Campaign Evaluation: Johnson / Weld Ticket (POTUS)

[undergroundrr]

Here's the pdf of the report, which Weld signs onto without dissension.

http://i.cfr.org/content/publication...a_TF_final.pdf

I've never been able to work up quite the depth of concern about CFR, Bilderberg, the SPP and that kind of thing that others have. I don't automatically disqualify somebody who's a CFR member (If I were in federal gov and were asked to join the CFR, I think I would as an opportunity to influence policy direction at its source.)

But this particular initiative looks to be kind of the epicenter of what many perceive to be the attack on America's sovereignty posed by the NAU. Weld is steering it. It's a nightmare for paleocons and sovereignty hawks.

LE has been wrong about just about everything for sometime now, but I have to concede her point on this until some other information comes up.

[erowe1]

Here's the pdf of the report, which Weld signs onto without dissension.

http://i.cfr.org/content/publication...a_TF_final.pdf

I've never been able to work up quite the depth of concern about CFR, Bilderberg, the SPP and that kind of thing that others have. I don't automatically disqualify somebody who's a CFR member (If I were in federal gov and were asked to join the CFR, I think I would as an opportunity to influence policy direction at its source.)

But this particular initiative looks to be kind of the epicenter of what many perceive to be the attack on America's sovereignty posed by the NAU. Weld is steering it. It's a nightmare for paleocons and sovereignty hawks.

LE has been wrong about just about everything for sometime now, but I have to concede her point on this until some other information comes up.

Rather than vague generalities, what specific things does that report actually say that you find so egregious?

[undergroundrr]

Rather than vague generalities, what specific things does that report actually say that you find so egregious?

The report is all vague generalities. Nothing in it bugs me personally. In fact, there are some nice things:

p. 6 "A new North American community should rely more on the market and less on bureaucracy, more on pragmatic solutions to shared problems than on grand schemes of confederation or union, such as those in Europe. We must maintain respect for each other’s national sovereignty."

Although this belies NAU concerns, it's pretty fluffy language.

Not so good, but not really damning:

p. 26 "Each jurisdiction would retain the sovereign right to shape rules within its borders, but in principle, country-specific regulations should only be adopted when no international or North American approach already exists, where there are unique national circumstances or priorities, or where there is a well-founded lack of trust in the regulatory practices of the other partners."

But is this any different from how international law is generally conducted?

Maybe the worst concrete thing in this report is the use of World Bank and other similar institutions to develop joint investment funds and generally tamper with economic and physical infrastructure.

For those who don't want open borders -

p. 6 "Progress on security, for example, will allow a more open border for the movement of goods and people; progress on regulatory matters will reduce the need for active customs administration and release resources to boost security."

Heidi Cruz's dissension is interesting to read. She puts in a plug for free market solutions.

There's nothing about a North American currency in it.

[erowe1]

The report is all vague generalities. Nothing in it bugs me personally. In fact, there are some nice things:

p. 6 "A new North American community should rely more on the market and less on bureaucracy, more on pragmatic solutions to shared problems than on grand schemes of confederation or union, such as those in Europe. We must maintain respect for each other’s national sovereignty."

Although this belies NAU concerns, it's pretty fluffy language.

Not so good, but not really damning:

p. 26 "Each jurisdiction would retain the sovereign right to shape rules within its borders, but in principle, country-specific regulations should only be adopted when no international or North American approach already exists, where there are unique national circumstances or priorities, or where there is a well-founded lack of trust in the regulatory practices of the other partners."

But is this any different from how international law is generally conducted?

Maybe the worst concrete thing in this report is the use of World Bank and other similar institutions to develop joint investment funds and generally tamper with economic and physical infrastructure.

For those who don't want open borders -

p. 6 "Progress on security, for example, will allow a more open border for the movement of goods and people; progress on regulatory matters will reduce the need for active customs administration and release resources to boost security."

Heidi Cruz's dissension is interesting to read. She puts in a plug for free market solutions.

There's nothing about a North American currency in it.

That's pretty much what I thought too. I've pressed @LibertyEagle multiple times for her to quote whatever in that report is supposedly so damning, and she could never come up with anything major.

