Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Maurile Tremblay

Libertarian Thread (Was: Gary Johnson Thread)

Recommended Posts

I thought he had a number of moments that lacked poise for a person of his experience. i also think that he, like everyone not named "Herman Cain" was ill-prepared for the time limits on questions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did anybody catch his debate performance? How did he do? What was the audience and analyst reaction to Johnson?

I did not wait for the audience/analyst reactions afterward but he was horrible. Ron Paul came off better than he did and if you have ever seen Ron Paul in a debate that should tell you something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did anybody catch his debate performance? How did he do? What was the audience and analyst reaction to Johnson?

I did not wait for the audience/analyst reactions afterward but he was horrible. Ron Paul came off better than he did and if you have ever seen Ron Paul in a debate that should tell you something.
agreed...dude was a disaster :X

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Johnson always had several "translators" at the State House here in NM because he's not only ineloquent, except for brief flourishes of passion, he's fairly diffident in general. I'm a commie, so it dont matter, but he's behind only Gingrich if i had to choose a Republican for prez, no matter how bad a candidate he is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did anybody catch his debate performance? How did he do? What was the audience and analyst reaction to Johnson?

I did not wait for the audience/analyst reactions afterward but he was horrible. Ron Paul came off better than he did and if you have ever seen Ron Paul in a debate that should tell you something.
:rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Johnson always had several "translators" at the State House here in NM because he's not only ineloquent, except for brief flourishes of passion, he's fairly diffident in general. I'm a commie, so it dont matter, but he's behind only Gingrich if i had to choose a Republican for prez, no matter how bad a candidate he is.

Gary Johnson definitely had some rough moments last night, but he knocks the drug legalization question out of the park at 40:00.http://youtu.be/zjvUAMScQo8My face melted when he started talking about cost-benefit analysis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A few debate thoughts: (you can follow along here:

)

-A murderer's row of losers representing the neocons. If this is what the field looks like come election time, Ron Paul and Gary Johnson should slaughter everyone just like they did in this debate. Of course, I am underestimating how easily this electorate will vote for the speaker that gives them warm fuzzies without delineating specific policies.

-Godfather's Pizza Guy is a token.

-Did Tim Pawlenty grow up in a working class family?

-Surprisingly balanced line of questioning from a surprisingly balanced panel. First time I've ever watched a Fox News sponsored event and felt like it had real integrity. Seriously great job by this panel. They must be saving Brit Hume for the big gun neocons.

-Where are Huckabee and Bachmann and Trump? Why wouldn't they show up here?

-Audience is clearly in the sack for Ron Paul. Only applauding him when they ought to be cheering for Johnson as well. If the audience turnout is like this every time the simple perception of Ron Paul winning the audience over could do a lot in the way of warming the mainstream up to him. One can hope anyway.

-People aren't falling for the traditional hollow GOP talking points anymore, thank God. At least not on this night.

Really enjoyable debate and the panel was absolutely bringing the heat with their questioning. Good stuff, highly recommend.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Willie Nelson’s Teapot Party Endorses Gary Johnson for President

May 17, 2011 – American music legend Willie Nelson recently met with former New Mexico Governor and current Republican presidential candidate Gary Johnson after a concert in Texas. The result of that historic meeting is today’s endorsement of Johnson by Willie Nelson’s Teapot Party.

“I am truly gratified to have the endorsement of such an iconic entertainer, philanthropist, innovator and champion for individual rights as Willie Nelson,” Johnson says, accepting the endorsement. “Not only is he a superstar talent, he is a bold advocate for social change. Americans are demanding the freedom and opportunity to pursue their dreams without interference from a heavy-handed government, and Willie Nelson lends a tremendous voice to those demands.”

Johnson served two terms as governor of New Mexico (1995-2002) and has now launched a bid for the Republican nomination in the 2012 presidential election. As Governor, he called for legalizing marijuana. Ending cannabis prohibition has been one of his core issues ever since.

During the Republican candidates’ debate on May 5, Johnson stated firmly in response to a question, “I advocate legalizing marijuana – control it, regulate, tax it.”

Johnson officially launched his presidential run in New Hampshire this April.

Prior to that, Johnson traveled for over a year speaking out about the issues of the day as the Honorary Chairman of the Our America Initiative, a non-profit political advocacy committee. Johnson regularly speaks at NORML Conferences and marijuana-reform events around the country.

This is the first presidential endorsement for The Teapot Party, which was founded last November after Nelson was arrested for marijuana possession in Texas. “The purpose of the Teapot Party,” Nelson explains, “is to vote in people who believe the way we do and vote out the ones who don’t.”

The Teapot Party recently endorsed Washington State Rep. Roger Goodman, who is running for Congress in 2012. http://teapotpartyblog.com/?p=50

Marijuana legalization is the central belief of The Teapot Party. The political effort is fast growing, with a Facebook page boasting more than 66, 000 active members.

As Willie Nelson said, “”Tax it, regulate it, legalize it. And stop the border wars over drugs.”

Gary Johnson 2012: http://www.garyjohnson2012.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

-A murderer's row of losers representing the neocons. If this is what the field looks like come election time, Ron Paul and Gary Johnson should slaughter everyone just like they did in this debate. Of course, I am underestimating how easily this electorate will vote for the speaker that gives them warm fuzzies without delineating specific policies.

Should slaughter everyone? Really? In what reality is this?

-Godfather's Pizza Guy is a token.

Token what?

-Did Tim Pawlenty grow up in a working class family?

No idea. Why is this even a question you are asking?

-Surprisingly balanced line of questioning from a surprisingly balanced panel. First time I've ever watched a Fox News sponsored event and felt like it had real integrity. Seriously great job by this panel. They must be saving Brit Hume for the big gun neocons.

You keep saying neocons. Can you provide a definition of what a neocon is?

-Where are Huckabee and Bachmann and Trump? Why wouldn't they show up here?

Huck and Trump have come out and said they are not running. Makes sense. Bachmann has not announced yet and may not. There were a lot of people 'missing'... interestingly, you don't ask about Romney.

