Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 40

Thread: If Gary Johnson got into the debates

  1. #1

    If Gary Johnson got into the debates

    He would actually be a force one way or the other.

    Would he pick a new VP candidate? Who? Somebody with credibility.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2
    who knows. I hope he costs Mitt the election though.
    Please consider donating to the Mises Caucus today. We are TAKING OVER the LP.

    We have big plans including creating a program to bring libertarians like Maj Toure and Tom Woods to college campuses.

    We have several LP Mises Caucus Members who won elected office in 2020 including multiple City Council seats.

    Your recurring donation is what helps us to set these ideas into motion.

    Donate today at www.TakeHumanAction.com

  4. #3
    we've got three weeks to go

    B4 i can profusely pen a paeon

    of praise for gary johnson's

    potus run despite its quixotic

    nature of being, indeedy yes...

  5. #4
    he would be ignored just like he was in the RNC debates.

  6. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by Schifference View Post
    he would be ignored just like he was in the RNC debates.
    Not when there's only three people on stage. If he actually gets into those debates (and there are a lot of powerful people who don't want to see that happen) it would be a total game-changer.
    Join the Free State Project - www.freestateproject.org

    Now that Rand is out - Gary Johnson 2016!

  7. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by Nathan Hale View Post
    Not when there's only three people on stage. If he actually gets into those debates (and there are a lot of powerful people who don't want to see that happen) it would be a total game-changer.
    RP was more or less ignored, although when he chimed in it was great because he would just point out all the nonesense that was going on. Probably one of his better debates (Santorum, Gingrich, & Paul).

  8. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by JorgeStevenson View Post
    RP was more or less ignored, although when he chimed in it was great because he would just point out all the nonesense that was going on. Probably one of his better debates (Santorum, Gingrich, & Paul).
    Even then it was 4 candidates. I know it sounds silly, but there is a big difference between 3 and 4. Think Ross Perot. Will he get equal time? Probably not - but keep in mind the Presidential debate format is not used to having a third person, so I think if he mans up and interjects he can get a lot of coverage.
    Join the Free State Project - www.freestateproject.org

    Now that Rand is out - Gary Johnson 2016!

  9. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by GeorgiaAvenger View Post
    He would actually be a force one way or the other.

    Would he pick a new VP candidate? Who? Somebody with credibility.
    Judge Jim Grey has credibility. Probably more than Johnson himself does. And Johnson doesn't just get to "pick" a new VP - that was a decision made at the party convention back in May/June
    "You cannot solve these problems with war." - Ron Paul



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #9
    Nothing would come of it..if it actually happened. He would buffoon his way through every question he was asked. I just don't have any faith in the chinless wonder. I believe he is a Rockefeller shill. You don't just waltz into the New Mexico governorship. Weapons research and drug routes are two of the main reasons that governorship is highly controlled by cabal interests..

    Rev9
    Drain the swamp - BIG DOG
    http://mindreleaselabs.com/
    Seeking work on Apps, Games, Art based projects

  12. #10
    After seeing how badly Gary Johnson got manhandled on Fox when it comes to foreign policy, I'm not sure what good he could do in the debates. Really, Krauthammer ripped Gary a new one by pointing out the inconsistency of Gary being anti intervention when it comes to wars like Iraq and Afghanistan, but pro-intervention when it comes to Uganda. Really, someone should sit down with Gary and get him to rethink that. I'm still considering voting for him, but now I'm concerned that his inclusion in the debates could make a mockery of non-interventionist foreign policy.
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.

  13. #11
    While id appreciate a different opinion in the debates (what's to debate between obama and romney?), I am not sure if I really want to see gj represent the ron paul positions. Im afraid he just doesn't get it. And that would do more damage than good.

  14. #12
    You are just a further example of the growing population that supports a person but doesn't understand the ideas.

    Taking a stance for liberty isn't about the person. These aren't "Ron Paul" positions. We were fighting for this platform long before and will be long after Ron is gone.

    I'd be lying if I told you I wasn't offended you said these were "Ron Paul positions." Cut the nonsense and understand liberty wasn't an idea birthed by Ron himself. If you want someone to represent "Ron Paul positions," he has the opportunity to run or endorse third party. The reason is obviously because of his son. So you can debate amongst yourselves what's more important there; Ron running, or Ron appeasing so Rand has a shot down the line.