You hit the nail on the head mentioning "those who don't want open borders." When the Trump trolls actually say why they support him over Johnson, it's because they positively like his more statist control over people and goods crossing the border as opposed to the more free market approach of Gary Johnson and Ron Paul.

[LibertyEagle]

Guys, Robert Pastor admitted to the Canadian Parliament that the goal with this was in fact to create a North American Union, akin to the European Union. The SPP was and is part of it; the operational arm. It has a new name now. Judicial Watch obtained a lot of FOIA documents at the time. Ron Paul has talked about it. Do you not believe him either?

Yet, if you want to think it's all cool, go right on ahead. Enjoy.

[erowe1]

Guys, Robert Pastor admitted to the Canadian Parliament that the goal with this was in fact to create a North American Union, akin to the European Union. The SPP was and is part of it; the operational arm. It has a new name now. Judicial Watch obtained a lot of FOIA documents at the time. Ron Paul has talked about it. Do you not believe him either?

Believe him about what?

This seems like your way of admitting that you can't find anything in the recommendations of the task force Weld was on that warrants giving him an F. Did you actually read the document?

[dannno]

Yes and no. Ron Paul was about ending abortion any way he had to do it. Many people missed him talking about his legislation which would have ended Roe v. Wade and that would have made abortion classified as murder. What would have been left up to the states is how they wanted to prosecute it.

So, Ron was actively trying to get abortion ended and he was doing it at the federal level. Have you heard Johnson lay out any of his own plans? Because the President to my knowledge cannot overturn Roe v. Wade. So, his personal belief DOES matter here. He has said he believes in the woman's "right to choose" and his position appears to be that the woman can abort her baby up until the point that it can live outside of the womb. THIS IS MURDER. There is no other definition. So, unless you can show me where he has said what the plans to do what Ron was, Johnson earns an F on this.

So effectively they would have the same or very similar policies... and beyond that, even from your perspective, GJ would improve the ability for states to classify abortion as murder, which is better than the status quo. Status quo is a C, so he has to get better than a C on abortion.

How? He has said he doesn't want to close any bases in the Middle East, so how does he plan to do it?

I see a lot of "perhaps" in there and I also see a date of 2012. Based on his current statements on foreign policy, like the 30+ minutes he spent talking about it on the Joe Rogan podcast I would give him very high marks.

Yes, but did you hear Johnson qualifying their use like the Paul's? I certainly did not.

So you are making your judgement based on the assumption that he would use them badly, even though all he said was that he wouldn't take them off the table - which again is the same position. I would give the Pauls extra credit for clarifying, but essentially they still have the same position unless there is evidence for how GJ intends to use the drone strikes that goes against that.

I agree. How does he plan to make that happen? He can't do it with Executive Order, so how is this going to happen? Does he have a plan?

Certainly his welfare plan is better than the status quo and moves the mission forward.

Danno, it's more than a "ding". It is a flat tire. By choosing Weld, he has offered up the entire ticket, if not the LP, to the same people who have corrupted everything else. If the LP is going to welcome in the CFR, it does NO GOOD WHATSOEVER to get "libertarians" in power, because they have SOLD THE HELL OUT.

As far as I can tell he chose him for strategic reasons - he was the governor of a blue state, which he won by a very large margin, and Gary Johnson is trying to make the libertarian choice friendly to Sanders supporters and those on the left to lure them away from voting for Hillary. You should love that.

So, back to the lesser of the evils? Is that how we determine a liberty candidate now?

If they improve the mission as a whole and don't have any huge flaws, they can be considered a liberty candidate.

The globalism stuff is a ding for GJ, but I don't think he is any worse than the status quo as far as globalism goes, he is probably better than the status quo in how he would want to implement his globalist policies.

[LibertyEagle]

So effectively they would have the same or very similar policies...

No. Ron Paul was actually doing something to classify it as murder at the federal level. Have you heard that Johnson would?

and beyond that, even from your perspective, GJ would improve the ability for states to classify abortion as murder, which is better than the status quo. Status quo is a C, so he has to get better than a C on abortion.

I have heard no such plans for how he would do that. Have you? What I have heard is his belief in abortion up to the point that the baby can live outside of the womb. That ain't liberty.

