Campaign Evaluation: Johnson / Weld Ticket (POTUS)

[phill4paul]

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.

What about Austin Peterson? I'd say of the LP three front runners he seems to me to be the most Constitutional.

[younglibertarian]

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

Exactly

[GunnyFreedom]

What about Austin Peterson? I'd say of the LP three front runners he seems to me to be the most Constitutional.

I'm not convinced. Ron Paul was all but the walking talking embodiment of the Constitution in 2008 and 2012, and Petersen HATED him. In my experience people who do that are usually all talk and no walk. They like to talk about Constitutional government but hated Ron Paul because they knew he would actually DO it.

[presence]

I'm not convinced.

have you read petersen's platform?

http://austinpetersen2016.com/


The petty differences between petersen, johnson, mcafee, ron, rand, amash, and massie are not worth fighting over. I'd buy every one of them a beer and the juiciest steak on the menu.

omg he disagreed with ron on minutia of libertarian philosophy! who really cares?

If one of "us" here at RPF was running for potus... (and I don't care if its @LibertyEagle) I'd support their campaign.

Johnson, like Petersen is searching for the truth; they're looking for free market solutions; they're looking to walk the razor's edge of principle to disengage the government. Hillary, Trump, Bernie... they're looking for big government solutions; programs and power... whatever it may cost.

Does the candidate have an inherent desire to get the government the $#@! out of our lives?

Johnson passes
Petersen passes

[younglibertarian]

have you read petersen's platform?

http://austinpetersen2016.com/


The petty differences between petersen, johnson, mcafee, ron, rand, amash, and massie are not worth fighting over. I'd buy every one of them a beer and the juiciest steak on the menu.

omg he disagreed with ron on minutia of libertarian philosophy! who really cares?

If one of "us" here at RPF was running for potus... (and I don't care if its @LibertyEagle) I'd support their campaign.

Johnson, like Petersen is searching for the truth; they're looking for free market solutions; they're looking to walk the razor's edge of principle to disengage the government. Hillary, Trump, Bernie... they're looking for big government solutions; programs and power... whatever it may cost.

Does the candidate have an inherent desire to get the government the $#@! out of our lives?

Johnson passes
Petersen passes

Hear Hear!

[LibertyEagle]

I'm not convinced. Ron Paul was all but the walking talking embodiment of the Constitution in 2008 and 2012, and Petersen HATED him. In my experience people who do that are usually all talk and no walk. They like to talk about Constitutional government but hated Ron Paul because they knew he would actually DO it.

Was he, Gunny? Maybe I'm remembering wrong, but I thought Petersen ran a huge RP group like in NY or something in '08. Was that someone else?

[afwjam]

Was he, Gunny? Maybe I'm remembering wrong, but I thought Petersen ran a huge RP group like in NY or something in '08. Was that someone else?

He did, his conflict came later I believe something to do with his foreign policy.

[LibertyEagle]

Or was it the newsletters? We lost more than a few over that issue.

Since I seem to have the right guy, he traveled to NH to help out before that primary vote. He was all in.

[nikcers]

I'm not convinced. Ron Paul was all but the walking talking embodiment of the Constitution in 2008 and 2012, and Petersen HATED him. In my experience people who do that are usually all talk and no walk. They like to talk about Constitutional government but hated Ron Paul because they knew he would actually DO it.

I thought he was one of us, granted I haven't looked into his platform as much as I should.

thelibertarianrepublic.com

[acptulsa]

Please try to stay on topic.

Yes ma'am, Mrs. DuBose, ma'am.

[afwjam]

Petersen is one of ours, he should ruled in support of the forum mission and a supported candidate. You can debate about Gary, but I think he is ok and can be supported, I won't.

LE I like you a lot better in this section of the forums.

[younglibertarian]

Petersen is one of ours, he should ruled in support of the forum mission and a supported candidate. You can debate about Gary, but I think he is ok and can be supported, I won't.

LE I like you a lot better in this section of the forums.

We need to revive that evaluation.

[LibertyEagle]

LE I like you a lot better in this section of the forums.

I'm sure you do; Petersen is your man, rather than Johnson. Point is, there is no need to lie about a candidate's position, or mislead, as has been done with other candidates elsewhere on the forums. We need to desire to be as honest as we can.

