PDA

View Full Version : Maybe Gary Johnson is more libertarian than he sounds.




Madison320
09-01-2016, 09:22 AM
I think most everyone here agrees that Gary Johnson is far from a pure libertarian. But it bothers me when people trash Johnson and then support Trump as if Trump is more libertarian than Johnson. I'm quite sure that Johnson is more libertarian than Trump and it's not even close.

I think there's a crucial difference between the things Gary Johnson is saying and the things Trump or just about any Republican is saying. I think Johnson, in an attempt to get votes, is trying to sound LESS libertarian than he is in reality, compared to typical republicans who try to sound MORE libertarian than they really are.

So my point is that on the "Election Speech Libertarian Scale" Gary Johnson might be a 6 and Trump might be a 4, but in REALITY it's more like Johnson is an 8 and Trump is a 2.

TheTexan
09-01-2016, 09:29 AM
But is Gary Johnson gonna build a 30-foot wall around our border and drastically increase the size of our deportation police force ??

Because, as a libertarian, that's what I'm primarily looking for

specsaregood
09-01-2016, 09:37 AM
Maybe Gary Johnson is more libertarian than he sounds.
Despite all evidence to the contrary. Hell, he even has an excuse for acting/sounding libertarian -- he's on the damn LP ticket!



But it bothers me when people trash Johnson and then support Trump as if Trump is more libertarian than Johnson

Well, I think it just as likely that Trump is more libertarian than Johnson as I can't really see Trump giving a shit what people do as long as it doesn't affect him directly, negatively. Whereas Johnson seems to want to be all up in your bedroom, even if it is in order to force your loved one to take gender changing hormones and bang the immigrant lawnmowerman.

Note: not that I would support either of those douchenozzles.

Natural Citizen
09-01-2016, 09:40 AM
There's no such thing as in between. One is either a defender of Individual Liberty fully or one is an aggressor toward it. And if one is running under the banner of Liberty, then they need to adhere to its fundamental supporting principles.

Also. Fundamentals are not purist. They're merely fundamentals.

This popularized notion that liberty itself can be defined/established by one's policy positions is batsht crazy. Fundamental principles establish/define Liberty. Not policy. But it's become popular to fall back on policy as the benchmark and to measure liberty that way instead of the right way. I think it's just an easy out and a means to ignore the fundamentals themselves while creating the illusion that one is a champion of Individual Liberty among his peers.

And what's really messed up is that these are the people who have the stones to turn around and call fundamentalists who hold actual principles as the measurement contrarians. What an upside down mess...

JohnM
09-01-2016, 10:08 AM
I agree with the OP. As undergroundrr has pointed out on several occasions, Johnson is not not aiming his campaign at libertarians, but at moderates - particularly socially liberal moderates.

So whenever I have listened to Johnson, he doesn't sound at all libertarian. But when I check out his positions on "I side with", he actually does pretty well.

And yes, he is much better than Trump, IMHO.

But I'm still not going to vote for him.

euphemia
09-01-2016, 10:09 AM
This popularized notion that liberty itself can be defined/established by one's policy positions is batsht crazy. Fundamental principles establish/define Liberty. Not policy. But it's become popular to fall back on policy as the benchmark and to measure liberty that way instead of the right way. I think it's just an easy out and a means to ignore the fundamentals themselves while creating the illusion that one is a champion of Individual Liberty among their peers.

This is it. It's not liberty just because some politician says it. It only liberty when it is liberty.

Michael Landon
09-01-2016, 10:54 AM
I would like to point out that at the 1987 Libertarian Party nominating convention, there was a large segment of Libertarian delegates who felt Ron Paul wasn't libertarian enough and was too much of a Republican to be their nominee. They threw their support to Russell Means. Libertarians are a different group of individuals, some support open borders and some don't, some support abortion as an individual right and some oppose abortion to protect an unborn individual, and both sides use the argument of liberty to support their views.

This is why I'm a libertarian leaning Constitutionalist.

- ML

Madison320
09-01-2016, 12:51 PM
There's no such thing as in between. One is either a defender of Individual Liberty fully or one is an aggressor toward it. And if one is running under the banner of Liberty, then they need to adhere to its fundamental supporting principles.

Also. Fundamentals are not purist. They're merely fundamentals.

This popularized notion that liberty itself can be defined/established by one's policy positions is batsht crazy. Fundamental principles establish/define Liberty. Not policy. But it's become popular to fall back on policy as the benchmark and to measure liberty that way instead of the right way. I think it's just an easy out and a means to ignore the fundamentals themselves while creating the illusion that one is a champion of Individual Liberty among his peers.

And what's really messed up is that these are the people who have the stones to turn around and call fundamentalists who hold actual principles as the measurement contrarians. What an upside down mess...

I totally disagree. There's no such thing as a "pure" libertarian. There too many gray areas. Should abortion be legal? Should intellectual property be protected? Should we have a military? Should we have a government?

That being said most of the issues are what I'd consider to be "no-brainers" and Gary Johnson did screw up at least one of those (discrimination laws). But overall I'm still voting for him.

jmdrake
09-01-2016, 01:00 PM
I think most everyone here agrees that Gary Johnson is far from a pure libertarian. But it bothers me when people trash Johnson and then support Trump as if Trump is more libertarian than Johnson. I'm quite sure that Johnson is more libertarian than Trump and it's not even close.

I think there's a crucial difference between the things Gary Johnson is saying and the things Trump or just about any Republican is saying. I think Johnson, in an attempt to get votes, is trying to sound LESS libertarian than he is in reality, compared to typical republicans who try to sound MORE libertarian than they really are.

So my point is that on the "Election Speech Libertarian Scale" Gary Johnson might be a 6 and Trump might be a 4, but in REALITY it's more like Johnson is an 8 and Trump is a 2.

I have no respect for anyone who would trash Gary Johnson and support Donald Trump.

