Results 1 to 29 of 29

Thread: Gary Johnson Backs Out of Debate Moderated by

  1. #1

    Gary Johnson Backs Out of Debate Moderated by




  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2
    I believe that's a mistake. Penn would probably be sympathetic to Johnson, IMO.

  4. #3

  5. #4
    I can't stand Johnson. I'll never vote for him again.

  6. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by SilentBull View Post
    I can't stand Johnson. I'll never vote for him again.
    You voted for Johnson in 2012 ? Who are you going to vote for then ?
    "I am a bird"

  7. #6
    What a disgrace. The LP gets very little media attention and needs every bit it can get. We have the potential to grow the party and Gary takes a crap on it.

    I can see why he did it and it is utterly shameful. Gary Johnson actually wants his competitors to get less airtime and press because as it stands right now he is the "presumptive" nominee. Most people just hear that Gary Johnson is running and assume he is the LP nominee.

    The fact is after the last debate McAfee and Petersen gained support, and Gary actually LOST support. This was because of his poor performance and skewed platform of luke warm liberarianism.

    I bet he just sat down and said, "Why would I give McAfee and Petersen a chance to gain momentum when I hold all the cards?"

    Welcome to .99% again guys.

  8. #7
    Even more interesting, Johnson apparently tried to back out of the first Fox Business debate as well.

  9. #8
    UPDATE 11:40 PM:

    The Johnson campaign has responded that they never confirmed the date and did not know the event was moving forward. They are currently trying to work something out.
    Silly of them to schedule something else without making sure the event wasn't going forward. Equally stupid of the debate organizers not to keep the campaign informed every step of the way.

    Plenty of raspberries to go around, yes. But there's no call to condemn Johnson for backing out unless and until he fails to rearrange his schedule. McAfee is reserving judgment until then, and McAfee actually has a good excuse to make Johnson look bad.
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    You only want the freedoms that will undermine the nation and lead to the destruction of liberty.



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #9

  12. #10
    Can't wait to hear Johnson say we should all be forced to deliver cake to men in women's bathrooms.
    Quote Originally Posted by dannno View Post
    It's a balance between appeasing his supporters, appeasing the deep state and reaching his own goals.
    ~Resident Badgiraffe




  13. #11
    For $#@!'s sake...

    ...who cares who the LP nominee is?

    It's a protest vote, the nominee will 100% guaranteed never assume office.

    Nominate Satan himself, it doesn't matter.

    ...cat herding nonsense.


  14. #12
    ^^This. Voting for any non-D, non-R candidate is nothing more than a protest vote.

  15. #13
    You don't think who leads the protest matters? I would like a candidate who can coherently communicate.

  16. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by RJ Liberty View Post
    ^^This. Voting for any non-D, non-R candidate is nothing more than a protest vote.
    The way our Constitutional system is designed, nothing more than a sizable protest vote is needed to effect a revolution.
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    You only want the freedoms that will undermine the nation and lead to the destruction of liberty.

  17. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by William Tell View Post
    Can't wait to hear Johnson say we should all be forced to deliver cake to men in women's bathrooms.
    At gunpoint!

  18. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    For $#@!'s sake...

    ...who cares who the LP nominee is?

    It's a protest vote, the nominee will 100% guaranteed never assume office.

    Nominate Satan himself, it doesn't matter.

    ...cat herding nonsense.
    A whole bunch of people in a movement driven almost entirely by principle, cannot spend their franchise on a man whose principles they find abhorrent. Why is this not something you could and should expect as natural from a movement driven almost entirely on principle?



  19. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  20. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by GunnyFreedom View Post
    A whole bunch of people in a movement driven almost entirely by principle, cannot spend their franchise on a man whose principles they find abhorrent. Why is this not something you could and should expect as natural from a movement driven almost entirely on principle?
    Well, honestly, because the only hope we have of sharing our principles is by making our tent big enough to also accommodate others who share our most important principles. This might require some compromise around the edges, which none of us want to do. But it does not compromise our dearest and most important principles, such as the ones which led to peace and prosperity. And the regimes we are confronted with, if we do not find a way to become effective, are so inherently, overwhelmingly evil, that standing on our most important principles may be mandatory, but standing on our purity could be annihilation.
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    You only want the freedoms that will undermine the nation and lead to the destruction of liberty.

