.0
07-20-2016, 05:44 PM
dannno minimized the issue by stimulating the illusion that the issue was merely business owners being forced to serve gay customers and that it wasn't very important.

I straightened the facts out on what the issue actually is in scope and at its core.

Gary Jobhnson's position is patently contrary to the primary foundation that established the very principles of Individua Liberty itself. As such; he is no friend of Individual Liberty.

Period.

Play games with someone else. I'm not the one.

Every deviation from libertarian principles is "patently contrary" to libertarian principles (obviously).

Dannno's point (and my own), is that as far as deviations go, Gary's is fairly minor.

Forcing business owners to serve customers they don't want to serve is less bad than (for instance) killing a million people in Iraq for no reason.

Priorities

Natural Citizen
07-20-2016, 05:56 PM
Every deviation from libertarian principles is "patently contrary" to libertarian principles (obviously).

Dannno's point (and my own), is that as far as deviations go, Gary's is fairly minor.

Forcing business owners to serve customers they don't want to serve is less bad than (for instance) killing a million people in Iraq for no reason.

Priorities

Again, The foundation for the fundamental principles of Individual Liberty itself cannot be accepted or rejected piece meal. The foundation that provides for the fundamental principles of Individual Liberty must either be accepted or rejected in whole with its beneifits in order to possess and enjoy its benefits fully.

But, yes. Agreed. Priorities.


I'll give you the final word here.

r3volution 3.0
07-20-2016, 06:08 PM
Again, The foundation for the principles of Individual Liberty cannot be accepted or rejected piece meal.

The foundation that provides for the philosophy of Individual Liberty must either be accepted or rejected in whole with its beneifits in order to possess and enjoy its benefits fully.

But, yes. Agreed. Priorities.

Do you agree that the issues where Gary takes a libertarian stance (e.g, Fed, bailouts, wars, PATRIOT Act) are higher priorities than the CRA?

Natural Citizen
07-20-2016, 06:50 PM
Do you agree that the issues where Gary takes a libertarian stance (e.g, Fed, bailouts, wars, PATRIOT Act) are higher priorities than the CRA?

That's a redundant question. And a loaded one at that. The CRA isn't the root term of controversy. Not even if the illusion is inserted and the discussion is re-directed to project the absurd notion that it is the root term of controversy, it isn't.

Government must be limited in power if Individual Liberty, the Minority of One, is to be safeguarded. And the words Limited for Liberty used to mean something around here. Johnson's position is patently contrary to the foundation that provides for that protection. His position is contrary to the foundation that defines our Republic. Johnson's position is consistent with the principles of a Democracy. We are not a Democracy.

And there is a rather critical distinction between the two...

A Democracy: The chief characteristic and distinguishing feature of a Democracy is: Rule by Omnipotent Majority. In a Democracy, The Individual, and any group of Individuals composing any Minority, have no protection against the unlimited power of The Majority. It is a case of Majority-over-Man. This is true whether it be a Direct Democracy, or a Representative Democracy.

A Republic: Republic, on the other hand, has a very different purpose and an entirely different form, or system, of government. Its purpose is to control The Majority strictly, as well as all others among the people, primarily to protect The Individual’s God-given, unalienable rights and therefore for the protection of the rights of The Minority, of all minorities, and the liberties of people in general. The definition of a Republic is: a constitutionally limited government of the representative type, created by a written Constitution--adopted by the people and changeable (from its original meaning) by them only by its amendment--with its powers divided between three separate Branches: Executive, Legislative and Judicial.

Now. When asked a question that projected the notion that a solution that was based on the fundamental principles of a Democracy was preferable to a solution that was premised upon the fundamental principles that define our Republic, Johnson's answer was this...

Johnson: That would be my contention, yes

timosman
07-20-2016, 07:18 PM
Edward Bernays would be so proud.

If you need to name names. :cool:

r3volution 3.0
07-20-2016, 07:31 PM
That's a redundant question. And a loaded one at that. The CRA isn't the root term of controversy. Not even if the illusion is inserted and the discussion is re-directed to project the absurd notion that it is the root term of controversy, it isn't.

It's a straightforward question which you for some reason chose to give a long and irrelevant non-answer.

Either you think businesses being forced to serve customers is worse than the Fed, the wars, etc, or you don't.

It's a yes or a no.

If/when you want to give an answer, I'm all ears.

Natural Citizen
07-20-2016, 07:37 PM
If/when you want to give an answer, I'm all ears.

No, it's a straight-forward, redundant, question that is meant to project spin and to avoid the critical nature of the root issue. That's what it was.

My postings here in the thread are spot on. And I've yet to see you even acknowledge any of it in a meaningful way. You're dipping and you're spinning. That's a coward's role.

Why do you hate freedom, r3volution 3.0? That's my question for you. You (and others) are promoting a man whose position is contrary to the primary foundation for Individual Liberty itself. And you're promoting him in the name of Liberty, no less. Normally, I wouldn't care. But you're promoting a philosophy that is patently contrary to the principles of Individual Liberty in the name of Liberty. That takes some balls, right there.

euphemia
07-20-2016, 07:48 PM
I have no intention of voting for Gary Johnson, and I will do everything I can to make sure people know the truth about him. He is not a libertarian. He is in this for the money he can make off his stock in pot. He has no interest in free markets. He is authoritarian, and he didn't limit the government in New Mexico when he had the chance.

r3volution 3.0
07-20-2016, 07:49 PM
You (and others) are promoting a man whose position is contrary to the primary foundation for Individual Liberty itself.

I'm promoting a candidate who takes the libertarian position on the most important issues, as an alternative to the two major party candidates who take the libertarian position on none of the important issues. A large movement toward liberty (as represented by Gary) is much better than a large movement further away from liberty (as represented by Trumpllary). I don't know how you can fail to understand this elementary concept.

euphemia
07-20-2016, 07:56 PM
I'm promoting a candidate who takes the libertarian position on the most important issues,

Um, no, he doesn't. He says what he has to say to get people to vote for him. He did none of it as governor of New Mexico, which should be one of the easier states to downsize. They only have a little over two million people. It's not like he was mayor of Los Angeles. I guess that open borders thing didn't work so well. The government of New Mexico was bigger when he left office than when he entered it.

Natural Citizen
07-20-2016, 08:22 PM
End of the day, there is absolutely no action or declaration by the government that is patently contrary to the primary foundation for the principles of Individual Liberty, regardless of whether or not Johnson and his supporters think there is, that could legitimately be deemed valid morally or constitutionally. Again...Limited for Liberty used to mean something around here. Now we're promoting a man whose position is patently contrary to the foundation for the very principles of Individual Liberty itself and these days it seems like it's just a catch phrase that some friends toss out there whenever the whim suits them.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6SH7CUqf-6Q

Krugminator2
07-20-2016, 08:26 PM
I have no intention of voting for Gary Johnson, and I will do everything I can to make sure people know the truth about him. He is not a libertarian. He is in this for the money he can make off his stock in pot. He has no interest in free markets. He is authoritarian, and he didn't limit the government in New Mexico when he had the chance.

Nobody brings that up. But he used his notoriety as the Libertarian Party candidate to lend his name to two pump and dump schemes involving marijuana companies.

He got paid 515,000 shares of stock called Cannabis Sativa which has no assets or revenues. He left the company at the beginning of the year. Subsequently the stock went up by a 1000% in a paid promotion which would have meant his stake in a worthless company was worth $1.7 million if dumped, which someone should ask him about.
He was also involved with a company called Medican Enterprises which people should look at a chart of that stock. Anyone with a functioning brain can read the SEC filings. http://www.otcmarkets.com/edgar/GetFilingHtml?FilingID=10628010

If he ever got close to being a real candidate, this would immediately become an issue. It would be similar to Trump University or the Ron Paul Newsletters. It doesn't become an issue until he is taken seriously. The he becomes a total joke like Wesley Clark. https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=wesley+clark+penny+stock+general

RJ Liberty
07-20-2016, 08:32 PM
I have no intention of voting for Gary Johnson, and I will do everything I can to make sure people know the truth about him. He is not a libertarian. He is in this for the money he can make off his stock in pot. He has no interest in free markets. He is authoritarian, and he didn't limit the government in New Mexico when he had the chance.

He had more than 700 vetoes to his record in NM, during a time when the NM legislature was controlled by Democrats (http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/07/25/gary-johnson-the-third-party-candidate). Those 700 vetoes were more vetoes than all other governors combined, Euphemia. It's ridiculous that you blame Johnson for the increase in spending in NM during his years in office when he made a name for himself for resisting that spending.

euphemia
07-20-2016, 08:38 PM
He left office with over 20% of New Mexicans on food stamps. Do you want to know how many states have more than that? Just one. Mississippi. Johnson left that mess for the current governor to deal with.

New Mexico only has about 2 million people. How hard is it to implement libertarian principles when you have such a small population? If he can't convince the New Mexio state legislature, how in the world do you think he will convince Congress?

Johnson is in politics so he can manipulate markets. That makes him as bad, or worse, than Hillary Clinton. If you think he will promote liberty principles over his own interests, keep right on thinking it. He won't be elected.

RJ Liberty
07-20-2016, 08:47 PM
New Mexico only has about 2 million people. How hard is it to implement libertarian principles when you have

...both legislatures controlled by Democrats? Pretty tough!

Oh, I see what this is about!


[Melania Trump] was beautiful and gracious, and she is a very accomplished public speaker. Graceful walk on stage. Please compare that with schlumpy Michelle Obama.

...you're a Trumpster!

r3volution 3.0
07-20-2016, 08:50 PM
Oh, I see what this is about!

...you're a Trumpster!

She's been Trumpin for months now.

RJ Liberty
07-20-2016, 08:55 PM
She's been Trumpin for months now.

Yeah, I didn't catch that until now. This one's more sneaky, talking about "libertarian principles" while selling out to the Trumpster Dumpster. It wasn't until I saw her writing about how beautiful and glamorous the poised Melania Trump was during her plagiarized speech that I realized this one's no friend to the liberty movement.

euphemia
07-20-2016, 09:04 PM
She's been Trumpin for months now.

Nope. I just make a point to listen to what people say and watch what they do. I have not seen or read a single thing about Gary Johnson that appeals to me or would convince me he is the man to sit in the Oval Office. I wouldn't trust him as far as I could throw him. He is not a libertarian.

Of the people who will be on the ballot in all 50 states, there isn't anyone who has the policy, experience, and level of leadership we need. People have been asleep at the wheel and now it's election time and we are in a mess. There is no way a good candidate will be on the ballot in all 50 states because we have been trying to get blood out of the turnip that is the Republican Party. They were never going to have Ron Paul stand for president, and I think we should have seen that back in 2008. We could have been doing something different, but we didn't. Now we are stuck. There is no way in the world I am going to be suckered into voting for Gary Johnson. He doesn't measure up on any level.

Natural Citizen
07-20-2016, 09:04 PM
I realized this one's no friend to the liberty movement.

What I'm realizing now is that the Liberty movement is no friend of Liberty.

Natural Citizen
07-20-2016, 09:05 PM
Nope. I just make a point to listen to what people say and watch what they do. I have not seen or read a single thing about Gary Johnson that appeals to me or would convince me he is the man to sit in the Oval Office. I wouldn't trust him as far as I could throw him. He is not a libertarian.

Of the people who will be on the ballot in all 50 states, there isn't anyone who has the policy, experience, and level of leadership we need. People have been asleep at the wheel and now it's election time and we are in a mess. There is no way a good candidate will be on the ballot in all 50 states because we have been trying to get blood out of the turnip that is the Republican Party. They were never going to have Ron Paul stand for president, and I think we should have seen that back in 2008. We could have been doing something different, but we didn't. Now we are stuck. There is no way in the world I am going to be suckered into voting for Gary Johnson. He doesn't measure up on any level.


Don't worry yourself with these hacks. You've done a great job around the board placing things into the correct and more relevant perspective where others actively seek to mask the relevant and more critical terms of controversy. All they have is ad-hominem and redundant spin in defense of their campaign of coercion against the fundamental foundation for the principles of individual Liberty. That's how the game of divide and conquer works. They're promoting someone whose position on the foundation for the fundamental principles of Individual Liberty is patenly contrary to the fundamental principles of Individual Liberty itself. And they're promoting the screwery in the name of Liberty, no less. Their fruits are all we need to know about them in order to measure them precisely. Johnson, by his own admission, will point the barrel of a government gun at an Individual who values that fundamental foundation. So that's what/who we're working with here. That's how bad virtue is eroding around here. The gradual erosion of virtue is likely the greatest and most unrecognized threat to Individual Liberty today. Yet here it is. And it's live for all to see.

euphemia
07-20-2016, 09:12 PM
It wasn't until I saw her writing about how beautiful and glamorous the poised Melania Trump was during her plagiarized speech that I realized this one's no friend to the liberty movement.

Michelle Obama plagarized her speech, but you all are too caught up in the MSM to even notice. It's time to move on to more important things. As it happens, I read Michelle's Master's thesis, and I may well be the only one on these boards who did. You won't find it online now. It was removed once the insomniacs of America (the only way you could read it) figured out what a petty, small-minded, unintelligent woman she is.

Anti-Neocon
07-20-2016, 09:19 PM
Don't worry yourself with these hacks. All they have is ad-hominem. They're promoting someone whose position on the foundation for the fundamental principles of Individual Liberty is patenly contrary to the fundamental principles of Individual Liberty. And they're promoting the screwery in the name of Liberty, no less.
A lot of people love to talk about how much they love liberty, yet they have no practical ways to move the country in a more libertarian direction.

The country is moving slowly down a slippery slope toward tyranny, and as it does, the Overton window of "acceptable thought" moves in a more anti-liberty direction where our ideas are seen as more and more radical.

There has never been a more openly anti-liberty major candidate than Donald Trump (Hillary Clinton would maybe be 2nd place), and yet when we have a candidate that can at least act as a placeholder to get a way more libertarian party in the mainstream, the "true libertarians" are so concerned with purity that they don't realize they are letting the nation slip deeper into tyranny as they bide their time waiting for a perfect candidate.

The question we should be asking ourselves is: "how do we practically end up with the most pro-liberty nation?" All arguments toward a specific course of action should be in response to that question. I really fail to see at all how "don't support anyone, wait for the next Ron Paul" ends up being the answer to that question, when we are 4 months away from electing a literal tyrant, with nothing even close to libertarian in the public dialogue.

PS: beware of concern troll Trumpkins! They claim not to like anything about Trump but they take every turn they can to defend him while doing their best to quash any alternatives that are remotely libertarian.

Krugminator2
07-20-2016, 09:19 PM
She's been Trumpin for months now.