I have a lot of respect for anyone who would trash Gary Johnson and trash Donald Trump and support Daryl Castle.

There are more then two three choices you know.

Madison320
09-01-2016, 01:04 PM
I think there's another good reason to vote for Johnson. He's not going to get elected but if he gets a lot of votes it makes the Libertarian Party more relevant in the future.

I'm actually rooting for Clinton to win. I believe by far our biggest problem is our cheap money policies of debt, low rates and printing. I expect we are going to have an economic crisis in the near future much worse than the last one in 2008. I think if it happens on a democrat's watch, it gets blamed on socialism. If it happens on a republican's watch it gets blamed on capitalism (not that they practice it!). My hope is that the combination of the US being broke and the crash being blamed on socialism will get us turned in the right direction. Of course my idea could backfire and the crash could pave the way for Clinton to take over the country in 3rd world style.

specsaregood
09-01-2016, 01:11 PM
I think there's another good reason to vote for Johnson. He's not going to get elected but if he gets a lot of votes it makes the Libertarian Party more relevant in the future.


Why on earth would you want an LP such as the one that GJ represents be relevant? We don't need another big government liberal party.

Madison320
09-01-2016, 01:21 PM
I have no respect for anyone who would trash Gary Johnson and support Donald Trump.

I have a lot of respect for anyone who would trash Gary Johnson and trash Donald Trump and support Daryl Castle.

There are more then two three choices you know.

I don't know anything about Daryl Castle but I think I remember the Constitution Party making all sorts of silly excuses as to why alcohol should be legal but other drugs illegal and why prohibiting alcohol requires an amendment but prohibiting other drugs does not. And trying to sound very legal and educated about the whole thing despite being dead wrong.

Another problem with the Constitution Party is what if it changes? What if the Constitution gets amended to support socialism? Will the Constitution Party still be required to support a socialist Constitution? I'd rather support a principle (liberty), not a document.

Madison320
09-01-2016, 01:26 PM
Why on earth would you want an LP such as the one that GJ represents be relevant? We don't need another big government liberal party.

First I think you're being silly calling GJ a big government liberal. What does that make Clinton and Trump? Or 99.99% of the population for that matter. Would they be Super Hyper Gargantuan Government Liberals? Second, by the time the LP has a chance to actually win an election it'll be a different candidate and no one will remember that GJ wasn't a pure libertarian.

specsaregood
09-01-2016, 01:29 PM
First I think you're being silly calling GJ a big government liberal. What does that make Clinton and Trump? Or 99.99% of the population for that matter. Would they be Super Hyper Gargantuan Government Liberals? Second, by the time the LP has a chance to actually win an election it'll be a different candidate and no one will remember that GJ wasn't a pure libertarian.

because he is, and his mantra for cost benefit driven government decisions will only lead to bigger government and more fascism.

And if they are successful, the people will say, "see we got more votes than ever because GJ supported taxing the air you breathe, we need to propose more of that!"

JohnM
09-01-2016, 01:55 PM
I don't know anything about Daryl Castle but I think I remember the Constitution Party making all sorts of silly excuses .... Another problem with the Constitution Party is ...

I didn't know anything about Castle 3 months ago. But I took the time to find out.

This is a good place to start: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?494000-Campaign-Evaluation-Darrell-Castle-(POTUS)&p=6299732&viewfull=1#post6299732

Or you could try
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?498607-Gary-Johnson-and-Darrell-Castle-on-the-issues-how-their-positions-compare

As for the Constitution Party . . . well, like the Libertarian Party and Republican Party, it includes a wide variety of people. I tend to look at the candidate rather than the party. Parties mean something, but not much.

Which, by the way, is why I'm not that excited by the prospect of making the LP more 'relevant'.

PierzStyx
09-01-2016, 02:10 PM
I would like to point out that at the 1987 Libertarian Party nominating convention, there was a large segment of Libertarian delegates who felt Ron Paul wasn't libertarian enough and was too much of a Republican to be their nominee. They threw their support to Russell Means. Libertarians are a different group of individuals, some support open borders and some don't, some support abortion as an individual right and some oppose abortion to protect an unborn individual, and both sides use the argument of liberty to support their views.

This is why I'm a libertarian leaning Constitutionalist.

- ML

At least there is a libertarian sounding argument for abortion, though I think it misses the forest for the trees. There isn't a libertarian argument for demanding the federal government be given power to destroy families and violate the body of a person using their right to transverse unowned land just because it has an imaginary line drawn across it on some map. It is anti-free market as well, since it restricts the free flow of human capital. There isn't even a constitutionalist argument for it. There is only a Statist argument for monopolistic violence to create an American "safe space" where the mean ol' Mexicans won't steal your jobs or pollute your women.

This is when the ugly side of minarchy is revealed and demonstrates that, at the end of the day, libertarianism and minarchy are not the same thing and cannot co-exist, ultimately. Because libertarianism demands all a person's rights be recognized, minarchy does not.

adissa
09-01-2016, 02:54 PM
But is Gary Johnson gonna build a 30-foot wall around our border and drastically increase the size of our deportation police force ??

Because, as a libertarian, that's what I'm primarily looking for
Gary Johnson is going to make me bake the cake. No thank you.

You know who I'm voting for.

oyarde
09-01-2016, 03:08 PM
One thing I think is kinda funny is , the Libertarians are going to get more votes than ever before this time and none of them will be from Libertarians . If Trump cannot take the states he needs ( we do not know if he can compete in Ohio, Fla etc) , Clinton wins easily. Given the electoral map , there may never be another Pres who is not a Dem until after the next great economic collapse that should be worse.

69360
09-01-2016, 03:21 PM
This has been debated to death. Who cares anymore? The two major party candidates are criminals. Johnson is a good guy. I don't care that he doesn't support your pet issues.

pcgame
09-01-2016, 03:26 PM
.......

undergroundrr
09-01-2016, 03:52 PM
Gary Johnson is going to make me bake the cake. No thank you.

