Why Rand Paul Supporters Should Vote for Gary Johnson

[dannno]

No. He also favors death-on-demand.

Isn't death on demand libertarian? (edit: nm, thought u meant euthanasia)

[Ender]

Abortion's a bit touchy but I understand his POV- that said, I do not see anything here not to support:

http://heavy.com/news/2016/07/gary-j...foreign-policy

Johnson, a self-made millionaire who served two terms as governor of New Mexico as a Republican, has been polling in the high single digits and is poised to earn the highest vote share of a third party candidate since Ross Perot in 1996. His running mate is former Massachusetts governor William “Bill” Weld, who was named the party’s vice presidential candidate during its convention in May.

Like many Libertarians, Johnson projects himself as socially liberal, fiscally conservative and dovish on foreign policy.

Here’s a look at where he stands on the issues:

1. Johnson Supports Gay Marriage & Called It ‘a Question of Liberty & Freedom’

As a presidential candidate in 2011, Johnson released a press statement officially endorsing gay marriage, citing individual freedoms and “keeping government out of personal lives.” Johnson’s statement said he “long supported civil unions” and concluded “government has no business choosing who should be allowed the benefits of marriage and who should not.”

“For a very long time, society has viewed gay marriage as a moral and, yes, religious issues. Today, I believe we have arrived at a point in history where more and more American are viewing it as a question of liberty and freedom,” his statement said.

Johnson joined a number of conservative political operatives in filing court documents in opposition to California’s Proposition 8, a statewide referendum to ban gay marriage, The New York Times reported in 2013.

In a 2010 op-ed piece in the Huffington Post titled “Let’s Finally End ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,’” Johnson urged Congress to repeal the policy banning gays in the military. Johnson argued that the United States is one of the only significant military powers in the world clinging to such a and pointed to a national poll showing 77 percent of Americans in favor of DADT’s repeal.

“Likewise, as has been widely documented, more than twenty of our NATO allies…allow gay men and women to serve openly, and the sky has not fallen,” Johnson wrote.

2. Johnson Has Been Mostly Supportive of Abortion Rights
Gary Johnson abortion rights, Gary Johnson pro choice

During this campaign cycle, Johnson has continuously voiced support for abortion rights, even though he favored limiting those rights to the viability of the fetus as a presidential candidate in 2012. He opposes funding stem cell research.

Johnson told audience members during the Libertarian Party debate in April that he is pro-choice. In a June interview, Johnson told the Daily Caller he doesn’t “even want to enter into the argument.”

“I want to give women choice in dealing with that issues, period. Unbelievably difficult decision,” he told the site. I’m going to make it for a woman? Government’s going to make it for a woman? I don’t want to play a part in that role.”

Similarly, Johnson told Rolling Stone in 2011 that he supports a woman’s right to choose “up until viability of the fetus,” although public funding shouldn’t be used for abortions.

3. He Was Nicknamed ‘Governor No’ for His Propensity to Veto Spending Bills as Governor of New Mexico

As New Mexico’s Republican governor from 1995 to 2003, Johnson earned a “B” rating from the free-market, conservative think tank, The Cato Institute, for proposals to reduce income taxes on top-earners and never increasing the cigarette tax – a move other governors, both Republican and Democrat, tackled.

Earning the nickname “Governor No” for his record-setting number of vetoes against increased government spending, Johnson instead looked for private companies to build things like highways.

Johnson line-item vetoed $5 million to expand Medicare and Medicaid in a statewide budget — a move he said he would repeat at the national level.

“I would have the federal government cut Medicare and Medicaid by 43 percent and block grant the programs [to the states] with no strings,” Johnson said in a 2011 interview with Scott Holleran. “Instead of giving the states one dollar – and it’s not really giving because there are strings attached – the federal government needs to give the states 57 cents, take away the strings and give the states carte blanche for how to give health care to the poor.”


4. Johnson Supports the Legalization of Marijuana & Was CEO of a Medical Marijuana Company

A former CEO of a medical marijuana company, Gary Johnson said he would legalize marijuana if elected president. (Getty)

Not only does Johnson support legalizing marijuana, but he also worked for the medicinal marijuana industry – a job he stepped away from when he launched his latest presidential campaign.

