-1 vote

.

oops..

Comment viewing options

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

Attention Liberal GJ supporters

Liberal GJ campaign is broke. It is in massive debt and he has no cash on hand and can not win.
One needs to have conservative credentials to win an election such as this, GJ has no conservative values and neither does his grossly unorganized campaign~ that lives off the fat of the Paul campaign to boot.

I dont understand how Libs think GJ can win with no support and no money and in fact, the GJ cam[paign is in debt.
Paul would NEVER run a campaign that is in debt.
It is against his conservative principles.

That is just one of the thousands of differences between Paul and GJ.
People here are misled into thinking liberal GJ would be better then Obama or Romney and somehow GJ is not THE EXACT SAME AND BOWS TO THE SAME SYSTEM!!
They will learn!lol

"OH NO! He has a SON?" Neoconservatives and Liberals EVERYWHERE!

Rand Paul 2016

To all of you anti-Gary people

What will you do if Ron isn't on the ballot?
Write him in is certainly an option if you're sure you live in a state where Ron will get those votes counted.

I don't agree with all Johnsons positions, especially the fair tax.
But I would much rather see Obama and Romney come in under 50% than write in Ron Paul, and have my vote combined with votes for Mickey Mouse and Abe Lincoln in the others column.

Of course this is all moot if Ron wins at the convention.
Gary would probably drop out and rightfully so.

Agree with the wasted write-in vote

"Of course this is all moot if Ron wins at the convention.
Gary would probably drop out and rightfully so."

Gary has already promised this in a Libertarian debate in Florida.

He won't do that because it would cost the LP hard won

ballot access.

If GJ can manage certain vote totals in certain states, they don't have to petition next time and can use that money to campaign and build the party.

He isn't going to sabbotage the party like that.

If Paul got the GOP nod, Johnson's presence on the ballot would amount to a hill of beans anyway.

Why vote for Johnson when you can get the real deal with Paul?

Is there anyone who supports Johnson and NOT Paul? I find that highly doubtful, and if there are any such folks out there, they are assuredly small in number.

He was gonna file his paperwork...

but then he got high

https://twitter.com/#!/Agonzo1

Political Power Play.

I used to like Gary Johnson until it started trying to steal Ron Paul's support away from him. I don't see Gary Johnson traveling around trying to spread the word of liberty. All I see is him trying to convert disgruntled Ron Paul supporters to his side in what appears to me to be a political power play to hijack the momentum that Ron Paul has created. If he were to have done this after the RNC it would have been fine with me, but to show up at the Texas State GOP Convention trying to convert Ron Paul delegates to his side and doing similar things at other Ron Paul events isn't very classy and is pretty disrespectful. Gary Johnson isn't the future of the liberty movement the way many people are trying to now prop him up as. I don't believe he has the conviction and strength to do what is needed the way Ron Paul does. I also don't agree with the fact that he supports "humanitarian war" the fair tax and in general isn't as loyal to the constitution as Ron Paul is. Even with those things said, I would have supported Gary Johnson if Ron Paul had officially dropped out of the race, but not anymore. BTW I don't think Ron Paul would ever try to take support away from another liberty minded candidate if the shoe were on the other foot.

GJ IS A MOOCH

GJ IS A MOOCH and so are his liberal supporters.

"OH NO! He has a SON?" Neoconservatives and Liberals EVERYWHERE!

Rand Paul 2016

Well said winjeffy

.

Sore loser laws do not apply to presidential races.

This gets tiring repeating this over and over and still people don't get it.

They don't apply because:

There is no such thing as a "primary" for president.

There is only the vote by the Electors in mid December. Read your Constitution.

Here's what I mean by that.

The Constitution spells out the procedure for choosing the President and Vice-President.

Here's how it works:

The Electors from each state, all meet on the same day (that Congress chooses) and they write the names of two people on a piece of paper. One is their vote for President, the other for Vice-President.

At least one of the people voted for, cannot be a resident of the same state as the Elector.

That's it.

Do you see anywhere in there, anything about a primary?

No. It isn't in there.

There is NO provision requiring any Elector to vote for any particular person other than at least one of their votes has to be for someone living in a different State than themselves.

There isn't even any reference to a list of candidates to choose from. They can write ANYONE down they wish.

State law, cannot trump the Constitution.

Thus, sore-loser laws do not, cannot, apply to presidential races.

Technically, EVERYONE is a candidate.

Now, here's why you are confused...

The Constitution says that the various State Legislatures shall decide how their State's Electors are chosen. In every State at present, the process is for voters to choose the Electors in a popular election, held at the same time as the Congressional election which is set by Congress.

