0 votes

Johnson/Paul anyone?

Why not Ron Paul as Vice President on the Libertarian Party ticket with Gary Johnson? I love that idea and would work hard to try and get them into the debates. This R3VOLUTION only became so big and enthusiastic because the libertarian philosophy unites people from all over the political spectrum. Freedom is popular and I hope to God that Dr. Paul takes one last stand for liberty and leaves the corrupt Republican Party in the rearview mirror.

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.


After I watched the doug wead chat yesterday, I started thinking about the 3rd party run and sore loser laws.

If Dr. Paul was to be chosen as the VP for a 3rd party candidate (johnson or any other possible candidates that can be on the ballot in all 50 states), if they were elected to the white house, could the presidential 3rd party candidate (johnson, whoever) just resign from the presidency and then ron (the vp) take the presidency?

Would that work, or no?

Not my first choice, but we

Not my first choice, but we haven't even been to Tampa yet to even consider this option

Not mine either...

but as a plan B I am all for it. I say use the threat of this third party run as a way to warn the establishment old guard Republican voters that if they don't go with Dr. Paul at the Convention then we will leave and take our precious votes with us! Scare them with the thought that Barry stays for four more.

HELL NO! Gary Johnson will

HELL NO! Gary Johnson will not protect the Unborn. You cannot have Liberty if you will not give Liberty to the most defenseless people. Gary Johnson can burn in H... as far as I am concerned.

There is no Left or Right -- there is only freedom or tyranny. Everything else is an illusion, an obfuscation to keep you confused and silent as the world burns around you." - Philip Brennan

"Invest only in things that you can stand in front of and pr

Chill on the burning in H talk

I am pro-life too but even Dr. Paul said himself that you can't use force to change peoples morals.

I second that R-Double

I second that R-Double


We'll do just fine with President Paul. No need for a CFR shill like Johnson. You should check out this thread.


So he's a shill?

Is that why Dr. Paul had him speak at the Rally for the Republic? What matters to me the most is that Liberty has a voice THIS election. Do you really want to see Mitt and Barry "debating" each other on how "different" their positions are? As for the lawsuits I really hope they do well, but don't bet on the corrupt legal system doing us any favors.

Bit more going on

Than just the lawsuit. Like the grassroots has taken over the campaign. Benton & Olson can't make any more mischief. But you really need to look up who Gary's handler has been his while political career.

Why don't you just lay out your case against Johnson?

Link all your evidence and don't just say stuff without backing it up. Even if GJ is a phony, atleast his more liberty minded message would be refreshing to hear this fall instead of only bull$#%@ lies comming from Robamney. Also Ron Paul would slay any opponent he faced in a Vice Presidential debate!

GJ is not a principled libertarian...

As governor of New Mexico he did veto over 700 bills and reduced the taxes, managed to be re elected in a democrat state.

But rather than approaching issues from the standpoint of libertarian principles he used a cost benefit analysis. I am unaware of any specific issues where this led to his support of an action of government at the state level which would be contrary to a libertarian position. But he said so himself that cost benefit analysis is his approach.

Hopefully, if he were to become president, he would appreciate the Founders granting of just certain powers enumerated in Article 1 Section 8. I am not aware that he is cognizant of that approach which has served Ron Paul so well.

I am a Ron Paul supporter on all his issues except his contention that a microscopic fertilized ovum is a person. I also disagree that a potential human being has the rights of an actual human being. I side with the rights of the pregnant woman to assume the responsibility of deciding whether to terminate her pregnancy or carry to term.

In only that regard I would prefer GJ. Actually I wish that Ron Paul would check his premises and recognize the right of a pregnant woman to abort, at least in the first trimester when there is no doubt that the status of the fetus or embryo is that of a potential and not an actual human being with a conceptual consciousness which is the defining attribute of a human being with rights of its own.

<<<"Obamacare, Contraception, and Ayn Rand

It will be little comfort to the advocates of state-mandated “free” contraception that Ayn Rand, who would have abhorred Obamacare and all its mandates, was as staunch an advocate of birth control and women’s right to abortion as one can imagine. Writing about the anti-contraception papal encyclical “Humanae Vitae,” Rand wrote in “Of Living Death” (1968):

Try to hold an image of horror spread across space and time—across the entire globe and through all the centuries—the image of parents chained, like beasts of burden, to the physical needs of a growing brood of children—young parents aging prematurely while fighting a losing battle against starvation—the skeletal hordes of unwanted children born without a chance to live—the unwed mothers slaughtered in the unsanitary dens of incompetent abortionists—the silent terror hanging, for every couple, over every moment of love. If one holds this image while hearing that this nightmare is not to be stopped, the first question one will ask is: Why? . . .

The passive obedience and helpless surrender to the physical functions of one’s body, the necessity to let procreation be the inevitable result of the sexual act, is the natural fate of animals, not of men. In spite of its concern with man’s higher aspirations, with his soul, and with the sanctity of married love—it is to the level of animals that the encyclical seeks to reduce man’s sex life, in fact, in reality, on earth.">>>

No Man's need constitutes an obligation on the part of another man to fulfill that need.