I'm not a Trumpkin. What is your answer to this? http://www.medicaninc.com/2014/03/12/medican-enterprises-inc-appoints-former-new-mexico-governor-to-the-board-of-directors/

http://bigcharts.marketwatch.com/kaavio.Webhost/charts/big.chart?nosettings=1&symb=mdcn&uf=0&type=4&size=2&sid=5801443&style=320&freq=2&entitlementtoken=0c33378313484ba9b46b8e24ded87dd6&time=11&rand=769413084&compidx=aaaaa%3a0&ma=0&maval=9&lf=1&lf2=0&lf3=0&height=335&width=579&mocktick=1


Do high integrity people put their names on stuff like this?

RJ Liberty
07-20-2016, 09:26 PM
A lot of people love to talk about how much they love liberty, yet they have no practical ways to move the country in a more libertarian direction.

The country is moving slowly down a slippery slope toward tyranny, and as it does, the Overton window of "acceptable thought" moves in a more anti-liberty direction where our ideas are seen as more and more radical.

There has never been a more openly anti-liberty major candidate than Donald Trump (Hillary Clinton would maybe be 2nd place), and yet when we have a candidate that can at least act as a placeholder to get a way more libertarian party in the mainstream, the "true libertarians" are so concerned with purity that they don't realize they are letting the nation slip deeper into tyranny as they bide their time waiting for a perfect candidate.

The question we should be asking ourselves is: "how do we practically end up with the most pro-liberty nation?" All arguments toward a specific course of action should be in response to that question. I really fail to see at all how "don't support anyone, wait for the next Ron Paul" ends up being the answer to that question, when we are 4 months away from electing a literal tyrant, with nothing even close to libertarian in the public dialogue.


Well said. I'd only add that Gary can act as a stepping stone towards greater liberty... our country's voters clearly aren't ready for someone like Darryl Perry, but they could be in four years, if the LP can get a decent showing this election.

Anti-Neocon
07-20-2016, 09:28 PM
I'm not a Trumpkin. What is your answer to this? http://www.medicaninc.com/2014/03/12/medican-enterprises-inc-appoints-former-new-mexico-governor-to-the-board-of-directors/

http://bigcharts.marketwatch.com/kaavio.Webhost/charts/big.chart?nosettings=1&symb=mdcn&uf=0&type=4&size=2&sid=5801443&style=320&freq=2&entitlementtoken=0c33378313484ba9b46b8e24ded87dd6&time=11&rand=769413084&compidx=aaaaa%3a0&ma=0&maval=9&lf=1&lf2=0&lf3=0&height=335&width=579&mocktick=1


Do high integrity people put their names on stuff like this?
Wow, so everything he touches doesn't turn to gold? He is a multi-million dollar success story for starting his own business from scratch. Here he was just part of the board of directors.

r3volution 3.0
07-20-2016, 09:29 PM
I'm not a Trumpkin. What is your answer to this? http://www.medicaninc.com/2014/03/12/medican-enterprises-inc-appoints-former-new-mexico-governor-to-the-board-of-directors/

http://bigcharts.marketwatch.com/kaavio.Webhost/charts/big.chart?nosettings=1&symb=mdcn&uf=0&type=4&size=2&sid=5801443&style=320&freq=2&entitlementtoken=0c33378313484ba9b46b8e24ded87dd6&time=11&rand=769413084&compidx=aaaaa%3a0&ma=0&maval=9&lf=1&lf2=0&lf3=0&height=335&width=579&mocktick=1


Do high integrity people put their names on stuff like this?

Never heard of that, don't really care, and never said Gary was a high integrity individual.

I said he's advocating libertarian policies.

I care about libertarians gaining more exposure; Gary's just a vehicle.

Anti-Neocon
07-20-2016, 09:31 PM
Well said. I'd only add that Gary can act as a stepping stone towards greater liberty... our country's voters clearly aren't ready for someone like Darryl Perry, but they could be in four years, if the LP can get a decent showing this election.
Exactly, at the very least we can learn strategy from our incrementalist enemies when it comes to taking away liberty, and use it against them.

The same people who want purist libertarians in office also think that the best way to make progress is to take 50 steps back and then get run over by a Trump bus. I guess at least a Trump bus probably wouldn't run unless you pushed it off a hill.

euphemia
07-20-2016, 09:32 PM
I do not define my politics by what I hate, which is what many here seem to do. I define my politics by what I love and what I see as the reasonable interpretation of what our founders outlined and intended. I do not trust the mainstream media to do what they were constitutionally protected to do: report on the abuses of government. Nobody talks about that. Where's the outrage? The founders thought American citizens deserved to have advocates in the press to report on what the folks in Washington DC are doing wrong. Buying into the nonsense of the media is putting yourselves under the bondage of both an illegal and ineffective government and a complicit press.

You all are looking at Gary Johnson as the next new thing and the one who will be different. He is not different. He is the same, or worse, than what we have now. He will change nothing.

Natural Citizen
07-20-2016, 09:36 PM
Gary can act as a stepping stone towards greater liberty

By openly professing an official position that he would point the barrels of government guns at Individuals and groups of Individuals who value the foundation for the principles of Individual Liberty itself...simply because they value the foundation for the principles of Individual Liberty? That's your idea of a stepping stone towards greater liberty? Sure. Okay. That's just lovely. Beautiful. Smoke another one. Gary Johnson has you covered.

Anti-Neocon
07-20-2016, 09:36 PM
I do not define my politics by what I hate, which is what many here seem to do. I define my politics by what I love and what I see as the reasonable interpretation of what our founders outlined and intended. I do not trust the mainstream media to do what they were constitutionally protected to do: report on the abuses of government. Nobody talks about that. Where's the outrage? The founders thought American citizens deserved to have advocates in the press to report on what the folks in Washington DC are doing wrong. Buying into the nonsense of the media is putting yourselves under the bondage of both an illegal and ineffective government and a complicit press.

You all are looking at Gary Johnson as the next new thing and the one who will be different. He is not different. He is the same, or worse, than what we have now. He will change nothing.
Apparently you missed the memo where Trump has openly stated how he wants to abuse government to an unprecedented level in this country. Why don't you spend some of your effort pointing out how the mainstream media doesn't cover how Trump openly plans to abuse government?

Anti-Neocon
07-20-2016, 09:40 PM
By openly professing an official position to point the barrels of goverbment guns at people who value the foundation for the principles of Individual Liberty itself...simply because they value the foundation for the principles of Individual Liberty? Sure. Okay. That's ljust ovely. Smoke another one.
Keep on waiting for your liberty-loving knight in shining armor... by the time he comes the country will be way more authoritarian and even people like Johnson will be seen as increasingly radical, so he will be even less successful than Ron Paul.

If you can't see the difference between Johnson and Trump, you are probably stuck in an all-or-nothing thoughtblock. There are many shades of gray between pure liberty and pure tyranny.

Krugminator2
07-20-2016, 09:40 PM
Wow, so everything he touches doesn't turn to gold? He is a multi-million dollar success story for starting his own business from scratch. Here he was just part of the board of directors.

I agree he is successful.

That said his role with this was to help sell worthless paper by lending his name for credibility. You can read the comments of the happy shareholders . http://investorshub.advfn.com/Medican-Enterprises-Inc-MDCN-8287/

But since you said he was just on the board. Let's look at the company he was CEO of. The product is the stock.

Cash-14k
Revenue. 15k
What they promise on their website and what the company don't seem to mesh, given that it impossible to accomplish anything with 14k in cash . http://cannabissativainc.com/dispensaries/

Natural Citizen
07-20-2016, 09:44 PM
Keep on waiting for your liberty-loving knight in shining armor... by the time he comes the country will be way more authoritarian and even people like Johnson will be seen as increasingly radical, so he will be even less successful than Ron Paul.

If you can't see the difference between Johnson and Trump, you are probably stuck in an all-or-nothing thoughtblock. There are many shades of gray between pure liberty and pure tyranny.

I don't care about the difference between Johnson and Trump. I have no stake in it.

I'll tell you what I know about a reckless following, though. People who generally participate in coercion understand very little of its function and nothing of its consequence. I know that.

RJ Liberty
07-20-2016, 09:53 PM
By openly professing an official position that

Johnson would cut at least some amount of funding to the National Institute of Health and the National Science Foundation, with abolition being an option.
http://twitter.com/#!/GovGaryJohnson...77579231686656 (http://twitter.com/#%21/GovGaryJohnson/status/62577579231686656)

Johnson believes we should allow more off-shore drilling, and drilling in ANWR.
http://twitter.com/#!/GovGaryJohnson...77831506489344 (http://twitter.com/#%21/GovGaryJohnson/status/62577831506489344)

Johnson believes gay marriage should be a state issue rather than a federal issue, and he supports gay civil unions.
http://twitter.com/#!/GovGaryJohnson...78561105661952 (http://twitter.com/#%21/GovGaryJohnson/status/62578561105661952)

The three things Johnson condemns most strongly about the George W. Bush presidency are: Bush's spending, the Iraq War, and not ultimately withdrawing from Afghanistan.
http://twitter.com/#!/GovGaryJohnson...78676247691264 (http://twitter.com/#%21/GovGaryJohnson/status/62578676247691264)

Johnson doesn't believe the U.S. government should have intervened in Libya.
http://twitter.com/#!/GovGaryJohnson...79045635862528 (http://twitter.com/#%21/GovGaryJohnson/status/62579045635862528)

Johnson would appoint Supreme Court justices who adhered to an originalist interpretation of the U.S. Constitution.
http://twitter.com/#!/GovGaryJohnson...79866658283520 (http://twitter.com/#%21/GovGaryJohnson/status/62579866658283520)

Johnson supports auditing the Federal Reserve and places the blame on the Federal Reserve's shoulders for the current recession.
http://twitter.com/#!/search?q=%23gjchat (http://twitter.com/#%21/search?q=%23gjchat)

Johnson believes that by pursuing domestic oil drilling, within 15 years we could produce over half the oil that we consume.
http://twitter.com/#!/GovGaryJohnson...80840374337537 (http://twitter.com/#%21/GovGaryJohnson/status/62580840374337537)

Johnson would cut defense spending and entitlements, but believes that Social Security can be reformed without being cut.
http://twitter.com/#!/GovGaryJohnson...80882925568000 (http://twitter.com/#%21/GovGaryJohnson/status/62580882925568000)

Johnson would not only legalize marijuana, he would also issue pardons for all those who are in prison solely for marijuana.
http://twitter.com/#!/GovGaryJohnson...81033257811968 (http://twitter.com/#%21/GovGaryJohnson/status/62581033257811968)

Johnson would rule out raising taxes as a way to reduce the deficit.
http://twitter.com/#!/GovGaryJohnson...81092342956033 (http://twitter.com/#%21/GovGaryJohnson/status/62581092342956033)

Johnson is opposed to the corporate income tax, believing it is a double tax.
http://twitter.com/#!/GovGaryJohnson...81352981209089 (http://twitter.com/#%21/GovGaryJohnson/status/62581352981209089)

Johnson believes that legalizing marijuana will relieve much of the border violence.
http://twitter.com/#!/GovGaryJohnson...81482547445760 (http://twitter.com/#%21/GovGaryJohnson/status/62581482547445760)

Johnson states that the Fair Tax is his preferred method of reforming our tax code.
http://twitter.com/#!/GovGaryJohnson...81562922897408 (http://twitter.com/#%21/GovGaryJohnson/status/62581562922897408)

Johnson doesn't believe government-funded high-speed rail is a profitable venture, and isn't sure it would be profitable even with private funding.
http://twitter.com/#!/GovGaryJohnson...81578164998144 (http://twitter.com/#%21/GovGaryJohnson/status/62581578164998144)

Johnson places the utmost value on the constitutionality of a bill, when considering it.
http://twitter.com/#!/GovGaryJohnson...81700873551872 (http://twitter.com/#%21/GovGaryJohnson/status/62581700873551872)

Johnson would abolish the Department of Education.
http://twitter.com/#!/GovGaryJohnson...82672500858880 (http://twitter.com/#%21/GovGaryJohnson/status/62582672500858880)

Johnson would only deploy the U.S. military if there were a clear threat to national security and he got congressional authorization.
http://twitter.com/#!/GovGaryJohnson...83010293334017 (http://twitter.com/#%21/GovGaryJohnson/status/62583010293334017)

Johnson believes farm subsidies need to be cut by at least 43%, and possibly abolished.
http://twitter.com/#!/GovGaryJohnson...83048885121024 (http://twitter.com/#%21/GovGaryJohnson/status/62583048885121024)
http://twitter.com/#!/GovGaryJohnson...84844365996032 (http://twitter.com/#%21/GovGaryJohnson/status/62584844365996032)

Johnson believes the death penalty is flawed public policy.
http://twitter.com/#!/GovGaryJohnson...84035033104384 (http://twitter.com/#%21/GovGaryJohnson/status/62584035033104384)

Johnson would have let the so-called "too big to fail" banks fail.
http://twitter.com/#!/GovGaryJohnson...84233822134272 (http://twitter.com/#%21/GovGaryJohnson/status/62584233822134272)

Johnson would eliminate all instances on federal government questionnaires asking about your race or skin color.
http://twitter.com/#!/GovGaryJohnson...84305880268800 (http://twitter.com/#%21/GovGaryJohnson/status/62584305880268800)

Johnson would look at selling land currently being used as overseas U.S. military bases, as one way to help reduce the national debt.
http://twitter.com/#!/GovGaryJohnson...84529168244736 (http://twitter.com/#%21/GovGaryJohnson/status/62584529168244736)

Johnson supports rescinding the passport requirement for US-Canada travel.
http://twitter.com/#!/GovGaryJohnson...84638333390848 (http://twitter.com/#%21/GovGaryJohnson/status/62584638333390848)

Johnson supports a commodity based currency, such as a gold and/or silver backed currency.
http://twitter.com/#!/GovGaryJohnson...85362555473920 (http://twitter.com/#%21/GovGaryJohnson/status/62585362555473920)

Johnson, if elected President, would submit legislation to balance the federal budget.
http://twitter.com/#!/GovGaryJohnson...85374542794752 (http://twitter.com/#%21/GovGaryJohnson/status/62585374542794752)

One of Johnson's heroes is Milton Friedman.
http://twitter.com/#!/GovGaryJohnson...85585675673600 (http://twitter.com/#%21/GovGaryJohnson/status/62585585675673600)

Johnson would support a flat tax proposal.
http://twitter.com/#!/GovGaryJohnson...85989956239361 (http://twitter.com/#%21/GovGaryJohnson/status/62585989956239361)

Johnson does not believe in the literal, 6-day Creation story in Genesis.
http://twitter.com/#!/GovGaryJohnson...86031064621056 (http://twitter.com/#%21/GovGaryJohnson/status/62586031064621056)

Johnson believes President Obama violated the Constitution by initiating military action in Libya.
http://twitter.com/#!/GovGaryJohnson...86074123350016 (http://twitter.com/#%21/GovGaryJohnson/status/62586074123350016)

Johnson believes the trade embargo on Cuba is not working and would look at lifting it.
http://twitter.com/#!/GovGaryJohnson...86306210967552 (http://twitter.com/#%21/GovGaryJohnson/status/62586306210967552)