-Audience is clearly in the sack for Ron Paul. Only applauding him when they ought to be cheering for Johnson as well. If the audience turnout is like this every time the simple perception of Ron Paul winning the audience over could do a lot in the way of warming the mainstream up to him. One can hope anyway.

Ron Paul is bad when it comes to public speaking and Gary made Ron look like a polished speaker. It was horrible. It is hard to applause someone when it physically hurts you to listen to them.

-People aren't falling for the traditional hollow GOP talking points anymore, thank God. At least not on this night.

What would those be and how do you demonstrate that 'people' are not 'falling' for them anymore?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gary Johnson vs. Ron Paul

Ilya Somin • May 22, 2011

With Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels choosing not to run, there are now two libertarian-leaning presidential candidates in the GOP field for 2012: Ron Paul and former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson. Which is a better standard-bearer for libertarianism? I think it’s Johnson by a wide margin. He’s both more libertarian than Paul on the issues and likely to be a more effective candidate.

I. The Issues.

Turning to the issues first, the difference between the two is strikingly large. As I explained back when Paul ran in 2008, he has very nonlibertarian positions on free trade, school choice, and especially immigration. He also believes that Kelo v. City of New London was correctly decided because he thinks the Bill of Rights does not apply to the states. The latter is theoretically compatible with being a libertarian; one can believe that the Constitution should protect us against various forms of oppression by state governments, but simply fails to do so. But Paul’s position is at odds with most modern research on the original meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment, and with the views of virtually all libertarian constitutional law scholars. It also bodes ill for the nature of his judicial appointments in the unlikely event that he actually wins the presidency.

On all of these issues, Johnson is clearly superior to Paul from a libertarian point of view. He supports school choice and free trade agreements, he’s as pro-immigration as any successful politician can be, and he believes that the Bill of Rights constrains the states as well as the federal government. On the other hand, I can’t think of a single issue where Paul is more libertarian than Johnson, though I’m open to correction by people who know more about their records than I do.

I don’t agree with Johnson on everything. For example, I’m significantly more hawkish than he is on foreign policy. But as a political standard-bearer for libertarianism, Johnson is about as good on the issues as any remotely mainstream politician is likely to be at this point in time.

II. Political Viability.

Johnson is also probably more politically effective than Paul. That’s because he doesn’t carry any of the negative baggage that Paul does. Unlike Paul, Johnson never published a newsletter with racist and anti-Semitic content, or signed on to a political strategy of appealing to white racial resentment against minorities, as Paul did in the early 1990s. As I said during the 2008 campaign, I don’t believe that Paul is a racist. But his record of insensitivity on racial issues dogged him in 2008, and is likely to resurface in 2012 if his candidacy becomes at all successful. Paul also has a record of endorsing weird right-wing conspiracy theories, such as the mythical “North American Union.” This too was seized on by the media in 2008, and could be a problem again. If Paul becomes the public face of libertarianism in 2012, there is a risk that the movement as a whole could be tainted by association with these dubious elements of his record. By contrast, Johnson has no comparable problems, as far as I know.

Finally, it’s worth mentioning that Johnson, whom I saw speak at the Students for Liberty conference, is much more articulate and charismatic than Paul, who isn’t especially impressive in either department. I would not say that Johnson is a truly great public speaker. But he’s pretty good, which is more than can be said for Paul.

The big advantages that Paul has over Johnson are that he has more money and greater name recognition. But if libertarian activists, donors, and intellectuals become aware of the ways in which Johnson is the superior candidate, they might rally around him and possibly give his campaign the boost it needs to take off and surpass Paul.

Realistically, neither Johnson nor Paul has a strong chance of actually winning the GOP nomination. But if his campaign gets off the ground, Johnson will have better odds than Paul does because he’s more appealing to voters and the media, and less hated by the GOP establishment. More importantly, he’s certainly a far superior libertarian protest candidate and public face for the movement. The chance that either candidate can win the presidency in 2012 is remote. But Johnson is the one more likely to serve as an effective spokesman for libertarianism, adding new supporters without unnecessarily alienating people.

Many times in politics, we face a choice between a candidate with better political skills and one who is better on the issues. Johnson trumps Paul on both counts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gary Johnson vs. Ron Paul

Ilya Somin • May 22, 2011

With Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels choosing not to run, there are now two libertarian-leaning presidential candidates in the GOP field for 2012: Ron Paul and former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson. Which is a better standard-bearer for libertarianism? I think it’s Johnson by a wide margin. He’s both more libertarian than Paul on the issues and likely to be a more effective candidate.

I. The Issues.

Turning to the issues first, the difference between the two is strikingly large. As I explained back when Paul ran in 2008, he has very nonlibertarian positions on free trade, school choice, and especially immigration. He also believes that Kelo v. City of New London was correctly decided because he thinks the Bill of Rights does not apply to the states. The latter is theoretically compatible with being a libertarian; one can believe that the Constitution should protect us against various forms of oppression by state governments, but simply fails to do so. But Paul’s position is at odds with most modern research on the original meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment, and with the views of virtually all libertarian constitutional law scholars. It also bodes ill for the nature of his judicial appointments in the unlikely event that he actually wins the presidency.

On all of these issues, Johnson is clearly superior to Paul from a libertarian point of view. He supports school choice and free trade agreements, he’s as pro-immigration as any successful politician can be, and he believes that the Bill of Rights constrains the states as well as the federal government. On the other hand, I can’t think of a single issue where Paul is more libertarian than Johnson, though I’m open to correction by people who know more about their records than I do.

I don’t agree with Johnson on everything. For example, I’m significantly more hawkish than he is on foreign policy. But as a political standard-bearer for libertarianism, Johnson is about as good on the issues as any remotely mainstream politician is likely to be at this point in time.

