PDA

View Full Version : National Review: Gary Johnson Should Court the Right




LatinsforPaul
07-24-2016, 03:54 PM
Gary Johnson Should Court the Right


Disaffected conservatives will listen to the Libertarian nominee — if he chooses to speak to them.

It is time to start taking Gary Johnson seriously. No, seriously. Almost despite himself, the Libertarian-party nominee finds himself on the verge of securing a spot in the presidential debates this fall, having hit 13 percent in a recent CNN poll, just two percentage points short of the threshold to qualify. At stake, of course, is national exposure, and relevance in the race if he capitalizes. Holding him back is the fact that Johnson’s highest-profile appearances have so far been lackluster, owing in part to his deficiencies as a candidate and in part to the impulse of American voters to gravitate toward candidates who make lofty promises. Nevertheless, Johnson is gaining a bit of steam as he meets with big-time editorial boards, earns the attention of outlets like The New Yorker and FiveThirtyEight, and flushes the cannabinoids out of his system (it’s been eight weeks!).

The Libertarian ticket — Johnson, a former Republican governor of New Mexico, and running mate William Weld, a former Republican governor of Massachusetts — has no small amount of real-world political experience. So far the ticket has been content to focus attention mainly on moderates, an approach that did John Anderson little good in 1980. Johnson and Weld trumpet their divergence from Republican policy on social and foreign-policy issues, in what could be an effective tack to pick up young independents in the general election. But the Libertarian platform, with its emphasis on economic freedom and prudence in governing, has several key elements of conservatism. It offers refuge for the record-high number of people who voted against an eventual party nominee in the Republican primary, coextensive with the people who still believe in limited government. So far, though, Johnson-Weld is drawing support equally from Democrats and Republicans. So if the Libertarians want to bring their numbers up, they must demonstrate their comparative virtues to these disaffected conservatives. To maximize support, Gary Johnson needs to court the Right.

But therein lies a problem. American politics may be in a state of profound rot, but Johnson is inclined to point it out only on the right. The Republican party is indeed an embarrassment: Its historically unpopular nominee cribs policy from — and praises — Turkish autocrat Recep Tayyip Erdogan; his wife (or her speechwriter) plagiarized her speech at the convention. Trump supporters are epistemological relativists who attack the truth for being disloyal to their man. Meanwhile, the party’s thoughtful, decent voices have either yielded to the authoritarian wave or been declared traitors. About all this Johnson has been publicly vocal. He is among Donald Trump’s most outspoken and effective critics, and his critique of what has become Republican orthodoxy is generally scathing and at times incisive.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/438186/gary-johnson-conservatives-will-listen-libertarian-nominee

euphemia
07-24-2016, 03:56 PM
He will never win them because of his attitude toward religious freedom.

r3volution 3.0
07-24-2016, 04:11 PM
He will never win them because of his attitude toward religious freedom.

If by "them" you mean single-issue social conservatives, that's true.

He can, however, win over everyone who prioritizes free markets, a rational foreign policy, and the Bill of Rights over homosexual baked goods.

euphemia
07-24-2016, 04:13 PM
Not single-issue social conservatives. He will not win the right because he wants to curtail liberty for some, but expand it for himself.

Conservatives and real libertarians are not stupid. They know when their freedoms and tax dollars are being exploited. The sheeple who blindly follow labels will be fooled, but not people with principles.

There. The shoe is on the other foot. How does that feel?

Smitty
07-24-2016, 04:15 PM
You know something is up when the neocon review starts talking up the Libertarian Party nominee.

r3volution 3.0
07-24-2016, 04:23 PM
Not single-issue social conservatives. He will not win the right because he wants to curtail liberty for some, but expand it for himself.

Yes, I appreciate that you've pledged yourself to the orange national socialist and must therefore attempt to smear all other candidates.

You should work on a new line though.

Claiming that Gary anti-liberty because he's only a libertarian on 99% of issues isn't going to convince anyone.

It's especially silly, of course, since Il Toupee is a libertarian on ~0% of issues.


Conservatives and real libertarians are not stupid. They know when their freedoms and tax dollars are being exploited. The sheeple who blindly follow labels will be fooled, but not people with principles.

There. The shoe is on the other foot. How does that feel?