You know who I'm voting for.

Nailed it dude :rolleyes:

libertarian (noun) - a person whose dominant mission in life is to point out how un-libertarian other libertarians are.

euphemia
09-01-2016, 05:59 PM
I think there's another good reason to vote for Johnson. He's not going to get elected but if he gets a lot of votes it makes the Libertarian Party more relevant in the future.

Johnson is making the Libertarian Party less relevant because he is not a Libertarian. They were dumb and desperate enough to nominate him, and I hope they just go away after this.

euphemia
09-01-2016, 06:00 PM
Gary Johnson is a libertarian.

No, he is not. He is a libertine trying to make money off politics.

eleganz
09-01-2016, 06:02 PM
I don't really care, I'm a businessman and a libertarian. If we can have a third party candidate talking about abolishing the IRS in the general election debates, I'm one happy camper.

Anything else on top of that is a bonus.

One step at a time people, expecting perfection as a general election presidential candidate will never happen in our lifetime, in fact 2016 is the best shot we have. If the two parties manage to own this year's debates, we may never have another chance again.

That is what is at stake, in my opinion.

euphemia
09-01-2016, 08:29 PM
I don't really care, I'm a businessman and a libertarian. If we can have a third party candidate talking about abolishing the IRS in the general election debates, I'm one happy camper..

So basically, you are for liberty when it works for you. That's not Libertarian.

eleganz
09-01-2016, 08:35 PM
So basically, you are for liberty when it works for you. That's not Libertarian.

LOL whatever you say.

I understand the concept that we can't always have everything we want at exactly the time we want it.

I'm ok with taking baby steps and sometimes when the opportunity allows, to take advantage of that opportunity.

In your very closed minded world, there will never be progress made in the ideas that we believe in because you either want everything at once, on your terms, or not at all.

When you step into the real world you will understand that not everybody will agree with everything you say and that compromise and negotiations are a key pillar to progress.

RJ Liberty
09-01-2016, 09:32 PM
I have no respect for anyone who would trash Gary Johnson and support Donald Trump.

I have a lot of respect for anyone who would trash Gary Johnson and trash Donald Trump and support Daryl Castle.

Darrell Castle is right on many issues, but he is a horrible presidential candidate. He is not at all a serious candidate for POTUS; a serious candidate conducts media interviews and makes regular appearances in public. Take a look at Castle's event calendar (http://castle2016.com/events/). He's doing two appearances per week, including a weekly webinar from his home.

Johnson makes more media appearances in a week than Castle has in his entire presidential run; and it's not because the "media is ignoring Castle": Mr. Castle could easily appear on local TV stations in his area, but he has not done so. Meanwhile, Johnson's talking about liberty issues, getting the press to talk about things like police violence (http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2016/08/04/gary-johnson-black-lives-matter/), eliminating the NSA (http://thehill.com/regulation/282381-libertarian-gary-johnson-id-eliminate-nsa-irs-if-elected), ending the Department of Education, etc.

Castle is making no headway, and he's not even trying. Because of his lackluster efforts, no national pollster is taking him seriously, and his two statewide polls (Nevada and Utah) are... exactly what you'd expect of a candidate who rarely appears in public: 1% and 2%, which will translate to less than that in the election.

I have a lot of respect for anyone (Castle, Johnson, Stein, etc) willing to tilt at windmills against the major party candidates, but Castle appears to be hardly trying.

JohnM
09-02-2016, 06:55 AM
Darrell Castle . . .is not at all a serious candidate for POTUS; a serious candidate conducts media interviews and makes regular appearances in public. . . . Mr. Castle could easily appear on local TV stations in his area, but he has not done so. . .

Castle is . . . not even trying.

Interesting. Assuming that you are correct, I wonder why that is? Did Baldwin and Goode try a lot harder? Did they get more media coverage? And if they did get more media coverage, was that a result of the fact that they tried harder?

Origanalist
09-02-2016, 07:02 AM
So basically, you are for liberty when it works for you. That's not Libertarian.

" cast out first the beam out of thine own eye, and then shalt thou see clearly to pull out the mote that is in thy brother's eye."

euphemia
09-02-2016, 07:38 AM
I understand the concept that we can't always have everything we want at exactly the time we want it.

I'm ok with taking baby steps and sometimes when the opportunity allows, to take advantage of that opportunity.

Gary Johnson is about giant steps in the wrong direction. He is not a Libertarian. He is a liberal. He believes in big government for all the wrong things. He would bring the full force of government to bear on certain unfavored groups. He would pour a lot of money into the EPA, which is one of the biggest government overreaches there is, and he would use government for gun control and "some wars."

I will never vote for him.

euphemia
09-02-2016, 07:39 AM
" cast out first the beam out of thine own eye, and then shalt thou see clearly to pull out the mote that is in thy brother's eye."


Indeed. A Johnson presidency would be about as bad as a Hillary presidency, from a personal liberty point of view.

Murray N Rothbard
09-02-2016, 07:41 AM
I think most everyone here agrees that Gary Johnson is far from a pure libertarian. But it bothers me when people trash Johnson and then support Trump as if Trump is more libertarian than Johnson. I'm quite sure that Johnson is more libertarian than Trump and it's not even close.

I think there's a crucial difference between the things Gary Johnson is saying and the things Trump or just about any Republican is saying. I think Johnson, in an attempt to get votes, is trying to sound LESS libertarian than he is in reality, compared to typical republicans who try to sound MORE libertarian than they really are.

So my point is that on the "Election Speech Libertarian Scale" Gary Johnson might be a 6 and Trump might be a 4, but in REALITY it's more like Johnson is an 8 and Trump is a 2.

This is a great observation imo.

