Campaign Evaluation: Johnson / Weld Ticket (POTUS)

[undergroundrr]

Actually, open borders is a tactic in the globalist arsenal. The goal is world government/world communism.

I can understand why some might want to steer the conversation away from Johnson, but come on guys, it's really transparent.

Border security measures are great, but a closed border with the people nicely locked inside is the ultimate device of communism. The goal is total control over the populace so the state can milk it dry. Closed borders is a wildly non-liberty position.

What would Ron Paul say?

“The people that want big fences and guns, sure, we could secure the border,” the congressman noted. “A barbed wire fence with machine guns, that would do the trick. I don’t believe that is what America is all about.”

“Every time you think about this toughness on the border and ID cards and REAL IDs, think it’s a penalty against the American people too. I think this fence business is designed and may well be used against us and keep us in. In economic turmoil, the people want to leave with their capital and there’s capital controls and there’s people controls. Every time you think about the fence, think about the fences being used against us, keeping us in.”

http://nation.foxnews.com/ron-paul/2...e-used-keep-us

[LibertyEagle]

We are talking about Johnson. Did you not view the first few pages of this thread? The general consensus so far is a decent libertarian candidate. Not perfect and has a few flaws, but in general complies with the site mission.

He has more than a few flaws.

Gary Johnson gives a thumbs up to open borders, pro-abortion, pro gay marriage, completely willing to go to war for "humanitarian" reasons, doesn't want to close bases, nor will he take drone strikes off the table. And we still don't know his stance on TPP. Not to mention the fact that he refers to non-interventionism as isolationism. Remember how hard we worked to change that thinking?

Whether to vote for Johnson is a personal choice. The issue here however, is whether he should be tagged and promoted as a liberty candidate. I think he fails and badly.

You keep attacking and then when anybody exposes the hypocrisy and mud foundation of your arguments you clam up and try to take the high road with responses like "lol" and "stay on topic"

I have talked about Johnson and the only mud that has been thrown has had very little to do with the issues raised about Johnson and everything to do with personal insults. So yeah, when you have strayed off-topic, I have pointed it out.

[phill4paul]

He has more than a few flaws.




I have talked about Johnson and the only mud that has been thrown has had very little to do with the issues raised about Johnson and everything to do with personal insults. So yeah, when you have strayed off-topic, I have pointed it out.

You don't "talk" about Johnson. You "tell" about Johnson. I answered your short list in the other thread. And, of course, my replies were ignored.

Open borders: Not exactly. Though it is not "building a wall." Which will never happen anyway.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politi...f_Gary_Johnson

Pro-abortion: Not entirely. He doesn't believe in Roe vs. Wade and believes it is a state issue, like Ron Paul, though he personally is pro-choice in most cases.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politi...f_Gary_Johnson

Pro-gay marriage: Definitely. But why is allowing same sex couples the government benefits that hetero-couples enjoy a non liberty position?



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politi...f_Gary_Johnson

Willing to go to war for humanitarian purposes. Mixed bag. But it seems his approach would at least be a voluntary one.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politi...Johnson#Uganda

[acptulsa]

You don't "talk" about Johnson. You "tell" about Johnson. I answered your short list in the other thread. And, of course, my replies were ignored.

It isn't so much the way replies are ignored, it's the way seven post later the denial comes that any replies or refutations were made at all.

But she's right. If she wants to use this thread to type the exact same thing over a hundred times, why should we flame her for it?

[undergroundrr]

So these points are generally accepted?

yes

[acptulsa]

So these points are generally accepted?

As being his consistent positions? Yes. As things we all agree with 100%? No.

As not disqualifying him from the term 'Liberty Candidate? Apparently so.

[LibertyEagle]

You don't "talk" about Johnson. You "tell" about Johnson.

I backed up, or at least I tried to, everything I said with sources.

I answered your short list in the other thread. And, of course, my replies were ignored.

Sorry, I must have not seen it. Since this is the Johnson eval thread, why don't you repeat it here. If there is something you want me to answer, I'd be happy to.

EDIT:

From Phil...