Johnson personally believes that abortion should be allowed up until the viability of the fetus, and points out that as Governor of New Mexico, he signed
legislation banning late term abortions.
http://twitter.com/#!/GovGaryJohnson...86426948198400 (http://twitter.com/#%21/GovGaryJohnson/status/62586426948198400)

Johnson's favorite book is "The Fountainhead", by Ayn Rand
http://twitter.com/#!/GovGaryJohnson...86894109773824 (http://twitter.com/#%21/GovGaryJohnson/status/62586894109773824)


Johnson supports a free market approach to health care reform.
http://twitter.com/#!/GovGaryJohnson...87073068142592 (http://twitter.com/#%21/GovGaryJohnson/status/62587073068142592)

Johnson's all-time favorite President is Thomas Jefferson.
http://twitter.com/#!/GovGaryJohnson...87375309688832 (http://twitter.com/#%21/GovGaryJohnson/status/62587375309688832)

Johnson believes rising oil prices are due to shrinking supply and a devaluing Dollar. He places the blame on the Federal Reserve.
http://twitter.com/#!/GovGaryJohnson...87528288538624 (http://twitter.com/#%21/GovGaryJohnson/status/62587528288538624)

Johnson would pardon Bernard von Nothaus, creator of the Liberty Dollar.
http://twitter.com/#!/GovGaryJohnson...87844329353216 (http://twitter.com/#%21/GovGaryJohnson/status/62587844329353216)

Johnson would abolish HUD.
http://twitter.com/#!/GovGaryJohnson...87864554274816 (http://twitter.com/#%21/GovGaryJohnson/status/62587864554274816)

Johnson would never have established the TSA, and would return airline security functions to the private airline companies.
http://twitter.com/#!/GovGaryJohnson...88048399007744 (http://twitter.com/#%21/GovGaryJohnson/status/62588048399007744)

Johnson advocates harm reduction strategies for hard drugs (i.e. treating them first as a health issue, not a criminal justice issue).
http://twitter.com/#!/GovGaryJohnson...88554827665408 (http://twitter.com/#%21/GovGaryJohnson/status/62588554827665408)

Johnson believes states should handle all welfare programs, not the federal government.
http://twitter.com/#!/GovGaryJohnson...88574016610304 (http://twitter.com/#%21/GovGaryJohnson/status/62588574016610304)

Johnson supports either the Fair Tax or a flat tax, but currently prefers the Fair Tax.
http://twitter.com/#!/GovGaryJohnson...89110493265920 (http://twitter.com/#%21/GovGaryJohnson/status/62589110493265920)

Johnson would set up a grace period for the 11,000,000 illegal immigrants in America to get a background check and apply for a work visa, but not a green card or citizenship, so that they can begin paying taxes and being productive.
http://twitter.com/#!/GovGaryJohnson...89213308239872 (http://twitter.com/#%21/GovGaryJohnson/status/62589213308239872)
http://twitter.com/#!/GovGaryJohnson...90060599590912 (http://twitter.com/#%21/GovGaryJohnson/status/62590060599590912)

Johnson adheres to the Austrian School of economics, not Supply Side economics.
http://twitter.com/#!/GovGaryJohnson...89364848431104 (http://twitter.com/#%21/GovGaryJohnson/status/62589364848431104)


Johnson hopes to get a fair shake from progressive voters.
http://twitter.com/#!/GovGaryJohnson...89408515330048 (http://twitter.com/#%21/GovGaryJohnson/status/62589408515330048)

Johnson would try not to cut Social Security, but would raise the retirement age and do means testing.
http://twitter.com/#!/GovGaryJohnson...90327713832961 (http://twitter.com/#%21/GovGaryJohnson/status/62590327713832961)

Johnson's campaign is working to make all of his campaign speeches viewable online.
http://twitter.com/#!/GovGaryJohnson...91130910470144 (http://twitter.com/#%21/GovGaryJohnson/status/62591130910470144)

Johnson hopes to win by communicating directly with as many people as possible.
http://twitter.com/#!/GovGaryJohnson...91303401226240 (http://twitter.com/#%21/GovGaryJohnson/status/62591303401226240)

Johnson doesn't think the problem with Wall Street is a lack of regulation, but rather protectionist government policies that favor big corporations.
http://twitter.com/#!/GovGaryJohnson...91351803490304 (http://twitter.com/#%21/GovGaryJohnson/status/62591351803490304)

Johnson would stop the creation of any new money and hammer out a balanced budget.
http://twitter.com/#!/GovGaryJohnson...92307211403264 (http://twitter.com/#%21/GovGaryJohnson/status/62592307211403264)

Johnson believes that the transparency offered by Wikileaks is a good thing.
http://twitter.com/#!/GovGaryJohnson...92467651923968 (http://twitter.com/#%21/GovGaryJohnson/status/62592467651923968)


That's your idea of a stepping stone towards greater liberty?

Yep. It sure is.

Natural Citizen
07-20-2016, 09:58 PM
Gary can act as a stepping stone towards greater liberty

By openly professing an official position that he would point the barrels of government guns at Individuals and groups of Individuals who value the foundation for the principles of Individual Liberty itself...simply because they value the foundation for the principles of Individual Liberty?

That's your idea of a stepping stone towards greater liberty?

Yep. It sure is.

Again...Johnson would, admittedly, point the barrels of government guns at Individuals and groups of Individuals who value the very foundation for the principles of Individual Liberty itself...simply because they value and would defend the foundation for the principles of Individual Liberty.

When effectively questioned whether he would point the barrels of government guns at Individuals and groups of Individuals who value the foundation for the principles of Individual Liberty itself, his response was crystal clear...

Johnson: That would be my contention, yes



Have you thought this through all the way, RJ Liberty?

euphemia
07-20-2016, 10:05 PM
I don't see that he did much in New Mexico. He has a track record. They have a Republican governor now, and she seems to be doing what Gary couldn't do. A man who is faithful in the small things can be trusted with bigger things. He's not there.

We don't know who will be on the ballot in Tennessee in November, so we have not made any kind of decision. We know what we want and we don't think we are going to get it. Johnson is not an option. He is not principled. We need someone with more integrity and more principled positions.

Whoever it is, he can be darn sure Ted Cruz will be gnawing on his leg for the next four years. He has already promised he will run in four years.

Champuckett
07-20-2016, 10:30 PM
So can anyone answer the question of why Gary Johnson does non-stop attacks on Trump and refrains from doing anything against Clinton? There has to be a legitimate reason behind this other than he just flat out likes her.

Some of the dumbest Americans that pay zero attention to politics don't like Hilary. Johnson is obviously well involved in politics and has been for some time. Why the lack of pointing out how atrocious she is?

RJ Liberty
07-20-2016, 10:34 PM
So can anyone answer the question of why Gary Johnson does non-stop attacks on Trump and refrains from doing anything against Clinton? There has to be a legitimate reason behind this other than he just flat out likes her.

He can't alienate both candidates if he wants to appear in the debates. The CPD is run by the GOP and the Dems.

oyarde
07-20-2016, 10:42 PM
Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/07/trump-vp-gary-johnson-bill-weld-libertarian-214069

Johnson is not qualified to speak of the GOP .

Anti-Neocon
07-20-2016, 11:10 PM
He can't alienate both candidates if he wants to appear in the debates. The CPD is run by the GOP and the Dems.
I think most of it is simpler. He knows he has to get to 15% in the polls to make the debates, and it's extremely hard to make a dent in Hillary's base when they just vote for the candidate that will give them more free stuff and gun control.

AuH20
07-20-2016, 11:15 PM
Keep on waiting for your liberty-loving knight in shining armor... by the time he comes the country will be way more authoritarian and even people like Johnson will be seen as increasingly radical, so he will be even less successful than Ron Paul.

If you can't see the difference between Johnson and Trump, you are probably stuck in an all-or-nothing thoughtblock. There are many shades of gray between pure liberty and pure tyranny.

The sad thing is that non-libertarian Trump has a bolder platform than Johnson, when it should be the other way around.

Natural Citizen
07-20-2016, 11:25 PM
Forcing someone to bake cakes for gay weddings is merely a particular form of forcing X to provide Y for Z.

If not being forced to do so is a liberty you can live without, then you have essentially just announced your willingness to live without liberty at all.

Anyone who thinks that Johnson's approval of forcing bakers to bake cakes for gays applies (or would be applied) only to bakers and cakes and gays - as if that particular combination constitutes a special case of some kind, distinct from any other X or Y or Z - is seriously deluded ...

Absolutely. If not being forced to do something is a liberty that one can live without, then, yes, one has absolutely just announced one's willingness to live without liberty at all. Agreed.

Forcing X to provide Y for Z at the barrel of a government gun really is a rather big deal. Especially when the action is projected in the name of Liberty itself. There is nothing at all purist in acknowledging the depth of the matter. This is a fundamental shortcoming. Hardly purist at all. This is nuts and bolts stuff. Thank You for acknowledging and speaking out to its critical nature. Seriously. I thought I was in the darned Twilight Zone here for a hot second. Unbelievable. Sheesh.

RootBeerExplosion
07-20-2016, 11:31 PM
Hey guys -- I don't have many posts but I used to be here all the time during the 2012 primary (I went by "Toast"). I've been stopping by again more or less daily for the past few months and all I have to say is... Really? Trump? The guy who's only remotely libertarian position is his opposition to the Iraq War -- usually voiced in the same breath as his rabid support for torture, expanding the war against ISIS, enacting trade wars, and ramping up the police state at home.

I hardly recognize the place. Seems pretty misnamed now sadly. Ron would be ashamed of the Trump supporters here.

RJ Liberty
07-20-2016, 11:36 PM
Hey guys -- I don't have many posts but I used to be here all the time during the 2012 primary (I went by "Toast"). I've been stopping by again more or less daily for the past few months and all I have to say is... Really? Trump? The guy who's only remotely libertarian position is his opposition to the Iraq War -- usually voiced in the same breath as his rabid support for torture, expanding the war against ISIS, enacting trade wars, and ramping up the police state at home.

I hardly recognize the place. Seems pretty misnamed now sadly. Ron would be ashamed of the Trump supporters here.

Thank you. Anyone purporting to support Trump in the name of "liberty" is either conning him/herself or is just dishonest. Above, I gave a rather extensive list of Gary's liberty positions. After months of requests, I'm still waiting for a list of Trump's liberty positions. Crickets.

Natural Citizen
07-20-2016, 11:53 PM
Anyone purporting to support Trump in the name of "liberty" is either conning him/herself or is just dishonest.

And what is your view on those who want to force someone to do something they don't want to do by aiming the barrel of a government gun at them in the name of Liberty, like your boy Johnson is running on? What do we call those guys? True to Liberty, honest injuns?

I call them traitors.

Anti-Neocon
07-20-2016, 11:59 PM
The sad thing is that non-libertarian Trump has a bolder platform than Johnson, when it should be the other way around.
Yeah, "bold" on destroying our Constitutional protections listed in the Bill of Rights.

When did I ever claim I decided which direction to vote based on "boldness"? This isn't Herman Cain Forums.
https://media.giphy.com/media/ksATqkEWxGhSE/giphy.gif
Very bold...

RJ Liberty
07-21-2016, 12:02 AM
I believe I mentioned about 50 of Johnson's positions, above, that I support. If you scroll up, you'll see them.

Natural Citizen
07-21-2016, 12:04 AM
I believe I mentioned about 50 of Johnson's positions, above, that I support. If you scroll up, you'll see them.

You still haven't acknowledged my 1. Why? It's a rather important one. It's fundamental.

Do you approve of Gary Johnson's acknowledgment that, yes, his position is that he would force X to provide Y for Z at the barrel of a government gun? Yes or no? Fitty fitty shot here, man. Do you have the courage to answer the question? If not, then, it's okay. I don't blame you. And I'll not think the lesser of you for it. But if you do, then, I'd suggest that you really, really, really think it through before answering given that you've been arguing against others from a position of Liberty.

RJ Liberty
07-21-2016, 12:05 AM
Yeah, "bold" on destroying our Constitutional protections listed in the Bill of Rights.

When did I ever claim I decided which direction to vote based on "boldness"? This isn't Herman Cain Forums.
https://media.giphy.com/media/ksATqkEWxGhSE/giphy.gif
Very bold...

Yep. Being "bold" is in no way a liberty position.

RJ Liberty
07-21-2016, 12:15 AM
That is totally preposterous. He had an interview on Joe Rogan a few months ago that lasted about 3 hours, and I pretty much agreed with everything he said. For 3 hours. Certainly there were some un-said things and there are some issues I break away from him on, but he is a libertarian who believes in low taxes and small government. He is against the bailouts and quantitative easing and all of Obama's wars, including the war on drugs which is horribly damaging to our country domestically. To say he is worse than Obama is completely ridiculous.

It is ridiculous, but Euphemia is in the Trumpster Dumpster. She's even started campaigning for Melania, talking about how "gracious" and beautiful Melania was during her ripped-off speech.

puppetmaster
07-21-2016, 12:16 AM
I trust Johnson as much as I trust trump......very little. Both are more trustworthy than hillary

RootBeerExplosion
07-21-2016, 12:20 AM
You still haven't acknowledged my 1. Why? It's a rather important one. It's fundamental. Do you approve of his position of forcing X to provide Y for Z at the barrel of a government gun ? Yes or no? Fitty fitty shot here, man. Do you have the courage to answer the question?

Of course Johnson was wrong on the cake issue, and I agree -- freedom of association is important. Johnson will not become president, however, and disallowing businesses to discriminate based on race/sexual orientation/etc. is simply something most people believe in nowadays, unfortunately. That will not change soon, and making an issue out of that would be pointless. As r3volution 3.0 said above, Gary's just a vehicle. He can and is attracting people to libertarianism, as imperfect a libertarian as he is.

Do I wish someone like Ron Paul was the LP nominee instead? Definitely. But what I would like doesn't really matter. Trump will neither grow libertarianism nor shrink the government. The people on here falling for his BS are naive fools.

P3ter_Griffin
07-21-2016, 12:25 AM
Why not start a poll on the matter Natural? Maybe you'd be surprised by the results. I've seen it happen quite a few times where someone comes back from a long break from RPF... having been debating people on FaceBook or whatever, and they completely misjudge the dedication for liberty among the RPFers (Trumpsters/Alt-right aside.. and even some of them). This ain't some leftist libertarian site... if you need to be told such.

RootBeerExplosion
07-21-2016, 12:26 AM
Yep. Being "bold" is in no way a liberty position.

what you dont support trump u cuck /s

Natural Citizen
07-21-2016, 12:31 AM
Why not start a poll on the matter Natural?

Because I'm hands-on. I like debating the old fashioned way. Man-to-Man. It's more respectable.


This ain't some leftist libertarian site... if you need to be told such.

We have a candidate being openly promoted on a site which prides its mission on promoting the principles of Individual Liberty and the candidate openly states that he would force X to provide Y for Z at the barrel of a government gun. And he'd do so under the banner of Liberty. That's a fundamental naw naw. A major one.