Gary has lost his way though. He's really immersed himself in the game of political deception and at this point is just another conniving politician. In that respect, he is very much like Donald Trump. But you are right, he is in his heart-of-hearts MORE libertarian than what he makes himself appear, while Trump is LESS.

But that is irrelevant imo. I don't want a Libertarian who has to hide it. Just the opposite, it should be a libertarian who SHOWCASES his libertarian principles. Johnson is in many respects the anti-libertarian libertarian. He represents everything that a libertarian candidate- who in actuality does hold libertarian principles- should be. I think this is a problem with our goals. If our goals are only to "get elected" then we let the means undermine the ends. If getting elected is all that matters the principle suffer and we are, at the end of the day, no better than Trump. Because libertarian ideas and principles will not have been furthered. In fact they may be tarnished and harmed.

There should be a three-pronged approach for a libertarian candidate/party I think. These are 1) to always uphold the original principles of non-aggression and individual self ownership and liberty, 2) to spread these ideas to as many people as effectively as possible, and 3) to get elected and dismantle the apparatus of statism.

GJ has sacrificed the first two parts of the strategy.

undergroundrr
09-02-2016, 09:23 AM
There should be a three-pronged approach for a libertarian candidate/party I think. These are 1) to always uphold the original principles of non-aggression and individual self ownership and liberty, 2) to spread these ideas to as many people as effectively as possible, and 3) to get elected and dismantle the apparatus of statism.


1) ... except when it would sink your candidacy.
2) ... except when it would sink your candidacy.
3) ... after your candidacy has not been sunk.

The first two points are describing an educational campaign, not an election strategy.

Your strategy would work great with the 1.5% of the populace who are INTJ libertarians. If they got a chance to hear the candidate's name that is.

Murray N Rothbard
09-02-2016, 10:20 AM
1) ... except when it would sink your candidacy.
2) ... except when it would sink your candidacy.
3) ... after your candidacy has not been sunk.

The first two points are describing an educational campaign, not an election strategy.

Your strategy would work great with the 1.5% of the populace who are INTJ libertarians. If they got a chance to hear the candidate's name that is.

No.

Even if if it DOES "sink your candidacy." Then so be it. There has to be a limit to which you commit to #3 in the strategy. Why are the principles always expendable? They should NOT be expendable.

Natural Citizen
09-02-2016, 10:22 AM
Why are the principles always expendable? They should NOT be expendable.

Absolutely agreed. This is something that we're seeing become popularized. Very good. I'm glad that you mentioned this. Because that's what I was going to say.

And just looking through this thread (actually across the entire forum) we see this very thing. What is concerning is that we're seeing the actual principles being redefined in a kind of cultural Marxist way. Except they're being redefined without even acknowledging them. This is what makes these politicians who do so under the banner of liberty and their echo chambers so dangerous.

This popularized notion that policy is the measurement for liberty is very, very dangerous to the cause ofliberty. Liberty is defined by principles. It exists by way of a specific foundation for moral code. But we're seeing politicos redefine it in a kind of political American Idolish kind of way.

CaptUSA
09-02-2016, 10:35 AM
No.

Even if if it DOES "sink your candidacy." Then so be it. There has to be a limit to which you commit to #3 in the strategy. Why are the principles always expendable? They should NOT be expendable.

My principles are pretty basic. I take a look at where we are now. Then I see which candidates, on the whole, will grow government and reduce liberty. And then I cross them off the list.

When looking at the candidates remaining (including write-ins), I decide which one could use my insignificant little vote and I cast it for them. This time, it may be Johnson, it may be Castle, or it may just be Ron Paul. Still undecided. But on the whole, comparing Johnson to where we are now - NOT where we'd like to be - Johnson still has a chance.

RonPaulMall
09-02-2016, 11:18 AM
Neither Gary Johnson nor Donald Trump are even remotely close to being "Libertarian" in terms of their political ideology. The reason so many of us prefer Trump is because his specific positions on Foreign Policy and Immigration are excellent despite him not using a libertarian thought process to get there.

Madison320
09-02-2016, 12:07 PM
Neither Gary Johnson nor Donald Trump are even remotely close to being "Libertarian" in terms of their political ideology. The reason so many of us prefer Trump is because his specific positions on Foreign Policy and Immigration are excellent despite him not using a libertarian thought process to get there.

You make it sound like they're about equal on the libertarian scale and that's totally wrong. Johnson is much more libertarian than Trump.

I think Trump's position on immigration is one of his weakest. Building a wall and trying to purge the country of illegal immigrants will hurt the economy not help it. We need free market solutions to the immigration "problem" not government solutions.

The problem is that we are a mostly socialistic country that still has free stuff to hand out. That attracts more socialists from other countries. If we had a capitalistic country we'd mostly be attracting capitalists, not people looking for free stuff.

Madison320
09-02-2016, 12:16 PM
Indeed. A Johnson presidency would be about as bad as a Hillary presidency, from a personal liberty point of view.

I respect that some people think Johnson is not libertarian enough and so they are not going to vote at all.

I respect that some people are going to vote for Trump, even though they know Johnson is more libertarian, just to make sure Hillary doesn't win.

But if you think Trump or even HILLARY is more libertarian then Johnson, then the nicest thing I can say to you is that you're not paying attention.

undergroundrr
09-02-2016, 12:28 PM
I think Trump's position on immigration is one of his weakest. Building a wall and trying to purge the country of illegal immigrants will hurt the economy not help it. We need free market solutions to the immigration "problem" not government solutions.

The problem is that we are a mostly socialistic country that still has free stuff to hand out. That attracts more socialists from other countries. If we had a capitalistic country we'd mostly be attracting capitalists, not people looking for free stuff.

Good 'splainin'. You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Madison320 again.

farreri
09-02-2016, 12:51 PM
Gary Johnson is going to make me bake the cake. No thank you.