[/QUOTEOriginally Posted by phill4paul View Post
Open borders: Not exactly. Though it is not "building a wall." Which will never happen anyway.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politi...f_Gary_Johnson

Well, in this interview, he talked about giving them Social Security cards. Does that mean they would then be eligible for Social Security and the elders in the chained migration that he also appears to support?

In your link, it says he doesn't believe in any quotas. So, we just let the borders be overrun by anyone and everyone, put them on the dole, pay to educate their children, pay for their healthcare, and pray for a miracle? Not having any limits whatsoever on immigration is nothing but suicide.

Pro-abortion: Not entirely. He doesn't believe in Roe vs. Wade and believes it is a state issue, like Ron Paul, though he personally is pro-choice in most cases.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politi...f_Gary_Johnson

He seemed to believe in abortion up to the point that the baby could live outside of the womb. Is that your understanding also?

Pro-gay marriage: Definitely. But why is allowing same sex couples the government benefits that hetero-couples enjoy a non liberty position?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politi...f_Gary_Johnson

I thought the idea was to get government out of the marriage business? Not to involve them further.

Willing to go to war for humanitarian purposes. Mixed bag. But it seems his approach would at least be a voluntary one.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politi...Johnson#Uganda

I don't know. That sure isn't what he said in this interview; nor what he gave the idea that he believed. http://www.foxnews.com/transcript/20...ary-game-plan/

[LibertyEagle]

//

[cajuncocoa]

//

[cajuncocoa]

//

[younglibertarian]

What??

If you don't like Trump you are a commie is a popular saying among his supporters....

[LibertyEagle]

It isn't so much the way replies are ignored, it's the way seven post later the denial comes that any replies or refutations were made at all.

I didn't ignore your "refutation"; I just destroyed them easily.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post6223204

[LibertyEagle]

If you don't like Trump you are a commie is a popular saying among his supporters....

That's not what I said at all. But, promoting globalist causes and calling them liberty-loving is not going to get a pass. Sorry.

[phill4paul]

Sorry, I must have not seen it. Since this is the Johnson eval thread, why don't you repeat it here. If there is something you want me to answer, I'd be happy to.

Sounds good. Since the entire post is lost in translation I will furnish my quotes from the other thread.

EDIT:

From Phil...

Well, in this interview, he talked about giving them Social Security cards. Does that mean they would then be eligible for Social Security and the elders in the chained migration that he also appears to support?

In your link, it says he doesn't believe in any quotas. So, we just let the borders be overrun by anyone and everyone, put them on the dole, pay to educate their children, pay for their healthcare, and pray for a miracle? Not having any limits whatsoever on immigration is nothing but suicide.

Johnson believes two approaches to immigration should be implemented: (1) "simplify legal immigration" and (2) "tackle illegal immigration."[49] He says, "Immigration into the United States by ambitious, willing workers and their families is a good thing. Not only is it a historical and energizing part of American culture and experience, it is vital to our economy. These positive benefits should not be sacrificed or reduced in any solution to stop illegal immigration."[50]

Johnson favors issuing work visas, rather than granting amnesty citizenship or permanent residency, to people who want to work in the United States so that they pay payroll and income taxes,[7] and favors a two-year grace period to current illegal immigrants to obtain these visas.[49] He would require background checks of visa applicants,[49] because federal "authorities do need to know who is crossing our borders and be able to prevent criminals from entering the country."[50] He believes that, once a worker obtains a visa, the worker "should have access to the normal procedures for gaining permanent status and citizenship, and should be able to bring their families to the U.S. after demonstrating ability to support them financially."[49] Johnson does not support immigration quotas.[7]

Under the present system, Johnson does not support "cracking down" on illegal immigration or creating penalties for businesses that hire undocumented immigrants.[7] Instead, he believes the work visa program will reduce illegal immigration.[49] But once the program is implemented, he believes in enforcing "a 'one strike, you're out' rule for immigrants who circumvent the" work visa process,[49] as well as imposing and enforcing "sanctions on employers for noncompliance with immigration laws.[49]

Johnson opposes building a fence or wall along the Mexican border or placing National Guard units there,[7] because "security measures along the borders are just not enough" and "do not completely solve the immigration problem."[50] He believes that much of the Mexican-American border problems are due to drug prohibition, and that ending the prohibition of marijuana and the War on Drugs would end 75% of the violence along the border.[7][43][49]

So, no. He is not in favor of letting the borders be overrun by anyone and everyone. Work visas with criminal background checks for those coming across and those within. By doing so he believes ICE would be able to concentrate on the criminal elements. I do not see where he advocates putting them on the dole, pay to educate their children (He wants to end the Dept. of Education), pay their healthcare ( He is against the Affordable Care Act).

