PDA

View Full Version : Why Rand Paul Supporters Should Vote for Gary Johnson




LatinsforPaul
07-25-2016, 09:38 AM
Why Rand Paul Supporters Should Vote for Gary Johnson (https://www.libertarianquiz.com/rand-paul-vs-gary-johnson.html)


"Sen. Paul . . . was the one candidate on the Republican side who was not afraid to talk about civil liberties, the perils of endless war, and the principles of liberty."
Gov. Gary Johnson


Presidential candidate Gary Johnson agrees with Rand Paul on economic and foreign policy issues.
Former New Mexico governor Gary Johnson is running on the Libertarian Party ticket for President of the United States. He largely agrees with Senator Rand Paul on civil liberties, economic policy, and foreign policy. Here are some of their areas of agreement:

Cutting taxes and simplifying the tax code
Governor Johnson believes in reducing the overall tax burden on the American people. He believes America's complicated tax code punishes productivity and capital investment. In addition, it distorts the free market by rewarding industries favored by politicians, rather than ones favored by consumers. Governor Johnson prefers a consumption tax over an income tax, because it is more economically efficient.

Reducing the size of government
As governor of New Mexico, Gary Johnson vetoed 750 wasteful spending bills and thousands of budget line items in order to balance the state budget. He has promised to reign in federal deficit spending as President, without raising taxes, by using his presidential veto power in a similar manner. As President, he will propose balanced budgets and force Congress to either balance the budget or override his veto.

Support for free market capitalism
Hillary Clinton once said, "Don't let anybody tell you that it's corporations and businesses that create jobs." She held that position for about three days before retracting her comments. Governor Johnson holds the polar opposite position: Don't let anybody tell you that politicians and government create jobs. Gary Johnson agrees with the vast majority of economists in believing that jobs are created by entrepreneurs, growing companies, and a vibrant free market economy. He believes the best thing government can do for the economy is lower taxes, eliminate regulations, and get out of the way.

Opposition to crony capitalism
Democrats under President Obama have given wasteful government handouts to many politically-favored companies. For example, they gave $535 million in loan guarantees to Solyndra two years before it went bankrupt, leaving taxpayers with the bill. Gary Johnson opposes this kind of crony capitalism, favoring free markets instead.

Opposition to bank bailouts
Gov. Gary Johnson opposes all forms of crony capitalism, including bailing out Wall Street firms with taxpayer dollars.

Opposition to NSA surveillance
Governor Johnson opposes NSA surveillance of the American people's private communications. The NSA was created by executive order and he would end it by executive order. He also opposes attempts by government to require backdoors in encrypted communications.

Support for a peaceful, non-interventionist foreign policy
Gary Johnson believes that America's policy of repeated military interventions, regime changes, and failed attempts at nation-building have caused America to be less safe than if it hadn't engaged in these war making activities. He believes that the political instability caused by American military intervention in the Middle East led to the eventual rise of the Islamic State. He believes the United States needs to cut off the Islamic State's sources of funding, while avoiding the kinds of mistakes that led to its rise in the first place.

Support for civil liberties
Governor Johnson believes our Founding Fathers would be appalled if they saw the types of infringements on civil liberties that government engages in today. Without a warrant or due process, law enforcement can spy on our communications, photograph our license plates, monitor our financial transactions, track the location of our mobile phones, and even monitor which books we check out of a public library. Unlike Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, Gary Johnson would protect the civil liberties of the American people.

Support for gun rights
Gary Johnson says, "If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns." He believes that if guns are banned, law-abiding citizens will turn them in first, and criminals will turn them is last. He believes that concealed carry helps reduce crime.

Support for legalization of marijuana
Gary Johnson believes that states have a 10th Amendment right to legalize marijuana. He supports the legalization of both medical and recreational marijuana, but does not support the legalization of other illegal drugs. He opposes mandatory minimum sentencing for drug crimes, and believes overall drug policy should involve less incarceration and more rehabilitation.

Support for criminal justice reform
Gary Johnson is appalled that "the land of the free" has the second-highest incarceration rate in the world. The problem is caused by the fact that government has criminalized far too many activities, including victimless crimes like harmless marijuana use. Another reason for America's high incarceration rate is that mandatory minimum sentences have forced judges to hand down unreasonably-long sentences for many crimes. Governor Johnson believes in reducing the number of criminal laws and giving judges greater discretion in sentencing decisions.

Opposition to eminent domain abuse
Unlike Donald Trump, who has tried to abuse eminent domain for his own personal profit, Gary Johnson opposes the use of eminent domain to seize property from one private party in order to transfer it to another.