[afwjam]

I'm sure you do; Petersen is your man, rather than Johnson. Point is, there is no need to lie about a candidate's position, or mislead, as has been done with other candidates elsewhere on the forums. We need to desire to be as honest as we can.

McAfee is my man, I believe in the NAP.

[younglibertarian]

McAfee is my man, I believe in the NAP.

It is very interesting. Most Petersen supporters basically believe in the NAP but refuse to admit it.

I don't see what is so unclear about such a basic principle.

[iNoob]

Johnson thinks his anti-Liberty vice presidential pick is the "Original Libertarian" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dNqS890yXh0

More on Bill Weld: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...liberty-record

[iNoob]

Johnson's spending practices (from http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...ames-Spiller):

"In fact, Johnson inherited a debt of $1.8 billion and left a debt of $4.6 billion, a rate of increase unmatched by the 22 governors in either party who have filed for presidential primaries in the past two decades, with the exception of Governor Tom Vilsack (D., Iowa) in 2007. During every year that Johnson, as he says, balanced the budget, he added to the debt."

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...-conservatives

I know the article in question is from a questionable source. I also haven't really researched the man so don't shoot the messenger just yet. I just thought you all may want to take a gander at something not Trump.

Gary Johnson’s Massive Campaign Debt Should be a Concern to Every Libertarian

http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/ga...y-libertarian/

As the Libertarian Party draws close to picking a new presidential nominee, it is vitally important that we choose a candidate that models financial prudence and integrity in his or her own personal life and financial dealings.

For this reason, I believe every Libertarian in America should be informed about the financial and debt situation of 2012 Nominee Gary Johnson.


Perennial Libertarian presidential candidate Johnson’s campaign committee is $1.7 million dollars in debt and owes a refund to the Federal Elections Commission $332,191 for expenditures the FEC says did not qualify for “matching funds.”


A Libertarian Future points out that before the FEC ruled that Gary Johnson was to refund them over $300,000, he was $1.4 million dollars in debt!





Also, it must be noted that Gary Johnson’s campaign reports it has spent over $36,000 more than it has taken it.

[phill4paul]

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







Gay Marriage


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

Immigration


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



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?

Sorry it took me so long to respond, LE. We've had a family reunion this week centered around my place and aside from occasional quips I haven't had much time to read thoroughly or respond properly.

If I had to grade on these issues I suppose it would be as follows.

Abortion: Many in the liberty movement are divided on the issue. I've become pro-life due to Dr. Paul's beliefs regarding it. Still, other's see it as a personal choice. There are many which seek a middle ground. Therefore, it is hard to grade as either a A or an F as either side would call for the opposite. So, I suppose his stance would be graded as a "C".

Gay marriage: It seems that this is an equally divided issue. So, "C."

Immigration: Same as above: "C"

Foreign policy: Given his "humanitarian" remarks, the fact that he doesn't care to shut down bases or discountinue drone strikes, but that he has opposed the foriegn policy of the Bush and Obama admin. again I'd place him as a "C."

[younglibertarian]

I really hope we do not nominate him......

[dannno]

Sorry it took me so long to respond, LE. We've had a family reunion this week centered around my place and aside from occasional quips I haven't had much time to read thoroughly or respond properly.

If I had to grade on these issues I suppose it would be as follows.

Abortion: Many in the liberty movement are divided on the issue. I've become pro-life due to Dr. Paul's beliefs regarding it. Still, other's see it as a personal choice. There are many which seek a middle ground. Therefore, it is hard to grade as either a A or an F as either side would call for the opposite. So, I suppose his stance would be graded as a "C".

Gay marriage: It seems that this is an equally divided issue. So, "C."

Immigration: Same as above: "C"

Foreign policy: Given his "humanitarian" remarks, the fact that he doesn't care to shut down bases or discountinue drone strikes, but that he has opposed the foriegn policy of the Bush and Obama admin. again I'd place him as a "C."

I agree except on foreign policy I would give him at least a B. Humanitarian wars have been the least of our concern, Gary Johnson wants to end the war on terror and when he was on Joe Rogan's podcast he talked about foreign policy for probably about a half hour and I didn't hear him say anything that Ron Paul wouldn't say. He's not perfect, but I'd probably give him a B+ on foreign policy.

Overall I would give him a B-

[dannno]

I really hope we do not nominate him......