    Quote Originally Posted by asurfaholic View Post
    While id appreciate a different opinion in the debates (what's to debate between obama and romney?), I am not sure if I really want to see gj represent the ron paul positions. Im afraid he just doesn't get it. And that would do more damage than good.
    Last edited by rockandrollsouls; 07-31-2012 at 03:02 PM.
    Beware of these Obama supporters: ProBlue33, newbitech, libertarian4321, Kade, Electronicmajji, SeanEdwards,

  15. #13
    Not interested in seeing him in the debates, the guy is clueless. Johnson doesn't even understand the ethical and economic foundations of his *own* positions, which is the hallmark of the typical politician. The LP Candidate always has a dual mandate; One is to try to run to win, and the other is to try to be an evangelist for freedom.
    Only voted for Ron Paul and Trump in 28 years of living because I greatly respect honest men/women who expose disgusting illusions.

  16. #14
    Ron Paul positions is simply shorthand for liberty positions. I was a pretty strong "support Gary Johnson in the alternative" guy until I saw this.



    Sorry, but that was just embarrassing. My fear is that Gary Johnson will be onstage talking about how we shouldn't have gone to war with Libya only to have Obama throw his own words back at him and say "Well Gary, by endorsing a strikeforce to take out the LRA you've basically endorsed my foreign policy. I might not be as aggressive as you like, but I think we have to be careful because most of the LRA soldiers are just kids who would escape if given half a chance."

    Quote Originally Posted by rockandrollsouls View Post
    You are just a further example of the growing population that supports a person but doesn't understand the ideas.

    Taking a stance for liberty isn't about the person. These aren't "Ron Paul" positions. We were fighting for this platform long before and will be long after Ron is gone.

    I'd be lying if I told you I wasn't offended you said these were "Ron Paul positions." Cut the nonsense and understand liberty wasn't an idea birthed by Ron himself. If you want someone to represent "Ron Paul positions," he has the opportunity to run or endorse third party. The reason is obviously because of his son. So you can debate amongst yourselves what's more important there; Ron running, or Ron appeasing so Rand has a shot down the line.
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.

  17. #15
    Two points to consider:

    1. Yes, the Krauthammer exchange is cringe worthy - but Gary knows this too. It's like Ron Paul after he gets into cringe worthy exchanges - the next time around he's ready.
    2. This entire concern is White People Problems. *IF* he gets into the debates he might get an awkward question (that's he's already had posed to him). We should be so lucky to have that problem!
    Join the Free State Project - www.freestateproject.org

    Now that Rand is out - Gary Johnson 2016!

  18. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by rockandrollsouls View Post
    You are just a further example of the growing population that supports a person but doesn't understand the ideas.

    Taking a stance for liberty isn't about the person. These aren't "Ron Paul" positions. We were fighting for this platform long before and will be long after Ron is gone.

    I'd be lying if I told you I wasn't offended you said these were "Ron Paul positions." Cut the nonsense and understand liberty wasn't an idea birthed by Ron himself. If you want someone to represent "Ron Paul positions," he has the opportunity to run or endorse third party. The reason is obviously because of his son. So you can debate amongst yourselves what's more important there; Ron running, or Ron appeasing so Rand has a shot down the line.
    Your focusing a bit much on one aspect of my post where I said Ron Paul positions. I agree liberty has more to do with one man, you are completely correct.

    But I stand by the spirit of my post. Putting it clearly, I don't believe the Gary Johnson has a complete understanding of liberty as you and I understand it. As others have pointed out his foreign policy does not even come close to being consistant with limited govt and constitutional principles (stay OUT of foreign affairs). Another big one off the top of my head is his stance on drug legalization - if I understand he is for legalizing mj, but not other drugs? How about a consistant keep govt out of my life, or a consistant let govt $#@! you in the ass. Not the nonsense that calls itself Gary Johnson. I want a pure message of liberty, and whether you admit it or not, gj is trying to ride the R.paul revolution to success, and the media will be quick to ridicule an inconsistent message and confused principles. And I sincerely believe giving the mic to someone who doesn't understand liberty will do more harm than good.