You know who I'm voting for.
That's your end all break all with all the other problems in the country and the world? Really?

Natural Citizen
09-02-2016, 12:55 PM
So why are all of you Johnson supporters abandoning liberty's principles and taking the side of the left?

undergroundrr
09-02-2016, 01:01 PM
So why are all of you Johnson supporters abandoning liberty's principles and taking the side of the left?

Is liberty a right wing thing?

adissa
09-02-2016, 01:06 PM
Is liberty a right wing thing?
it's an anti-left thing.

undergroundrr
09-02-2016, 01:12 PM
it's an anti-left thing.

But being anti-war is a left thing.

euphemia
09-02-2016, 06:25 PM
I agree with the OP. As undergroundrr has pointed out on several occasions, Johnson is not not aiming his campaign at libertarians, but at moderates - particularly socially liberal moderates.

In doing so, he has basically convinced a lot of libertarians not to vote for him.

r3volution 3.0
09-02-2016, 06:36 PM
I think most everyone here agrees that Gary Johnson is far from a pure libertarian. But it bothers me when people trash Johnson and then support Trump as if Trump is more libertarian than Johnson. I'm quite sure that Johnson is more libertarian than Trump and it's not even close.

Indeed


I think there's a crucial difference between the things Gary Johnson is saying and the things Trump or just about any Republican is saying. I think Johnson, in an attempt to get votes, is trying to sound LESS libertarian than he is in reality, compared to typical republicans who try to sound MORE libertarian than they really are.

I think that's likely true, though - even so - Gary isn't a pure libertarian in the Rothbardian mold.

But he's more than close enough for all practical purposes.


So my point is that on the "Election Speech Libertarian Scale" Gary Johnson might be a 6 and Trump might be a 4, but in REALITY it's more like Johnson is an 8 and Trump is a 2.

I'd say Gary sounds like an 8 and is actually an 8.5.

Trump sounds like a 0 and is actually a 0.

H. E. Panqui
09-05-2016, 08:25 AM
"The reason so many of us prefer Trump is because his specific positions on Foreign Policy"

:rolleyes:

...ah yes, drumpf, who wants to 'bomb the sh!t out of them' really distinguished himself during the primaries against cruz, who wants to 'bomb them until the sand glows in the dark'...

...i think you trump boneheads are going to find out that a whole lot of people supported your stinking drumpf during the republican primary ONLY because they wanted to saddle the stinking republicans with an embarrassing buffoon..oh yeah...;)

GunnyFreedom
09-05-2016, 08:36 AM
I think I remember the Constitution Party making all sorts of silly excuses as to why alcohol should be legal but other drugs illegal and why prohibiting alcohol requires an amendment but prohibiting other drugs does not.

I don't think the CP has ever supported federal prohibition, only state by state, and then providing that said states choose to do that.

euphemia
09-05-2016, 08:51 AM
People act like the minute the next President is inaugurated that the platform becomes law. Not the way it is. The system includes the brain trust that is Congress. You can pretty much figure out that the war on drugs won't be going away, and they will fight any kind of border security tooth and nail. A president drives an agenda, but he can only drive it so far. Congress is going to keep on its same path to destruction unless we send a very clear message to them that we aren't having it.

GunnyFreedom
09-05-2016, 09:40 AM
People act like the minute the next President is inaugurated that the platform becomes law. Not the way it is. The system includes the brain trust that is Congress. You can pretty much figure out that the war on drugs won't be going away, and they will fight any kind of border security tooth and nail. A president drives an agenda, but he can only drive it so far. Congress is going to keep on its same path to destruction unless we send a very clear message to them that we aren't having it.

Actually, a President could accomplish the majority of my agenda with or without Congress.

First, a President is obligated to only execute those laws which he believes are Constitutional. That's like 75% of my agenda right there.

Second, you only need an Act of Congress to eliminate a Department permanently. If Super-Libertarian got elected tomorrow, he could shutter the Department of Education without Congressional approval, with the caveat that if he never gets a COngressional signoff the next President could start it up again.

The vast majority of what I want, does not actually require the consent of Congress in the near term.

euphemia
09-05-2016, 10:05 AM
I think Darrell Castle would definitely that.

undergroundrr
09-05-2016, 12:50 PM
I think Darrell Castle would definitely that.

Darrell Castle is great. But unless some elaborate game plan is about to kick in, he doesn't even consider himself a viable candidate.

Johnson isn't likely to win the election either, but if he did, he's kind of famous for his "750" (really 739) vetoes. We already know he wants to abolish the Department of Education and HUD.

satchelmcqueen
09-05-2016, 02:43 PM
whats bothers me is that WE here at RPFs have a huge grassroots group, but we as a group arent doing anything to help push a third party at all. libertarian or not, johnson is our only real shot a t taking a stab at the system thats always worked against this country. i am ashamed as a libertarian that WE as a group cannot get together to at least push this third option vs the establishment.

MattRay
09-06-2016, 12:19 AM
Johnson is just "libertarianish" on issues such as free markets, guns and drugs and is trying to make himself more mainstream for votes, but he truly doesn't understand liberty. This has become increasingly apparent to me. Johnson doesn't understand that liberty is making your own choices and enjoying the success of the good ones and accepting the consequences of the bad ones. Take his stance on discrimination for instance. Johnson understands you don't ban alcohol because some ten thousand people will be killed by drunk drivers annually, yet he doesn't allow people to choose who to serve because of the chance someone will be hurt a lot less severely and a lot less frequently than by drunk driving. In fact, the bad choice one has to deal with would be the business owner discriminating. He'd have to deal with all of the customers he hurts. Johnson just doesn't understand this and doesn't understand liberty. Maybe I'm wrong and he thinks supporting bans on discrimination makes him much more palatable, but I really doubt it. I think Johnson really believes immigration must not be allowed to happen. Of course, false discrimination suits hurt people a lot more than actual discrimination does. It's a shame, I like Gary too, but he can be a brickwall on issues like this and it's so important because it goes to the core issue of liberty. People making their own choices provided they don't use force or fraud, whether you like those choices or not.