He seemed to believe in abortion up to the point that the baby could live outside of the womb. Is that your understanding also?

Gary Johnson supports "a woman's right to choose up until the point of viability"[39] and wants to keep abortion legal.[40] He has been very vocal in his beliefs.[41] He supports legislation banning late-term abortions and mandating parental notification for minors seeking an abortion.[42] Johnson believes Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided and should be overturned because it "expanded the reach of the Federal government into areas of society never envisioned in the Constitution." He believes that laws regarding abortion should "be decided by the individual states."[38]

So, as you can see that as governor he supported a ban on late term abortions.

I thought the idea was to get government out of the marriage business? Not to involve them further.

Johnson says that "government doesn't belong in the bedroom."[35][35] He believes that the government should not regulate marriage at all.[51] He believes the government "should not impose its values upon marriage" but instead "should protect the rights of couples to engage in civil unions if they wish, as well as the rights of religious organizations to follow their beliefs."[36]

He applauded the repeal of Don't ask, don't tell, and opined that the repeal was "long overdue."[52]

Formerly a supporter of civil unions for same-sex couples, on December 1, 2011, Johnson voiced his support for same-sex marriage. He believes that "denying those rights and benefits to gay couples is discrimination, plain and simple."[53] He has also stated that marriage laws should treat every individual equally.[54]

In 2013, Johnson was a signatory to an amicus curiae brief submitted to the Supreme Court in support of same-sex marriage during the Hollingsworth v. Perry case.[55]

Gary Johnson favors a federal law to legalize gay marriage across the United States, rather than leaving the issue up to the individual states.[56]

The goal of the liberty movement is to get fed.gov out of the marriage business. However, if that is not going to happen then the law needs to be applied equally. As the liberty movement is split on this Gary is free to choose either way.

I don't know. That sure isn't what he said in this interview; nor what he gave the idea that he believed. http://www.foxnews.com/transcript/20...ary-game-plan/

Perhaps he was unable to get his point across in the interview. I dunno. It happens. He did explicitly state that he would have asked for volunteers in this article...

“Well Congress passed the legislation to authorize us intervening, Obama signed the legislation and then eight months later we have an advisory force that goes in,” he said. “I think if I would have signed the legislation that I would have had plans to immediately ask for a volunteer force and gone in and wipe ‘em out.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/04/09/th...#ixzz49b9TLmwS

[RJ Liberty]

So these points are generally accepted?

I'm still waiting for something substantive refuting the 45 libertarian positions supported by Gary Johnson posted above. I suspect there are more liberty positions that weren't in that list, since that list was originally compiled in 2012 during Johnson's first presidential run, and he's been interviewed at great length since then, but those 45 items were a pretty good starting point in determining Johnson's overall liberty credentials, and I haven't really seen anything convincing that would refute most of those items.

[afwjam]

Hey Gary Johnson is pretty great OK. He is a mountain climber, that does not mean I have to like him. Most his positions are pretty decent, but he lacks the conviction of a true believer, thats what attracted me to such positions in the first place.

[LibertyEagle]

Abortion

Phil, I guess it depends upon what he considers is the definition of "late term" abortions. He's against partial birth abortions, for sure. But, my understanding is that those murdered could have in fact lived if allowed to be completely born. So is Johnson's position that everything up to that point is fair game and can be aborted? I don't really know; that is what I am asking. But it seems so to me. Take a look at this site, which includes a lot of his comments about the matter: http://www.ontheissues.org/2012/Gary...n_Abortion.htm

Life is precious and must be protected. A woman should be allowed to make her own decisions during pregnancy until the point of viability of a fetus.

I support women's rights to choose up until viability of the fetus.

But I don't want for a second to pretend that I have a better idea of how a woman should choose when it comes to this situation. Fundamentally this is a choice that a woman should have.