Herp a derp a derp, I luvs liberteez, dats whyz Iz gonna votez fur Teh Donald!

https://cleaverlydisguised.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/happy-jeff-winger-community.gif

euphemia
07-24-2016, 04:26 PM
Yes, I appreciate that you've pledged yourself to the orange national socialist and must therefore attempt to smear all other candidates.

No. I have not pledged support to anyone. The Tennessee ballot is not determined at this time. I have no yard signs, no bumper stickers, and have contributed no money. Rand Paul took away my choice to vote for him before the Tennessee Primary.

But you keep right on with this. Johnson is not a Libertarian. He is on record that he would force people to conform to his vision, and that means less freedom for everyone. I would suggest with your continued resistance to look at what he says now (that he claims to be sober), you rethink your own position on liberty. If you can't extend liberty to everyone, then maybe you aren't as Libertarian as you think.

You definitely need a new argument. Call up Gary and see if you can get him to change his mind. Have him publish what he thinks today and see how that flies.

r3volution 3.0
07-24-2016, 04:30 PM
No. I have not pledged support to anyone. The Tennessee ballot is not determined at this time.

You've been pumping Trump for months.

I know it, you know it, anyone who cares to look at your posting history will know it.

LatinsforPaul
07-24-2016, 04:35 PM
Johnson is not a Libertarian.

Hilarious, how do you have any credibility on this site. And you have been on this site since 2009 and can't figure out who the "libertarians" are in politics. Let me guess, by your standards Rand and Ron don't fit the libertarian standard because they don't agree with you 100% of the times, right. ;)

euphemia
07-24-2016, 04:52 PM
Hilarious, how do you have any credibility on this site. And you have been on this site since 2009 and can't figure out who the "libertarians" are in politics. Let me guess, by your standards Rand and Ron don't fit the libertarian standard because they don't agree with you 100% of the times, right. ;)

Gary Johnson is not a libertarian. He is for some gun control, some "ethical wars" if there is such a thing, and for restriction of liberty to a very large segment of the population. He is not a Libertarian.

Don't forget to look at his personal finances. It was discussed in one of the linked threads, but only two people want to discuss it. I will not vote for Gary Johnson. Never, ever, ever.

I do not make decisions without doing the homework. Labels do not impress me.

Gary can come on here and talk about his positions if he wants.

LatinsforPaul
07-24-2016, 05:10 PM
Gary Johnson is not a libertarian. He is for some gun control, some "ethical wars" if there is such a thing, and for restriction of liberty to a very large segment of the population. He is not a Libertarian.

Don't forget to look at his personal finances. It was discussed in one of the linked threads, but only two people want to discuss it. I will not vote for Gary Johnson. Never, ever, ever.

I do not make decisions without doing the homework. Labels do not impress me.

Gary can come on here and talk about his positions if he wants.

Donald Trump is not a libertarian. He is for some gun control, some "ethical wars" if there is such a thing, and for restriction of liberty to all of the population. He is not a libertarian.

Don't forget to look at his personal finances. It was discussed in many threads here. I will not vote for Donald Trump. Never, ever, ever.

I do not make decisions without doing the homework. Labels do not impress me.

Now you know where I stand. ;)

AuH20
07-24-2016, 05:14 PM
Why is the National Review so interested in Gary Johnson in 2016?

r3volution 3.0
07-24-2016, 05:20 PM
Why is the National Review so interested in Gary Johnson in 2016?

Trump is to the left of the National Review.

Smitty
07-24-2016, 05:55 PM
The fact that the National (neocon) Review is touting Gary Johnson is proof positive that the neocons are working to divert some of Trump's support to the Libertarian Party,...and Gary Johnson is obviously in on the deal.

The whole charade is going to be a massive negative for anything associated with the Libertarian brand from now on. In fact, it will probably destroy everything to do with the term "Libertarian".

euphemia
07-24-2016, 06:35 PM
Donald Trump is not a libertarian.

I certainly have never said he was.

Individual liberty comes before any other policy decision. If people are not free, then there is no liberty.

NewRightLibertarian
07-24-2016, 06:54 PM
Why is the National Review so interested in Gary Johnson in 2016?