II. Political Viability.

Johnson is also probably more politically effective than Paul. That’s because he doesn’t carry any of the negative baggage that Paul does. Unlike Paul, Johnson never published a newsletter with racist and anti-Semitic content, or signed on to a political strategy of appealing to white racial resentment against minorities, as Paul did in the early 1990s. As I said during the 2008 campaign, I don’t believe that Paul is a racist. But his record of insensitivity on racial issues dogged him in 2008, and is likely to resurface in 2012 if his candidacy becomes at all successful. Paul also has a record of endorsing weird right-wing conspiracy theories, such as the mythical “North American Union.” This too was seized on by the media in 2008, and could be a problem again. If Paul becomes the public face of libertarianism in 2012, there is a risk that the movement as a whole could be tainted by association with these dubious elements of his record. By contrast, Johnson has no comparable problems, as far as I know.

Finally, it’s worth mentioning that Johnson, whom I saw speak at the Students for Liberty conference, is much more articulate and charismatic than Paul, who isn’t especially impressive in either department. I would not say that Johnson is a truly great public speaker. But he’s pretty good, which is more than can be said for Paul.

The big advantages that Paul has over Johnson are that he has more money and greater name recognition. But if libertarian activists, donors, and intellectuals become aware of the ways in which Johnson is the superior candidate, they might rally around him and possibly give his campaign the boost it needs to take off and surpass Paul.

Realistically, neither Johnson nor Paul has a strong chance of actually winning the GOP nomination. But if his campaign gets off the ground, Johnson will have better odds than Paul does because he’s more appealing to voters and the media, and less hated by the GOP establishment. More importantly, he’s certainly a far superior libertarian protest candidate and public face for the movement. The chance that either candidate can win the presidency in 2012 is remote. But Johnson is the one more likely to serve as an effective spokesman for libertarianism, adding new supporters without unnecessarily alienating people.

Many times in politics, we face a choice between a candidate with better political skills and one who is better on the issues. Johnson trumps Paul on both counts.

I found the first couple of paragraphs under 'political viability' the most amusing. There are a lot of reasons why Ron Paul is not politically viable and what leads the way are his views. After that is his horrible campaign presence and speaking ability. However, looking at the recent debate, Gary Johnson made Ron Paul look polished and suave in his delivery because he was so pathetically bad. Maybe it was because he was nervous? :shrug: I dunno but taking that as a sample would lead me to believe that this is not an area Johnson has an advantage over Paul in. Now, if Ron Paul even got to the point of being an actual player that everyone took seriously- then all the baggage (and more) would be leveled out against him. But we have never got to that point of him being anything more than a small group of passionate people hyping him up on web polls and giving lots of money.

The only thing that Gary Johnson being in the primary does is take Ron Paul's already meager chances and decreasing them even more as the libertarian vote gets split. Being that it is such a small minority in the first place- there is no real opportunity for either Paul or Johnson to win short of some terrorist blowing up some debate that the two are not allowed in and the explosion ends up killing every other candidate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Johnson always had several "translators" at the State House here in NM because he's not only ineloquent, except for brief flourishes of passion, he's fairly diffident in general. I'm a commie, so it dont matter, but he's behind only Gingrich if i had to choose a Republican for prez, no matter how bad a candidate he is.

Gary Johnson definitely had some rough moments last night, but he knocks the drug legalization question out of the park at 40:00.http://youtu.be/zjvUAMScQo8My face melted when he started talking about cost-benefit analysis.
Yeah, I think he's got potential to get alot better. He's certainly not a naturally skilled public speaker and doesn't have that confident sounding presidential air about him. A bit like Pawlenty, I think, in that they both come off rather under-confident.When Johnson gets it going, though, I think he's pretty engaging and likeable. He doesn't seem to have a natural confidence speaking, but you can still see the confidence in his belief coming through. He stands by his principles and they are based on sound logic, so he can certainly draw confidence from that. To contrast Pawlenty, he just seems like a weenie all the way around because it's clear he's just saying whatever he thinks people want to hear. I have no idea what people see in Pawlenty.He does need to figure out what to do with his hands too. Alot of nervous energy going on with them. Then the way he flops them out to the side while to talking just looks weak. He does have some fairly effeminate mannerisms. Cain would be the opposite as he's very good at saying absolutely nothing, but he sounds confident when he says it. Sadly, that's what works and many Republicans were eating it up. I hope Johnson sticks around because I think people will like him more the more they see him. He's very engaging in spurts and his ideas are fantastic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Should slaughter everyone? Really? In what reality is this?

Did you watch the debate? Ron Paul was met with overwhelming applause on nearly every answer he gave.

Token what?

Token black guy. Looks like he's corrupt.

Cain served on the board of directors throughout Aquila's ill-fated trading misadventure and the subsequent collapse of the company's retirement fund. In fact, he chaired the board's compensation committee, which, according to the lawsuit, had direct oversight of the push to get employees to invest more and more in Aquila stock. As chair of the compensation committee, Cain also saw fit to dole out $30 million in bonuses, not including stock options, to the top five execs at Aquila in 2002, with the company's stock plummeting. A month after the Kansas City Star reported on the hefty bonuses in July 2002, the company laid off 500 employees, and the losses to employees holding company stock had reached hundreds of millions of dollars.

-Did Tim Pawlenty grow up in a working class family?

No idea. Why is this even a question you are asking?
He only said it like 3 times during the debate.

You keep saying neocons. Can you provide a definition of what a neocon is?

Someone who supports big government, the nanny state, nation-building, imperialistic foreign policy, the Patriot Act, the "spreading of democracy."

Huck and Trump have come out and said they are not running. Makes sense. Bachmann has not announced yet and may not. There were a lot of people 'missing'... interestingly, you don't ask about Romney.

At the time I'd posted that, Huckabee and Trump hadn't yet bowed out of the race. Why is me not asking about Romney interesting?

Ron Paul is bad when it comes to public speaking and Gary made Ron look like a polished speaker. It was horrible. It is hard to applause someone when it physically hurts you to listen to them.

I really don't care. I'm sorry that they "physically hurt" you that way. I'm inspired by policy and the content of the words coming out of their mouth, not by how pretty they look when they talk.

-People aren't falling for the traditional hollow GOP talking points anymore, thank God. At least not on this night.