  21. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by acptulsa View Post
    Well, honestly, because the only hope we have of sharing our principles is by making our tent big enough to also accommodate others who share our most important principles. This might require some compromise around the edges, which none of us want to do. But it does not compromise our dearest and most important principles, such as the ones which led to peace and prosperity. And the regimes we are confronted with, if we do not find a way to become effective, are so inherently, overwhelmingly evil, that standing on our most important principles may be mandatory, but standing on our purity could be annihilation.
    I have one hell of a lot less of a problem allying with and helping people with errant principles over those that I find abhorrent. Wandering to and fro because you are a bit lost, is a lot different from flinging yourself before Baphomet and worshiping the idol, and carrying out it's will in the world. I support people all the time with different principles than me. I will never support someone whose principles I find abhorrent.

  22. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by GunnyFreedom View Post
    I have one hell of a lot less of a problem allying with and helping people with errant principles over those that I find abhorrent. Wandering to and fro because you are a bit lost, is a lot different from flinging yourself before Baphomet and worshiping the idol, and carrying out it's will in the world. I support people all the time with different principles than me. I will never support someone whose principles I find abhorrent.
    That's all it will take to get Johnson 15%. Provided Sanders people can accept draining that swamp in Washington and starving the alligators is not a major impediment to them following their "principles", and we do not consider a president who considers the right of bakers to refuse service to people to be a less pressing issue of principle than wars, totalitarianism and the deliberate destruction of the American middle class.
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    You only want the freedoms that will undermine the nation and lead to the destruction of liberty.

  23. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by acptulsa View Post
    That's all it will take to get Johnson 15%. Provided Sanders people can accept draining that swamp in Washington and starving the alligators is not a major impediment to them following their "principles", and we do not consider a president who considers the right of bakers to refuse service to people to be a less pressing issue of principle than wars, totalitarianism and the deliberate destruction of the American middle class.
    I do not believe Johnson would drain the swamp. I believe he would run around crapping in it in various places. Like for example the 13th Amendment.

  24. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    For $#@!'s sake...

    ...who cares who the LP nominee is?
    Who cares which socialist wins? Trump, Bernie, Cruz, Hillary... Kaisich... utterly meaningless difference.

    Either way we will still have a million pages of federal regulation and 60,000 pages of tax code.

    They're all statists that intend to "regulate the economy" in their own particular flavor.


    So why should I give a $#@! which one wins? Picking the least bad socialist changes nothing.

    'We endorse the idea of voluntarism; self-responsibility: Family, friends, and churches to solve problems, rather than saying that some monolithic government is going to make you take care of yourself and be a better person. It's a preposterous notion: It never worked, it never will. The government can't make you a better person; it can't make you follow good habits.' - Ron Paul 1988

    Awareness is the Root of Liberation Revolution is Action upon Revelation

    'Resistance and Disobedience in Economic Activity is the Most Moral Human Action Possible' - SEK3

    Flectere si nequeo superos, Acheronta movebo.

    ...the familiar ritual of institutional self-absolution...
    ...for protecting them, by mock trial, from punishment...


  25. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    For $#@!'s sake...

    ...who cares who the LP nominee is?

    It's a protest vote, the nominee will 100% guaranteed never assume office.

    Nominate Satan himself, it doesn't matter.