The neocons hate Trump, and know the spineless dweeb Gary Johnson poses no threat to anyone. Many butthurt libertarians have become useful idiots for the Bill Kristol's of the world because Trump hurt their little feelings so bad.

r3volution 3.0
07-24-2016, 07:09 PM
I certainly have never said he was.

Individual liberty comes before any other policy decision. If people are not free, then there is no liberty.

Forcing bakers to bake cakes for gays is a violation of their rights, yes.

What you somehow fail to appreciate (or refuse to admit) is that the following policies, which Trump supports, are also rights violations:
-forcing people to pay taxes to bailout Wall Street banks
-forcing people to pay taxes to finance a "stimulus" (i.e. handouts to cronies of the Obama administration)
-forcing people to pay taxes to finance socialized medicine
-robbing people through inflation
-imprisoning people without trial
-searching and seizing property without a warrant
-murdering large numbers of Iraqis and Libyans in cold blood


Any rational person can plainly see that the rights violation Gary endorses pales in comparison to the above.

Matt Collins
07-24-2016, 07:23 PM
Johnson sadly is not smart enough to do what the NR recommends.

CaptUSA
07-24-2016, 07:31 PM
Johnson sadly is not smart enough to do what the NR recommends.

It would seem that there is fertile ground that Gary is trying to exploit on the other side of aisle as well. I'm not sure how this is going to play out, but Gary's team (while I'm not really fond of it) may actually be taking the politically-expedient route.

Disaffected Sanders' supporters may need a place to go and Jill Stein isn't on all the ballots.

Somehow, he needs to court the left on social issues and the right on economic issues. It's not an easy task. It seems to me, he's going after the left on their turf while picking up the right flank by calling Trump reckless. We'll see how it turns out, but really he just needs to get into the debates right now. If he starts getting equal press, those disaffected GOP people may listen later.

WTLaw
07-25-2016, 08:17 AM
Gary Johnson is shockingly weak as a candidate. I still made a $50 bet the other day that he will get above %15 in the popular vote. Why? A.) because Hil and Drumpf are also shockingly weak as candidates and B) I need something to root for, even though Johnson is "libertarian light" in more significant ways than Rand ever was. Not to mention his voice, the way he speaks, he just sounds weak. I know, everest and everything, but his mannerisms make me wonder if they had TVs in New Mexico when he ran.

Ronin Truth
07-25-2016, 10:27 AM
Courting the folks 'off the spectrum' would just be a purely stupid waste of very limited resources.

Matt Collins
07-25-2016, 11:11 AM
It would seem that there is fertile ground that Gary is trying to exploit on the other side of aisle as well. I'm not sure how this is going to play out, but Gary's team (while I'm not really fond of it) may actually be taking the politically-expedient route.Unlikely that any Bernie supporters will vote for two former Republican Governors.



Somehow, he needs to court the left on social issues and the right on economic issues. Unfortunately it doesn't work like that. He has to choose one side or the other, not both. Sadly most voters are still stuck in the left-right paradigm and as such one must pander to that if they want their vote.

euphemia
07-25-2016, 11:48 AM
Forcing bakers to bake cakes for gays is a violation of their rights, yes.

What you somehow fail to appreciate (or refuse to admit) is that the following policies, which Trump supports, are also rights violations:
-forcing people to pay taxes to bailout Wall Street banks
-forcing people to pay taxes to finance a "stimulus" (i.e. handouts to cronies of the Obama administration)
-forcing people to pay taxes to finance socialized medicine
-robbing people through inflation
-imprisoning people without trial
-searching and seizing property without a warrant
-murdering large numbers of Iraqis and Libyans in cold blood


Any rational person can plainly see that the rights violation Gary endorses pales in comparison to the above.

Darrell Castle is currently the only true liberty candidate running. Differentiate party platform from his own personal positions, and you will see that both the party and the candidate are more liberty minded than any other group.

r3volution 3.0
07-25-2016, 11:55 AM
Darrell Castle is currently the only true liberty candidate running. Differentiate party platform from his own personal positions, and you will see that both the party and the candidate are more liberty minded than any other group.

I don't know about his personal positions, but the platform is most definitely NOT more libertarian than the LP's.

