PDA

View Full Version : Gary Johnson: "LET'S STOP THESE WARS!"




undergroundrr
07-30-2016, 11:27 AM
"and let's stop these wars. How long are we going to be at war with Afghanistan?"

Zoom to 6:55 if you want to hear this message passionately delivered.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F7TrKpboDg8

LibertyEagle
07-30-2016, 11:41 AM
Unless a good little "humanitarian" war comes along, that is.

http://dailycaller.com/2012/04/09/thedcs-jamie-weinstein-gary-johnsons-strange-foreign-policy/

69360
07-30-2016, 03:24 PM
Unless a good little "humanitarian" war comes along, that is.

http://dailycaller.com/2012/04/09/thedcs-jamie-weinstein-gary-johnsons-strange-foreign-policy/

Do you just wait for every thread about Johnson to post your snark?

You support Trump who basically would set fire to the middle east.

Johnson is magnitudes better.

LibertyEagle
07-30-2016, 05:50 PM
Do you just wait for every thread about Johnson to post your snark?
It's not snark, it's fact. Johnson isn't anti-war and to pretend that he is is laughable.


You support Trump who basically would set fire to the middle east.
He's probably on par with Johnson. Except he doesn't appear to believe in Johnson's humanitarian wars.


Johnson is magnitudes better.
It's curious that whenever someone points out something about Johnson, you appear to try to justify it with... well, he's better than Trump. No offense, but even if that was true, how would that change the fact that Johnson believes in "humanitarian" wars?

Jordan Liberty
07-30-2016, 07:49 PM
My support for Gary is definitely waning (probably going Castle or Dr. Paul write-in), but I really don't like the condescending tone of Larry Fillmore. It's really despicable.

EDIT: What's good to note, however, is Gary finally going with the non-aggression principle. Often he'd start with the whole "fiscally conservative, socially liberal" schtick. I think the non-aggression principle is a better tagline and message to summarize libertarianism.

undergroundrr
07-30-2016, 09:06 PM
He's probably on par with Johnson. Except he doesn't appear to believe in Johnson's humanitarian wars.

It's curious that whenever someone points out something about Johnson, you appear to try to justify it with... well, he's better than Trump. No offense, but even if that was true, how would that change the fact that Johnson believes in "humanitarian" wars?

Regardless of what he believes is a worthwhile intervention, Gary Johnson also believes, like Ron Paul, that Congress should be involved with the decision to go to war. Where's trump on that?


We get Congress involved. You realize that all these military interventions are, um, executive, executive orders essentially, and the military. Congress has left themselves out of declaring war. It would be great to have a national discussion on what is it we’re doing. What are the strategies we are implementing? I just think that at the end of the day, regarding all of these military interventions, that boots on the ground, dropping bombs, uh, and flying drones that kill thousands of innocent people. That at the end of the day, making the situation worse, not better. And that is not to discount the very real threat that’s out there. But look, get rid of the funding, involve Congress, um, and with regard to national strategy, an impenetrable national defense. Defense, not offense.

http://2016.presidential-candidates.org/Johnson/?on=terrorism

It's blank-out self-denial to say that this is "on par" with "I would bomb the shit out of 'em." You, trump and Molyneux want to bomb the shit out of 'em. We get that.

But for those who still support the non-interventionist ideals of Ron Paul, Gary Johnson is the most prominent anti-war candidate.

euphemia
07-30-2016, 09:09 PM
Keep saying that word "prominent." That will make him more electable. :rolleyes:

Not with a ten foot pole.

Why does defense-only military not communicate the meaning?

euphemia
07-30-2016, 09:13 PM
Here we go with the insults and slurs again.

undergroundrr
07-30-2016, 09:14 PM
Why does defense-only military not communicate the meaning?

I don't know what you mean.

euphemia
07-30-2016, 09:59 PM
Consistently Darrell Castle's position.

LibertyEagle
07-30-2016, 10:11 PM
//

CaptUSA
07-30-2016, 10:22 PM
Take a deep breath. I'm sure you are frustrated with Gary. But, blowing your stack at me isn't going to change anything.

Seriously, LE. We all share in the frustration that is Gary Johnson, but it is completely disingenuous to hear you - an avid Trump supporter - to criticize Johnson in the same areas where Trump is 10X worse!

I don't like Gary's position on TPP, but Trump is a friggin' protectionist!
I don't like Gary's bifurcation on foreign involvement, but Trump is 1000X worse!
I don't like Gary's choice of VP, but Trump picked friggin' Mike Pence!

In other words, it's one thing for us to criticize Johnson for being a shitty libertarian, but for a Trump supporter to do it?

Who the F do you think you're fooling?! You couldn't care less about Johnson's libertarian cred - you just want to keep the party between two authoritarian tyrants.

RJ Liberty
07-30-2016, 10:27 PM
[QUOTE;Gary Johnson] "and let's stop these wars. How long are we going to be at war with Afghanistan?"[QUOTE]

Zoom to 6:55 if you want to hear this message passionately delivered.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F7TrKpboDg8

Awesome! Great video.