Named CEO of Cannabis Sativa, Johnson wrote up the business’s mission statement: The company “believes cannabis is destined to become the next gold rush and we’re prepared to shape its future in a legal environment.”

Citing a poll which shows 56 percent of Americans believe marijuana should be legalized, Johnson told the Telegraph he is “the only one still to this day – at the level of a state governor or U.S. Congressman – who advocates marijuana legalization.

“Not one elected official at this level has agreed with the American people. Not one. Legislation is going to happen anyway and I can’t think of a bigger public policy disconnect than the one we are talking about right now,” he told the paper.

Johnson also predicts President Obama will deschedule marijuana as a Class I narcotic, removing weed from the top tier of controlled substances.

“I think every municipality has to realize that all the planes to Denver every single weekend are filled up, and they’re missing out, and Colorado is absolutely vibrant,” he told the Washington Times. “Is it due to marijuana? I think it’s a contributing factor.”

Johnson, however, told USA Today he stopped consuming pot to focus on his campaign.

“I want to be completely on top of my game, all cylinders,” he told the newspaper.
CNN Libertarian Town Hall Live Stream: How to Watch Online

5. He’s a Regular Critic of American Military Intervention

Johnson has taken the opportunity to condemn President George W. Bush’s ongoing “War on Terrorism” and President Obama’s escalation of drone strikes, declaring both options as unjustifiable means of war, even though during a 2011 interview on Fox News he said, “initially, Afghanistan was totally warranted.”

“When it comes to drones,” Johnson said in a November 2015 interview with Reason, “I think it makes a bad situation even worse. We end up killing innocents and fueling hatred as opposed to containing it. It just hasn’t worked.”

Since at least 2011, when he stepped on the national stage, Johnson has opposed American involvement in Iraq, Libya and Syria. Johnson has instead cited government spending, rather than terrorism, as “the biggest threat” to the country.

[dannno]

Abortion's a bit touchy but I understand his POV- that said, I do not see anything here not to support:

http://heavy.com/news/2016/07/gary-j...foreign-policy

Oh, abortion.. I thought she meant euthanasia.

[dannno]

Remember Johnson's performance in the 2012 GOP primary debates?

Yeah, me neither ...

I just remember thinking, "what the hell is he doing running against Ron Paul??"

[CaptUSA]

I just remember thinking, "what the hell is he doing running against Ron Paul??"

I always thought he was trying to be Ron Paul's wingman in the debates. Remember him saying Ron Paul would be his first choice for VP?

Think it was also about raising his profile to run in the LP.

[silverhandorder]

I like Gary as a person and have no problem with him. He is simply not better then Trump in strategy and overall policy. Plus also the fact that 3rd party should not be voted for in this election.

As far is his policies being sell out in parts and him not being fully liberty for me that doesn not matter because he did not have my vote in the first place. Why spend time thinking about it?

There were also some red flags about him but as I said I am not following him.

[CaptUSA]

I like Gary as a person and have no problem with him. He is simply not better then Trump in strategy and overall policy. Plus also the fact that 3rd party should not be voted for in this election.

As far is his policies being sell out in parts and him not being fully liberty for me that doesn not matter because he did not have my vote in the first place. Why spend time thinking about it?

There were also some red flags about him but as I said I am not following him.

Lol... I can understand not voting for Johnson. There are many reasons why he isn't ideal. And there are some concerns as well.

But what I can't possibly understand is how someone could choose Trump over Johnson! That makes absolutely ZERO sense. Where Johnson is bad, Trump is worse. On every policy. Whatever mindspell has been cast over someone to get this to make logical sense in their heads must not work on me.

[puppetmaster]

He doesn't believe in private property rights and he said he would sign the Trans Pacific Partnership.

Huge fail.

i trust Gary as much as I trust donald. Not much. I am not voting for gary.