Here are some unlibertarian policies endorsed in the CP platform:
-protectionist tariffs
-immigration restrictions
-drug prohibition
-prohibition of gambling
-prohibition of pornography

Which unlibertarian policies are in the LP platform?

LatinsforPaul
07-25-2016, 12:02 PM
Darrell Castle is currently the only true liberty candidate running. Differentiate party platform from his own personal positions, and you will see that both the party and the candidate are more liberty minded than any other group.

I concur, ideally if Castle were the Libertarian Party nominee he would be a better liberty minded candidate. But unfortunately, Castle and the Constitution Party are only on the ballot in around half the states. I believe that we can send a stronger message of liberty by getting the Libertarian's Party numbers to an all time high this election. Then in future elections, we can get the ideal liberty candidate on the main stage with the Republicrats.

notsure
07-25-2016, 01:09 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gRQQfhD2exA

notsure
07-25-2016, 01:09 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6JXgzfxucM

RonPaulMall
07-25-2016, 02:12 PM
You know something is up when the neocon review starts talking up the Libertarian Party nominee.

I wonder what is going to happen to National Review when Trump wins. I imagine they have to be hemorrhaging subscribers at an alarming rate. They recently had to disable comments to protect their writers from the wrath of their own readers. Unless they have some sugar daddy willing to subsidize them to exist as a necon charity project, I see them folding within the year.

Tywysog Cymru
07-25-2016, 04:29 PM
If by "them" you mean single-issue social conservatives, that's true.

He can, however, win over everyone who prioritizes free markets, a rational foreign policy, and the Bill of Rights over homosexual baked goods.

Evangelicals, especially the Biblically literate ones, overwhelmingly despise Trump. But they won't back someone who wants to take away their freedom, especially as attacks on religious liberty intensify.

LibertyEagle
07-25-2016, 04:48 PM
If by "them" you mean single-issue social conservatives, that's true.

He can, however, win over everyone who prioritizes free markets, a rational foreign policy, and the Bill of Rights over homosexual baked goods.

:rolleyes:

Once again, completely loses the foundational principle of private property rights and that without that, there is no liberty. Looks like you would benefit reading the article in my sig.

NewRightLibertarian
07-25-2016, 04:52 PM
I don't know about his personal positions

Then maybe you should refrain from commenting if you don't know what you're talking about? Oh well, guess it never stopped you before.

Smitty
07-25-2016, 05:13 PM
I wonder what is going to happen to National Review when Trump wins. I imagine they have to be hemorrhaging subscribers at an alarming rate.

I would bet anything that The National Review is being subsidized. Who would pay money to read their crap?,..especially when it's blasted all over the internet for nothing.

It's just one of the more flagrant examples of neocon propaganda that the world is subjected to.

r3volution 3.0
07-25-2016, 05:15 PM
Then maybe you should refrain from commenting if you don't know what you're talking about? Oh well, guess it never stopped you before.

If you read the comment to which I was responding (which was not yours, incidentally) you'll find that I was rebutting the claim that "both the party and the candidate are more liberty minded than any other group." That is false, at least with respect to the party and its platform. Castle may or may not disagree with those unlibertarian planks of his party's platform, I don't know. Do you? Is he on the record repudiating them?

r3volution 3.0
07-25-2016, 05:18 PM
:rolleyes:

Once again, completely loses the foundational principle of private property rights and that without that, there is no liberty. Looks like you would benefit reading the article in my sig.

Hello Trump supporter.

Q. Do any of Trump's policies (e.g, QE, TARP, socialized medicine, PATRIOT Act) violate "the foundational principle of private property rights"?

r3volution 3.0
07-25-2016, 05:20 PM
Evangelicals, especially the Biblically literate ones, overwhelmingly despise Trump. But they won't back someone who wants to take away their freedom, especially as attacks on religious liberty intensify.

Yes, they're the the single-issue social conservatives I referenced.

Smitty
07-25-2016, 05:41 PM
I think it's hilarious that the neocons went fishing for Trump voters using Gary Johnson as bait,...and all they caught was Bernie-Bros.

69360
07-25-2016, 06:12 PM
The right? BS. At this moment in time if Johnson wants to win he need to court the left. Bernie voters are livid about the DNC getting caught screwing Bernie. If Johnson can craft his messaging to court them, without alienating liberterians and conservatives, he could find some real traction. I don't know if his campaign employs spin doctors crafty enough to do this.