MattRay
09-08-2016, 06:15 PM
I will say that I do think there's one way that Johnson is more libertarian than he lets on - drugs. I'm not talking about marijuana, either. Johnson won't openly support legalizing hard drugs, but I've seen him basically make the case for it as far back as when he was making the rounds after first coming out in favor of marijuana as well as this year. He'll cite how heroin legalization worked in Zurich or make a similar case, but I do think purposely avoids endorsing outright legalization. That might be the one libertarian issue that scares people the most, which is incredibly stupid, but it's modern politics for ya. Similarly, I'm pretty sure he supports legalizing prostitution, but plays that down and avoided answering whether he supports polygamy, except to say(correctly) that it should be a state issue.

His real problem is how he complete loses it on discrimination. Immigration is debatable among libertarians, although I personally see no reason to encourage it at this moment.

LibertyExtremist
09-09-2016, 10:28 AM
I absolutely agree that Trump and Clinton are the utter shits and I would never vote for either, but what makes Gary/Weld much better than your average Democrat or Republican politician? If you add up what Gary/Weld have been saying during the 2016 election, I come away thinking that Gary is a social justice warrior with a handful of slightly libertarian positions. What frightens me about Gary is that nothing with him has any sort of foundation and nothing is set in stone. Look at how he has kind of "hee-hawed" around on gun rights and equal pay nonsense. I'm not going to sit here and crap on anything or anybody that doesn't fit my "purist" view of what libertarianism is, but you got to get the fundamentals right and you have to have some sort of foundation that is based on individual liberty. I just don't see Gary as having any sort of foundations at all.

Unfortunately, I think a President Johnson or a Johnson that gets into the debates may actually set liberty and libertarians back quite a bit.

Aratus
09-09-2016, 10:33 AM
I don't think the CP has ever supported federal prohibition, only state by state, and then providing that said states choose to do that.

GUNNY, GOOD POINT!
think this thru, folks.

Aratus
09-09-2016, 10:42 AM
the Senate trial of Andrew Johnson vindicated his firing of Edwin Stanton, but the ability to impeach exists, we know it is his pardons in a big way
of "southerners" who had fought for the Confederacy that set off various factions in Congress, and the way the election of 1866 turned out. All i can
say is "Gunny... good luck!!!" and this is as i know that the way FDR did LEND/LEASE almost got him in proverbial hot water due to his POTUS level
powers and authority at the time. Sometimes ambition is not a bad thing, and being blunt is a pleasure and not a curse. Be quite cautious at times!

Aratus
09-09-2016, 10:46 AM
Actually, a President could accomplish the majority of my agenda with or without Congress.

First, a President is obligated to only execute those laws which he believes are Constitutional. That's like 75% of my agenda right there.

Second, you only need an Act of Congress to eliminate a Department permanently. If Super-Libertarian got elected tomorrow, he could shutter the Department of Education without Congressional approval, with the caveat that if he never gets a COngressional signoff the next President could start it up again.

The vast majority of what I want, does not actually require the consent of Congress in the near term.



Gunny. Excellent point!

MattRay
09-11-2016, 11:17 PM
I absolutely agree that Trump and Clinton are the utter $#@!s and I would never vote for either, but what makes Gary/Weld much better than your average Democrat or Republican politician? If you add up what Gary/Weld have been saying during the 2016 election, I come away thinking that Gary is a social justice warrior with a handful of slightly libertarian positions. What frightens me about Gary is that nothing with him has any sort of foundation and nothing is set in stone. Look at how he has kind of "hee-hawed" around on gun rights and equal pay nonsense. I'm not going to sit here and crap on anything or anybody that doesn't fit my "purist" view of what libertarianism is, but you got to get the fundamentals right and you have to have some sort of foundation that is based on individual liberty. I just don't see Gary as having any sort of foundations at all.

Unfortunately, I think a President Johnson or a Johnson that gets into the debates may actually set liberty and libertarians back quite a bit.

I haven't seen Gary flip flop on gun rights. He stood by his support after the Orlando shooting even when Trump said to O'Reilly at least that he'd support banning those on the terrorist watch list. I'm pretty sure Weld still supports gun control, though.

Gary and Weld are actually quite different. Granted, Gary does get difficult to listen to on social issues since he does come off like a SJW. In fact, I have to remind myself of his strengths after hearing him on social issues because he completely loses any semblance of libertarianism when the topic switches to discrimination. I can support him, but it really bothers me, though maybe that's my problem. Early on, I tried to tell myself that the libertarian position on discrimination or the position Goldwater took in '64 isn't popular, especially with everyone wanting to avoid being called a racist at all costs, so I thought that maybe Gary's mainstream view on that might make him more palatable. But with that said, it's still just difficult for me to stomach. Gary isn't nearly as bad as Weld on social issues, though. Gary does take the correct position constitutionally that abortion is a state issue(strange he doesn't realize this applies to discrimination as well), thankfully does oppose tax-payer funding for it and opposes late term abortions. I don't know if you can say any of that about Weld, though this is more or less an assumption on my part to be fair. Though Gary has been consistently sensible opposing hate crime laws as he calls them "thought crimes." Weld, on the other hand, supports hate crime legislation.

Gary isn't a libertarian, but he's an ally on probably 70% issues, while Weld just doesn't seem to resemble a libertarian any more than your average politician. When Weld talks about "good government", I literally have Clinton flashbacks! That's something a libertarian would never say. Is it really any different than Bill Clinton supporting a smaller, streamlined government while not saying anything about getting government out of areas where it has no constitutional authority? I can't help but think of Weld as a 90's DLC "New Democrat" or an old Eastern Establishment Rockefeller Republican, except with lower taxes. Weld has taken a vaguely non-interventionist position this election to support Gary and the party, but it seems obvious that he still supports permanent alliances, which you'd expect from a CFR member like Weld.