LibertyEagle
07-30-2016, 10:35 PM
Seriously, LE. We all share in the frustration that is Gary Johnson,
No, I don't think we all do.


but it is completely disingenuous to hear you - an avid Trump supporter - to criticize Johnson in the same areas where Trump is 10X worse!

I don't like Gary's position on TPP, but Trump is a friggin' protectionist!
I don't like Gary's bifurcation on foreign involvement, but Trump is 1000X worse!
I don't like Gary's choice of VP, but Trump picked friggin' Mike Pence!

In other words, it's one thing for us to criticize Johnson for being a $#@!ty libertarian, but for a Trump supporter to do it?

Who the F do you think you're fooling?! You couldn't care less about Johnson's libertarian cred - you just want to keep the party between two authoritarian tyrants.

You forget that I supported both Ron and Rand. Johnson is a poor substitute. The main issue I have with Johnson is the way he is being treated here; still categorizing him as a liberty candidate when he has not been ruled as such; nor should he be. No one has called Trump a liberty candidate and I'm sure it doesn't surprise you to hear that I think he is leaps and bounds better than Johnson. Or, I wouldn't be voting for him. But, this thread is about Johnson. So, once again throwing out... well, Trump, in defense of Johnson's piss poor positions is what is disingenuous.

undergroundrr
07-30-2016, 10:46 PM
Consistently Darrell Castle's position.

Castle is awesome. You should appreciate the quote from Johnson above as well - "and with regard to national strategy, an impenetrable national defense. Defense, not offense."

undergroundrr
07-30-2016, 10:55 PM
No, I don't think we all do.

For what it's worth, I wish Johnson was A LOT better.

Natural Citizen
07-30-2016, 11:03 PM
Well. I sure won't disagree that we have to stop these wars. So the man gets credit where it's due for speaking up as such on it. We do need more of that kind of discussion out in the wild.

H. E. Panqui
07-31-2016, 07:17 AM
....hopefully someday someone who understands and values honest [individual] freedom can get a microphone and tell the republicrats 'what it is'...

...that they have a 'right' to form a VOLUNTARY organization, foreign legion, etc., and go out and 'save the world' if they so choose..

...however, the goddamned fool republicrats do not have a 'right' to force others to participate in their murderous, ruinous warmongering, meddling, etc....(btw, as if the same gd republicrat fools/puppets who are largely despised for their stinking ideas here at home can/will 'fix things' abroad...how arrogant and clueless are these republicrats?!?)

...so, to sum it up, yes, in a truly 'free society,' you republicrats can form/join/etc. a VOLUNTARY foreign legion, etc. and give YOUR life, YOUR money, etc. to any peckerheaded secret squirrel planetary mission you've been brainwashed into supporting!!...just keep your murderous, ignorant republicrat meathooks out of the treasury!!

...but i don't hear that from johnson or castle..(CERTAINLY NOT TRUMP OR CLINTON)

...i hear johnson and the rest of them talking about 'legalizing' :rolleyes: marijuana...as if in a supposedly sane, just society you need the ''legalizing ok'' :rolleyes: from these goddamned fool village idiot republicrat puppets to exercise your obvious natural rights and responsibilities regarding plant cultivation, ingestion, etc..

...but the biggest one, BY FAR imo, is the absolute ignorance/brainwashing as to 'our' fraudulent monetary order....it seems the pathetic republicrat fools think that by supporting some [stinking] vague 'audit of the fed' that they've addressed the issue...:rolleyes:...in REALITY these republicrats are frequently working their cake-holes about 'the illion dollar economy' absent an honest understanding of the HIDEOUS origin and nature of even one 'dollar' :eek:...word...

...ooga booga, republicrats, unga bunga..(you tube 'bugs bunny unga bunga' for an accurate characterization of typical conversations with republicrats) ;)

Anti Federalist
07-31-2016, 12:54 PM
How long are we going to be at war with Afghanistan?

Just as long as Idiot America sits idly by and allows the government intelligence arms to use the "war on terror" as cover for protecting and enhancing the heroin trade, domestic use of which is skyrocketing.

And not a minute longer.

Anti Federalist
07-31-2016, 12:57 PM
Oh, and Johnson/Weld are awful.

And here I thought the LP could not possibly shoot itself in the face again, after the Barr fiasco.

I'm writing in Ron Paul, again.

timosman
07-31-2016, 01:00 PM
This interview is so full of missed opportunities it is painful to watch.

undergroundrr
07-31-2016, 01:20 PM
This interview is so full of missed opportunities it is painful to watch.

What else would you have suggested Gary Johnson say to a liberal audience with a liberal talk show host to get them to seriously consider voting for him instead of Hillary?

euphemia
07-31-2016, 02:36 PM
I'm writing in Ron Paul, again.