    ...cat herding nonsense.
    I care a great deal. I am sick of being told to shut up and vote for a party's nominee even if he is Satan. I don't do protest votes, if I vote for a man it is because I want him to hold that office. Doesn't matter to me if he's polling at 1 or 50 percent. If the LP wants my vote they will nominate a good candidate. Your logic dictates that you would vote for Trump if he was the LP nominee. I will be voting but it looks like it won' t be for an R D or L for president. How many of you would bother to vote for GJ if he was onto reform party ticket or something? Fortunately there are other options available.
    Quote Originally Posted by dannno View Post
    It's a balance between appeasing his supporters, appeasing the deep state and reaching his own goals.
    ~Resident Badgiraffe




  26. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by William Tell View Post
    I care a great deal. I am sick of being told to shut up and vote for a party's nominee even if he is Satan. I don't do protest votes, if I vote for a man it is because I want him to hold that office. Doesn't matter to me if he's polling at 1 or 50 percent. If the LP wants my vote they will nominate a good candidate. Your logic dictates that you would vote for Trump if he was the LP nominee. I will be voting but it looks like it won' t be for an R D or L for president. How many of you would bother to vote for GJ if he was onto reform party ticket or something? Fortunately there are other options available.
    This is something I don't understand about members of the Libertarian Party. I've seen people criticize (rightly so) Dems or Repubs who vote party line, but then those same people say, "I vote for whoever the LP nominee is." It's as if they don't see the problem with that statement. Sure, Johnson would be better than Trump or Clinton, but he's not the person I want in the office. Hell, if Johnson became the LP nominee I might just write in the Constitution Party's candidate.

  27. #24
    Johnson will never get 15%, he can't even get through a complete sentence or a debate without butchering the very principles he stands on. He followed Paul in 2012 and managed half the votes in the general then Paul got in the primaries. Been there done that, time for someone new.



  28. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  29. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by presence View Post
    ...Either way we will still have a million pages of federal regulation and 60,000 pages of tax code.
    They're all statists that intend to "regulate the economy" in their own particular flavor.
    Yea, but maybe it only takes a few good laws to reverse this trend... NOT!

  30. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by GunnyFreedom View Post
    A whole bunch of people in a movement driven almost entirely by principle, cannot spend their franchise on a man whose principles they find abhorrent. Why is this not something you could and should expect as natural from a movement driven almost entirely on principle?
    Given that the two major parties are nominating Hitler and Stalin, and given that one of them will obviously win (almost certainly Stalin), it is absurd to be arguing over which non-socialist candidate we libertarians should support as a protest vote. Johnson, McAfee, Peterson...really, the differences are absolutely trivial in comparison to Hitler/Stalin. The objective of the third party vote is to send a message, 99.9% of those on the receiving end of which will not be aware of or care about the differences between the various LP candidates. Ergo, it is utterly meaningless.

  31. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by William Tell View Post
    I care a great deal. I am sick of being told to shut up and vote for a party's nominee even if he is Satan. I don't do protest votes, if I vote for a man it is because I want him to hold that office. Doesn't matter to me if he's polling at 1 or 50 percent. If the LP wants my vote they will nominate a good candidate. Your logic dictates that you would vote for Trump if he was the LP nominee. I will be voting but it looks like it won' t be for an R D or L for president. How many of you would bother to vote for GJ if he was onto reform party ticket or something? Fortunately there are other options available.
    Thanks. Just what I was thinking.

  32. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    Given that the two major parties are nominating Hitler and Stalin, and given that one of them will obviously win (almost certainly Stalin), it is absurd to be arguing over which non-socialist candidate we libertarians should support as a protest vote. Johnson, McAfee, Peterson...really, the differences are absolutely trivial in comparison to Hitler/Stalin. The objective of the third party vote is to send a message, 99.9% of those on the receiving end of which will not be aware of or care about the differences between the various LP candidates. Ergo, it is utterly meaningless.
    So the idiot bastards have nominated Hitler and Stalin, and you believe the answer is for me to throw my support behind Pol Pot?

  33. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by GunnyFreedom View Post
    So the idiot bastards have nominated Hitler and Stalin, and you believe the answer is for me to throw my support behind Pol Pot?
    ...you consider Gary Johnson to be Pol Pot?

    If Trump is Hitler, and Hillary is Stalin (...reasonable metaphors), then Johnson is certainly not Pol Pot.

    ...maybe Ludwig von Mises on a bad day.



Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •