Site Information
About Us
- RonPaulForums.com is an independent grassroots outfit not officially connected to Ron Paul but dedicated to his mission. For more information see our Mission Statement.
I like obeying the Constitution. Johnson won't do it.
Like holding a gun to state's heads and making them obey his own private but now federalized version of morality?...to name a few of his many solidly libertarian positions.
No thanks amigo. I get enough of that crap from the status quo left and right.
I vote the Constitution. Johnson has struck a course even more off-track from a Constitutional government than either Hillary or Trump. If Gary Johnson wanted my vote, then he would not piss on the Constitution. Why is this so hard for you Johnsonites and Trumpaloompas to understand?
That's the craziest thing I've heard all day.
Maybe that explains why you are acting like them?...and I've spent a good part of the day dealing with Trumpkins.
Lol...this is funny.
Pushing the chance of getting better than 1 percent using the same arguments that Trump and Hillary people use.
There's a slight difference.
Johnson is a libertarian on virtually every issue; Trump is not a libertarian on any issues.
The "vote Johnson to get more press for libertarianism, ballot access, and matching funds" makes good sense.
The "vote for Trump because...chaos? " argument makes no sense at all.
I don't know why I engaged you in this conversation.
You'd made it perfectly clear on previous occasions that you have no interest in the practical consequences of your decisions.
Your sole object of concern is whether your vote will be for a person who shares 100% of your principles.
Whether that vote will be of any value in actually realizing those principles is no importance whatsoever.
So, there's really nothing more to discuss.
I hope what you perceive as your integrity keeps you warm as the tyranny which you refused to oppose closes in around you.
Same reason the Trumpaloompas kept coming at me I suppose.
This is a belief which you hold that is yours, and yours alone. It has been argued as fact merely by making the statement, therefore I will not vouch for it's integrity.You'd made it perfectly clear on previous occasions that you have no interest in the practical consequences of your decisions.
I have supported many candidates ... a voluminous quantity over the last 12 years and you know what? Not a single one of them did I agree with 100%. Imagine that. This charge is also all in your head.Your sole object of concern is whether your vote will be for a person who shares 100% of your principles.
Why do you claim to speak for my principles, when if you understood my principles at all you wouldn't bother lobbying me to support Johnson in the first place?Whether that vote will be of any value in actually realizing those principles is no importance whatsoever.
So refusing to support a statist authoritarian hack means that I refuse to oppose tyranny?So, there's really nothing more to discuss.
I hope what you perceive as your integrity keeps you warm as the tyranny which you refused to oppose closes in around you.
LOL you zombie kids and your 'logic.'
Absolutely not. That entire idea is a figment of your imagination. I have never in all my life said nor implied any such thing, nor do I now nor have I ever believed such nonsense. I have not even done anything in my entire 42 years that could even be construed as holding that position, therefore I posit that you have an "assumed image" of what you think someone who hates Johnson looks like, and are applying your figment to me and declaring it reality.
I don't compromise, I collate.If not, which principles then are you willing to compromise?
Absolutely not. There is an enormous difference between compromising principles, and building coalitions around common goals. The very fact that you would call that an equivocation is frankly absurd.
You live in such a 2D black and white world. Your vision is so desperately narrow "It can only be this or that" and I'm just here laughing at the tesseract you are calling a diamond down there in flatland.Either you are willing to compromise some principles (as by supporting a candidate who does not share 100% of them) or not.
I vote for people whom I believe will bring us closer to Constitutional government, and I oppose people whom I believe will take us further away from Constitutional government than we already are.It can't be both.
Which is it?
I do not understand why this is so hard to grasp?
And you do not believe that, on balance, Gary Johnson's policy positions represent a shift toward constitutional government?
A few of his many positions which represent a dramatic shift toward constitutional government:
- Abolishing the Fed
- Cutting federal spending (which is almost exclusively on unconstitutional programs) by 43%
- Repealing the PATRIOT Act
Which of his unconstitutional proposals (gay cakes?) are so egregious that they outweigh the above, for a net move away from the constitution?
It's hard to grasp because you constantly equivocate.I do not understand why this is so hard to grasp?
....acting as if all compromise is bad, and then backing down when challenged on the absurdity of that position.
None of which outweigh his desire to make morality a federal mandate.
The federal and state balance of power is f'd up enough at it is, and it is a tenfold bigger issue than rearranging the deck chairs on the titanic.
I love how you take a primary violation of the federal Constitution and blithely pass it off as baking a cake. But yeah, I'll bite that halibut. Any person who would hold a gun to someone's head and make them bake a cake should be in jail, not the White House.Which of his unconstitutional proposals (gay cakes?) are so egregious that they outweigh the above, for a net move away from the constitution?
It's hard to grasp because you constantly equivocate.
How have I backed down? I sidestepped your complex-question trap by re-stating my actual belief and in your world this is backing down? LOL....acting as if all compromise is bad, and then backing down when challenged on the absurdity of that position.
Am I the only one who finds it brutally ironic how this guy was so rabidly anti-trumpaloompa all this time, and all the sudden Johnson is the topic and he turns into one of them, only pro-Johnson?
Just to be clear: You think that the federal government forcing businesses to serve gays is worse than the Fed, the PATRIOT Act, and 43% of all federal programs combined? You'd rather prevent the former than abolish the latter?
And you don't think that abolishing 43% of the federal government might rebalance things a tad?The federal and state balance of power is f'd up enough at it is, and it is a tenfold bigger issue than rearranging the deck chairs on the titanic.
You keep trying to pervert my position into the little box you have selected for me in your head. It will not work, and it's a practice the Trumpaloompas used and you should be ashamed.
I have said and I will say again, I vote for the people I believe will bring us closer to the Constitution, and oppose those who would remove us further from it. The #1 issue in Constitutional Compliance today, is the balance of federal and state powers. If anyone wants from me what YOU would call a "compromise vote" then first and foremost they will not f'k up the balance of federal and state power any more than it already is.
I get that you do not consider piddlin shyt like.......the entire foundation of American government.....important enough to affect your lofty goals, but I do not and will never think like you. Indeed I am appalled that such a position would even be entertained.And you don't think that abolishing 43% of the federal government might rebalance things a tad?
To me this seems like the most deranged election I have ever been aware of.
I mean, are cookies and sex all you can think about or something?
Because my position honestly has nothing to do with either, but you keep ruthlessly dragging them back in.
Why?
Connect With Us