Opposition to civil-asset forfeiture
Civil-asset forfeiture allows law enforcement to seize the assets of someone suspected, but not accused, of a crime. Year ago, Gary Johnson believed that civil-asset forfeiture was a useful tool for law enforcement, but he has since reversed his position. He came to realize that civil-asset forfeiture is very abusive. "If you happen to be the individual whose assets get confiscated, it can be devastating," he says. Today, Gary calls for a ban on the practice. He believes it violates the U.S. Constitution. He also believes that because police departments get to keep much of the money, it provides them with a financial incentive to take property even from innocent people.

CaptUSA
07-25-2016, 09:50 AM
Yeah, not quite there yet. We'll see come election day.

I can, however, still respect those that vote LP this time. Trump or Clinton?? Sorry.

specsaregood
07-25-2016, 10:09 AM
CAn we get a gary Johnson subforum or move his crap to the 2016 presidential election subforum so I can ignore/exclude them without excluding all real liberty campaign threads?

surf
07-25-2016, 10:58 AM
CAn we get a gary Johnson subforum or move his crap to the 2016 presidential election subforum so I can ignore/exclude them without excluding all real liberty campaign threads?yes please

presence
07-25-2016, 11:07 AM
you two don't think the dozen policy positions in the op far outweigh Johnson's stance on nazi cake?

specsaregood
07-25-2016, 11:45 AM
you two don't think the dozen policy positions in the op far outweigh Johnson's stance on nazi cake?

It isn't about that to me. I don't trust the douche and think his whole cost/benefit talking point/plan just furthers us down the road to fascism. I find it disgusting from a liberty pov. I think if he was president, his limp wristed approach would have him signing off on whatever any warmonger or powerbroker told him was best.

69360
07-25-2016, 06:15 PM
I am. Made up my mind the day Rand quit. Nothing will change it.

He's not a crook, Clinton and Trump are. Anything else is irrelevant now.

phill4paul
07-25-2016, 06:18 PM
I am. Made up my mind the day Rand quit. Nothing will change it.

He's not a crook, Clinton and Trump are. Anything else is irrelevant now.

Can't argue with that logic. My dad told me today that he is just going to write in his name. I'm going to go with that. I know him. I know he's not crooked. He really is the man America needs. I support him.

Natural Citizen
07-25-2016, 06:21 PM
Gary Johnson admittedly and publicly rejected Individual Liberty's most fundamental principle. Gary Johnson, admittedly, would force an Individual or a group of Individuals to relinquish their property to another Individual or to another group of Individuals by way of the barrel of a government gun. Gary Johnson openly rejects Individual Liberty's most fundamental principle in the name of Liberty itself, no less. His admitted position is one that, because it rejects Individual Liberty's most fundamental principle, is patently a wilful aggression toward the concept of Individual Liberty fully.

Limited for Liberty used to mean something around here. It doesn't seem so today. I'm of the position that friends who knowingly promote Gary Johnson in the name of Liberty, given his rejection of its most fundamental principle, are a disgrace to Liberty's name and wilfully demonstrate an organized, aggressive, coercive, disservice to the concept of Individual Liberty itself.

I one starred the thread on principle alone. A candidate who admittedly and publicly rejects Individual Liberty's most fundamental principle; a wilful aggression toward the concept of Individual Liberty fully, has no business having his name whispered, much less mentioned, in the "2016 Liberty Campaign" section, of all places.

Natural Citizen
07-25-2016, 07:55 PM
CAn we...move his crap to the 2016 presidential election subforum so I can ignore/exclude them without excluding all real liberty campaign threads?

Seconded.

RJ Liberty
07-25-2016, 08:29 PM
Why Rand Paul Supporters Should Vote for Gary Johnson (https://www.libertarianquiz.com/rand-paul-vs-gary-johnson.html)

Yep. That says it, in part, for me. Although my preference for Gary isn't limited to those fourteen issues. There are about 40 more liberty positions that Gary embraces. And with his poll numbers growing every week, and the Rs and Ds at historic lows (27% and 29% in Utah, for fuck's sake), now's the opportunity to vote for a candidate who supports most liberty issues.

69360
07-25-2016, 09:36 PM
Gary Johnson admittedly and publicly rejected Individual Liberty's most fundamental principle. Gary Johnson, admittedly, would force an Individual or a group of Individuals to relinquish their property to another Individual or to another group of Individuals by way of the barrel of a government gun. Gary Johnson openly rejects Individual Liberty's most fundamental principle in the name of Liberty itself, no less. His admitted position is one that, because it rejects Individual Liberty's most fundamental principle, is patently a wilful aggression toward the concept of Individual Liberty fully.