What would those be and how do you demonstrate that 'people' are not 'falling' for them anymore?

Not sure why you have people and falling in cute little airquotes like that, but comparing this debate to the 2k8 SC debate, it seems like the audience was much more inclined to libertarian ideas than the last time around, where I believe they openly cheered on waterboarding for example.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I think he's got potential to get alot better. He's certainly not a naturally skilled public speaker and doesn't have that confident sounding presidential air about him. A bit like Pawlenty, I think, in that they both come off rather under-confident.When Johnson gets it going, though, I think he's pretty engaging and likeable. He doesn't seem to have a natural confidence speaking, but you can still see the confidence in his belief coming through. He stands by his principles and they are based on sound logic, so he can certainly draw confidence from that. To contrast Pawlenty, he just seems like a weenie all the way around because it's clear he's just saying whatever he thinks people want to hear. I have no idea what people see in Pawlenty.He does need to figure out what to do with his hands too. Alot of nervous energy going on with them. Then the way he flops them out to the side while to talking just looks weak. He does have some fairly effeminate mannerisms. Cain would be the opposite as he's very good at saying absolutely nothing, but he sounds confident when he says it. Sadly, that's what works and many Republicans were eating it up. I hope Johnson sticks around because I think people will like him more the more they see him. He's very engaging in spurts and his ideas are fantastic.

Yeah, at times he just looks overmatched, but at others he is brilliant. Ron Paul is just old. I figure one of them will take the lead in the polls and the other will bow out accordingly. It'd be silly for the both of them to run.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The next day Willie Nelson changed his mind. More here: http://teapotpartyblog.com/?p=77

Gary Johnson's quote about it:

“I didn’t expect anything going in there. I do think the world of Willie Nelson. I’m a really huge fan but I wasn’t expecting anything. The flip-flop, I assume, has to do with all sorts of reality factors. I’m just guessing here. Willie Nelson aside, I’ve always openly wondered why any celebrity would endorse any political candidate because there’s just no upside to it whatsoever. But in this case he does have the Teapot Party and the Teapot Party’s main issue is legalizing marijuana, so I thought I understood his reasons for endorsing, and welcomed it. I thought that was terrific. But it is what it is, and I think it has brought attention to the issue, and maybe I’ve gotten some attention out of it, so I’m certainly not negatively pulsed by this at all.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did you watch the debate? Ron Paul was met with overwhelming applause on nearly every answer he gave.

And? Ron Paul also hits it out of the park on a bazillion internet polls and raises a lot of money. Why? A small group of highly motivated people. That does has not and will not equal 'slaughtering everyone' as much as some really wish they could close their eyes while rubbing a lantern and make it so.

Token black guy. Looks like he's corrupt.

Yea, because the GOP always trots out the token black guy. I always find it amusing how people are so quick and eager to dismiss any African American that holds conservative viewpoints.

And I do not know about that case but let me explain a couple of things to you about the business world before you run around labeling people corrupt. First, a lawsuit saying such and such hardly makes it true. Second, although I do not agree with it, this type of compensation is fairly common in the corporate world- being a so called libertarian, this is not something you should be crying about, it is the free market operating.

Someone who supports big government, the nanny state, nation-building, imperialistic foreign policy, the Patriot Act, the "spreading of democracy."

Can you point to me a conservative that is not a libertarian that you would not label a neo-con?

At the time I'd posted that, Huckabee and Trump hadn't yet bowed out of the race. Why is me not asking about Romney interesting?

Because Romney is the closest thing to being a frontrunner. It points to your political naivete.

I really don't care. I'm sorry that they "physically hurt" you that way. I'm inspired by policy and the content of the words coming out of their mouth, not by how pretty they look when they talk.

Well, their policy is bad too. :shrug:

Not sure why you have people and falling in cute little airquotes like that, but comparing this debate to the 2k8 SC debate, it seems like the audience was much more inclined to libertarian ideas than the last time around, where I believe they openly cheered on waterboarding for example.

See my comment above about Ron Paul supporters. They make it a point to pack into these types of groupings because of their small numbers the only way that they can make an impact is by showing up and being loud at these events, spamming online polls, give lots of money, etc. Their goal is to make themselves look much bigger than they are, kinda like a blow fish, and it can work for those who fail to be critical in their thinking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The next day Willie Nelson changed his mind. More here: http://teapotpartyblog.com/?p=77

Gary Johnson's quote about it:

“I didn’t expect anything going in there. I do think the world of Willie Nelson. I’m a really huge fan but I wasn’t expecting anything. The flip-flop, I assume, has to do with all sorts of reality factors. I’m just guessing here. Willie Nelson aside, I’ve always openly wondered why any celebrity would endorse any political candidate because there’s just no upside to it whatsoever. But in this case he does have the Teapot Party and the Teapot Party’s main issue is legalizing marijuana, so I thought I understood his reasons for endorsing, and welcomed it. I thought that was terrific. But it is what it is, and I think it has brought attention to the issue, and maybe I’ve gotten some attention out of it, so I’m certainly not negatively pulsed by this at all.”

:lol: Can anyone be surprised that a Nelson and a group he leads called Teapot Party changed their minds?

(toke) Hey dude..... (toke) Yea man?..... (toke) Let's endorse that guy.... (toke) Ok... man... (toke) I like him... (toke) Like who man?... (toke) The guy we just endorsed.... (toke) Endorse who man?... (toke) The guy who likes pot (toke) Oh, yea, man, I like pot... (toke) No, the guy we endorsed! (toke) What guy man? (toke)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did you watch the debate? Ron Paul was met with overwhelming applause on nearly every answer he gave.

And? Ron Paul also hits it out of the park on a bazillion internet polls and raises a lot of money. Why? A small group of highly motivated people. That does has not and will not equal 'slaughtering everyone' as much as some really wish they could close their eyes while rubbing a lantern and make it so.
Like I said, I think one of them will have a real shot if they're going up against the likes of Pawlenty, Santorum and Godfather's Pizza guy.

Token black guy. Looks like he's corrupt.