Respectfully, I don't need to be told anything of the sort. The circumstance, however, speaks for itself.

RJ Liberty
07-21-2016, 12:34 AM
what you dont support trump u cuck /s

Haha! :p

P3ter_Griffin
07-21-2016, 12:37 AM
Because I'm hands-on. I like debating the old fashioned way. Man-to-Man. It's more respectable.



We have a candidate being promoted who openly states that he would force X to provide Y for Z at the barrel of a government gun. And under the banner of Liberty.

Respectfully, I don't need to be told anything of the sort. The action speaks for itself.

Alright, so you guys are in agreement about the principles of liberty but you disagree on how to proceed forward. It seems like the constructive thing to do would be discussing how best to proceed forward. And with all due respect, 'your plan sucks' is not constructive.

Natural Citizen
07-21-2016, 12:44 AM
Alright, so you guys are in agreement about the principles of liberty but you disagree on how to proceed forward. It seems like the constructive thing to do would be discussing how best to proceed forward. And with all due respect, 'your plan sucks' is not constructive.

Well, I don't know that we're in agreement or not in terms of that fundamental principle. That's why I keep popping my mouth off about it.

If we're going to make our case for something on the back of Liberty, then, there must be realistic agreement on Liberty's fundamental principles. Which is that it isn't libertarian at all to force X to provide Y for Z at the barrel of a government gun and if one does force X to provide Y for Z at the barrel of a government gun, then, liberty cannot and will not be had at all.

If we can get that out of the way, then, we can wing it in an honest way. I detest deception, P3ter_Griffin. It leads to coercion.

RootBeerExplosion
07-21-2016, 12:49 AM
Alright, so you guys are in agreement about the principles of liberty but you disagree on how to proceed forward. It seems like the constructive thing to do would be discussing how best to proceed forward. And with all due respect, 'your plan sucks' is not constructive.

Aye.

https://i.imgur.com/ikBZDL0.jpg

Natural Citizen
07-21-2016, 12:52 AM
Aye.




Respectfully, you aren't "you guys." You just came into this discussion. :)

Noted, though, that you do agree that his position is wrong. Thanks.

P3ter_Griffin
07-21-2016, 12:53 AM
Well, I don't know that we're in agreement or not in terms of that fundamental principle. That's why I keep popping my mouth off about it.

I doubt you could find 100% consensus anywhere, but I do believe this forum is as close as your gonna get. If I may suggest, approach it in a manner that is not an attack on Gary Johnson.

Time spent doubting each others dedication to liberty is time spent not addressing how best to achieve it! It tends to lower the level of discussion where the basics are discussed rather than solutions.

Natural Citizen
07-21-2016, 01:01 AM
I doubt you could find 100% consensus anywhere, but I do believe this forum is as close as your gonna get. If I may suggest, approach it in a manner that is not an attack on Gary Johnson.

Time spent doubting each others dedication to liberty is time spent not addressing how best to achieve it! It tends to lower the level of discussion where the basics are discussed rather than solutions.

Respectfully, I don't consider promoting a candidate whose position, by his own admission, is contrary to the foundation for the very principles of Individual Liberty itself to be a dedication to Liberty. I see it as patently opposite of acceptable dedication to Liberty. And I will attack it vigorously every time I see. To ignore it would be a disservice to the cause of Liberty itself. The basics are what need to be realized again. Because if we lose sight of the basics, then, we lose our power to defend the principles of Liberty itself. Johnson's position is a patent demonstration that he has lost sight of the basics. In fact, I don't personally subcribe to the notion that he ever possessed them in the first place. His admitted position is one that is most dangerous to the cause of liberty because his position is contrary to its fundamental principles and his position empowers Liberty's most dangerous aggressor. Men with guns sent from the government to force X to provide Y for Z against his will.

P3ter_Griffin
07-21-2016, 01:12 AM
Well, I don't know that we're in agreement or not in terms of that fundamental principle. That's why I keep popping my mouth off about it.

If we're going to make our case for something on the back of Liberty, then, there must be realistic agreement on Liberty's fundamental principles. Which is that it isn't libertarian at all to force X to provide Y for Z at the barrel of a government gun and if one does force X to provide Y for Z at the barrel of a government gun, then, liberty cannot and will not be had at all.

If we can get that out of the way, then, we can wing it in an honest way. I detest deception, P3ter_Griffin. It leads to coercion.

I can dig what you are saying. The way I look at it is 'how are we going to convince people that the state is the problem when we are promoting the state as the solution'. Meaning that we are in agreement. People have been drawn into a false reality and short of addressing that and pointing it out, the false reality will continue. We need an awakening.

I do not at this time have a better concrete plan to propose though. And I do think that less force and less death is better than more.

Bigger picture though. I think that worrying about Gary Johnson or Libertarianism in general is not necessarily a good use of time. The left has built a monster organization and they are playing for keeps. IMO we need to find a peaceful (most peaceful?) way to hit the reset button at this point.

Natural Citizen
07-21-2016, 01:17 AM
I can dig what you are saying. The way I look at it is 'how are we going to convince people that the state is the problem when we are promoting the state as the solution'. Meaning that we are in agreement. People have been drawn into a false reality and short of addressing that and pointing it out, the false reality will continue. We need an awakening.

I do not at this time have a better concrete plan to propose though. And I do think that less force and less death is better than more.

Bigger picture though. I think that worrying about Gary Johnson or Libertarianism in general is not necessarily a good use of time. The left has built a monster organization and they are playing for keeps. IMO we need to find a peaceful (most peaceful?) way to hit the reset button at this point.

Yep. Good points. And I don't disagree with you at all. We're working from the ground up, though. That's where we realistically are. So, fundamentals are important. An understanding of them is critical. We can't reject them ourselves because if we do, then, we won't have the luxury of projecting them to others. We're toast if that happens. And it will happen if we try to work from the top down. Especially not by way of the likes of Johnson. His position is aggressive toward and patently contrary to the very foundation for the principles of Individual Liberty itself. And because of his fundamental rejection of that foundation, his position on anything else is, in my view, redundant. There are no better defenders of Liberty than those who have the most to lose by its destruction.

P3ter_Griffin
07-21-2016, 01:18 AM
Respectfully, I don't consider promoting a candidate whose position, by his own admission, is contrary to the foundation for the very principles of Individual Liberty itself to be a dedication to Liberty. I see it as patently opposite of acceptable dedication to Liberty. And I will attack it vigorously every time I see. To ignore it would be a disservice to the cause of Liberty itself. The basics are what need to be realized again. Because if we lose sight of the basics, then, we lose our power to defend the principles of Liberty itself. Johnson's position is a patent demonstration that he has lost sight of the basics. In fact, I don't personally subcribe to the notion that he ever possessed them in the first place. His admitted position is one that is most dangerous to the cause of liberty because his position is contrary to its fundamental principles and his position empowers Liberty's most dangerous aggressor. Men with guns sent from the government to force X to provide Y for Z against his will.

Fair enough. I have said my piece as far as that goes.

cindy25
07-21-2016, 01:26 AM
Trump has his problems (Patriot act) but he is a non-interventionist and better on trade and immigration than Johnson.

ProudAmericanFirst
07-21-2016, 05:30 AM
'how are we going to convince people that the state is the problem when we are promoting the state as the solution'. We need an awakening.




To vote is to give consent, which is why I am refraining this round.

Quick babble while in lines at the store, etc...such as...

If I pay car insurance, and I am liable for damages, and I am a responsible adult... If I am in a hurry for a doctors appointment or other important issue and safely drive 5 or 10 over the "posted" speed, why should I have to pay a ticket if there was no harm? And then I follow up with, do you mind paying tickets when you have somewhere important to be?

That is one example of many.

So I try to plant a seed here and there, hoping that in time others will do the same.

LatinsforPaul
07-21-2016, 05:51 AM
Trump has his problems (Patriot act) but he is a non-interventionist and better on trade and immigration than Johnson.

Trump a "NON-INTERVENTIONIST"! :eek: Wow, hilarious.

ProudAmericanFirst
07-21-2016, 05:58 AM
Trump has his problems (Patriot act) but he is a non-interventionist and better on trade and immigration than Johnson.

trump is in bed with government. The illusion of non-interventionist is so that he can profit by expansion. When that does not work he uses force of government. I fully support free market/profit, but certainly not when it opposes NAP. Look here:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?477303-Donald-Trump-On-The-Record

euphemia
07-21-2016, 07:03 AM
Johnson is in bed with government. His state took a lot of welfare and food stamp money. He did nothing to free the market to create jobs and new business.

RJ Liberty
07-21-2016, 07:38 AM
trump is in bed with government. The illusion of non-noninterventionist is so that he can profit by expansion. When that does not work he uses force of government. I fully support free market/profit, but certainly not when it opposes NAP.



- Real estate magnate Donald Trump gave at least $100,000 to the Clinton Foundation while his daughter Ivanka Trump donated between $5,001 and $10,000, the Hill reported. Trump also donated to Hillary Clintonís New York Senate campaign - http://www.wnd.com/2015/05/abc-news-star-gave-50000-to-clinton-foundation/#RVUuLIlJIQrKuGvt.99

- Trump has given $541,650 to federal Democratic candidates and fundraising committees going back to 1990, according to data from the Center for Responsive Politics. He's handed out money to Democratic statewide candidates as well. In 2009, for instance, Trump cut a $25,000 check to former Democratic National Committee chairman Terry McAuliffe for his unsuccessful 2009 Virginia gubernatorial bid. But as Republicans and Tea Party activists nationwide were working to take back the House and Senate in 2010, Trump was also handing out checks to top Democratic incumbents: $4,800 to Reid, $2,000 to Florida Sen. Bill Nelson and more than $8,000 total to New York's two senators, Charles Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand.

Over the last two decades, Trump gave money to a number of high-profile Democrats and liberal icons, including Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, Tom Daschle and Joe Biden. The biggest recipient of Trump's largesse? The scandal-plagued Rangel, who has taken $24,750 from Trump since the 1990 election cycle. - http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/04/28/trump.democrats/

- Donald Trump predicted Wednesday night that Hillary Clinton will take one more shot at winning the White House in 2016, and declined to rule out the possibility of throwing his support behind the former presidential candidate. ďHillary Clinton, I think, is a terrific woman,Ē Trump said in an interview with Greta Van Susteren on Fox News. ďI am biased because I have known her for years. I live in New York, she lives in New York, and Iíve known her and her husband for years and I really like them both a lot.Ē

Praising the secretary of state for being a hard worker and for having done a ďgood jobĒ since joining the Obama administration, Trump said he expects Clinton to run for office again.
ďI think assuming she is healthy, which I hope she will be, I think she runs after the next four years, I would imagine,Ē he said. - http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0312/74636.html#ixzz3e5yzzwUv

- Donald Trump has filed for corporate bankruptcy four times, in 1991, 1992, 2004 and 2009. All of these bankruptcies were connected to over-leveraged casino and hotel properties in Atlantic City, all of which are now operated under the banner of Trump Entertainment Resorts.Apr 29, 2011 - http://www.forbes.com/sites/clareoconnor/2011/04/29/fourth-times-a-charm-how-donald-trump-made-bankruptcy-work-for-him/

- TRUMPED: The Donald, The Widow and Eminent Domain:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SmM4ZBoppNQ&feature=youtu.be


- The (Liberal) Trump Tapes: Vol. 1:


https://youtu.be/rcUCLwWCihE

____


All excellent reasons not to support Trump the con man. thanks for sharing these, PAF.

H. E. Panqui
07-21-2016, 07:56 AM
...johnson, like every republicrat, infuriates the jesus out of me on many issues...like all the rest of 'them' (think carpenter's 'they live') he's either 1.)not a monetary realist/a monetary ignoramus, 2.)corrupt 3.) both...i'd love to corner every f'n one of 'them' and scream at 'them', (many things, but my first might be) "WHY ARE YOU F'N IDIOTS PAYING INTEREST ON BONDS THE BANKSTERS GET/GOT FOR FREE???" (maybe i'm a dreamer but hopefully this would embarrass some of the peckerheads into an honest inquiry into the hideous origin and nature of even one 'dollar' of the illion$ about which they frequently foam..

...that said, i have some great friends in 'la tierra del encanto' (my former home and still favorite place to get away...great land, great people) and they either outright love gary johnson or, when asked about him, will shake their heads and say, 'he's crazy!'..but their eyes are smiling when they call him crazy...

...maybe part of what's driving johnson is a drive for revenge for the way he was treated by GOPinc. in 2012...?

specsaregood
07-21-2016, 07:59 AM
lol at people arguing over how shitty trump and johnson are.

AuH20
07-21-2016, 08:11 AM
Yeah, "bold" on destroying our Constitutional protections listed in the Bill of Rights.

When did I ever claim I decided which direction to vote based on "boldness"? This isn't Herman Cain Forums.
https://media.giphy.com/media/ksATqkEWxGhSE/giphy.gif
Very bold...

Trump would walk away from NAFTA on day one if it was counterproductive. He would also redefine the U.S. role in NATO. Like I said, BOLD. Maybe Gary can ask him for some advice.

CaptUSA
07-21-2016, 08:12 AM
Trump would walk away from NAFTA on day one. He would also redefine the U.S. role in NATO. Like I said, BOLD.

Yeah... And he'll pick the best Vice Presidents... And the best judges.... He's great... He's bold... Much better than Cats.

euphemia
07-21-2016, 08:21 AM
And Johnson is wholly on board with the Bill of Rights. Some people should not own guns (and would invade privacy to enforce that). Punish deeply held religious beliefs in the marketplace. Would violate the privacy of anyone applying to immigrate to the US.

erowe1
07-21-2016, 09:09 AM
Trump has his problems (Patriot act) but he is a non-interventionist and better on trade and immigration than Johnson.

He is not a non-interventionist, and he is worse on trade and immigration than Johnson.

euphemia
07-21-2016, 09:31 AM
Yeah, we see how well that worked when he was governor of New Mexico. With over 20% of New Mexico on food stamps, that basically says education stinks and there are no jobs. Two million people in the state, and he couldn't get something going in eight years?

r3volution 3.0
07-21-2016, 11:31 AM
So can anyone answer the question of why Gary Johnson does non-stop attacks on Trump and refrains from doing anything against Clinton? There has to be a legitimate reason behind this other than he just flat out likes her.

Some of the dumbest Americans that pay zero attention to politics don't like Hilary. Johnson is obviously well involved in politics and has been for some time. Why the lack of pointing out how atrocious she is?

Trumpers are never going to vote Johnson.

NeverTrumpers, Indies, and some Dems might (all of whom hate Trump).