I see a lot of "perhaps" in there and I also see a date of 2012. Based on his current statements on foreign policy, like the 30+ minutes he spent talking about it on the Joe Rogan podcast I would give him very high marks.

Ok. It's probably better than we have now.

So you are making your judgement based on the assumption that he would use them badly, even though all he said was that he wouldn't take them off the table - which again is the same position. I would give the Pauls extra credit for clarifying, but essentially they still have the same position unless there is evidence for how GJ intends to use the drone strikes that goes against that.

Well, you are giving him the benefit of assuming he would do the same thing as the Paul's. I think that is a huge leap, Danno. But, it's not worth arguing about.

Certainly his welfare plan is better than the status quo and moves the mission forward.

Your assertion was that he would take away the illegal aliens' benefits and my question to you was HOW? So without a HOW, no, it's not moving anything, anywhere.

As far as I can tell he chose him for strategic reasons - he was the governor of a blue state, which he won by a very large margin, and Gary Johnson is trying to make the libertarian choice friendly to Sanders supporters and those on the left to lure them away from voting for Hillary. You should love that.

I can understand hiring a less than great person philosophically in your campaign, if he's really good at a certain thing and you keep him compartmentalized. But, no, I think choosing a CFR member as your VP, who by the way co-chaired the "Building a North American Community" Task Force, is naive, stupid, and selling your soul.

If they improve the mission as a whole and don't have any huge flaws, they can be considered a liberty candidate.

See, I think he has huge flaws. A huge red flag for me, amongst others, is his belief in no limits on immigration, coupled with a VP who wants a North American Union. Can't you see how these work hand-in-hand? Just think about it for a minute. I guess I've been studying this whole union/balkanization/world government thing for so many years that certain things pop out at me and this did.

The globalism stuff is a ding for GJ, but I don't think he is any worse than the status quo as far as globalism goes, he is probably better than the status quo in how he would want to implement his globalist policies.

Maybe, but see, I don't think a liberty candidate should be furthering them AT ALL. Ron Paul certainly would not have; he would have done what he could to thwart their plan. If you know the goal is to take us into world government, why would we want to embrace someone as a liberty candidate, who is taking us further down that path? I can understand you choosing to vote for him, but is he a "liberty candidate"? I don't think so.

[LibertyEagle]

Believe him about what?

This seems like your way of admitting that you can't find anything in the recommendations of the task force Weld was on that warrants giving him an F. Did you actually read the document?

You can start with these:
An article:
"CONGRESSMAN: SUPERHIGHWAY ABOUT NORTH AMERICAN UNION"
http://www.wnd.com/2006/10/38614/

And a video:


Google is your friend.

[erowe1]

You can start with these:
An article:
"CONGRESSMAN: SUPERHIGHWAY ABOUT NORTH AMERICAN UNION"
http://www.wnd.com/2006/10/38614/

And a video:


Google is your friend.

OK?

And what does any of this have to do with Weld?

Is this your way of admitting that you couldn't find anything in the recommendations of the task force he was on that warrant giving him an F?

[Natural Citizen]

If he moves our agenda forward in some ways but is status quo in others he'll be more in the B range; so long as he doesn't have any D-F positions.

Is (our) agenda, in your view, one that strives to forward the concept of Individual Liberty fully or one that strives to forward the concept of Individual Liberty piece-meal? I'm of the view that it is both dishonest and counterintuitive to create the illusion that Individuals or groups of Individuals may claim benefit to Individual Liberty without acknowledging, accepting and defending the foundation that provides for the principles of Individual Liberty itself together with Individual Liberty's fundamental principles in whole. That is to say that if we reject and accept them piece-meal, then, by default, we will not benefit from them as an Indivisible whole at all.

Anyway. I suppose I'm trying to better understand/measure the integrity of this "Liberty Campaign Evaluation" grading system. So, then, I have some questions if you'd consider reserving effort to acknowledge and address them precisely. Well. Really only two questions, I think. But they're honest questions that are offered in the sincere interest of stimulating functional dialogue as it relates to honest summation of one's so called Liberty grade as a prospective leader. More precisely, a president. Coincidentally, it should be noted, understood and agreed that government's only role is to protect Individual Liberty.