[silverhandorder]

Lol... I can understand not voting for Johnson. There are many reasons why he isn't ideal. And there are some concerns as well.

But what I can't possibly understand is how someone could choose Trump over Johnson! That makes absolutely ZERO sense. Where Johnson is bad, Trump is worse. On every policy. Whatever mindspell has been cast over someone to get this to make logical sense in their heads must not work on me.

Well we have to start with the fact that of the two Trump stands infinity better chance of being elected.

[LatinsforPaul]

Well we have to start with the fact that of the two Trump stands infinity better chance of being elected.

So you're giving up on your values so that you can feel better in voting for a winner. And when Trump loses, how will you defend your vote then?

[jkob]

he's for open borders

no can do

[puppetmaster]

So you're giving up on your values so that you can feel better in voting for a winner. And when Trump loses, how will you defend your vote then?

it is most likely a no vote on hillary. I will vote to stop her as well. If Johnson is sitting get where Trump is i would vote Johnson. Still don't like them but like them 10000 times better than hillary

[LatinsforPaul]

it is most likely a no vote on hillary. I will vote to stop her as well. If Johnson is sitting get where Trump is i would vote Johnson. Still don't like them but like them 10000 times better than hillary

I have no issue with those who want to stop Hillary and therefore will vote for Trump. But to push Trump on this site as if here were a conservative, libertarian, liberty minded, constitutional, paleocon, or even a moderate candidate is simply not true. Trump is a liberal who is just slightly to the right of Hillary. Though I understand where you are coming from by stopping Hillary, I cannot pull the lever for Trump because I strongly feel he would be more of an authoritarian President than Hillary. I am very very afraid of Fuhrer Trump. I will be voting for Gary Johnson even though he does not posses the ideal libertarian beliefs I would like to see in a candidate. He is the Libertarian Party nominee and I would like to see the Libertarian Party grow in numbers this election.

[silverhandorder]

So you're giving up on your values so that you can feel better in voting for a winner. And when Trump loses, how will you defend your vote then?

One I was not going to vote. I did not in 2012.

Two I am not giving up any principles I hold. I vote for those that I think are good people. They do not have to agree with me.

Before I even consider voting for someone they have to have a chance of winning. Elections are not always won I know that and will not feel bad if we lose.

[CaptUSA]

They do not have to agree with me.

Before I even consider voting for someone they have to have a chance of winning. Elections are not always won I know that and will not feel bad if we lose.

^This. This is the problem with the American voter.

This thinking is what allows the media to select our politicians. This is the thinking that allows connected politicians to use the media for their benefit. This is what keeps the two-party (see, one party) system in place.
This is the reality we are facing, folks. They've already won.

[LatinsforPaul]

Before I even consider voting for someone they have to have a chance of winning.

After reading this, I have to ask. Have you ever voted for Ron Paul in a primary? Because as you know the media always told you that he had no chance of winning.

[69360]

A political party is not elected to office. A person is and Johnson sucks. Clear now?

You support Trump, on here, and think Johnson sucks? Your opinion is invalid.

Why do people dislike Johnson? I'm not too familiar with him but do agree on the majority of his positions:

http://www.ontheissues.org/Gary_Johnson.htm

And real answers please- I'm looking to understand- not insults.

They just like to argue for the sake of argument. There is a large contingent that seemingly wants the LP and liberterians to remain a circle jerk debate society and not become a viable party.

[adam220891]

GJ has publicly trashed Ron/Rand as recently as last week.

No thanks.

Should have been McAfee.

[bunklocoempire]

This is a sale I can't make to the Rand converts - I've sold folks on Rand, or rather, Rand has sold himself to those folks -I just had to point them to Rand and maybe answer some questions. I could not do "full disclosure" with GJ and expect to make the sale, I'd have to be dishonest.

Please don't force me to make the sales pitch.

[Ender]

GJ has publicly trashed Ron/Rand as recently as last week.

No thanks.

Should have been McAfee.

Link?

[euphemia]

If Gary is going to say he's pro-choice, then he has to admit the choice he is for is death by abortion. The baby, then, has no right to life at all. Again, he does not think about the most essential rights. He is looking at government as a grantor of rights, not the protector of rights.

