Why did we not support Gary Johnson last time?

[jmdrake]

Okay. I was trying to explain to a friend of mine why I wrote in Ron Paul in 2016 instead of voting third party. I remember it was because I had come to the conclusion that I did not like Gary Johnson. I thought it was something to do with foreign policy. But when I looked up his record I discovered he was RIGHT on foreign policy! Yeah I know they whole "Nazi cake" thing was pretty stupid. But...on the foreign policy side....I found this:

https://www.msnbc.com/hardball/watch...a-775324227903


And this:

https://edition.cnn.com/2016/10/05/p...nson-syria-us/

And this:

https://www.antiwar.com/blog/2016/10...ia-war-crimes/

He was balls to the walls courageous on the Syria question.

[Todd]

lol. Who is "We". Do you know it was like the Great Conjunction to get as many libertarians on board for a coordinated strike at the GOP nomination when Dr. Paul ran? That was a once in a lifetime event and let's face it, he was a cut above anything else to ever stand up in front of Libertarians. Most of us rarely agree on any one thing. Gary Johnson had a lot of baggage that people just can't get past.

[Intrepid]

[dean.engelhardt]

I voted for Gary Johnson in 2016. I loved his foreign policy and his promise to reduce government spending by 20%. I didn't love some of his other positions, but decided his positions on foreign policy and spending made him the only candidate worth voting for.

There was a lot of noise about Nazi cakes and Aleppo that sidetracked attention from the big issues. Gary Johnson was the far superior candidate, but the two party system does not care about the best candidate.

[phill4paul]

Carbon emission tax, banning cigarettes, laws requiring the hiring of women and minorities. Just off the top of my head.

[BortSimpson]

When Gary Johnson brought on Bill Weld as his running mate I felt like he had likely been compromised in some way.

[Anti Federalist]

Carbon emission tax, banning cigarettes, laws requiring the hiring of women and minorities. Just off the top of my head.

Bake my damn cake supporter.

Take in Syrian refugees.

Remain in UN.

TPP supporter.

Some others off mine as well.

[dean.engelhardt]

Carbon emission tax, banning cigarettes, laws requiring the hiring of women and minorities. Just off the top of my head.

I did not agree with Johnson on these, but I tempered it with his ability as president to implement them. As president his authority is to veto a new law, pass a new law, enforce current law and executive order. Although the office of the president is powerful, it cannot create law. We still have the legislative and judicial branches to create and interpret law. There is no chance congress is going to present a bill to the president to ban cigarettes, so it is a complete non-issue IMO. If someone doesn't want to vote for Johnson because of his attitude toward cigarettes, minorities, or even Hawaiian pizza, it is a free country.

Congress signed off much of its foreign policy powers to the office of the president. Johnson promised to veto any budget that added to the debt. He would have had ability, as president, to effect these important issue. Had he been elected, the balance sheet of the US would look much better right now.

[phill4paul]

I did not agree with Johnson on these, but I tempered it with his ability as president to implement them. As president his authority is to veto a new law, pass a new law, enforce current law and executive order. Although the office of the president is powerful, it cannot create law. We still have the legislative and judicial branches to create and interpret law. There is no chance congress is going to present a bill to the president to ban cigarettes, so it is a complete non-issue IMO. If someone doesn't want to vote for Johnson because of his attitude toward cigarettes, minorities, or even Hawaiian pizza, it is a free country.

Congress signed off much of its foreign policy powers to the office of the president. Johnson promised to veto any budget that added to the debt. He would have had ability, as president, to effect these important issue. Had he been elected, the balance sheet of the US would look much better right now.

There was NO chance he was ever going to be elected. Period. End stop.

[John-G]

Carbon emission tax, banning cigarettes, laws requiring the hiring of women and minorities. Just off the top of my head.

On Carbon taxes

NICK GILLESPIE: Earlier this week, you suggested you were in favor of a carbon tax or fee. Yesterday, at a rally in New Hampshire, you said you were against it. What is your position on carbon taxes?
GARY JOHNSON: [A carbon tax] sounds good in theory, but it wouldn’t work in practice. I never called it a tax. I called it a fee. As it was presented to me, this was the way to reduce carbon and actually reduce costs to reduce carbon. Under that premise—lower costs, better outcomes—you can always count on me to support that [sort of] notion. In theory it sounds good, but the reality is that it’s really complex and it won’t really accomplish that. So, no support for a carbon fee. I never raised one penny of tax as governor of New Mexico, not one cent in any area. Taxes to me are like a death plague.
GILLESPIE: You do believe that climate change is happening and that human activity adds to it. Does that mean it is an issue that should be addressed by government policy?
JOHNSON: Well, I’ll agree with the first two, but I’m a skeptic that government policy can address this. The United States contributes 16 percent of the contribution of carbon in the world…
GILLESPIE: So you would be against the United States unilaterally making any kind of move that puts a huge economic disadvantage that also wouldn’t really mitigate carbon?
JOHNSON: If there is any way we can address this issue without the loss of U.S. jobs, my ears are open.