Does the site (we) agree that the primary fundamental principle of Individual Liberty itself is that Individuals or groups of Individuals should be free to make rules for themselves provided that the rules that they make for themselves do not prohibit other Individuals or other groups of Individuals from equally doing the same? If so, then, does the site (we) also accept that an open rejection of this primary fundamental principle is, by default, aggressive toward the concept of Individual Liberty fully? Surely, the site (we) must agree that Individuals should be free to own property and to exchange in trade without restriction provided they exchange in trade honestly.

Gary Johnson, for the record, has openly acknowledged his position that he'd force an Individual or a group of Individuals to relinquish their property to another Individual or to another group of Individuals by way of the barrel of a government gun. Gary Johnson, to be clear, professes this position under the banner of Liberty itself. That's a fundamental naw naw with the most critical of consequence if the position is not logically observed and rejected fully and immediately. Well...if (our) agenda is to forward the concept of Individual Liberty fully.

The right to property, as you may know, Bryan, is an indispensable and principal material support for Man's God-given unalienable rights. Most notably, the right to Liberty itself. I will repeat that and I will underline it for sake of clarity and purpose to scope. Again... The right to property is an indispensable and principal material support, not only of Man's God-given unalienable rights, but of Man's right to Liberty itself.

If one correctly and morally accepts this fundamental principle as true and necessary for Individual Liberty to be had fully as an Indivisible whole, then, the primary principle must not be rejected in Liberty. Gary Johnson openly rejected Individual Liberty's most fundamental principle. And under the banner of Liberty, no less. As such; he rejects the foundation for its moral code. If it is the primary mission (agenda) of this site to truly and honestly promote and defend the cause of Liberty fully, then, its position should, in my view, reflect adherence to, support for, and defense of Individual Liberty's most fundamental principle. Because to reject Individual Liberty's most fundamental principle is to patently reject the concept of Individual Liberty fully.

The only morally honest conclusion, if the task at hand is a true Liberty evaluation of this particular candidate, is, in my view, to correctly and accurately provide for him an F as a consequence of his openly admitted rejection of Individual Liberty's most fundamental principle alone. To repeat, the right to property is an indispensable and principal material support of Man's right to Liberty itself. Historically, it is a difinitive Communist position to reject this fundamental principle given that it is patently true that this fundamental principal is the material support for Man's right to Liberty itself. Is it not?

The fundamental principles of Individual Liberty itself must be accepted in whole with its fundamental moral foundation. Not piece-meal. If one accepts and rejects the principles of Individual Liberty and its foundation for moral code piece-meal, then, one possesses no legitimate claim to its benefits whatsoever. Of course, it is, in my view, both logical and practical as well as honest to correctly surmise and conclude that anyone whose admitted position; spoken under the banner of Liberty itself, mind you, and as a candidate for President to a nation whose government's only legitimate role is to protect Individual Liberty, is to force Individuals or groups of Individuals to relinquish their property to other Individuals or to other groups of Individuals by way of the barrel of a government gun demonstrates a fundamental rejection of Individual Liberty itself as well as a rejection of the fundation for its moral code. Would you not agree with that assessment?

[specsaregood]

Governor Johnson brings a distinctly business-like mentality to governing, believing that decisions should be made based on cost-benefit analysis rather than strict ideology.

That is a prescription for fascism. In fact, making decisions based on cost-benefit is already the system we have in place. It is exactly why NOTHING gets cut! It certainly has nothing to do with liberty.

[Natural Citizen]

Originally Posted by Gary Johnson;
Governor Johnson brings a distinctly business-like mentality to governing, believing that decisions should be made based on cost-benefit analysis rather than strict ideology.

That is a prescription for fascism. In fact, making decisions based on cost-benefit is already the system we have in place. It is exactly why NOTHING gets cut! It certainly has nothing to do with liberty.

Mm. Yeah. This brings to mind the fundamental principle of equality in Legal Justice. Particularly given Gary Johnson's position in support of a private prison industry. Equality in Legal Justice, of course, means equal treatment under equal laws. More precisely, laws that are expressive of "just powers" for the primary purpose of securing one's right to equal treatment under equal laws.