Limited for Liberty used to mean something around here. It doesn't seem so today. I'm of the position that friends who knowingly promote Gary Johnson in the name of Liberty, given his rejection of its most fundamental principle, are a disgrace to Liberty's name and wilfully demonstrate an organized, aggressive, coercive, disservice to the concept of Individual Liberty itself.

I one starred the thread on principle alone. A candidate who admittedly and publicly rejects Individual Liberty's most fundamental principle; a wilful aggression toward the concept of Individual Liberty fully, has no business having his name whispered, much less mentioned, in the "2016 Liberty Campaign" section, of all places.


What a load of crap. If you can't vote for a decent honest good guy like Johnson with some ambiguous excuse like that, you will never find anyone to vote for.

Natural Citizen
07-25-2016, 09:41 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=6272478#post6272478)

Gary Johnson admittedly and publicly rejected Individual Liberty's most fundamental principle. Gary Johnson, admittedly, would force an Individual or a group of Individuals to relinquish their property to another Individual or to another group of Individuals by way of the barrel of a government gun. Gary Johnson openly rejects Individual Liberty's most fundamental principle in the name of Liberty itself, no less. His admitted position is one that, because it rejects Individual Liberty's most fundamental principle, is patently a wilful aggression toward the concept of Individual Liberty fully.

Limited for Liberty used to mean something around here. It doesn't seem so today. I'm of the position that friends who knowingly promote Gary Johnson in the name of Liberty, given his rejection of its most fundamental principle, are a disgrace to Liberty's name and wilfully demonstrate an organized, aggressive, coercive, disservice to the concept of Individual Liberty itself.

I one starred the thread on principle alone. A candidate who admittedly and publicly rejects Individual Liberty's most fundamental principle; a wilful aggression toward the concept of Individual Liberty fully, has no business having his name whispered, much less mentioned, in the "2016 Liberty Campaign" section, of all places.




What a load of crap...vote for a decent honest good guy like Johnson....

Again...Gary Johnson admittedly and publicly rejected Individual Liberty's most fundamental principle. Gary Johnson, admittedly, would force an Individual or a group of Individuals to relinquish their property to another Individual or to another group of Individuals by way of the barrel of a government gun. Gary Johnson openly rejects Individual Liberty's most fundamental principle in the name of Liberty itself, no less. His admitted position is one that, because it rejects Individual Liberty's most fundamental principle, is patently a wilful aggression toward the concept of Individual Liberty fully.

Please consider re-evaluating the summation with which you've concluded your assessment so that you may better understand the foundation for moral code that truly defines a decent, honest good guy. Seems like the foundation for moral code with which you've premised your assessment isn't the relative foundation for moral code that establishes the principles of Individual Liberty. Thank You, 69360.

LibertyEagle
07-25-2016, 09:50 PM
He doesn't believe in private property rights and he said he would sign the Trans Pacific Partnership.

Huge fail.

Smitty
07-25-2016, 10:00 PM
If Johnson was a strong, libertarian candidate with a good grasp of Austrian economics, he still wouldn't win. But he'd be able to go on the debate stage with Trump and Hillary and give reasoned arguments for the libertarian ideology.

But considering the crap he's been spewing, you better hope he doesn't get enough support to put himself on the stage with Trump.

Libertarians would never recover from it.

Johnson isn't the Libertarian candidate you want to see finally hit 15%.

He's not Harry Browne.

r3volution 3.0
07-25-2016, 10:05 PM
He doesn't believe in private property rights and he said he would sign the Trans Pacific Partnership.

Huge fail.

Hello Trump supporter.

Does His Orangeness believe in property rights as he advocates for bank bailouts and socialized medicine?

Did he believe in Vera Coking's property rights, when he tried to use eminent domain to steal her house?

Natural Citizen
07-25-2016, 10:08 PM
Hello Trump supporter.

Does His Orangeness believe in property rights as he advocates for bank bailouts and socialized medicine?

Did he believe in Vera Coking's property rights, when he tried to use eminent domain to steal her house?

Does he profess his position under the banner of Liberty?

69360
07-25-2016, 10:12 PM
Again...Gary Johnson admittedly and publicly rejected Individual Liberty's most fundamental principle. Gary Johnson, admittedly, would force an Individual or a group of Individuals to relinquish their property to another Individual or to another group of Individuals by way of the barrel of a government gun. Gary Johnson openly rejects Individual Liberty's most fundamental principle in the name of Liberty itself, no less. His admitted position is one that, because it rejects Individual Liberty's most fundamental principle, is patently a wilful aggression toward the concept of Individual Liberty fully.