Yea, because the GOP always trots out the token black guy. I always find it amusing how people are so quick and eager to dismiss any African American that holds conservative viewpoints.

Wouldn't the GOP never trotting out black guys make him more of a token? You don't think there's anything convenient about a guy with no political experience whatsoever making a run at president on the heels of the country's first black president being elected? A good speaker at that?

And I do not know about that case but let me explain a couple of things to you about the business world before you run around labeling people corrupt. First, a lawsuit saying such and such hardly makes it true. Second, although I do not agree with it, this type of compensation is fairly common in the corporate world- being a so called libertarian, this is not something you should be crying about, it is the free market operating.

Way to completely miss the point.

At the time I'd posted that, Huckabee and Trump hadn't yet bowed out of the race. Why is me not asking about Romney interesting?

Because Romney is the closest thing to being a frontrunner. It points to your political naivete.
He couldn't beat out John McCain. He's a flipflopper and was a noshow at the SC debate. Why would I ever consider him a front runner? I feel like I'm arguing with a three year old.

I really don't care. I'm sorry that they "physically hurt" you that way. I'm inspired by policy and the content of the words coming out of their mouth, not by how pretty they look when they talk.

Well, their policy is bad too. :shrug:
Yeah. Pulling out of the Middle East, using sound money, decreasing the size of government and saving trillions of dollars. Horrible ideas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like I said, I think one of them will have a real shot if they're going up against the likes of Pawlenty, Santorum and Godfather's Pizza guy.

Neither has a snow balls chance by themselves. With both in, they are competing against the already small libertarian minded vote. It takes their snow balls chance and cuts it down further.

Wouldn't the GOP never trotting out black guys make him more of a token? You don't think there's anything convenient about a guy with no political experience whatsoever making a run at president on the heels of the country's first black president being elected? A good speaker at that?

Or perhaps he is a conservative who just happens to be black. Wha? Gasp! But you know... maybe you are right, because I do believe that Trump flirting with running was about being the token rich guy.

Way to completely miss the point.

Oh, I got the point. The point that you will jump at anything to deride and attack anyone that is not your guy. No matter what the situation is, if it looks bad USE it! I got it. No worries.

He couldn't beat out John McCain. He's a flipflopper and was a noshow at the SC debate. Why would I ever consider him a front runner? I feel like I'm arguing with a three year old.

Sadly, you are clueless about how this statement here just reinforces the fact that you really have no understanding about politics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm intrigued :blackdot:

a little extreme on immigration for my tastes, and he needs a new haircut, but i like his issues profile in general.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, he brought his A game to that interview. I've never seen Ron Paul do so well from a passion and leadership standpoint. But these guys are not Republicans. They're Libertarians. So Johnson, like Paul, has no chance of being meaningful. I can't support something with no chance. I can't understand why Johnson is running as a Republican. What's the point?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, he brought his A game to that interview. I've never seen Ron Paul do so well from a passion and leadership standpoint. But these guys are not Republicans. They're Libertarians. So Johnson, like Paul, has no chance of being meaningful. I can't support something with no chance. I can't understand why Johnson is running as a Republican. What's the point?
He is a plant by establishment Republicans who want to split the libertarian vote in the GOP :tinfoilhat: .... because you know... that is such a huge voting block to begin with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

GOP> this should be your candidate.

He doesn't come in pretty packaging or easy-to-swallow pill form, so he's got no shot. I like the guy, though. :shrug:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, he brought his A game to that interview. I've never seen Ron Paul do so well from a passion and leadership standpoint. But these guys are not Republicans. They're Libertarians. So Johnson, like Paul, has no chance of being meaningful. I can't support something with no chance. I can't understand why Johnson is running as a Republican. What's the point?
What state do you live in? Me, I'm a California boy. Should I never vote for anyone other than a Democrat? When you vote for Gary Johnson you don't actually think he's going to win. Hell, Gary Johnson himself probably doesn't think he's going to win. What you are doing by voting for him is letting the parties know you are an unhappy voter and your vote is up for grabs if candidate x will adopt this stance in the next election.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, he brought his A game to that interview. I've never seen Ron Paul do so well from a passion and leadership standpoint. But these guys are not Republicans. They're Libertarians. So Johnson, like Paul, has no chance of being meaningful. I can't support something with no chance. I can't understand why Johnson is running as a Republican. What's the point?
What state do you live in? Me, I'm a California boy. Should I never vote for anyone other than a Democrat? When you vote for Gary Johnson you don't actually think he's going to win. Hell, Gary Johnson himself probably doesn't think he's going to win. What you are doing by voting for him is letting the parties know you are an unhappy voter and your vote is up for grabs if candidate x will adopt this stance in the next election.
:goodposting:

I hate this "I have to vote the way everyone else does" mentality. Makes no sense unless people really just love beating their chests over the fact they voted for the winner, which I have yet to find.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, he brought his A game to that interview. I've never seen Ron Paul do so well from a passion and leadership standpoint. But these guys are not Republicans. They're Libertarians. So Johnson, like Paul, has no chance of being meaningful. I can't support something with no chance. I can't understand why Johnson is running as a Republican. What's the point?
What state do you live in? Me, I'm a California boy. Should I never vote for anyone other than a Democrat? When you vote for Gary Johnson you don't actually think he's going to win. Hell, Gary Johnson himself probably doesn't think he's going to win. What you are doing by voting for him is letting the parties know you are an unhappy voter and your vote is up for grabs if candidate x will adopt this stance in the next election.
:goodposting:

I hate this "I have to vote the way everyone else does" mentality. Makes no sense unless people really just love beating their chests over the fact they voted for the winner, which I have yet to find.

It makes sense if you think the other guy in the two man race will do more damage than the guy you are voting for that actually can win.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hate this "I have to vote the way everyone else does" mentality. Makes no sense unless people really just love beating their chests over the fact they voted for the winner, which I have yet to find.

It makes sense if you think the other guy in the two man race will do more damage than the guy you are voting for that actually can win.
How can that make it make sense?