Viability is a very subjective line in the hospital. With all the medical support available these days, many, many babies are being born very early and are living full and healthy lives. Johnson is not a doctor, so it is not up to him to determine whether a child is viable or not, and he is then asking for more government to intrude on that process.

And who pays? If Johnson is truly pro-choice and believes it is the mother's choice, then he also has to say it is the mother's responsibility to pay for whatever she decides to do. It should never fall on a taxpayer, so it should never happen in a county-, state-, or federally funded facility. She can deliver the baby in a public or private facility and put it up for adoption (perhaps at the adoptive parents' expense) or she can abort the baby and pay for it herself. In a private facility. What she cannot do is go into a Planned Parenthood, or any kind of publicly funded facility and ask for termination.

Pregnancy is not a disease. It is a choice that is made when sexual activity takes place. If there is a choice to be made, it should be made on the preventative side, not the termination side.

[undergroundrr]

He's not going to appeal to hard-line pro-lifers. I don't like this aspect of him myself. But he may still seem like the better choice this election because he believes it should devolve to the states.

Most notably, the pro choice stance will allow him to steel votes from Hillary.

[euphemia]

Most notably, the pro choice stance will allow him to steel votes from Hillary.

No, it won't. Hillary has been bought and paid for by NARAL and Planned Parenthood. Mostly Planned Parenthood, the federally-funded nonprofit.

http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?ind=q15

[undergroundrr]

No, it won't. Hillary has been bought an paid for by NARAL and Planned Parenthood. Mostly Planned Parenthood, the federally-funded nonprofit.

http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?ind=q15

Everybody knows that. Nobody trusts her. Nobody.

[euphemia]

Johnson won't steal votes from Hillary. People who support Hillary have never heard of Gary Johnson.

[undergroundrr]

Johnson won't steal votes from Hillary. People who support Hillary have never heard of Gary Johnson.

You may wish it weren't so, but polls have already demonstrated that Johnson can take as many or more votes from Hillary as/than he does from trump.

This forum has shown evidence that the very people who are drawn to trump are repulsed by Johnson and vice versa. That's not to say that if you don't like trump you'll like Johnson.

Johnson doesn't cater (get it? cater? as in cakes?) to paleos, socons and alt-rights. He will snatch up moderate liberal and moderate conservative (and many moderate conservatives are considering Hillary) votes to the extent that he gets media exposure.

Johnson knows, because he's been in this game a long time that the people who will most forcefully cut down a libertarian in his tracks are other libertarians. How? By asking stupid litmus test questions in debates designed to make them look like insensitive selfish Ayn Rand caricatures. Johnson has done brilliantly at navigating that minefield without tarnishing his image except among a few cranky and insignificant right-wing idealogues. Now he's onward to the general with a shrewdly chosen VP who's a savvy fundraiser of considerable reputation and name recognition.

[euphemia]

I don't think it is wrong to expect a candidate for POTUS to be a principled man.

[Ender]

I don't think it is wrong to expect a candidate for POTUS to be a principled man.

Let me know when you find one running this election.

[undergroundrr]

I don't think it is wrong to expect a candidate for POTUS to be a principled man.

As RP has pointed out, there are principled liberals (maybe Naomi Wolf or Glenn Greenwald at times), there are principled conservatives, there are principled and honest people of every political stripe. I haven't seen anything to indicate that Johnson is in the habit of going against his own principles or misrepresenting himself as something he's not. That's not to say he hasn't on occasion, but he doesn't have the profile of the unprincipled fake. You don't agree with his brand of libertarianism and that's understandable. He has a few principles I don't agree with, but that's about all I can condemn him for. He's also taken on something pretty thankless and has had to withstand a lot of vitriol to do it. He doesn't have a great chance of winning and has had the courage to fight his way to a candidacy that isn't likely to earn him anything tangible except another chalked up election loss.

Contrast this with trump and Hillary - there is nothing principled or genuine about what they're selling to the American people. They're just going for the gold.