Krugminator2
09-12-2016, 03:53 PM
Gary isn't a libertarian, but he's an ally on probably 70% issues, while Weld just doesn't seem to resemble a libertarian any more than your average politician. When Weld talks about "good government", I literally have Clinton flashbacks! That's something a libertarian would never say. Is it really any different than Bill Clinton supporting a smaller, streamlined government while not saying anything about getting government out of areas where it has no constitutional authority? I can't help but think of Weld as a 90's DLC "New Democrat" or an old Eastern Establishment Rockefeller Republican, except with lower taxes. .

I don't think Weld and Johnson are that different. I think both are Rockefeller Republicans with libertarian sensibilities. Johnson is the more libertarian of the two obviously.

I don't have a problem with the phrase "good government." But it is interesting that you associate that phrase with Weld and used it as a differentiator between Weld and Johnson . Gary says it all the time, or at least he used to. He even wrote a book on it.

https://www.amazon.com/Seven-Principles-Good-Government-Johnson-ebook/dp/1563439131/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1473716876&sr=8-1&keywords=gary+johnson+good+government

MattRay
09-12-2016, 04:54 PM
I don't think Weld and Johnson are that different. I think both are Rockefeller Republicans with libertarian sensibilities. Johnson is the more libertarian of the two obviously.

I don't have a problem with the phrase "good government." But it is interesting that you associate that phrase with Weld and used it as a differentiator between Weld and Johnson . Gary says it all the time, or at least he used to. He even wrote a book on it.

https://www.amazon.com/Seven-Principles-Good-Government-Johnson-ebook/dp/1563439131/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1473716876&sr=8-1&keywords=gary+johnson+good+government

True, I did think of Gary's book while writing that previous post, but I was more referring to how Weld says it and what he cites as "good government". As for differences between Weld and Johnson, well, I can't really consider either a libertarian by my definition, but I think there are noticeable differences. Take guns for example, Gary speculated that his west coast background vs Weld's east coast roots are a reason for this difference, but the difference there is pretty striking. Gary opposes gun laws and has even been pretty libertarian on gun rights citing guns as a protection against government tyranny, even saying it could be a deterrent against unlawful DEA raids. Gary has said that Weld may have reservations about things like that, which I think is an understatement since Weld seems to just associate guns with hunting.

I'd also say Gary is significantly more libertarian on drugs, though this is actually an area where Weld was ahead of most mainstream politicians in the 90's, at least on marijuana. On government itself, I'd be a bit surprised if Weld agreed with Gary on getting rid of departments such as the department of education and I'd also be surprised if he agreed with Gary on auditing the Fed, much less Gary's statement that he'd sign legislation to abolish The Fed if it reached his desk. Plus, Gary saying he'd like to see Hayek's idea of competing currencies. Granted, he didn't cite Hayek when talking about the idea, so I don't even know if Gary is too familiar with Hayek, but it's still a pure liberty concept I doubt Weld would support.

There's a pretty significant difference in foreign policy as well. Weld has passed himself off as favoring non-intervention, but his history is suspect to say the least from favoring permanent alliances to backing Bush's foreign policy including the Iraq war to calling Trump an "isolationist", while Gary, on the other hand, is pretty solidly non-interventionist and seems committed to pulling the troops out of the middle east. Then just if you look at how they think, it speaks volumes to me that Johnson endorsed Ron Paul in 2008 while Weld was endorsing Mitt Romney and then Obama. Take the supreme court as well. Weld seems to have no regard for the constitution while Johnson has at least consistently favored appointing originalists. Then Weld sees left of center politicians such as Susan Collins as allies and people he'd like in his bipartisan administration while Johnson at least interjected that they should appoint politicians with a "libertarian bent". As I said, neither of them are actually libertarians, imho, but I see a pretty big difference. To me, Johnson is noticeably better than most other politicians, but as of now, I can't say that about Weld. Also, I think Johnson has enough libertarian type views that it's not strange to see him in the Libertarian Party while Weld sticks out like a sore them.

I will review Weld's statements and positions from this campaign more carefully to make sure I have an accurate picture of him, but as of now, the differences seem pretty striking to me. But maybe Weld does have more libertarian sensibilities than I think. I can't say I've been as meticulous as I could be following him.

jmdrake
09-27-2016, 06:03 AM
Darrell Castle is right on many issues, but he is a horrible presidential candidate. He is not at all a serious candidate for POTUS; a serious candidate conducts media interviews and makes regular appearances in public. Take a look at Castle's event calendar (http://castle2016.com/events/). He's doing two appearances per week, including a weekly webinar from his home.

Johnson makes more media appearances in a week than Castle has in his entire presidential run; and it's not because the "media is ignoring Castle": Mr. Castle could easily appear on local TV stations in his area, but he has not done so. Meanwhile, Johnson's talking about liberty issues, getting the press to talk about things like police violence (http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2016/08/04/gary-johnson-black-lives-matter/), eliminating the NSA (http://thehill.com/regulation/282381-libertarian-gary-johnson-id-eliminate-nsa-irs-if-elected), ending the Department of Education, etc.

Castle is making no headway, and he's not even trying. Because of his lackluster efforts, no national pollster is taking him seriously, and his two statewide polls (Nevada and Utah) are... exactly what you'd expect of a candidate who rarely appears in public: 1% and 2%, which will translate to less than that in the election.

I have a lot of respect for anyone (Castle, Johnson, Stein, etc) willing to tilt at windmills against the major party candidates, but Castle appears to be hardly trying.