Smitty
07-25-2016, 06:17 PM
The right? BS. At this moment in time if Johnson wants to win he need to court the left. Bernie voters are livid about the DNC getting caught screwing Bernie. If Johnson can craft his messaging to court them, without alienating liberterians and conservatives, he could find some real traction. I don't know if his campaign employs spin doctors crafty enough to do this.

Any spin doctor who can attract Communists without alienating Libertarians is earning his pay.

r3volution 3.0
07-25-2016, 08:07 PM
The right? BS. At this moment in time if Johnson wants to win he need to court the left. Bernie voters are livid about the DNC getting caught screwing Bernie. If Johnson can craft his messaging to court them, without alienating liberterians and conservatives, he could find some real traction. I don't know if his campaign employs spin doctors crafty enough to do this.

To get both Bernsters and NeverTrumpers on board, he has to make the campaign primarily about how bad Trumpllary is.

That's not to say he should repudiate any aspect of his libertarianism, but libertarian doctrine need not be the centerpiece of the campaign.

"They're corrupt, I'm the real anti-establishment candidate" etc

Natural Citizen
07-25-2016, 08:15 PM
But they won't back someone who wants to take away their freedom

Yes, they're the the single-issue social conservatives I referenced.

Why do you disrespect freedom, r3volution 3.0? Hm? Why? Freedom is a wonderful thing. Respect for freedom and defense of freedom are of the highest order of importance and the Individual's moral duty to protect. There is nothing of any greater importance. Nothing. Freedom is not an "issue" to be treated piece-meal, you pompous ass. Freedom is a fundamental principle underlying the traditional American philosophy. To wilfully disregard the critical nature of freedom is to wilfully profess one's eagerness to become a slave as well as to wilfully and coercively enslave others. The founders likely would have hung you silly in the town square. They wouldn't have sacrificed the expense and good workmanship of a slug. Nor would they have granted you its common dignity. The government has one role. One. And that's to defend Individual Liberty. It has no other role.

LatinsforPaul
07-25-2016, 09:26 PM
Why do you disrespect freedom, r3volution 3.0? Hm? Why? Freedom is a wonderful thing. Respect for freedom and defense of freedom are of the highest order of importance and the Individual's moral duty to protect. There is nothing of any greater importance. Nothing. Freedom is not, as you mindlessly and obtusely reference, an "issue" to be treated piece-meal, you pompous ass. Freedom is a fundamental principle underlying the traditional American philosophy. To wilfully disregard the critical nature of freedom is to wilfully profess one's eagerness to become a slave as well as to wilfully and coercively enslave others. The founders likely would have hung you silly in the town square. They wouldn't have sacrificed the expense and good workmanship of a slug. Nor would they have granted you its common dignity. The government has one role. One. And that's to defend Individual Liberty. It has no other role.

Very well said. You should send it to Trump. ;)

69360
07-25-2016, 09:38 PM
Any spin doctor who can attract Communists without alienating Libertarians is earning his pay.

Got that right. Maybe Johnson can find somebody.


To get both Bernsters and NeverTrumpers on board, he has to make the campaign primarily about how bad Trumpllary is.

That's not to say he should repudiate any aspect of his libertarianism, but libertarian doctrine need not be the centerpiece of the campaign.

"They're corrupt, I'm the real anti-establishment candidate" etc

Seems like a plan. Use Nixon's line. I am not a crook. Except Nixon was, Johnson isn't.

Natural Citizen
07-25-2016, 09:47 PM
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Natural Citizen http://www.ronpaulforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=6272615#post6272615)


http://www.ronpaulforums.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 http://www.ronpaulforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=6272419#post6272419)


http://www.ronpaulforums.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Tywysog Cymru http://www.ronpaulforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=6272352#post6272352)

But they won't back someone who wants to take away their freedom
Yes, they're the the single-issue social conservatives I referenced.
Why do you disrespect freedom, r3volution 3.0? Hm? Why? Freedom is a wonderful thing. Respect for freedom and defense of freedom are of the highest order of importance and the Individual's moral duty to protect. There is nothing of any greater importance. Nothing. Freedom is not, as you mindlessly and obtusely reference, an "issue" to be treated piece-meal, you pompous ass. Freedom is a fundamental principle underlying the traditional American philosophy. To wilfully disregard the critical nature of freedom is to wilfully profess one's eagerness to become a slave as well as to wilfully and coercively enslave others. The founders likely would have hung you silly in the town square. They wouldn't have sacrificed the expense and good workmanship of a slug. Nor would they have granted you its common dignity. The government has one role. One. And that's to defend Individual Liberty. It has no other role.