Hence it makes good political sense for him to focus his attacks on Trump.

euphemia
07-21-2016, 12:12 PM
No, it makes him reckless. His job as a candidate is to educate people on the principles of the Constitution and how he would do things differently as president. Unfortunately, he will not follow the Constitution, so he really can't do that. Gary Johnson has no intention of doing anything that would look like the law. He is worse than Obama. Worse. He will never get Congress to do anything according to the Constitution, and he's not man enough to stand up to Nancy Pelosi and all the rest and say he is not going to sign a bill.

r3volution 3.0
07-21-2016, 12:25 PM
We have a candidate being openly promoted on a site which prides its mission on promoting the principles of Individual Liberty and the candidate openly states that he would force X to provide Y for Z at the barrel of a government gun. And he'd do so under the banner of Liberty. That's a fundamental naw naw. A major one.

So, just to be clear, you would never support any candidate who is not a pure libertarian on every issue?

Natural Citizen
07-21-2016, 01:10 PM
So, just to be clear, you would never support any candidate who is not a pure libertarian on every issue?

To be clear, silly goose, Gary Johnson rejects, by his own admission, the very foundation that provides for the principles of Individual Liberty itself. Because of that, his position on anything else is patently redundant when offered in the name of Liberty. There is nothing purist about it. His position is one that patently rejects the foundation for Individual Liberty itself. Gary Johnson rejects Liberty's most fundamental principle.

r3volution 3.0
07-21-2016, 01:14 PM
To be clear, silly goose, Gary Johnson rejects, by his own admission, the very foundation that provides for the principles of Individual Liberty itself. Because of that, his position on anything else is redundant.

So that's a yes..

He takes the wrong stance on one issue, so you can't support him, even though he takes the right stance on many other, more important issues.

In other words, you've allowed the perfect to become the enemy of the good.

Natural Citizen
07-21-2016, 01:18 PM
So that's a yes..

Since he takes the wrong stance on one issue, you can't support him, even though he takes the right stance on many other, more important issues.

In other words, you've allowed the perfect to become the enemy of the good.

He openly rejects the primary foundation that provides for the very principles of Individual Liberty itself. He rejects Liberty's most fundamental principles. And to reject Liberty's most fundamental foundation is to reject Liberty itself. There are no "other words."

You can promote Gary Johnson all day long. I don't really care. But don't even attempt to promote him in the name of Liberty. He patently rejects its most fundamental principles by his own admission.

r3volution 3.0
07-21-2016, 01:20 PM
He openly rejects the primary foundation that provides for the very principles of Individual Liberty itself. He rejects Liberty's most fundamental principles. There are no "other words."

I understand your position perfectly.

I also understand that people of that persuasion are impervious to reason.

So, don't worry, I won't bother you anymore about this.

CaptUSA
07-21-2016, 01:26 PM
He openly rejects the primary foundation that provides for the very principles of Individual Liberty itself. He rejects Liberty's most fundamental principles. There are no "other words."

I'm going to split the difference and agree with you both here. Gary Johnson's form of "libertarianism" has very little to do with the basic underlying philosophical points about what liberty means. You would have needed Austin Peterson for that. It also has very little to do with real-world encounters with State interference. You would have needed McAfee for that.

But what you get with Gary is someone who generally - not always - includes a broader data set when considering cost/benefit. In most cases, when you do that, you come to the realization that impeding liberty just costs too much and it would be more efficient just to let things be.

So there you have it - If you're expecting Gary to be true to libertarian principles, you're not going to get it. But if you want someone who often aligns with those principles based on a cost/benefit analysis and risk assessment, you've got your man.

It's frustrating as all hell, but it's better than both R and D since they do none of the above.

Natural Citizen
07-21-2016, 01:26 PM
I understand your position perfectly.

Good.


I also understand that people of that persuasion are impervious to reason.

Yes, that's exactly correct. People of my persuasion respect the foundation that provides for the principles of Individual Liberty. And you're right. There is no amount of reasoning that will lead us to sacrifice its most fundamental principle. To make such a sacrifice is to reject Individual Liberty completely.


So, don't worry, I won't bother you anymore about this.

You're not bothering me at all. :)

r3volution 3.0
07-21-2016, 01:30 PM
So there you have it - If you're expecting Gary to be true to libertarian principles, you're not going to get it. But if you want someone who often aligns with those principles based on a cost/benefit analysis and risk assessment, you've got your man.

That's spot on.

Gary's not a deontologist; he's a consequentialist.

....his cost benefit analysis is not always right (if it were it would always align with the deontological view), but it's pretty good.

On most of the most important issues, he's with us.

That's good enough for me, especially for a candidate who's not going to assume office, whose task is simply to popularize libertarianism.

euphemia
07-21-2016, 01:35 PM
We have a candidate being openly promoted on a site which prides its mission on promoting the principles of Individual Liberty and the candidate openly states that he would force X to provide Y for Z at the barrel of a government gun. And he'd do so under the banner of Liberty. That's a fundamental naw naw. A major one.

This. right. here. ^^^ Gary Johnson denies me the opportunity to embrace faith doctrines and live them out in my every day life. He would bring the full force of government to bear on my right to exercise my faith. This makes him worse than Obama.

Gary Johnson is for certain liberties that he likes. He is not for equal protection under the law, which is a fundamental part of our Constitution. He is not Libertarian. He is a libertine progressive.

Natural Citizen
07-21-2016, 01:43 PM
On most of the most important issues, he's with us.

Gary Johnson openly rejects Liberty's most fundamental principle.


That's good enough for me...simply to popularize libertarianism.

The idea that Liberty means forcing X to provide Y for Z at the barrel of a government gun is patently contrary to Individual Liberty itself.

Think about what you're really popularizing here. It isn't Liberty. Not today. Not tomorrow. Not any day.

dannno
07-21-2016, 01:49 PM
He would bring the full force of government to bear on my right to exercise my faith. This makes him worse than Obama.


FFS, Gary Johnson and Obama have the exact same opinion about policies regarding gay wedding cakes, they hold the same opinion that probably well over 95% of the US population holds, and I wouldn't be surprised if it were 99% of the population.

Stop saying Gary Johnson is worse than Obama, there is not ONE ISSUE Gary Johnson is worse than Obama on, and he is INFINITELY better on 90% of the issues.

dannno
07-21-2016, 01:51 PM
Gary Johnson openly rejects Liberty's most fundamental principle.


Are you not reading his posts? He already explained that Gary Johnson is libertarian on 90% of the issues because he does a cost/benefit analysis and comes to the conclusion that libertarianism is best using that method. We know he isn't a principled libertarian, but we vote for him because he is libertarian 90% of the time.

The other candidates in the race are with us on 0-15% of the issues, maybe, and we have a guy who is with us on 90% of the issues. The choice is pretty fucking clear who should be supported, if anyone.

Natural Citizen
07-21-2016, 01:57 PM
Are you not reading his posts?

Yes. Did you read mine? Because mine blew his out of the water. :)




He already explained that Gary Johnson is libertarian on 90% of the issues because he does a cost/benefit analysis and comes to the conclusion that libertarianism is best using that method. We know he isn't a principled libertarian, but we vote for him because he is libertarian 90% of the time.

The other candidates in the race are with us on 0-15% of the issues, maybe, and we have a guy who is with us on 90% of the issues. The choice is pretty $#@!ing clear who should be supported.




Gary Johnson openly rejects Liberty's most fundamental principle. And that's all that is important. The foundation for Individual Liberty cannot be treated piece-meal. Its fundamentals and its implicit meanings and obligations must be accepted together with its benefits in order to enjoy and make use of its benefits. To openly reject the fundamental principle of Individual Liberty itself is to reject Individual Liberty in scope.

As I'd mentioned to rev3, you're certainly free to promote Gary Johnson. Don't expect a free pass to promote him in the name of Liberty, though. Again, Gary Johnson openly rejects Liberty's most fundamental principle. And because he openly rejects Liberty's most fundamental principle, he should be seen as its most dangerous aggressor.

specsaregood
07-21-2016, 02:05 PM
Gary Johnson denies me the opportunity to embrace faith doctrines and live them out in my every day life.

yeah, but he wants you to have the opportunity to smoke pot, as much as you want, whenever you want, legally. so it must be all good, right?

dannno
07-21-2016, 02:06 PM
Yes. Did you read mine? Because mine blew his out of the water. :)



Gary Johnson openly rejects Liberty's most fundamental principle. And that's all that matters. The foundation for Individual Liberty cannot be treated piece-meal. Its fundamentals and its implicit meanings and obligations must be accepted together with its benefits in order to enjoy and make use of its benefits. To openly reject the fundamental principle of Individual Liberty itself s to reject Liberty in scope.

As I'd mentioned to rev3, you'tre certainly free to promot Gary Johnson. Don't expect a free pass to promote him in the name of Liberty, though. Again, Gary Johnson openly rejects Liberty's most fundamental principle.

You aren't making any good arguments against supporting somebody who is libertarian 90% of the time when the other options support liberty 0-15% of the time, when we live in a society whose liberties are quickly eroding.

You are making a fantastic argument regarding why people should be principled libertarians, and that is great, I applaud you for that. But are you helping make society a better place to live by telling people not to vote for somebody who will give us significantly more liberty than someone else?

Back when Ron Paul was trying to convince everyone that the R's and the D's were both bad choices to vote for, he would make the argument that the R's talk about smaller government, but they increase the size of government and vote for wars. The D's talk about expanding government and being anti-war, but they just grow the government and vote for more war.

Here we have a guy who is against the wars and for smaller government, and you are trying to talk people out of supporting him.

dannno
07-21-2016, 02:07 PM
yeah, but he wants you to have the opportunity to smoke pot, as much as you want, whenever you want, legally. so it must be all good, right?

Gary Johnson supports the status quo that is held by 95-99% of the population on that issue, I have no problem with people correcting him but to sabotage his entire campaign over fucking wedding cakes is retarded.

I would guess that it's closer to 99%, and I would guess half those people don't support it for principled libertarian reasons but because they are racist.

Gary Johnson is correct that it is a black-hole issue.

r3volution 3.0
07-21-2016, 02:10 PM
Gary Johnson openly rejects Liberty's most fundamental principle.

Translation: he takes the unlibertarian position on one, relatively minor issue.

...yes, we know.

Natural Citizen
07-21-2016, 02:11 PM
You aren't making any good arguments against supporting somebody who is libertarian 90% of the time when the other options support liberty 0-15% of the time, when we live in a society whose liberties are quickly eroding.



I made the only relevant argument.

As I'd mentioned previously in the thread, the erosion of virtue is likely the most unrecognized and most dangerous threat to Individual Liberty itself.

So think about that.

Natural Citizen
07-21-2016, 02:13 PM
Translation: he takes the unlibertarian position on one, relatively minor issue.



No. I take the only acceptable position. An open rejection of the very foundation for the principles of Individual Liberty itself is not a minor issue in any logical way.

You're promoting someone who, admittedly, would force X to provide Y for Z at the barrel of a government gun. And you're promoting him in the name of Liberty, no less.

You might want to reconsider who you're calling unlibertarian there, scooter.

dannno
07-21-2016, 02:17 PM
I made the only relevant argument.

As I'd mentioned previously in the thread, the erosion of virtue is likely the most unrecognized and most dangerous threat to Individual Liberty itself.

So think about that.

Irrelevant.

When liberties are eroding, and there are three options for leader (and no option for no leader), and one option believes in liberty 90% of the time, and the other options believe in liberty 0-15% of the time, it doesn't matter WHY the leader who believes in liberty 90% of the time believes in it or doesn't. If choosing them will result in significantly more liberty, and you care about having liberty, then that is your best option.

euphemia
07-21-2016, 02:18 PM
You aren't making any good arguments against supporting somebody who is libertarian 90% of the time when the other options support liberty 0-15% of the time, when we live in a society whose liberties are quickly eroding.

Danno, love you, buddy. What would you say if Johnson disliked the 10% that was deeply held, and constitutionally guaranteed to you? That's not Libertarian. It's not limited government if he would use the full force of the government to come after you over photos or a cake. Or what you bought with a credit card. Or what you write on the internet.

This is not a religious argument at all. Gary Johnson is looking at big, invasive government and treating it like a smorgasbord. He would use government against citizens if it was something he thinks is important. He thinks the EPA is a legitimate use of government. That might mean he could bring the full force of government against you if you decide your (theoretical) company needs to use high-volume toilets. It means he can tell you what kind of car you can own, or what kind of clothes washer you can have in your own private home.

He did nothing to free up the economy in New Mexico. He did nothing to reduce the size of government. He is making promises he cannot and will not keep. And he's a fraud. He wants to be richer than he already is, and will use rabid Libertarians to make it happen. That is not in your best interests. It isn't.

Natural Citizen
07-21-2016, 02:22 PM
Irrelevant.

No, it isn't. It's patently relevant.



If choosing them will result in significantly more liberty, and you care about having liberty, then that is your best option.

Gary Johnson, admittedly, would force X to provide Y for Z at the barrel of a government gun. And in the name of Liberty, no less.

If you care about Liberty, then, your best option is to recognize its most dangerous and immediate threat.

r3volution 3.0
07-21-2016, 02:23 PM
No. I take the only acceptable position. An open rejection of the very foundation for the principles of Individual Liberty itself is not a minor issue in any logical way.

https://media.giphy.com/media/13NUOwOLq0NJug/giphy.gif

...like I said:


people of that persuasion are impervious to reason

Fortunately for libertarianism, your sort are only a tiny, tiny fraction of the electorate.

Most folks can appreciate the logic of prioritization.

Natural Citizen
07-21-2016, 02:25 PM
Heh. Here we go with the memes. Classic. I assumed it'd come to that at some point. You've lost the debate. And you know it. :)

dannno
07-21-2016, 02:28 PM
Danno, love you, buddy. What would you say if Johnson disliked the 10% that was deeply held, and constitutionally guaranteed to you? That's not Libertarian. It's not limited government if he would use the full force of the government to come after you over photos or a cake. Or what you bought with a credit card. Or what you write on the internet.

Why not just come out and say it? What if Gary Johnson was libertarian on 90% of the issues, he was against forcing cake bakers to bake gay wedding cakes, all for religious liberty, except he thinks that my religion (smoking herb) should be illegal? We should continue the war on drugs?

Well, the way I would look at it is he is for the status quo on drugs and cannabis. But he is much better on foreign policy, civil liberties, taxes and spending than all the other candidates. I would still support him. But support is a VERY broad term.. I would vote for him, and I would probably encourage others to do so just as I am doing now.

I'm not donating to his campaign, I'm not sign waving for the guy or putting much effort into it other than some talking, typing and filling out a bubble on the ballot.

If he was a principled libertarian, supported your gay wedding cake issue and we had a bigger grassroots I would do a lot more to support him.

But I'm not going to sabotage his campaign when he is the best candidate running.





That might mean he could bring the full force of government against you if you decide your (theoretical) company needs to use high-volume toilets.


This is what I would call a small issue... I have a very deep held belief that people should be able to buy any toilet they want, but the inconvenience I've personally experienced from low flow toilets is minimal. In fact, I probably had more problems with the large flow toilets that existed back in the late 80s, not sure if they have made design improvements or what.. but the point is if a candidate wanted to significantly cut taxes, spending and military, wanted to end the war on drugs, but wanted low flow toilets also - I'll take it if they are the best option available.