In some states, voters cast votes for two Electors at large, and one from their Congressional district. In others, they vote for all of the Electors together as a slate. In still others, the Electors don't even appear on the ballot, but instead, the names of interested candidates for President and Vice-President appear. A vote for their choice for "President and Vice-President" is treated as a vote for a slate of Electors pledged in advance to cast votes for those people in mid December. However, do not be fooled by the last example. Even in that case, one is NOT voting for President or Vice-President. One is voting for the Electors. The office at stake is that of Elector, it is NOT President or Vice-President.

Thus the election in November is NOT an election for President or Vice-President, it is an election for the office of Elector.

Thus sore-loser laws do not apply.

Mr. Johnson will not be voted for in November. Electors pledged to him will be. Not a single vote counted in November will be for Mr. Johnson for President. All votes in November will be only for Electors. The Electors did not have a "primary" to participate in, the law is not triggered.

Mr. Johnson was never a candidate in a primary.

What we refer to (erroneously) as "Presidential Primaries" aren't really primaries at all.

Leaving aside the above explanation of the true process of electing the President, the event referred to as a "primary" for President is merely a partisan preference vote to indicate the preference of the members of a particular political party as to who they would like their party to nominate as an interested candidate for President later in the year at a party Convention.

You could lose a state's so-called "primary" and yet still be the party nominee and have your Electors appear on that state's ballot.

This proves that the so-called "primary" isn't really a primary at all.

In a true primary, if you lose - you are out. That's it. You lost. You CANNOT appear on the general election ballot, only the winners of the primaries can. (there are in this case, primaries for each of several parties)

Partisan primaries are a means for parties to nominate a candidate for the general election.

Another means is a convention or caucus of the party.

Another is a selection committee.

Not all states have partisan primaries.

The purpose of sore-loser laws, is because those states have separate qualifying dates and procedures for a candidate to qualify for the primary, and then for the general election.

In other states, there is only ONE qualifying period and procedure for the election as a whole. There is no need to re-qualify after a primary. Winning a primary is considered automatic qualification for the general election.

Thus to prevent the case of where someone seeks an office by becoming a party's nominee via a partisan primary from then later qualifying in the general election under a different party label, those states with separate qualifying dates and procedures passed "sore-loser" laws.

They could have also fixed this by making one qualifying date instead.

But in no case is any so-called "presidential primary" actually the determinate of who appears on a later ballot.

For example, Mitt Romney did not win the South Carolina "primary." But if he were to become the GOP nominee, his Electors will most certainly appear on the ballot in South Carolina in November. (but even if those Electors win, they are still free to vote for Newt Gingrich or anyone else for President)

It would be absurd for South Carolina to prohibit Ron Paul or Gary Johnson from having their Electors appear on the November ballot under the Libertarian or other party name because they lost the South Carolina "primary" while at the same time allowing Mitt Romney's Electors to appear, when ALL THREE of these men "lost" the South Carolina "primary."

Does it make sense now?

If Gary Johnson has a lawyer with even half a brain, he will win this case and his Electors will be on the ballot.

Guess you better explain that

Guess you better explain that to Dr. Paul and Doug Wead who have both cited the sore loser laws as the reason he won't run third party. Guess they know nothing then, huh?

Blessings )o(

If that's what they think, I'd like to hear their response to

this, because their position is not based on the law, on the State level, or on the Constitution. (I'd think Dr. Paul would at least get that one right)

People can make errors.

It may be that he knows he'd be in the right, but the litigation cost would detract from his ability to campaign and still win, so while technically, I may be correct, effectively, if he has to sue to prove the point, it may be all for naught anyway.

Other than the slightest hint of condescention on your part..

I appreciate your response..It's unfortunate that other Johnson supporters (assuming you are one) don't understand how to actually clarify anything for people. How hard is that, right? I understand getting tired of having to repeat something over and over again with people still not understanding, but there's no need to speak as if I'm suppose to already know all this. If you DIDN'T repeat this over and over and over again, then people would probably never know, right? Now you know how Paul supporters feel.

De criminalize Liberty!

Let me clarify something for

Let me clarify something for you. Ron Paul will NOT be on the ballot in any state in November.

Do I need to repeat it slowly for you?

"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty." - Thomas Jefferson
"Annoyance is step one of thinking"
"We're all in the same boat, it doesn't matter if you like me"

Let me clarify something for you.

Get Johnson out of mouth first, then perhaps you could repeat..Slowly. Luckily I think your brain might be able to process that. Slowly.

De criminalize Liberty!

Ron...........Paul...........

Ron...........Paul...........Not...............On...............Ballot.

"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty." - Thomas Jefferson
"Annoyance is step one of thinking"
"We're all in the same boat, it doesn't matter if you like me"

Even I wasn't that harsh.