To his credit, though, he accepts that the U.S. incarceration rate is a consequence of over-criminalization and the failed War on Drugs. The flipside of that, though, is that the current generation of casual pot smokers who support him for that reason alone aren't considerate of or particularly astute to the consequences referenced here in the former. It's unfortunate that friends aren't always led to think things through all the way.

The reality, though, is that there are more states than the single state of New Mexico. And Johnson was, again, to his credit, realistic to acknowledge that while he, himself, didn't experience pressure to fill prison beds from special interests, that pressure to fill prison beds, indeed, might happen elsewhere in other states where the private prison model is applicable.

[Bryan]

Is (our) agenda, in your view, one that strives to forward the concept of Individual Liberty fully or one that strives to forward the concept of Individual Liberty piece-meal? I'm of the view that it is both dishonest and counterintuitive to create the illusion that Individuals or groups of Individuals may claim benefit to Individual Liberty without acknowledging, accepting and defending the foundation that provides for the principles of Individual Liberty itself together with Individual Liberty's fundamental principles in whole. That is to say that if we reject and accept them piece-meal, then, by default, we will not benefit from them as an Indivisible whole at all.

The agenda is put forth in the site's Mission:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/content.php?1957

Please let me know if you have any questions off of that.

The fundamental principles of Individual Liberty itself must be accepted in whole with its fundamental moral foundation. Not piece-meal. If one accepts and rejects the principles of Individual Liberty and its foundation for moral code piece-meal, then, one possesses no legitimate claim to its benefits whatsoever. Of course, it is, in my view, both logical and practical as well as honest to correctly surmise and conclude that anyone whose admitted position; spoken under the banner of Liberty itself, mind you, and as a candidate for President to a nation whose government's only legitimate role is to protect Individual Liberty, is to force Individuals or groups of Individuals to relinquish their property to other Individuals or to other groups of Individuals by way of the barrel of a government gun demonstrates a fundamental rejection of Individual Liberty itself as well as a rejection of the fundation for its moral code. Would you not agree with that assessment?

The campaign evaluation system is a bit more complex than our Mission principles, since it recognizes the political challenges our movement has. A key issue that you seem to be hitting on is with the Civil Rights Act, to be certain, this legislation is in violation of the fundamental concepts you outline but conversely, attacking it is near political suicide. From a practical standpoint if we had a choice between a candidate that would further the welfare / warfare state vs one who would drive us to 100% liberty minus keeping the CRA, what do we do? Our lives would be 99.99% better with candidate #2, so some will choose to support them with an asterisk that the disagree with the CRA issue.

When evaluation candidate on the issue they get graded as follows:
Moves Mission forward: A to B
Maintain status quo: C
Move Mission backwards: D to F

A candidate that is straight C's does nothing for us, but they would be better than someone with all D's and F's. To get site support a candidate should have no D's or F's, and pushing into 50% A's and B's. That could push them into the Defensive / Strategic Purpose Candidate range.

Our Campaign Evaluation System recognizes three overall classification of candidates:

Mission Supporting Candidate = A - C
Defensive / Strategic Purpose Candidate = D
Non-Supporting Candidate = F

An A+ rating will require them to be 100% aligned on the issues.

All the details on the evaluation are here, complete with an overall workflow with lots of table :
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...luation-System

Good questions, let me know if you have any more.

Thanks.

[Natural Citizen]

The agenda is put forth in the site's Mission:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/content.php?1957

Please let me know if you have any questions off of that.



The campaign evaluation system is a bit more complex than our Mission principles, since it recognizes the political challenges our movement has. A key issue that you seem to be hitting on is with the Civil Rights Act, to be certain, this legislation is in violation of the fundamental concepts you outline but conversely, attacking it is near political suicide. From a practical standpoint if we had a choice between a candidate that would further the welfare / warfare state vs one who would drive us to 100% liberty minus keeping the CRA, what do we do? Our lives would be 99.99% better with candidate #2, so some will choose to support them with an asterisk that the disagree with the CRA issue.