Your vote does nothing to determine who wins or loses. The most it can do is send a very crude signal about what kind of politician you'd be willing to support. Voting for a politician you don't like is a complete waste of a vote (as opposed to being only 99.99% wasted if you vote for someone you do like).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hate this "I have to vote the way everyone else does" mentality. Makes no sense unless people really just love beating their chests over the fact they voted for the winner, which I have yet to find.

It makes sense if you think the other guy in the two man race will do more damage than the guy you are voting for that actually can win.
How can that make it make sense?

Your vote does nothing to determine who wins or loses. The most it can do is send a very crude signal about what kind of politician you'd be willing to support. Voting for a politician you don't like is a complete waste of a vote (as opposed to being only 99.99% wasted if you vote for someone you do like).

I agree and it's why I won't vote for any of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hate this "I have to vote the way everyone else does" mentality. Makes no sense unless people really just love beating their chests over the fact they voted for the winner, which I have yet to find.

It makes sense if you think the other guy in the two man race will do more damage than the guy you are voting for that actually can win.
How can that make it make sense?

Your vote does nothing to determine who wins or loses. The most it can do is send a very crude signal about what kind of politician you'd be willing to support. Voting for a politician you don't like is a complete waste of a vote (as opposed to being only 99.99% wasted if you vote for someone you do like).

It does make sense because times that over and over, it actually has an impact and races are won and lost on it. You don't have to like it for it to make sense but it does.

Now, if someone like you, who is above doing something like that, could find someone worth backing then maybe your vote will mean something one day. But it won't because libertarians are on the fringe and will never be accepted. As long as the people you trot out to have a noble vote for is Ron Paul and Gary Johnson, your vote means less than anyone voting Democrat or Republican.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Friday, June 10, 2011

Gary Johnson debates Obama impersonator

Posted by Matt Browner

Link

On John Stossel's Thursday night on Fox Business.
From the book of "you know your campaign is in trouble when you..."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Friday, June 10, 2011

Gary Johnson debates Obama impersonator

Posted by Matt Browner

Link

On John Stossel's Thursday night on Fox Business.
From the book of "you know your campaign is in trouble when you..."
Through 45 seconds. Absolutely brutal. I wonder if I have the willpower to make it through all 7 minutes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Through 45 seconds. Absolutely brutal. I wonder if I have the willpower to make it through all 7 minutes.

I did. I like Gary Johnson a lot, but :bag: .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Through 45 seconds. Absolutely brutal. I wonder if I have the willpower to make it through all 7 minutes.

I did. I like Gary Johnson a lot, but :bag: .
Wow... if you and Tremblay are coming out like that it must have been beyond horrible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am a firm believer that the government has no right to pick and choose which of our liberties it wants to protect. Its job is to protect all of our liberties – as long as we don't harm anyone else.

The freedom to do what we choose with our own time and our own money is no exception.

Now that freedom, like so many others, is under attack by politicians in Washington who are determined to stop online gaming.

That is wrong, and I am headed to Las Vegas later this week to let thousands of freedom-loving Americans know that there is at least one politician who isn’t afraid to say so.

Thursday evening at 5 PM, I will address the annual Two Plus Two poker party at the Wynn, which kicks off the first day of the World Series of Poker.

Then, on Friday at 1 PM, the Poker Players Alliance will host an event at the Rio where I will meet with members of the press to discuss my views on this and many other issues.

Two Plus Two and the PPA are standing with you and me in our fight to restore freedom. If you are in Las Vegas later this week, please make sure to stop by one of these events.

On Saturday, I am honored to have the opportunity to address the Conservative Leadership Conference, also in Las Vegas.

Sponsored by, among others, Americans for Tax Reform and the Citizen Outreach Foundation, the conference will be a great gathering of fiscal conservatives from across the nation, and I am excited to be a part of it. Stay tuned: I will be talking about my plans for dramatic tax reform.

Whether it is Los Angeles, where I was yesterday, San Francisco, where I am today, or Nevada, where I am soon to be, the crowds get bigger, the reception more energizing, and my determination ever greater.

The time has come to provide real leadership to the millions of Americans who wish to restore economic freedom, individual liberty, and genuine opportunity to our nation.

Thank you for the intellectual and financial support that you continue to give. It is the key to our success, and I am truly humbled by your generosity.

Your financial support is what makes our momentum possible: https://donate.GaryJohnson2012.com

In Liberty,

Gary

I :wub: everything about this guy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gary Johnson Calls Family Leader Pledge “Offensive and Unrepublican”

July 9, 2011, Las Vegas, Nevada – Presidential candidate and former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson charged today in a formal statement through his campaign that the Family Leader “pledge” Republican candidates for President are being asked to sign is “offensive to the principles of liberty and freedom on which this country was founded”. Governor Johnson also plans to further state his position against the Family Leader pledge this afternoon in Las Vegas, NV at a speech he will deliver at the Conservative Leadership Conference.

Johnson went on to state that “the so-called ‘Marriage Vow” pledge that FAMILY LEADER is asking Republican candidates for President to sign attacks minority segments of our population and attempts to prevent and eliminate personal freedom. This type of rhetoric is what gives Republicans a bad name.

“Government should not be involved in the bedrooms of consenting adults. I have always been a strong advocate of liberty and freedom from unnecessary government intervention into our lives. The freedoms that our forefathers fought for in this country are sacred and must be preserved. The Republican Party cannot be sidetracked into discussing these morally judgmental issues — such a discussion is simply wrongheaded. We need to maintain our position as the party of efficient government management and the watchdogs of the “public’s pocket book”.

“This ‘pledge’ is nothing short of a promise to discriminate against everyone who makes a personal choice that doesn’t fit into a particular definition of ‘virtue’.

While the Family Leader pledge covers just about every other so-called virtue they can think of, the one that is conspicuously missing is tolerance. In one concise document, they manage to condemn gays, single parents, single individuals, divorcees, Muslims, gays in the military, unmarried couples, women who choose to have abortions, and everyone else who doesn’t fit in a Norman Rockwell painting.

