Let's pretend Ron Paul endorsed Gary Johnson tomorrow.

[Dick Chaney]

And you didn't previously plan on voting for him for whatever reason, would you (with a Ron Paul endorsement) have a change of heart and support Gary Johnson in November? It probably won't happen because if he did want to do it, you'd think he'd have done it months ago, but I want to know where everyone's head is at anyway.

[Lovecraftian4Paul]

I'm already voting for Johnson, so it wouldn't affect my preference either way. But it would be nice.

[sailingaway]

No. I already know Ron doesn't value himself as much as his supporters do, and I am confident he expects us to vote our conscience.

[opal]

nope

[Dick Chaney]

nope

Why?

I'm not challenging you or disagreeing with you, I would just like to know why everyone thinks "yes" or "no".

[Gravik]

No.

Only way I wouldn't vote for Johnson would be if Paul were the Libertarian candidate or had somehow gotten the Republican nomination.

[jkr]

maybe so...

[EBounding]

I don't think so. Johnson is a democrat in libertarian clothing, in my opinion. Plus he's not even on the ballot in my state (although he is a certified write-in).

[svf]

I don't think so. Johnson is a democrat in libertarian clothing, in my opinion.

I don't understand this. Sure, his positions on Civil Liberties, Immigration, Gay Marriage, Afghanistan War, War on Drugs are more in line with supposed "Democrat" positions (not actually held or practiced by most elected Democrats any more). Ron Paul has often been criticized for pretty much the same thing by "Conservative / Values Republicans".

Is it the Abortion thing? He seems more personally pro-choice, but essentially his position is "Let the states decide". How is that so dramatically different than Ron Paul? How is that a "Democrat" position?

[TheTexan]

I don't understand this.

1) Interventionism
2) Believes the Federal Reserve has a legitimate purpose*
3) Only supports a freedom if his Cost-Benefit Analysis comes up positive for that freedom

There's more but those are my main beefs.

With that said, I don't see any problem with voting for him as a protest vote. If I were to vote though, I'd definitely write in RP.

(Regardless of whether or not it is "counted"... your vote isn't going to get counted either way, so may as well vote for RP)

*Some Big-L Libertarians don't understand the importance of this issue. So I'll just underscore it for anyone who still doesn't "get it." Without sound money, we will never have freedom. Fiat money funds wars, government expansion, theft, corruption, oppression, and GJ's stance on this is far from satisfactory, which to me, rules out any chance of me supporting him

[svf]

1) Interventionism
2) Believes the Federal Reserve has a legitimate purpose*
3) Only supports a freedom if his Cost-Benefit Analysis comes up positive for that freedom

Sorry if I wan't clear, but what I don't understand is the "democrat in libertarian clothing" thing.

Of course I understand the concerns you listed, from a "purist" point-of-view for lack of a better term (I am sympathetic to this at times, being a fairly hard-core Libertarian guy for 15+ years now...) I'm voting for Gary anyway, but understand why these are "deal breakers" for others.

But the charge that he is somehow a "democrat in libertarian clothing" is odd to me. If anything, he could be "accused" of being a "moderate republican in liberarian clothing" on some issues...

[TheTexan]

Sorry if I wan't clear, but what I don't understand is the "democrat in libertarian clothing" thing.

Of course I understand the concerns you listed, from a "purist" point-of-view for lack of a better term (I am sympathetic to this at times, being a fairly hard-core Libertarian guy for 20+ years now...) I'm voting for Gary anyway, but understand why these are "deal breakers" for others.

But the charge that he is somehow a "democrat in libertarian clothing" is odd to me. If anything, he could be "accused" of being a "moderate republican in liberarian clothing" on some issues...

Your definition of libertarian is much different than mine, is why. Your definition of libertarian seems to be "slightly more libertarian and slightly less socialist than democrats" whereas my definition of libertarian is someone who supports freedom, period.

If anything, he could be "accused" of being a "moderate republican in liberarian clothing" on some issues...

Republicans and Democrats are identical except a few intentionally divisive issues (abortion, gay marriage)

[svf]

my definition of libertarian is someone who supports freedom, period.

Then, by your definition, Ron Paul is not a "true" libertarian either. He belives in federal restrictions on immigration. He would let states impose restrictions on drug use. He would let the states pass their own laws defining marriage. He would let the states legislate in favor of or against abortion. He would let the states impose income and sales taxes. He would not immediately abolish Social Security and Medicare.

Yet we voted for him in 2008 and 2012 anyway. Why? He was FAR more libertarian than anyone else on the ballot. Many of us believe the same is true of Gary Johnson.

[EBounding]

Sorry if I wan't clear, but what I don't understand is the "democrat in libertarian clothing" thing.

Of course I understand the concerns you listed, from a "purist" point-of-view for lack of a better term (I am sympathetic to this at times, being a fairly hard-core Libertarian guy for 15+ years now...) I'm voting for Gary anyway, but understand why these are "deal breakers" for others.

But the charge that he is somehow a "democrat in libertarian clothing" is odd to me. If anything, he could be "accused" of being a "moderate republican in liberarian clothing" on some issues...

As far as issues, it would be abortion and using the military as an international meals-on-wheels program. I also don't like how squishy is on the Fed. Yes, while Paul would "let the states decide" regarding abortion, he also would like to see life defined at conception and remove remove federal jurisdiction so the states would enact their own laws accordingly. I don't believe this is something Johnson would support.