Please consider re-evaluating the summation with which you've concluded your assessment so that you may better understand the foundation for moral code that truly defines a decent, honest good guy. Seems like the foundation for moral code with which you've premised your assessment isn't the relative foundation for moral code that establishes the principles of Individual Liberty. Thank You, 69360.

Another load of crap. This drivel could be used as an excuse for just about anything.

Natural Citizen
07-25-2016, 10:19 PM
He doesn't believe in private property rights...

It's not only that he doesn't believe in private property rights, but he openly and publicly professes that he'd force an Individual to relinquish his property to another Individual at the barrel of a government gun. True Liberty, as you know, means that an Individual or a group of Individuals should be free to make rules for themselves provided that those rules don't prohibit another Individual or another group of Individuals from equally doing the same. Gary Johson's admitted position is fundamentally contrary to Liberty itself as it is correctly defined. Consequently, Gary Johnson's admitted position is aggressive toward and contrary to the concept of Individual Liberty fully.

The fact that some friends here, on a platform which prides itself on its mission toward the cause of Liberty, promotes a presidential candidate whose admitted position is patently contrary and aggressive to the fundamental principle of Individual Liberty itself and, more disturbingly, in the name of Liberty in a "2016 Liberty Campaigns" sub-forum tells me that I could never again trust any of them to honestly speak to, lead, or make any logical judgement in any instance whereas the true and fundamental cause of Liberty is at stake.

I don't really care if people support Gary Johnson. All I expect is that people don't promote him in the name of Liberty. His admitted position is a patent rejection of its most fundamental principle. And, again, to reject Individual Liberty's most fundmental principle is to reject Individual fully. It is not possible to obtain or possess Individual Liberty without accepting its fundamental principles and moral foundation as a whole. They must be accepted as a whole and in full in order to enjoy its benefits as an Indivisibe whole. They cannot be accepted and rejected piece-meal. To recklessly accept and reject them in a piece-meal manner is to sacrifice their benefits in whole.

Occam's Banana
07-25-2016, 10:22 PM
It isn't about that to me. I don't trust the douche and think his whole cost/benefit talking point/plan just furthers us down the road to fascism. I find it disgusting from a liberty pov.

That is the core of my lack of support for Johnson.

The cake-baking thing just highlights the problem.

You can't promote or "mainstream" liberty unless you actually ... you know ... advocate for liberty.

(And cost efficiency is nice and all, but no one is going to man the walls for it when the arrows start to fill the sky ...)


I think if he was president, his limp wristed approach would have him signing off on whatever any warmonger or powerbroker told him was best.

And Weld as VP would do nothing to allay such doubts. Quite the opposite, in fact ...

Natural Citizen
07-25-2016, 10:22 PM
Another load of crap. This drivel could be used as an excuse for just about anything.

Why do you hate Freedom?

Origanalist
07-25-2016, 10:27 PM
If Johnson was a strong, libertarian candidate with a good grasp of Austrian economics, he still wouldn't win. But he'd be able to go on the debate stage with Trump and Hillary and give reasoned arguments for the libertarian ideology.

But considering the crap he's been spewing, you better hope he doesn't get enough support to put himself on the stage with Trump.

Libertarians would never recover from it.

Johnson isn't the Libertarian candidate you want to see finally hit 15%.

He's not Harry Browne.

Damn, I almost gave a plus rep to Smitty.

Occam's Banana
07-25-2016, 10:30 PM
What a load of crap. If you can't vote for a decent honest good guy like Johnson with some ambiguous excuse like that, you will never find anyone to vote for.

Oh noes!! "Please, Br'er Fox, don't fling me in dat brier-patch!"

Occam's Banana
07-25-2016, 10:45 PM
If Johnson was a strong, libertarian candidate with a good grasp of Austrian economics, he still wouldn't win. But he'd be able to go on the debate stage with Trump and Hillary and give reasoned arguments for the libertarian ideology.

But considering the crap he's been spewing, you better hope he doesn't get enough support to put himself on the stage with Trump.

Libertarians would never recover from it.

Johnson isn't the Libertarian candidate you want to see finally hit 15%.

He's not Harry Browne.

That hadn't even occurred to me.

Remember Johnson's performance in the 2012 GOP primary debates?

Yeah, me neither ...


Damn, I almost gave a plus rep to Smitty.

I actually did give him one.

Whatever you might think of pro-Trump folk, that was a cogent and excellent point.

Origanalist
07-25-2016, 10:53 PM
That hadn't even occurred to me.