Ya, it would suck for the libertarian party to actually make some headway for once

[younglibertarian]

Ya, it would suck for the libertarian party to actually make some headway for once

Yes, like all the headway he got last time around?

[phill4paul]

I agree except on foreign policy I would give him at least a B. Humanitarian wars have been the least of our concern, Gary Johnson wants to end the war on terror and when he was on Joe Rogan's podcast he talked about foreign policy for probably about a half hour and I didn't hear him say anything that Ron Paul wouldn't say. He's not perfect, but I'd probably give him a B+ on foreign policy.

Overall I would give him a B-

I had debated giving GJ an "B" or a "C" on this. If, as Ron had done, he called for shuttering many of the foreign bases and scaling back foreign presence I would have went for a "B."

[dannno]

Yes, like all the headway he got last time around?

You are comparing him to when Ron Paul was running?? Really? Even though Ron Paul dropped out, the enthusiasm was still there and GJ was an after thought.. people wanted to write in Ron Paul.

[younglibertarian]

You are comparing him to when Ron Paul was running?? Really?

Yes. He had the opportunity to get all of our votes and failed.

[dannno]

Yes. He had the opportunity to get all of our votes and failed.

First, if I recall, he was also running while Ron Paul was running. I was a little pissed at him at the time for that, I would never compete against Ron Paul for office. I think others were a bit upset about that as well.

I probably would have been willing to consider him, but he wasn't perceived as being able to win or do very well at all, but now he is at 10% in the polls and he has a great shot at picking up Sanders supporters, disaffected Republicans and libertarians.

He's right on the economy, and he is pro-gay marriage, pro-choice, wants to end our foreign empire and the war on drugs and so he has a lot in common with the left. But he also is good on economics, so he can attract anti-authoritarian people on the right who won't be able to hold their nose for Trump.

It's really could be the perfect storm for Gary Johnson right now - not McAfee, I actually like McAfee more than Gary Johnson especially on policy but he just won't be taken seriously.. and he won't be able to attract many people on the left, and there are many who can't stand Hillary.

[LibertyEagle]

Johnson picking a top-level CFR member as his VP is the cherry on the top. Weld not only participated in the CFR Task Force to create a North American Union, he CHAIRED it.

Johnson should not be considered a liberty candidate and threads about him should not be in the forum bearing that name.

[Bryan]

Bump to complete evaluation.

I also expanded this to include the entire ticket.

[dannno]

Johnson is pro-abortion, up to the point that the baby can live outside of the womb.

Gary Johnson holds the same position as Ron Paul on abortion from an executive perspective - he believes it should be up to the states.

He is for "humanitarian" wars.

Won't take drone strikes off the table.

He has by far the best foreign policy of any of the other candidates, even much better than Donald Trump who you support. He is for scaling back the military immensely, I've heard he wants to cut it by 43%.

Why would he take drone strikes off the table? Rand only took drone strikes off the table for American citizens not actively engaged in combat, he certainly didn't take drone strikes off the table - Ron Paul would probably use drone strikes in the right situation, if congress declared war and it was the most effective means of neutralizing the enemy.

Does not want to close ANY military bases

I think this is highly unlikely, do you have any sources? He said he might want to keep some US bases in Afghanistan, even if we end the conflict. That does not equal "does not want to close ANY military bases". And that's not a deal breaker when he wants to cut military by 43% and massively curtailing our overseas empire.

Does not believe in setting any limits on the sheer numbers of "immigrants".

Except that effectively he would reduce the number of immigrants by taking away their benefits... that would be much more effective, and more clean and moral than Trump's solution.

Chose a VP that is not only a high-ranking CFR member, but co-chaired the CFR's Task Force to build a North American Union.

I would ding Johnson on the Weld pick from a liberty perspective, but from a strategic perspective he may be a good pick. I don't expect Johnson to win, but I would like him to take away as many votes from Hillary as possible, I want more people to look into libertarianism and be able to get libertarians into political power in the future.

If this is the current definition of a liberty candidate, this site is in big trouble.

Gary Johnson believes in liberty at least 90% of the time, which is better than Trump who is probably at around 60% and Hillary who is probably at around 20-30% of the time.

[afwjam]

Johnson is a solid B-, weld is an F, this puts the ticket in D territory. I'm a bit of a pessimist about these things but I think if we were able to shine some light on the ticket and its motivations it would be an F. I just do not trust people that compromise to win popularity contests.