Very well said. You should send it to Trump. ;)

I sent it precisely to whom it was intended.

NewRightLibertarian
07-26-2016, 11:00 AM
If you read the comment to which I was responding (which was not yours, incidentally) you'll find that I was rebutting the claim that "both the party and the candidate are more liberty minded than any other group." That is false, at least with respect to the party and its platform. Castle may or may not disagree with those unlibertarian planks of his party's platform, I don't know. Do you? Is he on the record repudiating them?

I don't think anyone in the Constitution Party would bend over for Hillary, Jeb Bush and Mitt Romney so the statement was correct. Enjoy shilling for your CFR sell-out ticket. You are an example of Trump derangement syndrome at its worst.

Tywysog Cymru
07-26-2016, 03:55 PM
The right? BS. At this moment in time if Johnson wants to win he need to court the left. Bernie voters are livid about the DNC getting caught screwing Bernie. If Johnson can craft his messaging to court them, without alienating liberterians and conservatives, he could find some real traction. I don't know if his campaign employs spin doctors crafty enough to do this.

Progressives and Berniebros already have a candidate tailor made for them, Jill Stein.

69360
07-26-2016, 03:59 PM
Progressives and Berniebros already have a candidate tailor made for them, Jill Stein.

Maybe. They could possibly be persuaded no?

I have no idea what the GJ campaign's strategy is, but it makes sense for them to try and capitalize on this. These people are shouting down Wasserman and Clinton at the convention for the scheming and deception. Possibly they aren't as much issue based but just want somebody honest. Sanders is and Johnson is.

undergroundrr
07-26-2016, 04:34 PM
The right? BS. At this moment in time if Johnson wants to win he need to court the left. Bernie voters are livid about the DNC getting caught screwing Bernie. If Johnson can craft his messaging to court them, without alienating liberterians and conservatives, he could find some real traction. I don't know if his campaign employs spin doctors crafty enough to do this.

I agree. But I don't think he needs libertarians (there are 52 of us in America, and 47 are worried about cake) or right wing conservatives. Although libertarian-leaning folks at large will be useful, people with 50,000 posts at RPF couldn't possibly be less relevant. He needs moderate republicans and moderate democrats. Jill Stein can have the militant Bernie-ites and it won't make a bit of difference.

It may not have worked politically for Rand Paul to be the sensible, inclusive guy during the Republican primaries, but Johnson even at his goofiest is going to appear absurdly, irresistibly sane and benevolent during the terrifying chaos of the general election.

euphemia
07-26-2016, 04:53 PM
Yes, they're the the single-issue social conservatives I referenced.

What single issue would that be?

undergroundrr
07-26-2016, 05:41 PM
What single issue would that be?

It doesn't matter. Could be pro-life, could be gay marriage, could be immigrants.

euphemia
07-26-2016, 05:55 PM
It doesn't matter. Could be pro-life, could be gay marriage, could be immigrants.

Seriously. What single issue? You can't throw labels around without some proof. I'm not a single issue voter, or I would have declared for someone by now. There is only one candidate that comes down on the right side of the Constitution in the race right now. Whether he will be on the ballot in my state or not is still at issue.

Natural Citizen
07-26-2016, 06:03 PM
Seriously. What single issue?

I think it was Freedom itself they were reducing to a minimal "issue." I popped my mouth off about what I thought of the pompous position, though.



http://www.ronpaulforums.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Natural Citizen http://www.ronpaulforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=6272615#post6272615)


http://www.ronpaulforums.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 http://www.ronpaulforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=6272419#post6272419)


http://www.ronpaulforums.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Tywysog Cymru http://www.ronpaulforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=6272352#post6272352)

But they won't back someone who wants to take away their freedom

Yes, they're the the single-issue social conservatives I referenced.