Remember Johnson's performance in the 2012 GOP primary debates?

Yeah, me neither ...



I actually did give him one.

Whatever you might think of pro-Trump folk, that was a cogent and excellent point.

Yes, it was.

69360
07-26-2016, 10:55 AM
Why do you hate Freedom?

This is a good example of how you will never be effective. Somebody intends to vote for the libertarian party candidate and they hate freedom? :rolleyes:

LibertyEagle
07-26-2016, 11:26 AM
This is a good example of how you will never be effective. Somebody intends to vote for the libertarian party candidate and they hate freedom? :rolleyes:

A political party is not elected to office. A person is and Johnson sucks. Clear now?

euphemia
07-26-2016, 12:01 PM
you two don't think the dozen policy positions in the op far outweigh Johnson's stance on nazi cake?

No. He also favors death-on-demand.

Ender
07-26-2016, 12:02 PM
Why do people dislike Johnson? I'm not too familiar with him but do agree on the majority of his positions:

http://www.ontheissues.org/Gary_Johnson.htm

And real answers please- I'm looking to understand- not insults.

Ender
07-26-2016, 12:03 PM
No. He also favors death-on-demand.

Example?

dannno
07-26-2016, 12:05 PM
No. He also favors death-on-demand.

Isn't death on demand libertarian? (edit: nm, thought u meant euthanasia)

Ender
07-26-2016, 12:32 PM
Abortion's a bit touchy but I understand his POV- that said, I do not see anything here not to support:

http://heavy.com/news/2016/07/gary-johnson-on-the-issues-abortion-gay-marriage-marijuana-cannabis-foreign-policy




Johnson, a self-made millionaire who served two terms as governor of New Mexico as a Republican, has been polling in the high single digits and is poised to earn the highest vote share of a third party candidate since Ross Perot in 1996. His running mate is former Massachusetts governor William “Bill” Weld, who was named the party’s vice presidential candidate during its convention in May.

Like many Libertarians, Johnson projects himself as socially liberal, fiscally conservative and dovish on foreign policy.

Here’s a look at where he stands on the issues:

1. Johnson Supports Gay Marriage & Called It ‘a Question of Liberty & Freedom’

As a presidential candidate in 2011, Johnson released a press statement officially endorsing gay marriage, citing individual freedoms and “keeping government out of personal lives.” Johnson’s statement said he “long supported civil unions” and concluded “government has no business choosing who should be allowed the benefits of marriage and who should not.”

“For a very long time, society has viewed gay marriage as a moral and, yes, religious issues. Today, I believe we have arrived at a point in history where more and more American are viewing it as a question of liberty and freedom,” his statement said.

Johnson joined a number of conservative political operatives in filing court documents in opposition to California’s Proposition 8, a statewide referendum to ban gay marriage, The New York Times reported in 2013.

In a 2010 op-ed piece in the Huffington Post titled “Let’s Finally End ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,’” Johnson urged Congress to repeal the policy banning gays in the military. Johnson argued that the United States is one of the only significant military powers in the world clinging to such a and pointed to a national poll showing 77 percent of Americans in favor of DADT’s repeal.

“Likewise, as has been widely documented, more than twenty of our NATO allies…allow gay men and women to serve openly, and the sky has not fallen,” Johnson wrote.

2. Johnson Has Been Mostly Supportive of Abortion Rights
Gary Johnson abortion rights, Gary Johnson pro choice

During this campaign cycle, Johnson has continuously voiced support for abortion rights, even though he favored limiting those rights to the viability of the fetus as a presidential candidate in 2012. He opposes funding stem cell research.

Johnson told audience members during the Libertarian Party debate in April that he is pro-choice. In a June interview, Johnson told the Daily Caller he doesn’t “even want to enter into the argument.”

“I want to give women choice in dealing with that issues, period. Unbelievably difficult decision,” he told the site. I’m going to make it for a woman? Government’s going to make it for a woman? I don’t want to play a part in that role.”

Similarly, Johnson told Rolling Stone in 2011 that he supports a woman’s right to choose “up until viability of the fetus,” although public funding shouldn’t be used for abortions.

3. He Was Nicknamed ‘Governor No’ for His Propensity to Veto Spending Bills as Governor of New Mexico

As New Mexico’s Republican governor from 1995 to 2003, Johnson earned a “B” rating from the free-market, conservative think tank, The Cato Institute, for proposals to reduce income taxes on top-earners and never increasing the cigarette tax – a move other governors, both Republican and Democrat, tackled.

Earning the nickname “Governor No” for his record-setting number of vetoes against increased government spending, Johnson instead looked for private companies to build things like highways.