: Q: Where do you stand on abortion rights?
A: It should be left up to the woman. If my daughter were pregnant and she came to me and asked me what she ought to do, I would advise her to have the child. But I would not for a minute pretend that I should make that decision for her or any other woman.

Q: But you have supported legislation that requires parental consent and signed a ban on partial birth abortions.
A: I think the decision can be made at an earlier stage. That's why I don't support partial birth abortions. I realize it's a fine line, but I generally come down on a woman's right to decide.

Gay Marriage

The goal of the liberty movement is to get fed.gov out of the marriage business. However, if that is not going to happen then the law needs to be applied equally. As the liberty movement is split on this Gary is free to choose either way

I disagree, but I understand your position. Fair enough.

Immigration

So, no. He is not in favor of letting the borders be overrun by anyone and everyone. Work visas with criminal background checks for those coming across and those within. By doing so he believes ICE would be able to concentrate on the criminal elements. I do not see where he advocates putting them on the dole, pay to educate their children (He wants to end the Dept. of Education), pay their healthcare ( He is against the Affordable Care Act).

Yet, no limits on the sheer numbers of people, their qualifications (ie. do they have a skill that is needed, can they support themselves, or have a sponsor...).

How does he plan to *keep them off of the dole* once they are here? Because right now they do get free health care, free education, etc. And I am not talking about ObamaCare.

Foreign policy

Perhaps he was unable to get his point across in the interview. I dunno. It happens. He did explicitly state that he would have asked for volunteers in this article...

Did you listen to it? If not, please do. He came across to me as about ready to faint dead away when his hypocrisy was highlighted. And he didn't say one thing about "volunteers" in that, that I heard. In fact, he kept defending his position that military force might need to be used for humanitarian causes.

So, he doesn't want to shut down any military bases, anywhere. Drone strikes are A-ok. And humanitarian wars are fine and dandy.

Would Johnson be leaps and bounds better than what we have right now? Absolutely! But, is he really something that you believe represents the liberty movement?

[LibertyEagle]

I haven't had a chance to research the claims in this yet, but I noticed that an article was posted about Johnson yesterday. The claims were not exactly positive. It should probably be researched before the decision is made about Johnson.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...-James-Spiller

[acptulsa]

I haven't had a chance to research the claims in this yet, but I noticed that an article was posted about Johnson yesterday. The claims were not exactly positive. It should probably be researched before the decision is made about Johnson.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...-James-Spiller

Gee, have you had a chance to research those claims yet? Because you found time to post sardonic memes in a thread which contains this information already, yet I don't see you rushing to provide a balanced viewpoint in this thread...

http://www.riograndefoundation.org/d...rotections.pdf

While the recent spending binge is not unique; in fact, rapid growth in government has been the rule and not the exception in New Mexico. With the exception of the eight years of the Johnson Administration (FY 1995-FY 2003), New Mexico’s political leaders have failed to create the conditions necessary to allow entrepreneurs to generate economic growth.

While it would be easy to make spending restraint (or the lack thereof) a partisan issue, that is not really the case. Personal dedication to spending restraint and economic/political considerations often factor into the equation. As figure 2 illustrates, Gary Johnson, a Republican and New Mexico’s Governor from 1995-2003, was the most fiscally-responsible of the state’s last four governors, but Democrat Bruce King (1991-1995) was far more frugal than either Republican Garrey Carruthers (1987-1991)or current Democratic Governor Bill Richardson (2003-present)

Spending under Governor Johnson was effectively restrained to allow the government to grow just a bit faster than inflation and population rates combined each year. By way of comparison with Governor Richardson, spending has increased during the last four years by more than it did for Gary Johnson’s entire two terms ($516.62 million versus $448.00 million).
Unfortunately, while Johnson kept spending growth at reasonable levels, needed reforms in education, health care, and in state budget processes were stymied by the Legislature.8 Johnson’s tax cuts were also denied repeatedly by the Legislature. So, while spending growth was restrained, New Mexico’s government remained systemically-flawed and its tax and budgeting systems escaped reform. Clearly, strong leadership from the Executive Branch is not enough to generate long-term spending restraint since time is on the side of special interests and those who would delay needed reforms.