The Republican Party cannot afford to have a Presidential candidate who condones intolerance, bigotry and the denial of liberty to the citizens of this country. If we nominate such a candidate, we will never capture the White House in 2012. If candidates who sign this pledge somehow think they are scoring some points with some core constituency of the Republican Party, they are doing so at the peril of writing off the vast majority of Americans who want no part of this ‘pledge’ and its offensive language.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

link

A funny thing happened this week when I had the audacity to call a so-called “Marriage Vow” pledge for candidates issued by the Iowa-based Family Leader group for what it is: Offensive and UnRepublican.

The funny thing that happened is that the Internet, the blogosphere, my Facebook page, and yes, my cell phone, lit up with reactions to my suggestion that the Family Leader pledge essentially asks Republicans to endorse putting the federal government in the business of discriminating against everyone who doesn’t fit in some idyllic two-parent, heterosexual and non-Muslim mold. I not only rejected the pledge, but rejected the notion that Republicans who claim to believe in limited government could at the same time advocate sending that same government into American bedrooms, living rooms and private lives in order to enforce a particular set of values.

The reaction to my statements, and to the whole Family Leader pledge fiasco, is very telling — particularly for Republicans who are serious about winning elections going forward.

Hundreds, if not thousands, of Independents, libertarians, and more than a few bona-fide liberals came out of the woodwork to flood blogs, social media sites and my own website with supportive words for my condemnation of the Family Leader pledge. And more than a few pundits questioned my sanity for actually saying — while seeking the Republican nomination for president — that the social issue emperors have no clothes.

But where are the Republicans, or more precisely, the Republicans running for president? Plenty of Republican voters and sympathizers expressed their agreement with my concerns, but except for the two candidates who have actually signed the offensive pledge, the rest of the field — even those declining to sign it — has treated it with kid gloves. Why kid gloves? The Family Leader pledge is just plain insulting to millions of Americans.

That is a major problem for Republicans. The simple fact of the matter is that those of us running for president are, to a great extent, the faces and voices of the Republican Party. What kind of message does it send to the Independents and Democrats, not to mention regular Republicans, we will need to win back the White House next year when only one Republican candidate for president is willing to unequivocally reject a “pledge” that is offensive on its face to single parents, gays, divorcees, women, members of our military and too many others to list?

For a party that claims limited government as its guiding principle, Lincoln as its inspiration, and individual freedom as a sacred right, rejecting this kind of intolerance and big brother moral judgment should be a no-brainer. But it obviously isn’t.

It isn’t a no-brainer for Republican candidates because they are afraid. Afraid of offending a guy and his organization because they happen to be in Iowa and happen to have a big mailing list. They are afraid of the tail that is wagging the dog.

If Republicans have any hope of winning the White House, keeping control of the House and regaining the Senate next year, it certainly is NOT as the party of intolerance. It is NOT as a party so arrogant as to try to define the values of free people who are perfectly capable of defining their own values. And it is absolutely NOT as a party who alienates a clear majority of Americans in a short-sighted effort to curry favor with a minority which has a disproportionate amount of influence on the nominating process.

There is one thing on which virtually all Republicans, Independents, and Democrats agree: Our economy is on the ropes, and the federal government is helping it to death. And while America is wonderfully diverse in its opinions on most everything, the one moral issue on which we can all agree is that it is fundamentally immoral to continue on a path that has already racked up a public debt amounting to more than $40,000 for every man, woman and child in the country — and growing every day. Unlike a the Family Leader nonsense, that immorality is the government’s business — and the American people are begging for leadership to put an end to it.

Therein lies the pledge Republicans should be signing: That we will balance the budget, create an environment in which jobless Americans can go back to work, and otherwise keep the government out of American households — whatever they may look like.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gary Johnson Earns Debate Spot

Gary Johnson Earns Debate Spot

September 20, 2011, 6:45 pm

By MICHAEL D. SHEAR

The Republican presidential field may be headed toward a two-man race between Rick Perry and Mitt Romney, but don’t tell that to Gary Johnson, the former governor of New Mexico.

Mr. Johnson is also a candidate for the White House, but he’s dropped off the national radar since being excluded from several televised debates.

But his standing in several national polls has finally cracked 1 percent, the standard by which Fox News Channel has decided to include presidential hopefuls in Thursday night’s contest in Orlando, Fla.

And so Mr. Johnson, a libertarian who favors the legalization of marijuana and is against the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, will stand on the stage with the other eight Republican candidates. A spokeswoman for Fox News confirmed the decision Tuesday evening.

That could be good for ratings: in his only other debate appearance of the 2012 campaign last May, Mr. Johnson spiced things up a bit, saying that troops should come out of Iraq “tomorrow,” and received boos by pronouncing himself “pro choice” on abortion.

It will, however, add to the competition for airtime during Thursday night’s debate as the moderators balance the desire to focus on the leading contenders — Mr. Perry and Mr. Romney — with the desire to give everyone a turn.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"My next door neighbor's two dogs have created more shovel ready jobs than this president."

Good line. :thumbup:

Apparently Rush Limbaugh said it before Johnson did, though.
:shrug:

http://www.slate.com/id/2304429/pagenum/all/

The Best Line of the Night

At the GOP debate, underdog candidate Gary Johnson finally gets a moment in the spotlight—and seizes it.

By David Weigel Posted Friday, Sept. 23, 2011, at 8:24 AM ET

ORLANDO, Fla.—Gary Johnson was one of the very last people to get the news about Gary Johnson. On Tuesday night, Howard Kurtz reported that the former governor of New Mexico would get a podium at the Fox News/Google presidential debate. Other journalists tried to confirm the story with the Johnson campaign. No dice. They called the Florida GOP. Same deal. Not until Wednesday morning, when the governor was in a plane headed to Florida, could the campaign start popping bottles. He started strategizing on Wednesday night.

"Everybody that I've met in my life prior to today emailed me, I think," Johnson said. "Everybody had a suggestion for what I was supposed to do."