Johnson line-item vetoed $5 million to expand Medicare and Medicaid in a statewide budget — a move he said he would repeat at the national level.

“I would have the federal government cut Medicare and Medicaid by 43 percent and block grant the programs [to the states] with no strings,” Johnson said in a 2011 interview with Scott Holleran. “Instead of giving the states one dollar – and it’s not really giving because there are strings attached – the federal government needs to give the states 57 cents, take away the strings and give the states carte blanche for how to give health care to the poor.”


4. Johnson Supports the Legalization of Marijuana & Was CEO of a Medical Marijuana Company

A former CEO of a medical marijuana company, Gary Johnson said he would legalize marijuana if elected president. (Getty)

Not only does Johnson support legalizing marijuana, but he also worked for the medicinal marijuana industry – a job he stepped away from when he launched his latest presidential campaign.

Named CEO of Cannabis Sativa, Johnson wrote up the business’s mission statement: The company “believes cannabis is destined to become the next gold rush and we’re prepared to shape its future in a legal environment.”

Citing a poll which shows 56 percent of Americans believe marijuana should be legalized, Johnson told the Telegraph he is “the only one still to this day – at the level of a state governor or U.S. Congressman – who advocates marijuana legalization.

“Not one elected official at this level has agreed with the American people. Not one. Legislation is going to happen anyway and I can’t think of a bigger public policy disconnect than the one we are talking about right now,” he told the paper.

Johnson also predicts President Obama will deschedule marijuana as a Class I narcotic, removing weed from the top tier of controlled substances.

“I think every municipality has to realize that all the planes to Denver every single weekend are filled up, and they’re missing out, and Colorado is absolutely vibrant,” he told the Washington Times. “Is it due to marijuana? I think it’s a contributing factor.”

Johnson, however, told USA Today he stopped consuming pot to focus on his campaign.

“I want to be completely on top of my game, all cylinders,” he told the newspaper.
CNN Libertarian Town Hall Live Stream: How to Watch Online

5. He’s a Regular Critic of American Military Intervention

Johnson has taken the opportunity to condemn President George W. Bush’s ongoing “War on Terrorism” and President Obama’s escalation of drone strikes, declaring both options as unjustifiable means of war, even though during a 2011 interview on Fox News he said, “initially, Afghanistan was totally warranted.”

“When it comes to drones,” Johnson said in a November 2015 interview with Reason, “I think it makes a bad situation even worse. We end up killing innocents and fueling hatred as opposed to containing it. It just hasn’t worked.”

Since at least 2011, when he stepped on the national stage, Johnson has opposed American involvement in Iraq, Libya and Syria. Johnson has instead cited government spending, rather than terrorism, as “the biggest threat” to the country.

dannno
07-26-2016, 01:03 PM
Abortion's a bit touchy but I understand his POV- that said, I do not see anything here not to support:

http://heavy.com/news/2016/07/gary-johnson-on-the-issues-abortion-gay-marriage-marijuana-cannabis-foreign-policy

Oh, abortion.. I thought she meant euthanasia.

dannno
07-26-2016, 01:03 PM
Remember Johnson's performance in the 2012 GOP primary debates?

Yeah, me neither ...

I just remember thinking, "what the hell is he doing running against Ron Paul??"

CaptUSA
07-26-2016, 01:09 PM
I just remember thinking, "what the hell is he doing running against Ron Paul??"

I always thought he was trying to be Ron Paul's wingman in the debates. Remember him saying Ron Paul would be his first choice for VP?

Think it was also about raising his profile to run in the LP.

silverhandorder
07-26-2016, 01:45 PM
I like Gary as a person and have no problem with him. He is simply not better then Trump in strategy and overall policy. Plus also the fact that 3rd party should not be voted for in this election.

As far is his policies being sell out in parts and him not being fully liberty for me that doesn not matter because he did not have my vote in the first place. Why spend time thinking about it?

There were also some red flags about him but as I said I am not following him.

CaptUSA
07-26-2016, 01:56 PM
I like Gary as a person and have no problem with him. He is simply not better then Trump in strategy and overall policy. Plus also the fact that 3rd party should not be voted for in this election.

As far is his policies being sell out in parts and him not being fully liberty for me that doesn not matter because he did not have my vote in the first place. Why spend time thinking about it?

There were also some red flags about him but as I said I am not following him.

Lol... I can understand not voting for Johnson. There are many reasons why he isn't ideal. And there are some concerns as well.