When evaluation candidate on the issue they get graded as follows:
Moves Mission forward: A to B
Maintain status quo: C
Move Mission backwards: D to F

A candidate that is straight C's does nothing for us, but they would be better than someone with all D's and F's. To get site support a candidate should have no D's or F's, and pushing into 50% A's and B's. That could push them into the Defensive / Strategic Purpose Candidate range.

Our Campaign Evaluation System recognizes three overall classification of candidates:

Mission Supporting Candidate = A - C
Defensive / Strategic Purpose Candidate = D
Non-Supporting Candidate = F

An A+ rating will require them to be 100% aligned on the issues.

All the details on the evaluation are here, complete with an overall workflow with lots of table :
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...luation-System

Good questions, let me know if you have any more.

Thanks.

Thanks for explaining the site's Campaign Evaluation System for recognizing overall classification of candidates. In terms of evaluating a Liberty candidate, however, I'm of the view that the task should premise its terms upon the idea that Liberty itself is based upon fundamental principles and not philosophies or policies. The CRA is a policy. It is not relative to my previous thoughts here. Nor have I once mentioned the CRA in any way at all aside from providing the courtesy of a response whenever it has been projected into the terms of controversy by another.

Anyway. Thank You.

eta: You didn't address the underlined there in my previous communication. Do you accept the underlined to be true? Yes or No will suffice. I've no interest in debating you about it. I just want to know if you accept it to be true.

[specsaregood]

Mm. Yeah. This brings to mind the fundamental principle of equality in Legal Justice. Particularly given Gary Johnson's position in support of a private prison industry. Equality in Legal Justice, of course, means equal treatment under equal laws. More precisely, laws that are expressive of "just powers" for the primary purpose of securing one's right to equal treatment under equal laws.

What are the benefits of keeping alive all the people on welfare, unemployment, medicare, or in prison? Compared to the cost of supporting them all? Seems like an easy analysis, if GJ becomes president I might have to invest in ovens, bullets, and train cars.

[LibertyEagle]

For God's sake, Bryan, Johnson said he would sign the TPP legislation. He has no business being classified as a liberty candidate.

[Bryan]

Thanks for explaining the site's Campaign Evaluation System for recognizing overall classification of candidates. In terms of evaluating a Liberty candidate, however, I'm of the view that the task should premise its terms upon the idea that Liberty itself is based upon fundamental principles and not philosophies or policies. The CRA is a policy. It is not relative to my previous thoughts here. Nor have I once mentioned the CRA in any way at all aside from providing the courtesy of a response whenever it has been projected into the terms of controversy by another.

Anyway. Thank You.

I brought up the CRA since Johnson supports at least parts of it, I thought that was what you getting after. I see philosophies and principles pretty much the same (strategic viewpoint), but policies are different, as they are tactical.

eta: You didn't address the underlined there in my previous communication. Do you accept the underlined to be true? Yes or No will suffice. I've no interest in debating you about it. I just want to know if you accept it to be true.

See below.

The right to property is an indispensable and principal material support, not only of Man's God-given unalienable rights, but of Man's right to Liberty itself.

I agree with this 100%. Well stated. It is also principal in support of Man's life itself.

[Bryan]

For God's sake, Bryan, Johnson said he would sign the TPP legislation. He has no business being classified as a liberty candidate.

You're welcome to suggest some grades for the different categorizes.

[dannno]

For God's sake, Bryan, Johnson said he would sign the TPP legislation. He has no business being classified as a liberty candidate.

He said he would sign it if it furthered free trade. Pretty sure Rand Paul said the same thing way back when.

If it does in fact make trade more free than it was before, it should be signed. It would supersede a lot of older regulations, thereby reducing the regulations on trade which is our goal.

Now, here's the thing. You and I know about the conspiracy of the globalists, and neither of us trust that they will ultimately put forward a bill that frees up trade. Instead we know it will create a crony trade system that will benefit the globalists.

So really what it comes down to is trust. Do we trust that when it comes down to it, would Rand wait for the final legislation to be introduced, read through it and make a sound determination regarding whether it is a benefit to liberty or not? I think most of us here would trust Rand. Rand is pretty skeptical when it comes to the globalists as well, maybe not quite as skeptical as his father but he knows what is up.