He did nothing to free up the economy in New Mexico. He did nothing to reduce the size of government. He is making promises he cannot and will not keep. And he's a fraud. He wants to be richer than he already is, and will use rabid Libertarians to make it happen. That is not in your best interests. It isn't.

I've heard both sides, I've heard him and others talk about his governing in New Mexico extensively and it sounded pretty good and I've heard from others who have a different opinion. I've heard from people who live there who like him and some who don't.

Governors have to deal with congress too, so I reserve judgement on some of what I've heard about his poor performance. I have no reason to distrust what he says about spending and small government, he has been saying it for a long time.

I actually wrote the guy a letter about 17 years ago when he was governor and got a nice personalized response back.

euphemia
07-21-2016, 02:28 PM
r3volution 3.0, it would appear you are also impervious to reason. Gary Johnson believes that some people are not due the most fundamental constitutionally protected liberty. Under a Johnson administration, I would have no liberty at all. If you can live with the fact that Gary Johnson intends to come after American citizens because we have disagree with him on a most fundamental level, then what you want is not liberty. You want more rules and more slavery and more criminal penalties for things that should never even be up for discussion.

I am not going to let this go. You can say whatever you want, but what you are asking for in a President of the United States of America is for us to lose what precious little liberty we have left.

euphemia
07-21-2016, 02:34 PM
I actually wrote the guy a letter about 17 years ago when he was governor and got a nice personalized response back.

And I got a personal letter from Wilt Chamberlain when I was in 4th grade. That doesn't mean I have to think he was a better player than Stephan Curry.

Of course he is going to make him sound like it was all unicorns and rainbows in New Mexico. He likes to be high. But the 20% of the people on food stamps likely voted for him thinking at least some of them would be working a real job by now.

People, whether they like it or not, are affected by politics. I am not going to ignore what Johnson says about fundamental liberty or big government. And I am not going to give him a pass on the fiancial fraud he is perpetuating to make himself wealthy and create restrictions on people who want to buy pot. You all need to pay attention to that. He won't talk about it, but the evidence is there.

Natural Citizen
07-21-2016, 02:36 PM
...he was against forcing cake bakers to bake gay wedding cakes, all for religious liberty...


More precisely, he openly admits that his position is to force X to provide Y for Z at the barrel of a government gun. In the name of Liberty, no less. That position isn't and shouldn't be construed to create some freckless illusion that the position affects only people who are gay or religious. It's deceptive and disingenous to even make the attempt to stimulate such a shallow perception of the position

Why not just come out and say that, danno? Hm? Why not? It's much more convenient to relegate perception of the root issue as cake bakers baking gay wedding cakes, isn't it? I understand.

You can still smoke your dope. Nobody cares, man. Just don't tread on me. That's all I'm asking. It's a fair and humble request.

dannno
07-21-2016, 02:36 PM
No, it isn't. It's patently relevant.




Gary Johnson, admittedly, would force X to provide Y for Z at the barrel of a government gun. And in the name of Liberty, no less.

If you care about Liberty, then, your best option is to recognize its most dangerous and immediate threat.

That is status quo position - but also consider he wants to give you more liberties you currently don't have, and he wants to take away fewer liberties that other candidates actually want to take away.

For liberty, he is by far the best option. It's not like it is a close call with a Republican who is ok on economic rhetoric but untrustworthy and horrible on civil liberties and military, and a Democrat who is going to be horrible in almost every sense of the word. We are talking MANY, very important issues that Gary Johnson is on our side that he could have a big impact on.

The question is do you WANT significantly more liberty, or don't you? With Gary, you will get it, even though he isn't a principled libertarian. With the other candidates, you won't.

r3volution 3.0
07-21-2016, 02:36 PM
r3volution 3.0, it would appear you are also impervious to reason. Gary Johnson believes that some people are not due the most fundamental constitutionally protected liberty.

He believes that business should be forced to serve gays, in the same way that they are already forced to serve blacks.

This is unlibertarian, yes, as no one promoting Johnson has ever denied.

It is also quite trivial in comparison to all the other assaults on liberty ongoing in this country: the Fed, federal spending, PATRIOT Act, etc.

Unlike Natural Citizen (who, if I can say nothing else nice about him, is at least honest in his confusion), I'm 99% certain you know this.

You're simply a Trumppumper, who wants to diminish Johnson because he's a political rival.


Under a Johnson administration, I would have no liberty at all.

Right right...

Name me some other issues where Johnson is unlibertarian?

The Fed? Nope, he wants it abolished.

Bailouts? Nope, he's opposed to them.

Socialized medicine? Nope, he's opposed to it.

The wars? Nope, he opposed them.

The PATRIOT Act? Nope, he wants it repealed.

The War on Drugs? Nope, he wants it ended.

^^^and note how those are all issues on which your Orange Savior takes the unlibertarian position.


If you can live with the fact that Gary Johnson intends to come after American citizens because we have disagree with him on a most fundamental level, then what you want is not liberty. You want more rules and more slavery and more criminal penalties for things that should never even be up for discussion.

I am not going to let this go. You can say whatever you want, but what you are asking for in a President of the United States of America is for us to lose what precious liberty we have let.

Go make me a sammich.

euphemia
07-21-2016, 02:39 PM
Clearly, you are convinced in your own mind about what you are going to do. Likely you will not get what you want. Johnson did nothing on those lines in New Mexico. He wouldn't even try to get a work requirement passed for welfare and food stamps.

If New Mexico was so great, how come libertarians weren't flocking there by the millions?

Johnson is a liberal on steroids and canabis. He will not be elected, and he will not help you.

r3volution 3.0
07-21-2016, 02:42 PM
Clearly, you are convinced in your own mind about what you are going to do. Likely you will not get what you want. Johnson did nothing on those lines in New Mexico. He wouldn't even try to get a work requirement passed for welfare and food stamps.

He is a liberal on steroids and canabis. He will not be elected, and he will not help you.

That's the first true statement you've made in this entire thread.

Yes, he won't get elected.

He will, however, provide an alternative for voters who are rightly disgusted with Trumpllary.

The LP will have its highest ever vote total this year, which will help to continue the mainstreaming of libertarian ideas.

euphemia
07-21-2016, 02:44 PM
What kind of alternative is that? It's no alternative at all. An alternative is a viable option, and Johnson is not that.

r3volution 3.0
07-21-2016, 02:46 PM
What kind of alternative is that? It's no alternative at all. An alternative is a viable option, and Johnson is not that.

If by "viable" you mean "able to win the Presidency," then you're just repeating yourself.

You already said that and I already explained the benefits of a non-winning Johnson campaign.

Natural Citizen
07-21-2016, 02:47 PM
For liberty, he is by far the best option.

No. It seems like you're confused about what Liberty actually means. Perhaps we'd do well to define it to better understand the nature of your position. Gary Johnson, admittedly, would force X to provide Y for Z at the barrel of a government gun. For Liberty, his position is patently its most dangerous aggressor. As was mentioned previously in the thread, if not being forced to do something at the barrel of a government gun is a fundamental liberty that one is openly willing to sacrifice, then one has affectively announced one's willingness to live without liberty at all.

euphemia
07-21-2016, 02:48 PM
If by "viable" you mean "able to win the Presidency," then you're just repeating yourself.

You already said that and I already explained the benefits of a non-winning Johnson campaign.

There are no benefits. It's all just talk.

r3volution 3.0
07-21-2016, 02:49 PM
There are no benefits. It's all just talk.

Where's my sammich?

euphemia
07-21-2016, 02:53 PM
Where's my sammich?

Sorry, pal. No free lunch. :)

Natural Citizen
07-21-2016, 03:03 PM
He believes that business should be forced to serve gays, in the same way that they are already forced to serve blacks.

More precisely, more honestly, he, admittedly, would force X to provide Y for Z at the barrel of a government gun. And in the name of Liberty, no less.

Say it like it really is.



Unlike Natural Citizen (who, if I can say nothing else nice about him, is at least honest in his confusion)


The truth do sting, don't it? I didn't expect you to like it because I accept that you decline to acknowledge and respect its critial nature. And I certainly don't expect you to say anything nice about me. I dont even want you to. There are no pacts among lions and men. You, by your support for Johnson, reject the fundamental foundation for the principles of Individual Liberty that he admttedly holds. And I don't. Is what it is.

dannno
07-21-2016, 03:11 PM
No. It seems like you're confused about what Liberty actually means. Perhaps we'd do well to define it to better understand the nature of your position. Gary Johnson, admittedly, would force X to provide Y for Z at the barrel of a government gun. For Liberty, his position is patently its most dangerous aggressor. As was mentioned previously in the thread, if not being forced to do something at the barrel of a government gun is a fundamental liberty that one is openly willing to sacrifice, then one has affectively announced one's willingness to live without liberty at all.


If I lived on an island, and I was totally completely free, except I was forced by the barrel of a gun to face east around high noon and say "Thank you Lord Xenu!", I would prefer that to living on an island where I was forced into slave labor for an elite class of hedonists.

In neither situation do I have total complete liberty.

However, one of those situations is a million times better than the other.

Natural Citizen
07-21-2016, 03:11 PM
You don't even respect the legitimacy of the constitution, do you, rev3? You've made that clear around here more than once, I believe.

Natural Citizen
07-21-2016, 03:13 PM
If I lived on an island....

If a frog had wings, he wouldn't thump his butt on the rocks either. But a frog doesn't have wings, danono. So, then, he hops around butt hurt. That's reality of Natural Law. Is what it is. No ifs, ands, or buts.

Again, the foundation for Individual Liberty cannot be treated piece-meal. Its fundamentals and its implicit meanings and obligations must be accepted together with its benefits in order to enjoy and make use of its benefits. To openly reject the fundamental principle of Individual Liberty itself is to reject Liberty in scope.

r3volution 3.0
07-21-2016, 03:15 PM
You don't even respect the legitimacy of the constitution, do you, rev3? You've made that clear around here more than once, I believe.

I'm a libertarian, so I respect the Constitution insofar as it agrees with libertarian principles, which it does in most respects.

But where Constitutionalism and libertarianism digress, I follow the latter.

...not sure what, if anything, this has to do with Johnson though.

His stance on the CRA is both unlibertarian and unconstitutional.

dannno
07-21-2016, 03:17 PM
If a frog had wings, he wouldn't thump his butt on the rocks either. But a frog doesn't have wings, danono. So, then, he hops around butt hurt. Is what it is. That's reality.

You obviously don't even want to understand what we are saying. Read my post again, I don't care if it is a fairy tale. YOU can go live on the slave labor island if you want, because that is where we will all end up if we all acted like purists all the time.

I prefer to live on the island with the vast majority of my liberty in tact.

The fairy tale, as far as I'm concerned, is what you are talking about where we live in a NAP society. It's my fairytale too, but it's just not realistic based on our current circumstances. Maybe someday, but in the mean time I'll take 90% of my liberties over just 10% of my liberties any day of the week.

euphemia
07-21-2016, 03:28 PM
I prefer to live on the island with the vast majority of my liberty in tact.

But that's the thing: We don't have to live on an island to keep our liberty. A lot of what we call a limitation on our liberty is just the constraints of our own thinking. J. C. Napier was a free black man living in my area during a time when there were not a lot of free black men. He was free, and that's basically how he lived. He married. He owned property. When people said, "You can't do that," he replied, "I am a free man." I like that kind of thinking.

People who believe in liberty believe in liberty for all. They don't believe in liberty for some and none for others. That's something to think about. We don't have good candidates right now. We don't. It's a bad place to be, but that's how it is.

Natural Citizen
07-21-2016, 03:33 PM
...not sure what, if anything, this has to do with Johnson though.



Well. I've noticed that you like to use the term "You" a lot consistently here. "You are a this, you are a that" kind of deal whenever someoe disagrees with you. Attacking the arguer and not the argument kind of thing. I mean, you wouldn't believe how many +reps I've received in this one thread alone telling me that you tend to flip the script like that to avoid acknowledging critical points made by others. It's amazing how many people agree with me, yet simply don't wish to get into the debate for that very reason. And that's fine if you like to do that. Is what it is. I understand the nature of the strategy.

Anyway. I just think it'd be in the interest of the board if we better understood one another in whole. That was why I asked you that question precisely.

So, then, where do you think that the Constitution digresses with Liberty? I think the question is germane to the topic at hand given your specific arguments made therein. Arguments that have been made in the name of Liberty. Let us expand on your previous assumption here in terms of honesty in confusion. That's an interesting bit of language.

euphemia
07-21-2016, 03:38 PM
Of all people I would expect to be a nontraditional politician, Gary Johnson would be it. I can't tell you how disappointed I am about him. He is just as fianancially corrupt as any other politician. He says what people want to hear. He is unprincipled. And boring.

r3volution 3.0
07-21-2016, 03:41 PM
Well. I've noticed that you like to use the term "You" a lot consistently here. "You are a this, you are a that" kind of deal. Attacking the arguer and not the argument kind of thing. I mean, you wouldn't believe how many +reps I've received in this one thread alone telling me that you tend to flip the script like that to avoid acknowledging critical points made by others. It's amazing how many people agree with me, yet simply don't wish to get into the debate. And that's fine if you like to do that. Is what it is. I understand the nature of the strategy. I just think it'd be in the interest of the board if we better understood one another in whole. That was why I asked you that question precisely.

I've addressed all of your points (or, rather, the one elementary point that you've repeated a couple dozen times).

Until/unless you come up with something new to say, I don't know what more there is to debate.


So, then, where do you think that the Constitution digresses with Liberty?

For instance: state welfare programs, economic regulations, and business subsidies, are Constitutional but unlibertarian.

euphemia
07-21-2016, 03:44 PM
For instance: state welfare programs, economic regulations, and business subsidies, are Constitutional but unlibertarian.

State welfare programs would be covered under the 10th Amendment. If you don't want to live in a state that has one (and New Mexico has one), then move.

Natural Citizen
07-21-2016, 03:48 PM
I've addressed all of your points (or, rather, the one elementary point that you've repeated a couple dozen times).

No, you didn't. You effectively avoided the critical nature of its relevance. It's okay, though. I don't need you to. I've said all that was necessary to say here about it. And our peers will take from our points what they will.



For instance: state welfare programs, economic regulations, and business subsidies, are Constitutional but unlibertarian.

What else? Put it all out there. We can get into why after the fact. You made an assumption with regard to honesty and confusion. I'd like to expand on your assumption since you made it.

r3volution 3.0
07-21-2016, 03:55 PM
No, you didn't. Not really. You effectively avoided the the critical nature of its relevance.

What point did I ignore?

All you said was that Gary's position on the CRA as it relates to gays violates libertarian principles.

And I agreed, it certainly does violate libertarian principles, but there are other, more important issues where Gary takes the correct stance.

So, on balance, Gary would do much more good than harm.