But what I can't possibly understand is how someone could choose Trump over Johnson! That makes absolutely ZERO sense. Where Johnson is bad, Trump is worse. On every policy. Whatever mindspell has been cast over someone to get this to make logical sense in their heads must not work on me.

puppetmaster
07-26-2016, 01:58 PM
He doesn't believe in private property rights and he said he would sign the Trans Pacific Partnership.

Huge fail. i trust Gary as much as I trust donald. Not much. I am not voting for gary.

silverhandorder
07-26-2016, 02:03 PM
Lol... I can understand not voting for Johnson. There are many reasons why he isn't ideal. And there are some concerns as well.

But what I can't possibly understand is how someone could choose Trump over Johnson! That makes absolutely ZERO sense. Where Johnson is bad, Trump is worse. On every policy. Whatever mindspell has been cast over someone to get this to make logical sense in their heads must not work on me.
Well we have to start with the fact that of the two Trump stands infinity better chance of being elected.

LatinsforPaul
07-26-2016, 02:35 PM
Well we have to start with the fact that of the two Trump stands infinity better chance of being elected.

So you're giving up on your values so that you can feel better in voting for a winner. And when Trump loses, how will you defend your vote then?

jkob
07-26-2016, 02:54 PM
he's for open borders

no can do

puppetmaster
07-26-2016, 02:54 PM
So you're giving up on your values so that you can feel better in voting for a winner. And when Trump loses, how will you defend your vote then? it is most likely a no vote on hillary. I will vote to stop her as well. If Johnson is sitting get where Trump is i would vote Johnson. Still don't like them but like them 10000 times better than hillary

LatinsforPaul
07-26-2016, 03:11 PM
it is most likely a no vote on hillary. I will vote to stop her as well. If Johnson is sitting get where Trump is i would vote Johnson. Still don't like them but like them 10000 times better than hillary

I have no issue with those who want to stop Hillary and therefore will vote for Trump. But to push Trump on this site as if here were a conservative, libertarian, liberty minded, constitutional, paleocon, or even a moderate candidate is simply not true. Trump is a liberal who is just slightly to the right of Hillary. Though I understand where you are coming from by stopping Hillary, I cannot pull the lever for Trump because I strongly feel he would be more of an authoritarian President than Hillary. I am very very afraid of Fuhrer Trump. I will be voting for Gary Johnson even though he does not posses the ideal libertarian beliefs I would like to see in a candidate. He is the Libertarian Party nominee and I would like to see the Libertarian Party grow in numbers this election.

silverhandorder
07-26-2016, 03:17 PM
So you're giving up on your values so that you can feel better in voting for a winner. And when Trump loses, how will you defend your vote then?
One I was not going to vote. I did not in 2012.

Two I am not giving up any principles I hold. I vote for those that I think are good people. They do not have to agree with me.

Before I even consider voting for someone they have to have a chance of winning. Elections are not always won I know that and will not feel bad if we lose.

CaptUSA
07-26-2016, 03:25 PM
They do not have to agree with me.

Before I even consider voting for someone they have to have a chance of winning. Elections are not always won I know that and will not feel bad if we lose.

^This. This is the problem with the American voter.

This thinking is what allows the media to select our politicians. This is the thinking that allows connected politicians to use the media for their benefit. This is what keeps the two-party (see, one party) system in place.
This is the reality we are facing, folks. They've already won.

LatinsforPaul
07-26-2016, 03:26 PM
Before I even consider voting for someone they have to have a chance of winning.

After reading this, I have to ask. Have you ever voted for Ron Paul in a primary? Because as you know the media always told you that he had no chance of winning.

69360
07-26-2016, 03:54 PM
A political party is not elected to office. A person is and Johnson sucks. Clear now?

You support Trump, on here, and think Johnson sucks? Your opinion is invalid.


Why do people dislike Johnson? I'm not too familiar with him but do agree on the majority of his positions:

http://www.ontheissues.org/Gary_Johnson.htm

And real answers please- I'm looking to understand- not insults.

They just like to argue for the sake of argument. There is a large contingent that seemingly wants the LP and liberterians to remain a circle jerk debate society and not become a viable party.

adam220891
07-26-2016, 03:59 PM
GJ has publicly trashed Ron/Rand as recently as last week.

No thanks.

Should have been McAfee.

bunklocoempire
07-26-2016, 04:03 PM
This is a sale I can't make to the Rand converts - I've sold folks on Rand, or rather, Rand has sold himself to those folks -I just had to point them to Rand and maybe answer some questions. I could not do "full disclosure" with GJ and expect to make the sale, I'd have to be dishonest.

Please don't force me to make the sales pitch. :toady:

Ender
07-26-2016, 04:18 PM
GJ has publicly trashed Ron/Rand as recently as last week.