Its actually true that he never raised taxes as Gov on New Mexico. Actions speak louder than words

https://www.carbontax.org/blog/2016/...rbon-tax-talk/

Banning cigarettes and affirmative action. Maybe on the former and negative on the latter.

There had also been an eye-opening moment on the streets of Cleveland during the Republican National Convention, when we’d been walking behind a cigarette-wielding Ohioan. As the smoker’s exhaust wafted in our faces, I remarked offhand that—with the advent of e-cigarettes—I thought there was a good libertarian case for banning regular cigarettes. “I do too,” replied the health-obsessed triathlete, recounting his support for anti-smoking efforts in New Mexico. Johnson’s views on other issues, meanwhile, betray a basic centrism—against affirmative action but supportive of the Black Lives Matter movement

https://www.politico.com/magazine/st...esident-214251

Yup, he was never prefect but still would have been a big improvement to what we have now in the WH.

[John-G]

I did not agree with Johnson on these, but I tempered it with his ability as president to implement them. As president his authority is to veto a new law, pass a new law, enforce current law and executive order. Although the office of the president is powerful, it cannot create law. We still have the legislative and judicial branches to create and interpret law. There is no chance congress is going to present a bill to the president to ban cigarettes, so it is a complete non-issue IMO. If someone doesn't want to vote for Johnson because of his attitude toward cigarettes, minorities, or even Hawaiian pizza, it is a free country.

Congress signed off much of its foreign policy powers to the office of the president. Johnson promised to veto any budget that added to the debt. He would have had ability, as president, to effect these important issue. Had he been elected, the balance sheet of the US would look much better right now.

This but I think his detractors will always find a new reason not to vote for him. They will never judge him on the same criteria they use for Trump or any other mainstream republican they usually vote for every 4 years and that is my biggest problem with the anti Libertarian movement on this forum. They will nitpick any Libertarian candidate to death but turn a blind eye on the republican candidate's flaws

[jkr]

I did
It didn't matter

Nothing ever matters

[John-G]

Bake my damn cake supporter.

Take in Syrian refugees.

Remain in UN.

TPP supporter.

Some others off mine as well.

Take in Syrian refugees. Check

Remain in UN. - Check

TPP supporter. - He supports free trade agreements and so does the people in the WH - half check

On the bright side, all these lockdowns and police state going on right now under Trump probably wouldn't have been signed off by a Gary Johnson admin. So yea, Trump will talk the talk and mouth off against Dr Fauci but at the end of the day, he does as he is told by the facists in govt. He has donated tax payers money to the tune of $10 billion plus to develop a vaccine which they will in turn buy back with other stolen tax payers money.

[Anti Globalist]

Johnson also had never heard of Aleppo.

[emazur]

I supported him but there were 2 knocks against him:
1) Selected Bill Weld as VP in 2016 who comes from the same mold as Mitt Romney (Romney even said he was considered voting Libertarian in 2016 b/c Weld was on ticket)
2) Although generally anti-interventionist he stated he'd be open to "humanitarian" interventions such as if genocide was going on in another country

[shakey1]

[Sammy]

Bake my damn cake supporter.

Take in Syrian refugees.

Remain in UN.

TPP supporter.

Some others off mine as well.

+rep

[Anti Federalist]

On the bright side, all these lockdowns and police state going on right now under Trump probably wouldn't have been signed off by a Gary Johnson admin. So yea, Trump will talk the talk and mouth off against Dr Fauci but at the end of the day, he does as he is told by the facists in govt. He has donated tax payers money to the tune of $10 billion plus to develop a vaccine which they will in turn buy back with other stolen tax payers money.

Possibly, although his stance on smoking bans would lead me to believe that he would have no problem using the power of government to mandate "public health" fatwas.

Since I wrote in Ron Paul in 2016, what Trump's position would have been at the time is not really relevant.

A national maskhole mandate would almost certainly have been put into place by any of his opposition.

[John-G]

Possibly, although his stance on smoking bans would lead me to believe that he would have no problem using the power of government to mandate "public health" fatwas.

Since I wrote in Ron Paul in 2016, what Trump's position would have been at the time is not really relevant.