  19. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  20. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by Nathan Hale View Post

    1. Yes, the Krauthammer exchange is cringe worthy - but Gary knows this too. It's like Ron Paul after he gets into cringe worthy exchanges - the next time around he's ready.
    That's a $#@!ty comparison. The only time Ron has ever made "cringe worthy" statements are only in regard to his wording to appease GOP voters. He's never made idiotic statements on national television that totally contradict his policies or worldview. Not even comparable, not by a long shot, so stop trying.
    Last edited by Wren; 08-01-2012 at 01:03 PM.
    Only voted for Ron Paul and Trump in 28 years of living because I greatly respect honest men/women who expose disgusting illusions.

  21. #18
    You've just misrepresented a number of GJ's positions on the issues. What that shows me is you didn't even research them. And to claim he's trying to ride the "Ron Paul revolution to success," (which, I will mind you, was a grassroots revolution before it culminated with Ron in 2008) is nonsensical considering he was arguably the strongest conservative governor in the history of this country for 2 terms.

    It's one thing to debate BXM or RonPaulHawaii on the details of the issues because they actually have a grasp of GJs platform, positions, and history. You don't have a background on any of that. I'm going to kindly ask you refrain from stoking a flame war until you actually research....you're just making a number of baseless claims.

    Quote Originally Posted by asurfaholic View Post
    Your focusing a bit much on one aspect of my post where I said Ron Paul positions. I agree liberty has more to do with one man, you are completely correct.

    But I stand by the spirit of my post. Putting it clearly, I don't believe the Gary Johnson has a complete understanding of liberty as you and I understand it. As others have pointed out his foreign policy does not even come close to being consistant with limited govt and constitutional principles (stay OUT of foreign affairs). Another big one off the top of my head is his stance on drug legalization - if I understand he is for legalizing mj, but not other drugs? How about a consistant keep govt out of my life, or a consistant let govt $#@! you in the ass. Not the nonsense that calls itself Gary Johnson. I want a pure message of liberty, and whether you admit it or not, gj is trying to ride the R.paul revolution to success, and the media will be quick to ridicule an inconsistent message and confused principles. And I sincerely believe giving the mic to someone who doesn't understand liberty will do more harm than good.
    Beware of these Obama supporters: ProBlue33, newbitech, libertarian4321, Kade, Electronicmajji, SeanEdwards,

  22. #19
    So...Gary is out of line for signing off on a vote of Congress to, in short, go to war? That's the only Constitutional way to do it. He's not calling for an executive branch-ordered strike. He just said if congress voted for it in that situation he'd support it in that instance.

    I can't say I agree with the stance of using war powers in instances of genocide but it WOULD be fully within the bounds of the Constitution and I do understand the rationale. Instances of genocide (assuming you do believe the Kony propaganda) is not something that is really addressed by any area of our original law, though we did develop letters of marque and reprisal which would fit in that "gray area."

    Long story short, congress does have the authority to declare war. It would be within the confines of our constitution. I don't agree with using our troops to prevent genocide, but it is lawful.

    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    Ron Paul positions is simply shorthand for liberty positions. I was a pretty strong "support Gary Johnson in the alternative" guy until I saw this.



    Sorry, but that was just embarrassing. My fear is that Gary Johnson will be onstage talking about how we shouldn't have gone to war with Libya only to have Obama throw his own words back at him and say "Well Gary, by endorsing a strikeforce to take out the LRA you've basically endorsed my foreign policy. I might not be as aggressive as you like, but I think we have to be careful because most of the LRA soldiers are just kids who would escape if given half a chance."
    Beware of these Obama supporters: ProBlue33, newbitech, libertarian4321, Kade, Electronicmajji, SeanEdwards,

  23. #20
    So you join the forum 2 years ago and you're more "righteous" than a guy who did a stellar job as governor for 2 terms? I question if you're even old enough to comprehend the positions considering you speak with words like "my bad" (are you one of the college know it all kids?) but you also quote Winston Churchill when denouncing GJ.