Ummm......I haven't been embarassed by Castle so far this election season. I've been embarassed several times by Gary Johnson. I started off supporting Johnson. I wish I could still. The only reason Johnson has any traction at all is because of the strength of the Libertarian Party. But he's been so anti-libertarian that he's pissed much of that away. Right now he should be at 15 to 20% in the polls. But dude is just an idiot. Jews have to bake Nazi cakes? Seriously? What is Alepo? Seriously? And let's not kid ourselves. Neither Johnson nor Castle nor Stein have a snowball's chance in hell at winning this thing no matter how bad Hillary and Trump suck. So you're picking the guy that, is getting more press coverage. I'm picking the guy that I'm actually not embarassed to be associated with. Both of us aren't going to like whoever the sheeple ultimately elect.

jmdrake
09-27-2016, 06:10 AM
Interesting. Assuming that you are correct, I wonder why that is? Did Baldwin and Goode try a lot harder? Did they get more media coverage? And if they did get more media coverage, was that a result of the fact that they tried harder?

Was that a rhetorical question? :) I never met anyone outside of the liberty movement that heard of Baldwin or Goode. The Libertarian Party has a lot more name recognition, especially with all of the people who used the word "libertarian" to describe Ron Paul in his GOP nomination bids. So anyone who gets the Libertarian nomination will automatically get more coverage than the CP party candidate.

Jesse James
09-27-2016, 06:16 AM
But being anti-war is a left thing.
no it's not.

Jesse James
09-27-2016, 06:17 AM
I don't think the CP has ever supported federal prohibition, only state by state, and then providing that said states choose to do that.
it doesn't matter what the CP supports, only what Castle does.

RJ Liberty
09-27-2016, 07:19 AM
Ummm......I haven't been embarassed by Castle so far this election season.

According to Castle's campaign calendar, he did one event in August. I suppose it's pretty easy not to make many gaffes if you limit your public appearances. Darrell Castle will make 20 public appearances this month, which is a lot for him. Johnson has done 20 media appearances and interviews in a day.



I've been embarassed several times by Gary Johnson. I started off supporting Johnson. I wish I could still. The only reason Johnson has any traction at all is because of the strength of the Libertarian Party.

That's silly. The LP only has 400,000 members; Johnson's poll numbers indicate he has 10 to 15 million voters. Johnson voters exceed the entire LP by a factor of 25 to 1.



Right now he should be at 15 to 20% in the polls.

How would he get to "15 to 20%" in the polls with only 11 seconds of news coverage from the major networks, up until last week? Gary's been able to get media interviews on the Internet and on morning talk shows, and even some cable-TV events, but without that important evening news coverage, his polling among the older generation remains dismal.

I respect anyone who is voting for Castle, but to compare Castle's barely-there campaign to Johnson, who is on the campaign trail every day, and then say (paraphrased) "Well, Castle's had no gaffes" is not realistic. It's easy to have no gaffes if you only do a few interviews with the MSM. And where does this "15 to 20%" statistic come from? Why should someone be at 15-20% when they're in a party with only 400,000 members?

jmdrake
09-27-2016, 07:53 AM
According to Castle's campaign calendar, he did one event in August. I suppose it's pretty easy not to make many gaffes if you limit your public appearances. Darrell Castle will make 20 public appearances this month, which is a lot for him. Johnson has done 20 media appearances and interviews in a day.

Saying that a Jewish baker should have to bake a Nazi cake was not a gaffe. It was a response to a debate question. Anyone with libertarian principles would have gotten it right. Gary Johnson flubbed it because he doesn't have any.


That's silly. The LP only has 400,000 members; Johnson's poll numbers indicate he has 10 to 15 million voters. Johnson voters exceed the entire LP by a factor of 25 to 1.

:rolleyes: Or FFS you're being silly! There are many people who vote libertarian who don't register as members. Furthermore most people in America have by now at least heard of the libertarian party and that's NOT because of Gary Johnson! Come on. Be honest with yourself. People like Ron Paul and Michael Badnerik put the libertarian party on the map. It's "cool" to go around talking about how you are a libertarian. The actual size of the party membership has little to nothing to with it's exposure. CNN carried the libertarian party debate for crying out loud! That was free publicity for Gary Johnson. And that's where he lost my vote.



How would he get to "15 to 20%" in the polls with only 11 seconds of news coverage from the major networks, up until last week? Gary's been able to get media interviews on the Internet and on morning talk shows, and even some cable-TV events, but without that important evening news coverage, his polling among the older generation remains dismal.

The libertarian party got it's PRIMARY DEBATE covered by CNN! Whoever one that primary was guaranteed to get at least some coverage by CNN and other networks. Sadly the most unlibertarian of the three got the nomination.



I respect anyone who is voting for Castle, but to compare Castle's barely-there campaign to Johnson, who is on the campaign trail every day, and then say (paraphrased) "Well, Castle's had no gaffes" is not realistic. It's easy to have no gaffes if you only do a few interviews with the MSM. And where does this "15 to 20%" statistic come from? Why should someone be at 15-20% when they're in a party with only 400,000 members?

Gary Johnson has gotten frankly far more press coverage than he deserves given the fact that he isn't really a libertarian. The libertarian party's debate was covered by CNN so spare me your BS "We only have 400,000 members" argument. Americans desparately want another choice this cycle and the only third party primary debate CNN covered was the LP. That's why Gary Johnson should be at 15 to 20%.

undergroundrr
09-27-2016, 09:19 AM
no it's not.

Dream on. The right supports war.

Jesse James
09-27-2016, 11:58 AM
Dream on. The right supports war.
maybe currently, but historically, no.

undergroundrr
09-27-2016, 12:25 PM
maybe currently, but historically, no.

Free markets were considered left-wing at one time.

Forgive me, but I've lost my patience with the left/right paradigm. Especially when it gets vomited up in a place like this where people should know better.