Please write in Darrell Castle. Ron Paul endorsed that ticket in 2008 when Castle was running for VP.

timosman
07-31-2016, 03:44 PM
What else would you have suggested Gary Johnson say to a liberal audience with a liberal talk show host to get them to seriously consider voting for him instead of Hillary?

He did not respond to any attacks by Larry Wilmore. Larry was trying really hard to portray libertarians as out of whack from the get go.

LW: When did you last smoke weed?
GJ: When? I just had one before the show, it brings clarity of the mind. You should try one sometime, maybe you will not be spewing nonsense on national TV.

After the clip from the convention where the "controversial" behavior was shown, he should have said something along the lines:
I think it definitely works better than the usual circus we see from your bipartisan clowns - both Democrats and Republican politicians. If there is anything we should improve is we should probably work on bringing more attractive people to the front.

undergroundrr
07-31-2016, 04:08 PM
Those are pretty good. Thanks.

But I think he laid out the main points well. He gave common sense answers in an amenable way and probably came across as somebody the crowd could get along with. They might have been expecting more of a get-off-my-lawn libertarian message.

But I'm most interested in that ending. War is as close as I get to a "single issue."

timosman
07-31-2016, 11:32 PM
Those are pretty good. Thanks.

But I think he laid out the main points well. He gave common sense answers in an amenable way and probably came across as somebody the crowd could get along with. They might have been expecting more of a get-off-my-lawn libertarian message.

But I'm most interested in that ending. War is as close as I get to a "single issue."

He has the Rand Paul problem. He does not realize when they are fucking with him. That's why Trump is in the lead.

Champuckett
08-01-2016, 07:06 AM
Water is wet, grass is green, and Johnson is a fake libertarian.

Still, I'm hoping that he does get in the debates and gives cause and legitimacy to an alternate voice, third parties in general, and the cause of liberty even as diluted as he makes it.

At best, he is the lesser of three evils, instead of two, which I suppose is a slight upgrade.

euphemia
08-01-2016, 08:02 AM
What else would you have suggested Gary Johnson say to a liberal audience with a liberal talk show host to get them to seriously consider voting for him instead of Hillary?

The truth?

undergroundrr
08-01-2016, 11:52 AM
The truth?

Note that timosman gave a substantial reply.

What did he lie about in the interview?

euphemia
08-01-2016, 12:06 PM
How about he tells the truth about where his views come from? If Ron Paul was doing that interview, he would have said, "Constitution" at least five times. His comment about war was two sentences. That's not passionately delivered. It certainly was not the first thing on his list of things to talk about.

Here is a positive comment about Gary: He clearly does not use Botox. A politician who can use his eyebrows can at least have facial expression.

undergroundrr
08-01-2016, 12:17 PM
How about he tells the truth about where his views come from? If Ron Paul was doing that interview, he would have said, "Constitution" at least five times. His comment about war was two sentences. That's not passionately delivered. It certainly was not the first thing on his list of things to talk about.


Well, the constitution isn't the only reason not to have war, but since you mentioned it:


Our military should remain the most potent force for good on Earth. To do this, we should resort to military action as the last option and only as provided in the Constitution.

Bring the Troops Home
AMERICAN MILITARY ACTIVITIES IN IRAQ, AFGHANISTAN, AND, now, Libya should end, our troops returned home, and the focus of our foreign policy reoriented toward the protection of U.S. citizens and interests.

* With Osama bin Laden now killed and after 10 years of fighting, U.S. forces should leave Afghanistan's challenges to the Afghan people.
* Saddam Hussein has been out of power in Iraq for nearly eight years. America must leave so Iraq can have a chance to grow into a responsible member of the world community.
* Without a clear goal for our military actions in Libya, fighting rages on, and the American people are footing the bill.
* Decades after the collapse of the Soviet Union, American troops remain scattered throughout Europe. It is time to reevaluate these deployments.
* The U.S. must make better use of military alliances which allow greater sharing of the human and financial burdens at less cost of protecting national interests.

http://garyjohnsongrassrootsblog.blogspot.com/2011/06/issue-of-day-foreign-policy.html

I like that message. Do you like that message?

euphemia
08-01-2016, 12:30 PM
That's not what he said in the interview, though. That was kind of the point of this thread.

MattRay
08-01-2016, 01:48 PM
What's good to note, however, is Gary finally going with the non-aggression principle. Often he'd start with the whole "fiscally conservative, socially liberal" schtick. I think the non-aggression principle is a better tagline and message to summarize libertarianism.

My thoughts exactly. I was happy to see Gary drop the "socially liberal" description a while ago, but I'm very happy to see him actually mention and promote the NAP. If he keeps this up, then I won't have to hold my nose when I vote for Gary, unless Bill Weld keeps talking! But it's worth noting that Ron Paul gave this exact advice to Gary when he appeared on Kennedy back in June, specifically about the NAP and dropping the "liberal" description. Hopefully he keeps it up. It would definitely be a positive if he keeps mentioning the NAP in a year when the LP is getting more attention than ever.