No thanks.

Should have been McAfee.

Link?

euphemia
07-26-2016, 04:38 PM
If Gary is going to say he's pro-choice, then he has to admit the choice he is for is death by abortion. The baby, then, has no right to life at all. Again, he does not think about the most essential rights. He is looking at government as a grantor of rights, not the protector of rights.

Viability is a very subjective line in the hospital. With all the medical support available these days, many, many babies are being born very early and are living full and healthy lives. Johnson is not a doctor, so it is not up to him to determine whether a child is viable or not, and he is then asking for more government to intrude on that process.

And who pays? If Johnson is truly pro-choice and believes it is the mother's choice, then he also has to say it is the mother's responsibility to pay for whatever she decides to do. It should never fall on a taxpayer, so it should never happen in a county-, state-, or federally funded facility. She can deliver the baby in a public or private facility and put it up for adoption (perhaps at the adoptive parents' expense) or she can abort the baby and pay for it herself. In a private facility. What she cannot do is go into a Planned Parenthood, or any kind of publicly funded facility and ask for termination.

Pregnancy is not a disease. It is a choice that is made when sexual activity takes place. If there is a choice to be made, it should be made on the preventative side, not the termination side.

undergroundrr
07-26-2016, 04:40 PM
He's not going to appeal to hard-line pro-lifers. I don't like this aspect of him myself. But he may still seem like the better choice this election because he believes it should devolve to the states.

Most notably, the pro choice stance will allow him to steel votes from Hillary.

euphemia
07-26-2016, 04:49 PM
Most notably, the pro choice stance will allow him to steel votes from Hillary.

No, it won't. Hillary has been bought and paid for by NARAL and Planned Parenthood. Mostly Planned Parenthood, the federally-funded nonprofit.

http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?ind=q15

undergroundrr
07-26-2016, 05:38 PM
No, it won't. Hillary has been bought an paid for by NARAL and Planned Parenthood. Mostly Planned Parenthood, the federally-funded nonprofit.

http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?ind=q15

Everybody knows that. Nobody trusts her. Nobody.

euphemia
07-26-2016, 06:02 PM
Johnson won't steal votes from Hillary. People who support Hillary have never heard of Gary Johnson.

undergroundrr
07-26-2016, 09:05 PM
Johnson won't steal votes from Hillary. People who support Hillary have never heard of Gary Johnson.

You may wish it weren't so, but polls have already demonstrated that Johnson can take as many or more votes from Hillary as/than he does from trump.

This forum has shown evidence that the very people who are drawn to trump are repulsed by Johnson and vice versa. That's not to say that if you don't like trump you'll like Johnson.

Johnson doesn't cater (get it? cater? as in cakes?) to paleos, socons and alt-rights. He will snatch up moderate liberal and moderate conservative (and many moderate conservatives are considering Hillary) votes to the extent that he gets media exposure.

Johnson knows, because he's been in this game a long time that the people who will most forcefully cut down a libertarian in his tracks are other libertarians. How? By asking stupid litmus test questions in debates designed to make them look like insensitive selfish Ayn Rand caricatures. Johnson has done brilliantly at navigating that minefield without tarnishing his image except among a few cranky and insignificant right-wing idealogues. Now he's onward to the general with a shrewdly chosen VP who's a savvy fundraiser of considerable reputation and name recognition.

euphemia
07-26-2016, 09:29 PM
I don't think it is wrong to expect a candidate for POTUS to be a principled man.

Ender
07-26-2016, 09:35 PM
I don't think it is wrong to expect a candidate for POTUS to be a principled man.

Let me know when you find one running this election.

undergroundrr
07-26-2016, 10:26 PM
I don't think it is wrong to expect a candidate for POTUS to be a principled man.

As RP has pointed out, there are principled liberals (maybe Naomi Wolf or Glenn Greenwald at times), there are principled conservatives, there are principled and honest people of every political stripe. I haven't seen anything to indicate that Johnson is in the habit of going against his own principles or misrepresenting himself as something he's not. That's not to say he hasn't on occasion, but he doesn't have the profile of the unprincipled fake. You don't agree with his brand of libertarianism and that's understandable. He has a few principles I don't agree with, but that's about all I can condemn him for. He's also taken on something pretty thankless and has had to withstand a lot of vitriol to do it. He doesn't have a great chance of winning and has had the courage to fight his way to a candidacy that isn't likely to earn him anything tangible except another chalked up election loss.

Contrast this with trump and Hillary - there is nothing principled or genuine about what they're selling to the American people. They're just going for the gold.