Why do you disrespect freedom, r3volution 3.0? Hm? Why? Freedom is a wonderful thing. Respect for freedom and defense of freedom are of the highest order of importance and the Individual's moral duty to protect. There is nothing of any greater importance. Nothing. Freedom is not, as you mindlessly and obtusely reference, an "issue" to be treated piece-meal, you pompous ass. Freedom is a fundamental principle underlying the traditional American philosophy. To wilfully disregard the critical nature of freedom is to wilfully profess one's eagerness to become a slave as well as to wilfully and coercively enslave others. The founders likely would have hung you silly in the town square. They wouldn't have sacrificed the expense and good workmanship of a slug. Nor would they have granted you its common dignity. The government has one role. One. And that's to defend Individual Liberty. It has no other role.

Does that about cover it for you, euphemia? Do you have a clearer understanding of the pompous spew now? It's rather cut n dry if you ask me. By Ye fruits and all of that happy jazz. You know how that goes, I suppose. Heh.

undergroundrr
07-26-2016, 08:42 PM
Seriously. What single issue? You can't throw labels around without some proof. I'm not a single issue voter, or I would have declared for someone by now. There is only one candidate that comes down on the right side of the Constitution in the race right now. Whether he will be on the ballot in my state or not is still at issue.

Seriously, it doesn't matter. It could be any from that menu. Or it could be cakes. Just as long as someone can latch onto that one thing and discount the balance of the platform.

Johnson doesn't need the stunted spawn of Rothbard's bizarre paleo manipulation scheme. They can put their hopes on trump and the apocalypse.

euphemia
07-26-2016, 08:46 PM
What are you afraid of? What single issue? Johnson is not a principled man, so he will not get my support, ever. He does not support individual liberty for all, just for himself.

True libertarians believe in the right to life. True libertarians believe in the right for people to believe and practice their own faith in daily life. True libertarians believe in equal protection under the law. A law that doesn't apply to all is not a right.

undergroundrr
07-26-2016, 09:15 PM
What are you afraid of? What single issue? Johnson is not a principled man, so he will not get my support, ever. He does not support individual liberty for all, just for himself.

True libertarians believe in the right to life. True libertarians believe in the right for people to believe and practice their own faith in daily life. True libertarians believe in equal protection under the law. A law that doesn't apply to all is not a right.

No, pro-life is not a standard libertarian plank. I'd love it to be, but it's not. The rest of your argument has to do with cake, right?

Lovecraftian4Paul
07-26-2016, 10:27 PM
Most of them are going back to Hillary in a steady trickle, but I agree with Gary staying the course, trying to go after angry Berniebots. There are far, far more of those than scorned Jebheads or Cruz missiles. Even capturing a small percent of Berniebros is better than chasing what little remains of Glenn Beck's audience.

Son_of_Liberty90
07-26-2016, 10:42 PM
I think now is primetime for Johnson's team to court disillusioned Bernie supporters, like others have mentioned.

Personally not a huge Johnson fan, but a 3rd choice is refreashing, and I would love to see a 3 person general election debate.

Natural Citizen
07-26-2016, 10:51 PM
The rest of your argument has to do with cake, right?

Some folks call an openly aggressive rejection of Man's right to Liberty itself "cake." That would be those who lack an understanding of what surmises the right to Liberty itself. These are the people who know nothing of Liberty at all. And their shallow assessment and dialogue with regard to the critical nature of the situation is pompous, to say the least.


Those others, however, who do understand what Individul Liberty is and whom respect its benefits, correctly call it what it is. They call it forcing an Individual to relinquish his property to another Individual by way of the end of a barrel of a government gun. Some people, undergroundrr, understand that property rights are an indispensable and principal material support for Man's God-given unalienable rights. Most notably, Man's right to Liberty itself.

Natural Citizen
07-26-2016, 11:01 PM
No, pro-life is not a standard libertarian plank.