Gary Johnson, just a few months ago said he was AGAINST TPP.. He changed his mind when some advisers told him that it would free up trade, and he made the claim that he would vote for it if it did in fact free up trade. So the question again is, do we trust Gary Johnson to read through the bill and make a sound determination regarding whether it is a benefit to liberty or not? I trust that he would put forth an effort to do so, but I think he is less wary of the globalists and might not have his defenses up quite as strongly as Rand would. But the fact that he was against it a few months ago is a good sign that he does hold some amount of skepticism against the globalists.

So I can't tell you if Gary Johnson will absolutely make the correct decision about TPP when it comes up for vote - but the fact is he is looking at the issue from the correct perspective: Does it free up trade or not? Is he willing to be against TPP? Yes, he has been against TPP before. So I trust Gary Johnson to make a more sound decision than any of the other candidates. Trump says he is against it, but he could just as easily come around and say, "oh, well this version my advisers say is ok to vote for." So again it comes down to trust. I don't trust Johnson like I do Ron Paul, or even Rand, but I think he is more trustworthy than 99% of the politicians out there, and a bit more trustworthy than Trump.

[Natural Citizen]

He said he would sign it if it furthered free trade.

Forced trade is not free trade. Free trade...proper globalism that is a product of a healthy economy is, agreeably, a truly libertarian position. Forced globalism, however, is patently not. Forced globalism is the product of forced/managed trade.

And again. Just Powers. Do you understand the concept? The TPP is patently a transfer of power. More precisely, it is a repatriation of our Republic and a rejection of its most fundamental foundation and principles.

[dannno]

Forced trade is not free trade. Free trade...proper globalism is, agreeably, a truly libertarian position. Forced globalism, however, is patently not.

Dude, you are totally missing the point.

Here is what you don't seem to incorporate into your whole thought process - WE ALREADY HAVE MANAGED TRADE. If the new managed trade deal frees up trade, it would be better than the current system of managed trade.

If all drugs are illegal and two people were running for office and one of them wanted to decriminalize cannabis but would keep the other drugs illegal and the other candidate wanted to keep all drugs illegal, I'm sorry, all else equal I'm going to vote for the guy who wants to decriminalize cannabis. Because I will have more freedom than if I vote for the other guy and there is no viable third option. You only want a 100% pure candidate, so you will never have anybody to vote for and the more evil person will always win if liberty voters adopt your strategy. It's a losing strategy at this point in time. It might be a good strategy for another time and place, maybe if we had a lot more freedom.. but we don't.. so I'm sorry, but I don't accept that as a viable strategy and neither does Bryan.

Like I said in my last post, the people trying to pass this stuff want to make trade less free. I get that, LE certainly gets that. That is why if anybody asks, I say I am against TPP because I know even if they put out a version that appears to free up trade, on the last day they will slip in a bunch of stuff and try and pass a bill that is thousands of pages long in less than a day. But if Gary Johnson keeps his word, as President he would not sign the bill until he read it so they would have to make the bill available to read for much longer before he would ever sign it. So effectively he would be against the bill that they want to pass.

[Natural Citizen]

Dude, you are totally missing the point.

There sure are a whole lot of ifs floating around your tongue, aren't there. You're the one missing the point. I'll repeat it so that perhaps it may sink into your noggin. The TPP is patently a transfer of power. This is not an if. It is not an and. It is not a but. It is a given.

And don't call me Dude, please.

[dannno]

There sure are a whole lot of ifs floating around your tongue, aren't there. You're the one missing the point. I'll repeat it so that perhaps it may sink into your noggin. The TPP is patently a transfer of power. This is not an if. It is not an and. It is not a but. It is a given.

And don't call me Dude, please.

No, there is only ONE important "if". You claim that TPP is a transfer of power. That's BULL$#@!. The globalists already control trade, so who is the power being transferred to? We already lost our freedom.