A national maskhole mandate would almost certainly have been put into place by any of his opposition.

His position? it was an off the cuff remark about smoking as someone is blowing smoke in his face. Sorry but I am not going to holding him on that position. Also he qualified it with the idea that e cigs are a better alternative that regular cig which it is. Btw, that better alternative e cig is being attacked by the current admin with their roll out of regulatory decrees and fatwas against e cigs.

Also, Ron Paul is not perfect of close to it, remember when he went to the UN to enforce some copy right laws? I can name a few other reasons why a principled libertarian should stay away from Ron Paul. Regardless of his or Paul's flaws, it is evident that they were going to be a big improvement over what the R and D has to offer.

[oyarde]

I'd been voting for Pauls for a long time so I wrote in me , which is better than Gary. I'll be writing in me again but mostly because I think Biden and previously clinton had no shot at winning my state .

[Sammy]

His position? it was an off the cuff remark about smoking as someone is blowing smoke in his face. Sorry but I am not going to holding him on that position. Also he qualified it with the idea that e cigs are a better alternative that regular cig which it is. Btw, that better alternative e cig is being attacked by the current admin with their roll out of regulatory decrees and fatwas against e cigs.

Also, Ron Paul is not perfect of close to it, remember when he went to the UN to enforce some copy right laws? I can name a few other reasons why a principled libertarian should stay away from Ron Paul. Regardless of his or Paul's flaws, it is evident that they were going to be a big improvement over what the R and D has to offer.

Ron Paul is right on issues than matter like war,spending,taxes,guns & the patriot act.
I disagree with ron slightly on Free Trade & on immigration.
But so what? Nobody is perfect!

[LibertyEagle]

Bake my damn cake supporter.

Take in Syrian refugees.

Remain in UN.

TPP supporter.

Some others off mine as well.

Yup, and as I recall, he was for open borders. Not to mention his running mate was a one-worlder globalist of the worst kind.

Gary advocated for Hillary in the end, also, as I recall.

[Brian4Liberty]

Carbon emission tax, banning cigarettes, laws requiring the hiring of women and minorities. Just off the top of my head.

When Gary Johnson brought on Bill Weld as his running mate I felt like he had likely been compromised in some way.

Bake my damn cake supporter.

Take in Syrian refugees.

Remain in UN.

TPP supporter.

Some others off mine as well.

I supported him but there were 2 knocks against him:
1) Selected Bill Weld as VP in 2016 who comes from the same mold as Mitt Romney (Romney even said he was considered voting Libertarian in 2016 b/c Weld was on ticket)
2) Although generally anti-interventionist he stated he'd be open to "humanitarian" interventions such as if genocide was going on in another country

Video here. The "incendiary" section begins at about 4:20.

All of the above.

That being said, I voted for Johnson last time around. In my State, my vote doesn't count, so it's purely symbolic.

[shakey1]

Ron Paul is right on issues than matter like war,spending,taxes,guns & the patriot act.
I disagree with ron slightly on Free Trade & on immigration.
But so what? Nobody is perfect!

i'd give him a 9+.

[John-G]

Yup, and as I recall, he was for open borders. Not to mention his running mate was a one-worlder globalist of the worst kind.

Gary advocated for Hillary in the end, also, as I recall.

We all know how horrible human recollection is, can u please drop a link to support this recollection?

[dean.engelhardt]

There was NO chance he was ever going to be elected. Period. End stop.

I won't argue Johnson had a chance. I won't argue Jorgensen has a chance. I will argue the goal of the libertarian party getting 5% of the vote so they have automatic ballot access. They won't have to spend all their fund gaining ballot access, instead using it to promote issues. I will argue getting a third party in the debates so issues of liberty can be debated.

The next presidential debate will not have an advocate for lowering the national debt or bring the troops home. I accept it is inevitable, but it is still wrong.

[Working Poor]

Yup, and as I recall, he was for open borders. Not to mention his running mate was a one-worlder globalist of the worst kind.

Gary advocated for Hillary in the end, also, as I recall.

I heard it too but I am not going to search for the link. I had intended to vote for Johnson but while in the voting booth I realized votingg for him might get Hillary elected and I just did not want Hillary in. I did like Johnson's campaign ad though

[69360]

I did

[Bern]

Johnson also had never heard of Aleppo.

This. "What is an Aleppo." sealed his fate with any potential undecided (on the fence) voter at the time from my experience. I had hopes that he might break 5% so the LP could get some rights/funding for the next election, but he flubbed it with that one interview. Total clownshow. From that moment on no one was giving him any attention.

[tfurrh]

Why did we not support Donald Trump since 4eva?