    You quote a mass murderer...a tyrant...proudly and willingly, yet trash an individual who was never a tyrant during his tenure as governor. That's a double standard and that's called being a hypocrite.

    Quote Originally Posted by Wren View Post
    Not interested in seeing him in the debates, the guy is clueless. Johnson doesn't even understand the ethical and economic foundations of his *own* positions, which is the hallmark of the typical politician. The LP Candidate always has a dual mandate; One is to try to run to win, and the other is to try to be an evangelist for freedom.
    Beware of these Obama supporters: ProBlue33, newbitech, libertarian4321, Kade, Electronicmajji, SeanEdwards,

  24. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by rockandrollsouls View Post
    You've just misrepresented a number of GJ's positions on the issues. What that shows me is you didn't even research them. And to claim he's trying to ride the "Ron Paul revolution to success," (which, I will mind you, was a grassroots revolution before it culminated with Ron in 2008) is nonsensical considering he was arguably the strongest conservative governor in the history of this country for 2 terms.

    It's one thing to debate BXM or RonPaulHawaii on the details of the issues because they actually have a grasp of GJs platform, positions, and history. You don't have a background on any of that. I'm going to kindly ask you refrain from stoking a flame war until you actually research....you're just making a number of baseless claims.
    Instead of being a dick about it why don't you just correct me where I'm wrong.

  25. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by rockandrollsouls View Post
    So you join the forum 2 years ago and you're more "righteous" than a guy who did a stellar job as governor for 2 terms?
    I apologize if my e-penis date is smaller than yours? Is that what you're implying here?

    I question if you're even old enough to comprehend the positions considering you speak with words like "my bad" (are you one of the college know it all kids?)
    I graduated 3 years ago. I said "my bad" in a sentence. How horrible, I must be some dumbass college kid.

    You quote a mass murderer...a tyrant...proudly and willingly, yet trash an individual who was never a tyrant during his tenure as governor. That's a double standard and that's called being a hypocrite.
    I found something for you

    Only voted for Ron Paul and Trump in 28 years of living because I greatly respect honest men/women who expose disgusting illusions.

  26. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by Wren View Post
    That's a $#@!ty comparison. The only time Ron has ever made "cringe worthy" statements are only in regard to his wording to appease GOP voters. He's never made idiotic statements on national television that totally contradict his policies or worldview. Not even comparable, not by a long shot, so stop trying.
    I'm not "trying". I've made criticisms of Paul's debate performances on these boards since I joined, in June of 2007. Neither man is perfect. Please, I wish a man with Paul's conviction, Johnson's resume, and Schiff's wordsmithery was our candidate. But that's not the case.
    Join the Free State Project - www.freestateproject.org

    Now that Rand is out - Gary Johnson 2016!

  27. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by Nathan Hale View Post
    I'm not "trying". I've made criticisms of Paul's debate performances on these boards since I joined, in June of 2007. Neither man is perfect. Please, I wish a man with Paul's conviction, Johnson's resume, and Schiff's wordsmithery was our candidate. But that's not the case.
    Paul has never contradicted himself or his worldview on national television in a debate. Yes, you are trying.
    Only voted for Ron Paul and Trump in 28 years of living because I greatly respect honest men/women who expose disgusting illusions.



  28. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  29. #25
    The bottom line is both Paul and Johnson are below average speakers for politicians. They aren't the worst but they are both down the list. I watch most the Ron Paul youtubes and listening to him is difficult sometimes and the same goes for Johnson. It would be great to have someone as articulate as a Tom Woods or Schiff able to get in the mix.

  30. #26
    No offense, but Woods is a historian and Schiff is a financial advisor. All Woods has done his entire career is talk and preach (never put anything into action, not an economist) and Schiff actually lost his clients a lot of money in the 08 collapse, despite preaching so much.

    It's not that Paul and Johnson are poor speakers. It's a matter of breaking out from the absurd grip the powers to be have on ALL areas of government and media. It's not that the message is not accepted; it's that it is squashed.