So the one important "if" is whether the trade document makes trade more free or not. If it doesn't, then Gary Johnson won't vote for it, as he shouldn't. If it does, then he will vote for it, as he SHOULD. Even though we both know they won't put forward a TPP that will free up trade - but if our assumption is true, then we can effectively count on Gary Johnson not to vote for it. So there is no problem. The TPP issue shouldn't hurt Gary Johnson because he has said he would only vote for it if it frees up trade, and that is the libertarian answer. LE's conspiracy theorist answer is to say never vote for it because it will never free up trade (admittedly I take the same position). Your purist answer is to not vote for more liberties because it isn't 100% liberty.

[Natural Citizen]

No, there is only ONE important "if". You claim that TPP is a transfer of power. That's BULL$#@!. The globalists already control trade, so who is the power being transferred to? We already lost our freedom.

So the one important "if" is whether the trade document makes trade more free or not. If it doesn't, then Gary Johnson won't vote for it, as he shouldn't. If it does, then he will vote for it, as he SHOULD. Even though we both know they won't put forward a TPP that will free up trade - but if our assumption is true, then we can effectively count on Gary Johnson not to vote for it. So there is no problem. The TPP issue shouldn't hurt Gary Johnson because he has said he would only vote for it if it frees up trade, and that is the libertarian answer. The conspiracy theorist answer is to say never vote for it because it will never free up trade. The purist answer is to not vote for more liberties because it isn't 100% liberty.

dannno, respectfully, you're full of sht, man. Just Powers, Limited, Limited for Liberty, Consent. Look em up.

TPP is a transfer of power.

[dannno]

dannno, respectfully, you're full of sht, man. Just Powers, Limited, Limited for Liberty. Look em up, man.

I'm full of $#@!? Really? Are you even reading my posts?

Are saying that the globalists don't currently control trade? You have to be completely insane to think that the globalists don't currently control trade. So please explain what this 'transfer of power' is that you are speaking of?

[Natural Citizen]

Are saying that the globalists don't currently control trade?

Again. Just Powers, Limited, Limited for Liberty, Consent. Look them up, please. Learn the value in their meaning. TPP is a patent transfer of power. A rejection of all of these things as a matter of policy. Policy, btw, that is scribbled up behind closed doors, in secret. Consent, of course, was/is not considered.

[dannno]

Again. Just Powers, Limited, Limited for Liberty, Consent. Look them up. Learn the value in their meaning. TPP is a transfer of power. A rejection of all of these things as a matter of policy.

Why is it so difficult for you to answer a question?

Who is the power being transferred to? Do the globalists not already control trade?

Do you realize you are trying to convince somebody who is against managed trade deals to be against managed trade deals?

[Natural Citizen]

Why is it so difficult for you to answer a question?

Your question is nonsensical.

Who is the power being transferred to? Do the globalists not already control trade?

Not as a matter of policy, they don't. What you're offering here is consent to allow them to control it as a matter of policy. Policy by their pen alone. In secret. Behind closed doors. Without consent of the people. This is a transfer of power absent consent of the people.

Do you realize you are trying to convince somebody who is against managed trade deals to be against managed trade deals?

I'm making a case for the fundamental principles that define our Republic. You're making a case against them. You just don't realize that you are. Man, for the record, organizes government to be his tools. Not the other way around.

[dannno]

Your question is nonsensical.

Asking if there is currently managed trade and who controls it is not a nonsensical question.

Not as a matter of policy, they don't. What you're offering here is consent to allow them to control it as a matter of policy. Policy by their pen alone. In secret. Brehind closed doors. Without consent of the people. This is a transfer of power absent consent of the people.

Ok, see, you're completely wrong. Are you from the 19th century or something? I hate to break it to you but trade is already tightly regulated by the globalists. Go ahead, try and get into the importing and exporting business and don't deal with any governments and see what happens.

I'm making a case for the fundamental principles of our Republic. Put the bone down and pay attention, please.

I'm all for your vision for society. If you were running for President and voting for you would help in any way, I would vote for you, unless you were running against somebody like Ron Paul and they were doing significantly better in the polls.

The problem is we don't have any people like that running. So we have to consider who will give us the most freedom possible. Who will help make way for more freedom in the future. You are like, "$#@! that, it's 100% liberty or none!" but I would much rather have 95% liberty than 5% liberty.