The mission: Get taken seriously for once. Johnson was supposed to be the Next Ron Paul of Republican politics. Ron Paul realized that he had gotten pretty good at that job. Johnson impressed nobody at a May debate in South Carolina. He had not debated a political foe since 1998, which led to word-salad answers like this one: "I'm in the camp that believes that we as individuals, we need a bit of help, so government helps out but at the point at which it runs out, that's when we really deal with the problems that we have and as individuals that's when we deal with those problems."

Candidates who poll around 1 percent are rewarded if they make debates more exciting. Johnson was punished. He missed the cut for every other debate, flunking the ad hoc tests of polling strength, becoming a nonperson. In his last finance report, he had around $6,000 to campaign with. The one Republican who backed legal marijuana, opposed the death penalty, and wanted to cut 43 percent from the military budget had become invisible.

Libertarians have more intellectual sway in the Republican Party right now than they've had in … well, give me a couple hours, and I'll think of another time. Johnson's vanishing act annoyed them. On Wednesday, before I got to Florida, a libertarian friend who owns a comic book store (no jokes!) asked me why Gary Johnson kept getting stiffed in the debates. For the first time, I could say that he wasn't being stiffed. Thursday, as Republican delegates and legislators and hangers-on kibitzed, I ran into FreedomWorks President Matt Kibbe. "Gary Johnson's going to come out swinging," he predicted. Then I ran into State Senate President Mike Haridopolos, a mainline conservative Republican, and asked him if he was ready for Johnson. "What was his name?" said Haridopolos. "God bless him for showing up."

Johnson took his place on stage before 9 p.m., ready to swing. When the cameras came to him (thank you, Fox News, for sparing us the action bios and forced introductory quips of the CNN debates), Johnson fed off the energy of an audience packed tight with Ron Paul lovers. He waved to the crowd with a look that said, "That's right. I made it. I have enough money left in my campaign account to buy a 30-second ad in the 2 a.m. block on this channel—maybe. But I made it."

Over two hours, Johnson would get four questions. This was better than he expected; when he previewed his non-strategy to me, he guessed he'd get "two and a half." Every question got the same answer, with a series of lines rearranged like parsley on a plate.

"I think I vetoed more bills than any governor in the country." (True.)

"I will submit a balanced budget for 2013." (We may never know.)

"I think the biggest threat to our national security is that we're bankrupt." (We're not, technically, but this a nice line to co-opt from the Tea Party.)

One hour and 44 minutes in, Johnson got his fourth question. It was obviously going to be his last—maybe his last question in this format ever. He deployed a zinger.

"My next door neighbor's two dogs have created more shovel ready jobs than this president."

The candidate who had been kept out of polite society had just told a poop joke on the same stage as the next Republican presidential nominee. It killed. Johnson didn't even try to contain his screw-you grin. When the debate ended, his rivals told him he'd had the best line of the night. Him! The guy who had probably inspired late-night calculus sessions of debate promoters to find a formula that included struggling Jon Huntsman but excluded him.

Fox wrapped its live shot and went to instant commentary from Charles Krauthammer.

"That was the best line of the night," said Krauthammer, "and had he said it early on, he might now be a top tier candidate."

Johnson could walk into the spin room as a winner, kind of. Andrew Breitbart was already in there, doing more interviews than half of the candidates' strategists, praising the guy who had barely made it in.

"In my gut I'd vote for Johnson or Cain, because they made me laugh," said Breitbart. "That's the shallow, Hollywood perspective for you."

The governor sat for a TV interview, then confronted a first for the Johnson campaign: a crowd of reporters. The first bites came from foreign press, for whom any presidential candidate's quotes are precious.

"You want to balance the budget, you said," offered a Japanese reporter. "Do you risk becoming a single-issue candidate?"

This was the best problem Johnson had faced in months. The question implied that he was actually a candidate. He answered it. He got a question about momentum, and answered it: "What if I'm supposed to not even show up in New Hampshire, and I come in fifth?" He got a question about the death penalty.

"Innocent people have probably been put to death in Texas!" he said. "I changed my mind on this issue based on the evidence." He told the story of a wrongful conviction in New Mexico that spun him around, getting more and more emotive. He offered up more differences with the front-runners.

"I'm glad the military supported 'don't ask, don't tell,' " he said. "I'm not a social conservative. I don't want to build a fence on the border."

It was all friendly—who wants to grind a 1 percent candidate down with details?—until a hawkish reporter from a foreign policy pressure group pointed a bulky HD camera at Johnson.

"Sir, the federal government has listed CAIR as a Muslim Brotherhood front group."

"You know," said Johnson, "this is the first I've heard of it. I probably should have heard of it."

"Are you familiar with CAIR, the Council on American-Islamic Relations?"

"No, I'm not."

Johnson looks perplexed: Why is he being asked this? His interrogator, unsure just how to quiz someone who doesn't know about this, sweats and sputters.

"Uh, OK. Have you heard of the Holy Land Foundation trial, sir?

"No, I have not. I've been to Israel. I've met with Netanyahu. I feel like I have a sense of what's happening there."

The interrogator, sort of desperate, started raising his vocal pitch at the end of his questions. "The Holy Land Foundation trial is the largest anti-terrorism trial in the United States? They designated 254 groups as unindicted co-conspirators, and are tied to the Muslim Brotherhood?"

Johnson shrugged. "Based on what you're saying, this is a bad situation."

"We'd be happy to send you some information," said the interrogator, giving up.

"Good! That'd be great."

A Fox News radio reporter tried to bring the conversation back, to humanize Johnson. How did it feel to be excluded from the rest of these cattle calls?

"Do you take it personally?" the reporter asked. "Does it hurt you?"

Johnson leaned toward the microphone, left leg forward, as if he were winding up for a pitch.

"If you were in my shoes, you would be hurt," he said. "You would ask, what's going on? Is this the American system? Is this fair? Is this the media? I mean, really?"

Johnson's happy campaign team started applauding.

"I'm in this race because I think I can win. Now, that might sound terribly outrageous."

Edited by Sarnoff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.