    Quote Originally Posted by misean View Post
    The bottom line is both Paul and Johnson are below average speakers for politicians. They aren't the worst but they are both down the list. I watch most the Ron Paul youtubes and listening to him is difficult sometimes and the same goes for Johnson. It would be great to have someone as articulate as a Tom Woods or Schiff able to get in the mix.
    Beware of these Obama supporters: ProBlue33, newbitech, libertarian4321, Kade, Electronicmajji, SeanEdwards,

  31. #27
    I shouldn't have to research for you before you speak. Isn't that what the "personal responsibility" is about in Ron's platform that you support?

    Not trying to "be a dick," but common sense might suggest that GJ running and winning on a liberty platform in 1994 preceded his so called attempt to "hijack the liberty movement" in 2012... What he's saying now was what he said in 1994....

    Quote Originally Posted by asurfaholic View Post
    Instead of being a dick about it why don't you just correct me where I'm wrong.
    Beware of these Obama supporters: ProBlue33, newbitech, libertarian4321, Kade, Electronicmajji, SeanEdwards,

  32. #28
    Conclusion - Kid that got out of college 3 years ago and is suddenly the judge and standard bearer of all things libertarian. So, Mr. Libertarian...how many of those government subsidized college loans are you still paying off? Put your money where your mouth is...come on now.

    Quote Originally Posted by Wren View Post
    I apologize if my e-penis date is smaller than yours? Is that what you're implying here?



    I graduated 3 years ago. I said "my bad" in a sentence. How horrible, I must be some dumbass college kid.



    I found something for you

    Beware of these Obama supporters: ProBlue33, newbitech, libertarian4321, Kade, Electronicmajji, SeanEdwards,

  33. #29
    Wrong again. Just another example you are a newcomer with a strong fire for liberty, but you're directing your anger in the wrong direction.

    Watch Paul's debate performances as the libertarian nominee, the 2008 primary, and the 2012 primary. He's toned back a lot of his issues. Does it mean he changed his stance? In 99% of cases (barring the death penalty switch,) absolutely not. But he has changed his approach (I believe for the better.)

    You can look to his stance on the border, drugs, etc.

    Quote Originally Posted by Wren View Post
    Paul has never contradicted himself or his worldview on national television in a debate. Yes, you are trying.
    Beware of these Obama supporters: ProBlue33, newbitech, libertarian4321, Kade, Electronicmajji, SeanEdwards,

  34. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by rockandrollsouls View Post
    No offense, but Woods is a historian and Schiff is a financial advisor. All Woods has done his entire career is talk and preach (never put anything into action, not an economist) and Schiff actually lost his clients a lot of money in the 08 collapse, despite preaching so much.

    It's not that Paul and Johnson are poor speakers. It's a matter of breaking out from the absurd grip the powers to be have on ALL areas of government and media. It's not that the message is not accepted; it's that it is squashed.
    I wasn't talking about Schiff or Woods specifically. I was using them as examples as people who articulate free market principles well. Schiff losing money doesn't have anything to do with being a good economist (I call him an economist.) There isn't much correlation between making money in the markets and understanding economics, Ray Dalio excepted.

    Johnson and Paul are not articulate relative to many of their peers. Listen to Romney, Obama, or Barney Frank. They might say repugnant things but they speak clearly and with amount of authoritative confidence, something Paul and Johnson do not do. I don't necessarily think speaking well is important to being a leader, but it is important to winning elections. Being a good salesman is important.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Gary Johnson Gary Johnson and the 2-party stranglehold on presidential debates
    By stu2002 in forum 2012 Presidential Election
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 10-08-2012, 09:51 AM
  2. Gary Johnson Let Gary Johnson and Jill Stein in the debates!
    By cdc482 in forum 2012 Presidential Election
    Replies: 60
    Last Post: 09-16-2012, 03:52 PM
  3. Let Gary Johnson and Jill Stein in the debates!
    By cdc482 in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 60
    Last Post: 09-16-2012, 03:52 PM
  4. Gary Johnson Could Gary Johnson break 10-15% and get into the general election debates?
    By Eric21ND in forum 2012 Presidential Election
    Replies: 33
    Last Post: 01-18-2012, 11:25 AM
  5. Trying to find the Gary Johnson Debates.
    By Captain Bryan in forum New Mexico
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 10-29-2009, 12:07 PM

Select a tag for more discussion on that topic

Posting Permissions

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