I know, I know, this concept of weighing issues is totally alien to you; a person is either pure good or pure evil in your view.

Good luck with that.


What else?

Virtually everything the state governments do - on the libertarian view, only their policing and judicial functions are legitimate.

At the federal level, the USPS comes to mind, and of course the democratic system of government itself.

Though not unlibertarian per se, it's a form of government which naturally tends to generate unlibertarian policy.

Natural Citizen
07-21-2016, 04:09 PM
What point did I ignore?

All you said was that Gary's position on the CRA as it relates to gays violates libertarian principles.

Nope.

Gary Johnson, admittedly, would force X to provide Y for Z at the barrel of a government gun. And in the name of liberty, no less.

That's my point precisely and concisely.

So. Do you agree that 1 - Gary Johnson's solution to force X to provide Y for Z at the barrel of a government gun violates the very foundation for the principles of Individual Liberty itself? and 2 - Do you agree that, as a consequence of promotion and support for Gary Johnson's willful sacrifice and aggressive violation of that fundamental foundation, that it is effectively announcing one's willingness to live without liberty at all?

That is my point. Those are my 2 questions. That's what I'm asking you to agree or disagree with precisely. Do that and I'll accept that you've acknowledged my point whether I agree or disagree with your answer.



So, on balance, Gary would do much more good than harm.

I know, I know, this concept of weighing issues is totally alien to you; a person is either pure good or pure evil in your view.

Let's place this assumption to the side for the moment. We can get back to this. :)

jllundqu
07-21-2016, 04:12 PM
Yeah Gary saying he would force folks to do anything is a dealbreaker. Fuck him and the horse he rode in on. Not voting this go round

r3volution 3.0
07-21-2016, 04:13 PM
Nope.

Gary Johnson, admittedly, would force X to provide Y for Z at the barrel of a government gun. And in the name of liberty, no less.

That's my point precisely and concisely.

Uh, yes, you've said that a a couple dozen times. I understand and agree.


Do you agree that 1 - Gary Johnson's solution to force X to provide Y for Z at the barrel of a government gun violates the very foundation for the principles of Individual Liberty itself?

Yes, as I've said repeatedly, it violates libertarian principles.


and 2 - Do you agree that, as a consequence of the willful sacrifice and violation of that fundamental foundation, is effectively announcing one's willingness to live without liberty at all?

No, that makes no sense at all.

Taking an unlibertarian stance on one issue does not mean that he takes an unlibertarian stance on other issues.

As a matter of easily verifiable fact, Gary takes the libertarian position on most issues.

euphemia
07-21-2016, 04:17 PM
So, on balance, Gary would do much more good than harm.

Harm is harm. Nobody should be harmed by a presidential candidate. He is already harming me because he has a bunch of people who hate government going, "Heck, yeah. Make them bake the cakes." Do people realize what they are asking for? What if Johnson said, "I think government should force people to go to church every Sunday?" It's the same thing.

Natural Citizen
07-21-2016, 04:18 PM
Ha. You slipped there, rev3. Wrong answer on question 2. Question 2 is patently dependent upon question 1. Perhaps we can expand on honesty and confusion. :)

I have to get off here for a while, man. I'll be back on later.

bunklocoempire
07-21-2016, 04:31 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muHg86Mys7I

H. E. Panqui
07-21-2016, 04:35 PM
natural citizen writes: More precisely, more honestly, he, admittedly, would force X to provide Y for Z at the barrel of a government gun. And in the name of Liberty, no less.


:confused:

...have you ever supported ANY republicrat?!...if no, you're ok with me...but if you have ever supported any r or d, etc., you've exposed yourself as a hypocrite...but aren't we all.... ;)

r3volution 3.0
07-21-2016, 04:36 PM
Harm is harm.

No, actually there are different degrees of harm.

Gary's platform calls for eliminating many great harms (Fed, spending, wars, PATRIOT Act, etc), while causing a small harm (gay cakes).

euphemia
07-21-2016, 04:37 PM
...have you ever supported ANY republicrat?!...if no, you're ok with me...but if you have ever supported any r or d, etc., you've exposed yourself as a hypocrite...but aren't we all.... ;)

Yeah, make sure those party labels are there. If you're thinking Johnson is a Libertarian, think again.

Occam's Banana
07-21-2016, 04:42 PM
Gary Johnson may be anti-Fed and anti-war, but Dennis Kucinich was anti-Fed and anti-war, too. Being libertarian may mean being anti-Fed and anti-war, but being anti-Fed and anti-war does not mean being libertarian.

I "liked" Kucinich better than any of his competitors (except Ron Paul, insofar as the two could be said to have been competitors), precisely due to his positions on those two particular issues - but I was never delusional enough to imagine that Kucinich was in any way a libertarian, or that a Kucinich candidacy or presidency would have been any kind of victory for libertarianism. Given Johnson's (at best) tepid espousals and defenses of liberty per se (which, more often than not, are rather less than "at best"), coupled with his clearly-stated advocacy for egregious violations of the most basic libertarian principles, I can no more support Johnson than I did Kucinich, regardless of how much more I might "like" him than any of the others.

And before someone sneers at me for being an "impractical purist," my refusal to support Johnson is as pragmatic as it is principled. Take the cake-baking thing. Being practical, I could understand and even agree if, for example, Johnson declined to take on the already-existing property-rights-violating (and hence, anti-liberty) elements of the Civil Rights Act. The CRA and its provisions have a great amount of institutional and cultural inertia behind them, and of all the myriad windmills a libertarian running for public office could choose to tilt against, I would not blame any such candidate for not (yet) choosing to tilt at that particular one. But there is a HUGE difference between not engaging in (*ahem*) "quixotic" campaigns against something like the CRA, on the one hand, and explicitly advocating in favor of additional new violations of property and liberty on the other.

As a purely practical matter, such advocacy can only serve to increase the social visibility and viability of such anti-liberty policies, lending them greater social credibility and acceptability - while simultaneously degrading the visibility, credibility and acceptablility of actually libertarian policies (and the fact that such anti-liberty policies are being advanced by an ostensible "standard bearer" for libertarianism significantly exacerbates this problem). Pragmatically speaking, this will make those policies even harder to fight against, especially once and if they become as institutionally and culturally entrenched as things like the CRA already are. Indeed, that is precisely how such policies become so intractable in the first place.

The acquiesence of silent opposition to already-existing and well-entrenched wrongs may sometimes be an ugly but practical necessity in electoral politics - but there is nothing "practical" to be found in openly-averred, positive support for as-yet-to-be-entrenched wrongs in the making. Quite the contrary, in fact.

Gary Johnson might* be anti-Fed and anti-war - and if so, then good for him! In my estimation, that would indeed make him much "better" than those other two bozos. But those things are not exclusively libertarian concerns, and their exposition does not necessarily entail that one is or will be a net advancer of the cause of liberty (as the example of Dennis Kucinich illustrates). As a purely practical matter, the consistent and non-contradictory exposition and implementation of liberty ideas and ideals are the only things that will genuinely, effectively and durably advance the cause of liberty - not the mere incidental espousal of some of the things that are dear to the hearts of libertarians (however important those things might be, and however much "better" the espouser may be relative to his electoral competitors because of them).

I understand (and sympathize with) why some think that Johnson's positions are, on net, significantly "better" than anything else on offer - and for those particular reasons, those folks should by all means give whatever support to him they feel is appropriate. But please don't piss down my back and say it's raining by telling me that Johnson is going to do anything to significantly advance libertarianism or the cause of liberty. He isn't and he won't (any more than Kucinich did or would have) - notwithstanding the putative merits of some of his positions, and regardless of the name of the party upon whose ticket he is running.



* I do not know if Johnson has ever evinced any particular interest in or awareness of the subject of central banking and its economic significance, but if his "anti-Fed" position amounts to merely an "audit the Fed" policy and little more, then that would be just one more reason to consider his "anti-Fed"-ness, as congenial as it may be, as not particularly libertarian in nature (ŗ la Kucinich). And his enunciation of support for so-called "ethical" wars is more than a little problematic vis-ŗ-vis libertarianism. Although he might be significantly more "restrained" in the matter of warmaking than other specimens of the presidency have been - and that would be a good and wonderful thing - it simply does not follow that he would therefore be advancing the cause of liberty, which is another matter altogether.

euphemia
07-21-2016, 04:46 PM
Post of the year ^^^

r3volution 3.0
07-21-2016, 04:55 PM
Gary Johnson may be anti-Fed and anti-war, but Dennis Kucinich was anti-Fed and anti-war, too. Being libertarian may mean being anti-Fed and anti-war, but being anti-Fed and anti-war does not mean being libertarian.

He's also anti:
-bailouts
-stimulus
-Dept. of Education
-43% of federal spending overall
-protectionist tariffs
-PATRIOT Act
-War on Drugs

He's a well-rounded libertarian, taking the right positions on most every economic issue, foreign foreign issue, and civil liberties issue.

His deviation on the CRA is anomalous.

Any comparison to Kucinich is silly.

Occam's Banana
07-21-2016, 05:05 PM
yeah, but [Gary Johnson] wants you to have the opportunity to smoke pot, as much as you want, whenever you want, legally. so it must be all good, right?

Hmmmm. I guess it depends ... will Gary allow me to run around naked when I do it? ;)

euphemia
07-21-2016, 05:14 PM
That's the first true statement you've made in this entire thread.

It's not the only true statement I've made in this intire thread, but thanks for giving me a little credit.

As long as Gary Johnson is not the mouthpiece for "the mainstreaming of libertarian ideas," I'm all for it. Gary Johnson is not a libertarian. He wants big government when it is an issue he cares about. He thinks downsizing the military is good because it frees up money to give to the people. How libertarian is that? He wants "responsible entitlement reform," but entitlements are still entitlements. A 43% cut in budget is still a budget that is way too big.

Natural Citizen
07-21-2016, 05:21 PM
No, actually there are different degrees of harm.

In terms of Individual Liberty itself, an Individual or a group of Individuals either chooses to defend its foundation fully; consequently, its fundamental principles or an Individual or a group of Individuals chooses to organize to campaign/function against its foundation fully; consequently, its fundamental principles. And make no mistake; this is a choice. There is no in-between. Again, the foundation for Individual Liberty cannot be treated piece-meal. Its fundamentals and its implicit meanings and obligations must be accepted together with its benefits in order to enjoy and make use of its benefits in whole. To openly reject the fundamental principle of Individual Liberty itself is to reject the philosophy and principles of Individual Liberty in its entirety.




...causing a small harm (gay cakes).

It seems to me that forcing Peter to relinquish his property to Paul at the barrel of a government gun is a most egregious, offensive, dangerous, damaging, and consequential harm to the very foundation for the principles of Individual Liberty itself. Is it not? If not, then, why not?

euphemia
07-21-2016, 05:22 PM
If you are taking away the liberty which I hold most dear, then you have reached the ultimate harm. Where do you even get the idea of limited government if not from the Constitution?

Natural Citizen
07-21-2016, 05:23 PM
He's a well-rounded libertarian

No. He openly rejects Individual Liberty's most fundamental principle. That makes him anti-Liberty in scope and a most dangerous aggressor toward the philosophy of Individual Liberty itself. To promote him in the name of Liberty given that he patently rejects Individual Liberty's most fundamental principle is coercion of the highest magnitude. That's a major naw naw, rev3. Major.

bunklocoempire
07-21-2016, 05:44 PM
Gary Johnson may be anti-Fed and anti-war, but Dennis Kucinich was anti-Fed and anti-war, too. Being libertarian may mean being anti-Fed and anti-war, but being anti-Fed and anti-war does not mean being libertarian.

I "liked" Kucinich better than any of his competitors (except Ron Paul, insofar as the two could be said to have been competitors), precisely due to his positions on those two particular issues - but I was never delusional enough to imagine that Kucinich was in any way a libertarian, or that a Kucinich candidacy or presidency would have been any kind of victory for libertarianism. Given Johnson's (at best) tepid espousals and defenses of liberty per se (which, more often than not, are rather less than "at best"), coupled with his clearly-stated advocacy for egregious violations of the most basic libertarian principles, I can no more support Johnson than I did Kucinich, regardless of how much more I might "like" him than any of the others.

And before someone sneers at me for being an "impractical purist," my refusal to support Johnson is as pragmatic as it is principled. Take the cake-baking thing. Being practical, I could understand and even agree if, for example, Johnson declined to take on the already-existing property-rights-violating (and hence, anti-liberty) elements of the Civil Rights Act. The CRA and its provisions have a great amount of institutional and cultural inertia behind them, and of all the myriad windmills a libertarian running for public office could choose to tilt against, I would not blame any such candidate for not (yet) choosing to tilt at that particular one. But there is a HUGE difference between not engaging in (*ahem*) "quixotic" campaigns against something like the CRA, on the one hand, and explicitly advocating in favor of additional new violations of property and liberty on the other.

As a purely practical matter, such advocacy can only serve to increase the social visibility and viability of such anti-liberty policies, lending them greater social credibility and acceptability - while simultaneously degrading the visibility, credibility and acceptablility of actually libertarian policies (and the fact that such anti-liberty policies are being advanced by an ostensible "standard bearer" for libertarianism significantly exacerbates this problem). Pragmatically speaking, this will make those policies even harder to fight against, especially once and if they become as institutionally and culturally entrenched as things like the CRA already are. Indeed, that is precisely how such policies become so intractable in the first place.

The acquiesence of silent opposition to already-existing and well-entrenched wrongs may sometimes be an ugly but practical necessity in electoral politics - but there is nothing "practical" to be found in openly-averred, positive support for as-yet-to-be-entrenched wrongs in the making. Quite the contrary, in fact.

Gary Johnson might* be anti-Fed and anti-war - and if so, then good for him! In my estimation, that would indeed make him much "better" than those other two bozos. But those things are not exclusively libertarian concerns, and their exposition does not necessarily entail that one is or will be a net advancer of the cause of liberty (as the example of Dennis Kucinich illustrates). As a purely practical matter, the consistent and non-contradictory exposition and implementation of liberty ideas and ideals are the only things that will genuinely, effectively and durably advance the cause of liberty - not the mere incidental espousal of some of the things that are dear to the hearts of libertarians (however important those things might be, and however much "better" the espouser may be relative to his electoral competitors because of them).

I understand (and sympathize with) why some think that Johnson's positions are, on net, significantly "better" than anything else on offer - and for those particular reasons, those folks should by all means give whatever support to him they feel is appropriate. But please don't piss down my back and say it's raining by telling me that Johnson is going to do anything to significantly advance libertarianism or the cause of liberty. He isn't and he won't (any more than Kucinich did or would have) - notwithstanding the putative merits of some of his positions, and regardless of the name of the party upon whose ticket he is running.