This is from a local, non-profit think tank, and was published before Johnson stepped out onto the national stage and began challenging the two party system. It was done by someone who is actually on the ground in New Mexico, and paid attention to what Johnson was actually doing and what he was up against.

Gee, I'm sorry that you're having so much trouble fact-checking The National Review that you couldn't find this material, even though it was posted at 9:19 this morning in a thread that you had just bumped, and that you posted a meme to later. So, the person who is quick to slam people for posting stuff from propaganda sites is posting stuff from The National Review, and suggesting she will 'do research' into the efficacy of it, and ignoring stuff addressing the efficacy of it. Nice lack of bias, there. I'm impressed.

[cajuncocoa]

//

[younglibertarian]

[cajuncocoa]

//

[cajuncocoa]

//

[undergroundrr]

But, but, but, but, but.....open borders!!

And cake

[GunnyFreedom]

I said he was Constitutionalist enough to take seriously a demand for military action from the duly elected Congress of the United States. Like with drone strikes, taking anything off the table is a way to tie your hands and let your enemies know how to jack with you. He's not stupid enough to do that. Even if he has no intention of doing it, it would be stupid to take it off the table.

You will read into that whatever you wish. But be careful how you go about the forum libeling me.

Not even close. Johnson just 'invents' whatever "constitutional rights" he wants on the fly, and then lies about it later. Y'all do what you want, but I'll choose 'getting impaled' over voting for Johnson.

[GunnyFreedom]

The goal of the liberty movement is to get fed.gov out of the marriage business. However, if that is not going to happen then the law needs to be applied equally. As the liberty movement is split on this Gary is free to choose either way.

Absolutely not. In 2012 he called gay marriage a "Constitutional right." Regardless of what you feel about gay marriage for good or for ill, it is NOT 1) a Constitutional right, and 2) the Constitution does not empower fedgov to force the states at gunpoint to recognize it.

From the perspective of a strict Constitutionalist, Johnson who seems to invent new shyt to come out of the Constitution daily, is no better than the two $#@!s in the majors. No thanks.

McAfee may not be a Constitutionalist, but at least he does not appear to be deliberately demolishing it. If the LP wants my vote in Nov, they will nominate McAfee. If the LP does not nominate McAfee, then they do not want my vote. Simple as that.

[presence]

We're 20 trillion in the hole you're going to make a decision about potus over someone's views on butt $#@!ing?

[acptulsa]

Absolutely not. In 2012 he called gay marriage a "Constitutional right."

The Constitution does not in any way empower the federal government to regulate, endorse, restrict, reward, tax, guarantee benefits for, or in any way recognize marriage.

Now. If you are forced by the fellow inmates of a democracy to allow the federal government to do all that crap, then does the Constitution guarantee some kind of equal access to all of that crap?

I'm not saying I agree with Johnson in this, or that I think he did an adequate job of explaining this. But are there really not real-world extenuating circumstances involved here? Just because a person is a realist does not mean he can't be a libertarian. It's hard, and maybe he can't be a very good one. But it doesn't mean he can't be one at all.

[GunnyFreedom]

The Constitution does not in any way empower the federal government to regulate, endorse, restrict, reward, tax, guarantee benefits for, or in any way recognize marriage.

Correct.

Now. If you are forced by the fellow inmates of a democracy to allow the federal government to do all that crap, then does the Constitution guarantee some kind of equal access to all of that crap?

Absolutely not. Violating the Constitution illicitly is not a golden ticket to violate the Constitution freely.

I'm not saying I agree with Johnson in this, or that I think he did an adequate job of explaining this. But are there really not real-world extenuating circumstances involved here? Just because a person is a realist does not mean he can't be a libertarian. It's hard, and maybe he can't be a very good one. But it doesn't mean he can't be one at all.

If his version of "realism" means pissing on the Constitution, then he doesn't really want my vote.

[GunnyFreedom]

We're 20 trillion in the hole you're going to make a decision about potus over someone's views on butt $#@!ing?

I couldn't possibly care less about "butt $#@!ing." I care about the Constitution, full stop. The Constitution doesn't 'go away' just because a given issue is stupid.