No, he won't be, and neither will Romney or Obama or Johnson.

Presidential contenders are not on the ballot in November, Electors who will vote for them are.

Is that what you meant?

If you instead meant Paul's Electors will not be on any ballots in November, you don't know that yet. Louisiana supporters put his Electors on last time. They will most likely do it again.

No, I mean his name literally

No, I mean his name literally won't be on the ballot.

The ballot will also not say "Barack Obama's Electors".

Nice semantic try, but you are incorrect.

"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty." - Thomas Jefferson
"Annoyance is step one of thinking"
"We're all in the same boat, it doesn't matter if you like me"

Yes, MY ballot here in Louisiana WILL say,

"Electors for Barack Obama - President, Joe Biden - Vice-President"

It will have similar language for Gary Johnson, as well as whomever the GOP nominee turns out to be, and most likely as well Ron Paul on some other party label since a group was successful in doing so last time, and a myriad of other party candidates. (usually at least one from the Constitution, Green and various socialist parties. I'm not sure if the AE group locally is going to put up Electors, they are still building party registration. And thought the Reform Party here is still recognized, I don't recall them fielding Presidential Candidates, they seem to only run local and state level offices)

Maybe they don't say that in your state, but that doesn't change the fact that the candidate isn't really the candidate, the Electors are and THAT is who you are voting for.

I wasn't playing semantics. I was trying to get you to clarify. You kind of still haven't, but I'll take it to mean that voters will not have the option of voting for Ron Paul's Electors in ANY state.

You do not know that yet as I have indicated. And in fact, I'd say there is a better than excellent chance that if Ron doesn't get the GOP nod, Louisiana will have a slate for him on our ballot - just like last time. It's too easy to do.

Either way, Ron Paul's name

Either way, Ron Paul's name won't be on the ballot as a choice.

"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty." - Thomas Jefferson
"Annoyance is step one of thinking"
"We're all in the same boat, it doesn't matter if you like me"

You are a master at being obtuse.

No, his name won't be on the ballot. I never said it would. In fact, I said it would NOT.

But his Electors names MIGHT be.

It is impossible for you to definitively declare otherwise until the ballots are printed.

Aliens MIGHT also land before

Aliens MIGHT also land before the election.

"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty." - Thomas Jefferson
"Annoyance is step one of thinking"
"We're all in the same boat, it doesn't matter if you like me"

Anything to keep a Johnson

thread alive for days, right? You're a joke dude. My questions have been answered, and not by you, a supposed Johnson supporter. You really don't seem to have a clue. At least I try to respect people when they're not spreading lies, or half truths and being misleading, and I can actually show a little appreciation. You should try it sometime..The not being misleading part that is, and that goes for all the other Johnson supporters here. Let me rephrase that, the Johnson supporters here that are still actively attempting to convince people that Dr. Paul has ZERO chance and that Johnson is now our ONLY hope. Johnson MIGHT have as much chance as Paul. On his best day and Dr. Pauls worst anyway. You'd have to be a bit of a dope to keep posting on an empty thread.

De criminalize Liberty!

You're here. Paul has

You're here.

Paul has statistically zero chance.

"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty." - Thomas Jefferson
"Annoyance is step one of thinking"
"We're all in the same boat, it doesn't matter if you like me"

Still slow to understand..

Must be why you prefer to repeat things slowly. I had to be here to erase the thread genious. Later

De criminalize Liberty!

"genius".

"genius".

"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty." - Thomas Jefferson
"Annoyance is step one of thinking"
"We're all in the same boat, it doesn't matter if you like me"

I'm a Paul supporter. I'm not a fan of Johnson.

I'm not sure if I'll bother to vote in this race if Paul isn't on my ballot.

And sorry for the tone. You are right. Repetition is a part of learning, and many times, people weren't even around when it was said the first time.

I hope my explanation was clear enough though. Perhaps maybe I could improve it so it sinks in better for some who still don't get it yet?

Who cares? What's a neo-liberal got to do with the r3VOLution?

Even at this stage has Dr. Paul way more chance of winning the nomination than Johnson does the presidency...

Seems you're increasingly in

Seems you're increasingly in the minority around here

"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty." - Thomas Jefferson
"Annoyance is step one of thinking"
"We're all in the same boat, it doesn't matter if you like me"

This just in. Ron Paul not

This just in.

Ron Paul not on the ballot in ANY states yet.

"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty." - Thomas Jefferson
"Annoyance is step one of thinking"
"We're all in the same boat, it doesn't matter if you like me"

This just in..

You need a life. Oh wait, that's old news.

De criminalize Liberty!