* I do not know if Johnson has ever evinced any particular interest in or awareness of the subject of central banking and its economic significance, but if his "anti-Fed" position amounts to merely an "audit the Fed" policy and little more, then that would be just one more reason to consider his "anti-Fed"-ness, as congenial as it may be, as not particularly libertarian in nature (ŗ la Kucinich). And his enunciation of support for so-called "ethical" wars is more than a little problematic vis-ŗ-vis libertarianism. Although he might be significantly more "restrained" in the matter of warmaking than other specimens of the presidency have been - and that would be a good and wonderful thing - it simply does not follow that he would therefore be advancing the cause of liberty, which is another matter altogether.

Yeah. This. A duck is a duck, and even a glass eye in a duck's ass can see this. As a recovering brainwashed idiot, I understand perfectly how reinforced bad behavior did nothing for me. When I heard Ron talk for the first time, he eased me into the idea of liberty by emphasizing the consistency of the idea. That's the part that really shook me gently awake. It was a very subtle dare for me to be consistent. Good things come with consistency, you don't need "good things" to get consistency. ("good things" like cakes on a whim)

It all feels like a 1/2 lie. It's not for me at this stage, or any. Great post OB.

r3volution 3.0
07-21-2016, 05:51 PM
It's not the only true statement I've made in this intire thread, but thanks for giving me a little credit.

As long as Gary Johnson is not the mouthpiece for "the mainstreaming of libertarian ideas," I'm all for it. Gary Johnson is not a libertarian. He wants big government when it is an issue he cares about. He thinks downsizing the military is good because it frees up money to give to the people. How libertarian is that? He wants "responsible entitlement reform," but entitlements are still entitlements. A 43% cut in budget is still a budget that is way too big.

You realize that's almost twice as a large a cut as Ron proposed in 2012?

euphemia
07-21-2016, 06:03 PM
The budget is a lot bigger today

r3volution 3.0
07-21-2016, 06:15 PM
the candidate openly states that he would force X to provide Y for Z at the barrel of a government gun. And he'd do so under the banner of Liberty.


Wit isn't libertarian at all to force X to provide Y for Z at the barrel of a government gun and if one does force X to provide Y for Z at the barrel of a government gun, then, liberty cannot and will not be had at all.


His admitted position is one that is most dangerous to the cause of liberty because his position is contrary to its fundamental principles and his position empowers Liberty's most dangerous aggressor. Men with guns sent from the government to force X to provide Y for Z against his will.


His position is aggressive toward and patently contrary to the very foundation for the principles of Individual Liberty itself.


His position is one that patently rejects the foundation for Individual Liberty itself. Gary Johnson rejects Liberty's most fundamental principle.


He openly rejects the primary foundation that provides for the very principles of Individual Liberty itself.


Gary Johnson openly rejects Liberty's most fundamental principle...The idea that Liberty means forcing X to provide Y for Z at the barrel of a government gun is patently contrary to Individual Liberty itself.


Gary Johnson openly rejects Liberty's most fundamental principle. And because he openly rejects Liberty's most fundamental principle, he should be seen as its most dangerous aggressor.


likely the most unrecognized and most dangerous threat to Individual Liberty itself.


An open rejection of the very foundation for the principles of Individual Liberty itself is not a minor issue in any logical way.


Gary Johnson, admittedly, would force X to provide Y for Z at the barrel of a government gun. And in the name of Liberty, no less. If you care about Liberty, then, your best option is to recognize its most dangerous and immediate threat.


More precisely, he openly admits that his position is to force X to provide Y for Z at the barrel of a government gun. In the name of Liberty, no less.


Gary Johnson, admittedly, would force X to provide Y for Z at the barrel of a government gun. For Liberty, his position is patently its most dangerous aggressor.


More precisely, more honestly, he, admittedly, would force X to provide Y for Z at the barrel of a government gun. And in the name of Liberty, no less...by your support for Johnson, reject the fundamental foundation for the principles of Individual Liberty that he admttedly holds.


To openly reject the fundamental principle of Individual Liberty itself is to reject Liberty in scope.


Gary Johnson, admittedly, would force X to provide Y for Z at the barrel of a government gun. And in the name of liberty, no less...Gary Johnson's solution to force X to provide Y for Z at the barrel of a government gun violates the very foundation for the principles of Individual Liberty itself...Gary Johnson's willful sacrifice and aggressive violation of that fundamental foundation...


To openly reject the fundamental principle of Individual Liberty itself is to reject the philosophy and principles of Individual Liberty in its entirety...consequential harm to the very foundation for the principles of Individual Liberty itself. Is it not?


No. He openly rejects Individual Liberty's most fundamental principle. That makes him anti-Liberty in scope and a most dangerous aggressor toward the philosophy of Individual Liberty itself.

http://www.gifbin.com/bin/3934yu85yu4.gif

euphemia
07-21-2016, 06:16 PM
Keep that up. You might get it, eventually.

Thor
07-21-2016, 06:20 PM
https://i.imgur.com/nar1srF.png

r3volution 3.0
07-21-2016, 06:23 PM
The budget is a lot bigger today

What's your point?

Gary's proposed 43% cut was larger than Ron's. That is mathematical fact.

euphemia
07-21-2016, 06:36 PM
But he didn't cut the budget in New Mexico. He had eight years to do it, and did not accomplish it at all.

Natural Citizen
07-21-2016, 06:36 PM
Originally Posted by Natural Citizen the candidate openly states that he would force X to provide Y for Z at the barrel of a government gun. And he'd do so under the banner of Liberty.



Originally Posted by Natural Citizen
Wit isn't libertarian at all to force X to provide Y for Z at the barrel of a government gun and if one does force X to provide Y for Z at the barrel of a government gun, then, liberty cannot and will not be had at all.





Originally Posted by Natural Citizen
His admitted position is one that is most dangerous to the cause of liberty because his position is contrary to its fundamental principles and his position empowers Liberty's most dangerous aggressor. Men with guns sent from the government to force X to provide Y for Z against his will.





Originally Posted by Natural Citizen
His position is aggressive toward and patently contrary to the very foundation for the principles of Individual Liberty itself.





Originally Posted by Natural Citizen
His position is one that patently rejects the foundation for Individual Liberty itself. Gary Johnson rejects Liberty's most fundamental principle.





Originally Posted by Natural Citizen
He openly rejects the primary foundation that provides for the very principles of Individual Liberty itself.






Originally Posted by Natural Citizen
Gary Johnson openly rejects Liberty's most fundamental principle...The idea that Liberty means forcing X to provide Y for Z at the barrel of a government gun is patently contrary to Individual Liberty itself.





Originally Posted by Natural Citizen
Gary Johnson openly rejects Liberty's most fundamental principle. And because he openly rejects Liberty's most fundamental principle, he should be seen as its most dangerous aggressor.





Originally Posted by Natural Citizen http://www.ronpaulforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png
likely the most unrecognized and most dangerous threat to Individual Liberty itself.





Originally Posted by Natural Citizen
An open rejection of the very foundation for the principles of Individual Liberty itself is not a minor issue in any logical way.







Originally Posted by Natural Citizen

Gary Johnson, admittedly, would force X to provide Y for Z at the barrel of a government gun. And in the name of Liberty, no less. If you care about Liberty, then, your best option is to recognize its most dangerous and immediate threat.







Originally Posted by Natural Citizen
More precisely, he openly admits that his position is to force X to provide Y for Z at the barrel of a government gun. In the name of Liberty, no less.






Originally Posted by Natural Citizen

Gary Johnson, admittedly, would force X to provide Y for Z at the barrel of a government gun. For Liberty, his position is patently its most dangerous aggressor.






Originally Posted by Natural Citizen
More precisely, more honestly, he, admittedly, would force X to provide Y for Z at the barrel of a government gun. And in the name of Liberty, no less...by your support for Johnson, reject the fundamental foundation for the principles of Individual Liberty that he admttedly holds.







Originally Posted by Natural Citizen
To openly reject the fundamental principle of Individual Liberty itself is to reject Liberty in scope.






Originally Posted by Natural Citizen
Gary Johnson, admittedly, would force X to provide Y for Z at the barrel of a government gun. And in the name of liberty, no less...Gary Johnson's solution to force X to provide Y for Z at the barrel of a government gun violates the very foundation for the principles of Individual Liberty itself...Gary Johnson's willful sacrifice and aggressive violation of that fundamental foundation...







http://www.ronpaulforums.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Natural Citizen
To openly reject the fundamental principle of Individual Liberty itself is to reject the philosophy and principles of Individual Liberty in its entirety...consequential harm to the very foundation for the principles of Individual Liberty itself. Is it not?






http://www.ronpaulforums.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Natural Citizen
No. He openly rejects Individual Liberty's most fundamental principle. That makes him anti-Liberty in scope and a most dangerous aggressor toward the philosophy of Individual Liberty itself.



http://www.gifbin.com/bin/3934yu85yu4.gif

And after all of those repetitive explanations, we still get this from you...



...causing a small harm (gay cakes).

Again, It seems to me that forcing Peter to relinquish his property to Paul at the barrel of a government gun is a most egregious, offensive, dangerous, damaging, and consequential harm to the very foundation for the principles of Individual Liberty itself. The act is hardly a "small harm."


You know nothing of what Liberty is by your own demonstration. And if you do, you certainly have no respect for it.

r3volution 3.0
07-21-2016, 06:41 PM
...the very foundation for the principles of Individual Liberty itself.

http://i.imgur.com/rmdSx.gif?noredirect

Natural Citizen
07-21-2016, 06:50 PM
http://i.imgur.com/rmdSx.gif?noredirect

That's a good choice. You've lost the debate a long time ago anyway.

I'll see you around the board. :)

Natural Citizen
07-21-2016, 07:22 PM
Yeah Gary saying he would force folks to do anything is a dealbreaker. $#@! him and the horse he rode in on.

Yep. Agreed. Certainly Individuals or groups of Individuals are free to make rules for themselves provided their rules don't prohibit other Individuals or groups of Individuals from equally doing the same. It really is that simple. That's the fundamental principle of Individual Liberty.

But how quickly some forget.

lilymc
07-21-2016, 07:23 PM
Of all people I would expect to be a nontraditional politician, Gary Johnson would be it. I can't tell you how disappointed I am about him. He is just as fianancially corrupt as any other politician. He says what people want to hear. He is unprincipled. And boring.

I don't know that much about him, but based on what I do know, I'm disappointed that anyone here would support him. He seems to be just like the rest... corrupt, in more ways than one.

specsaregood
07-21-2016, 07:30 PM
Hmmmm. I guess it depends ... will Gary allow me to run around naked when I do it? ;)

My best guess is: only if while naked you allow gays to fondle you, as it would be discrimination to only allow women to play with your banana.

AuH20
07-21-2016, 07:36 PM
Why did Gary Johnson go so soft? His last run was not this underwhelming. He was somewhat palatable to vote for last cycle. This cycle he's gone off the rails.

CaptUSA
07-21-2016, 07:38 PM
Why did Gary Johnson go so soft? His last run was not this underwhelming. He was somewhat palatable to vote for last cycle. This cycle he's gone off the rails.

Simple - he's playing a political game. Trying to capture Sanders' supporters. His polls are better this time so it must be working.

Occam's Banana
07-21-2016, 08:00 PM
My best guess is: only if while naked you allow gays to fondle you, as it would be discrimination to only allow women to play with your banana.

:eek::eek: I hadn't even thought of that ... but you may be right ... :eek:

RonPaulGeorge&Ringo
07-21-2016, 08:26 PM
The GOP Is a Dying Party. Thatís Why Iím Running Against Trump.

By Gary Johnson


Well, he sure as sh1t ain't running against Hillary.

H. E. Panqui
07-22-2016, 06:19 AM
Yeah, make sure those party labels are there. If you're thinking Johnson is a Libertarian, think again.

:confused:

...please re-read what i wrote...the point i was trying to make is that natural citizen was condemning johnson for doing what EVERY republicrat does!!..including ron paul!!..

...if natural citizen condemns ron and rand and ALL the rest of 'them' along with gary johnson, he's at least consistent and ok with me...if not, he's emitting some hypocrisy flatulence...dig yet?

LibertyEagle
07-22-2016, 01:15 PM
:confused:

...please re-read what i wrote...the point i was trying to make is that natural citizen was condemning johnson for doing what EVERY republicrat does!!..including ron paul!!..

...if natural citizen condemns ron and rand and ALL the rest of 'them' along with gary johnson, he's at least consistent and ok with me...if not, he's emitting some hypocrisy flatulence...dig yet?

How exactly do you think Ron Paul violated private property rights? Do tell.

Natural Citizen
07-22-2016, 04:17 PM
Yeah, do tell.

Son_of_Liberty90
07-22-2016, 10:01 PM
Why doesn't he mention BOTH candidates.

Jeez, what pandering. Everyone is against Trump, we get it.

By only attacking one candidate, he continues the two party system.

Instead of going, "TRUMP THIS, TRUMP THAT", how about "BOTH CANDIDATES THIS, BOTH CANDIDATES THAT."

I still stand by my view McAfee should have been the Libertarian candidate.

RJ Liberty
07-22-2016, 10:09 PM
Why doesn't he mention BOTH candidates.

He does, just not as often, and the press doesn't cover it as much (because they're presstitutes)


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wTIGMDR7HMA




I still stand by my view McAfee should have been the Libertarian candidate.

McAfee is a wanted man in Belize. The press would have killed his campaign instantly.

Son_of_Liberty90
07-22-2016, 10:19 PM
He does, just not as often, and the press doesn't cover it as much (because they're presstitutes)


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wTIGMDR7HMA

McAfee is a wanted man in Belize. The press would have killed his campaign instantly.

Yea, I forgot about the whole Belize bit.

H. E. Panqui
07-23-2016, 06:56 AM
How exactly do you think Ron Paul violated private property rights? Do tell.

:rolleyes:

...those are YOUR words, not mine...

..this is what was written:

natural citizen writes: More precisely, more honestly, [Johnson] admittedly, would force X to provide Y for Z at the barrel of a government gun.

...to which i responded: "have you ever supported ANY republicrat?!...if no, you're ok with me...but if you have ever supported any r or d, etc., you've exposed yourself as a hypocrite...but aren't we all...."

...so please, let's not play games...ron paul is/was the best ever 'republicrat'....but he is no anarchist...he supports 'limited government' and that requires 'limited taxation' or, for natural citizen, "the limited forcing of x to provide y for z"...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul

Lower taxes[edit (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul&action=edit&section=4)]...Rather than taxing personal income, which he says assumes that the government owns individuals' lives and labor, he prefers the federal government to be funded through excise taxes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excise_taxes) and/or uniform, non-protectionist tariffs (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tariff).[19] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul#cite_note-google_interview-19) However, during the 2011 CPAC conference, he said he would support a flat income tax of 10% at 19:23 of that speech.[44] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul#cite_note-44) A citizen would be able to opt out of all government involvement if they simply pay a 10% income tax...In other statements, he has permitted consideration of a national sales tax (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_sales_tax) as a compromise if the tax need cannot be reduced enough. He has advocated that the reduction of government will make an income tax unnecessary.[51] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul#cite_note-antiwarpres-51)