But really, more importantly, Johnson simply hasn't done anything to earn my vote. It seems like he feels entitled to the Ron Paul supporters.

He couldn't even get on the ballot in Michigan. Of course, it looks like there were some shenanigans to keep him off, but he could have easily avoided that by running Libertarian from the very beginning or much earlier.

I've spent thousands of dollars and lots of time for Ron Paul, and he's done plenty to deserve my vote even if it won't mean anything. I'm sure you have too, but I just don't feel compelled to vote for Johnson this time.

[Dick Chaney]

Then, by your definition, Ron Paul is not a "true" libertarian either. He belives in federal restrictions on immigration. He would let states impose restrictions on drug use. He would let the states pass their own laws defining marriage. He would let the states legislate in favor of or against abortion. He would let the states impose income and sales taxes. He would not immediately abolish Social Security and Medicare.

Yet we voted for him in 2008 and 2012 anyway. Why? He was FAR more libertarian than anyone else on the ballot. Many of us believe the same is true of Gary Johnson.

Yet people still categorize Johnson in the lesser of... three evil paradigm, if you will. And I'll never understand it.

[WesSeid]

2) Believes the Federal Reserve has a legitimate purpose*
Without sound money, we will never have freedom. Fiat money funds wars, government expansion, theft, corruption, oppression, and GJ's stance on this is far from satisfactory, which to me, rules out any chance of me supporting him

Two months ago, Gary Johnson said we should end The Fed.

[svf]

But really, more importantly, Johnson simply hasn't done anything to earn my vote. It seems like he feels entitled to the Ron Paul supporters.

I can sympathize with this. I've been more-or-less underwhelmed and/or disappointed in Gary's campaign - the ads, the fundraising pitches, the "strategy", etc. I know it's hard to run without much funding, but he hasn't made the most of his limited resources in my opinion. Also wasting a lot of time, money, energy, and litigation banging heads against the Commission on Presidential Debates has never worked and never will work. He needed to find a way to build that 15% support if debates were such a priority, otherwise employ guerrilla campaign tactics. (Besides, based on his media/speeches/LP debate, I kind of fear that he'd totally implode if actually given the opportunity to debate Obama/Romney in front of a national audience...)

All that being said, he's probably the best and "most viable" LP presidential (or otherwise) candidate we've ever had. Perhaps we're at least laying the foundation for something truly extraordinary in 2016....

Meanwhile, I at least really hope for that 5% showing on election day, but I fear we'll be lucky to hit 1% at best.

It's been an improvement over the Bob Barr LP disaster, at least...

[sailingaway]

Then, by your definition, Ron Paul is not a "true" libertarian either. He belives in federal restrictions on immigration. He would let states impose restrictions on drug use. He would let the states pass their own laws defining marriage. He would let the states legislate in favor of or against abortion. He would let the states impose income and sales taxes. He would not immediately abolish Social Security and Medicare.

Yet we voted for him in 2008 and 2012 anyway. Why? He was FAR more libertarian than anyone else on the ballot. Many of us believe the same is true of Gary Johnson.

I couldn't care less if Ron Paul is 'libertarian', he is pro liberty and the rule of law. I think sovereignty is important and protects us from even more distant government, that state government is still better and that government should be as local as possible where individuals have a place at the table, can show up and influence policy. Only the well connected have a seat at the table the more distant and centralized government becomes. I don't care if that is 'libertarian' or not, it is how I feel. And Ron doesn't PROPOSE these restrictions, he just believes in the rule of law, which is the Constitution, which gives those rights to the state.

[hrdman2luv]

So then it's settled. We are, and apparently will always be divided.

You guys let me know, by the time the 2014 midterms roll around, how this division is working out for ya.

Principles are one things. But dividing us all with no "good" end results are another.

[WesSeid]

So then it's settled. We are, and apparently will always be divided.

You guys let me know, by the time the 2014 midterms roll around, how this division is working out for ya.

Principles are one things. But dividing us all with no "good" end results are another.

If the 1984 Libertarian ticket had gotten 5%, Ron Paul on the Libertarian ticket in 1988 would have had a lot better chance.

In 2014, some people will probably still be writing in Ron Paul for various positions. Hell, they'll probably still be doing it 20 years from now when Ron Paul is too busy winning the Tour de France to hold office anyway.

[HigherVision]

Here's my opinion on Gary Johnson having seen a significant amount of interviews and things with him now over the months. I think the guy is geniune about fighting for freedom. He's way less philosophical and intellectual than a lot of libertarians are but in my opinion he makes up for a lot of this in having guts and sincerity. People talk about some of his views that aren't so libertarian like not wanting to completely end the Fed or supporting some 'humanitarian' military interventionism but I think his views are more flexible than they give him credit for and I think he has an open mind and is willing to learn more and adopt more of an Austro-Libertarian view considering that he has great admiration for Ron. I think Johnson is actually in some ways a stronger political figure for liberty than Ron is. For example I don't think that Gary Johnson would put up with having someone like Jesse Benton in charge of his campaign. I think he's more of a fighter than Ron is even though his views aren't quite as good and he's not as intellectual as I said. But he tells it like it is or at least how he sees it and he seems to not give a $#@! to a greater extent than Ron which I like. I hope people vote for him. It's about liberty, not one single individual.

[RickyJ]

My response to a vote for someone is a vote for Obama is, a vote for Romney is a vote for Obama's ideological twin.