Given your rejection of the critical nature of the fundamental principle of property in that you're led to minimize it to "cake", it is understood that you may also fail to recognize property's fundamental contribution to the legitimacy of the right of Life. Perhaps you may not believe that, but favor the terms of controversy from a perspective of party politics. I'm not sure what you believe, really. But planks are the works of Men, undergroundrr. They come in many shapes and sizes, too. And the works of men aren't often products of the fundamental moral foundation that establishes the fundamental principles of Individual Liberty. In fact, they seldom are. You've projected one example of such an instance here in your statement. And you'd do well to pull this standard plank from your eye before it causes an infection that spreads.

undergroundrr
07-26-2016, 11:26 PM
Some folks call an openly aggressive rejection of Man's right to Liberty itself "cake." That would be those who lack an understanding of what surmises the right to Liberty itself. These are the people who know nothing of Liberty at all. And their shallow assessment and dialogue with regard to the critical nature of the situation is pompous, to say the least.


Those others, however, who do understand what Individul Liberty is and whom respect its benefits, correctly call it what it is. They call it forcing an Individual to relinquish his property to another Individual by way of the end of a barrel of a government gun. Some people, undergroundrr, understand that property rights are an indispensable and principal material support for Man's God-given unalienable rights. Most notably, Man's right to Liberty itself.

I agree with you about property rights but I disagree about your assessment of the situation. And your invective is uncharitable, but that's neither here nor there.

The cake answer was very unpleasing to libertarians like me. But it was absolutely the right answer to a question that should never have been asked. I'm sure you've read his clarification later and found it uninspiring like I did (https://www.facebook.com/govgaryjohnson/posts/10153109454754364 if you haven't). But he had the sense to run the LP gauntlet and to do it in a way that absolutely wouldn't sink him in the general. Rand Paul's answer about the CRA is still plaguing him to this day and any question about discrimination is a gotcha question. Gary Johnson pissed off people who don't matter with his cake answer. In the process he took his first step into a world where he could really make a difference in this election.

Gary Johnson thinks discrimination sucks. He's right. He might think it's even worse than somebody violating your property. You and I would definitely tilt on the side of property on that one. He's also clear that he doesn't want people forced to draw swastikas on cakes, and couldn't force them to if he wanted to because of "the courts, common sense, common decency and the First Amendment." Seriously, if you haven't read that facebook post, your intellectual honesty should compel you to do it. If you have read it and dismissed it out of hand, then it might be time to revisit it after months of towing this line.

It really doesn't matter. Gary Johnson doesn't need you and me who parse every statement for ideological confirmation. He needs the broad swathe of Americans who will be looking for somebody who represents intelligence and reason in the face of two major party candidates that scare the shit out of them.

undergroundrr
07-26-2016, 11:27 PM
duplicate

cindy25
07-27-2016, 04:09 AM
he should concentrate on the pro-pot states in the west, and have Weld concentrate on New England. the New Review only wants Hillary to win.

undergroundrr
07-27-2016, 10:06 AM
Given your rejection of the critical nature of the fundamental principle of property in that you're led to minimize it to "cake", it is understood that you may also fail to recognize property's fundamental contribution to the legitimacy of the right of Life. Perhaps you may not believe that, but favor the terms of controversy from a perspective of party politics. I'm not sure what you believe, really. But planks are the works of Men, undergroundrr. They come in many shapes and sizes, too. And the works of men aren't often products of the fundamental moral foundation that establishes the fundamental principles of Individual Liberty. In fact, they seldom are. You've projected one example of such an instance here in your statement. And you'd do well to pull this standard plank from your eye before it causes an infection that spreads.

Thanks for saying I "may" also fail... because I don't. But right to life of the unborn is not a standard (L)ibertarian plank. In fact, one could conclude that republican politicians (presidents at least) are historically pro choice considering their history of completely passing up opportunities to put a halt to it.

But I can totally understand people refusing to vote for Johnson due to the pro-choice stance. I can also see pro-lifers (like me) voting for him because they know he has at least a penchant for devolution of abortion law to the states.

Nothing Gary Johnson suggests is going to come, at least obstensibly, from Christian doctrine. This is also typical of libertarians, not exceptional. Your assessment may be different, but I trust that our Heavenly Father provided those unable to hear his word but with honest hearts to use reason and the obvious principles of creation to make good decisions. Gary Johnson has not declared himself an atheist. But I personally would take an Ayn Rand libertarian to govern me long before I'd take a Jerry Falwell republican.