43 votes

Foreign Policy - Gary Johnson vs Ron Paul

This should come as no surprise since Gary's top adviser when he was Gov. is now CFR leadership. See here: http://www.cfr.org/experts/world/douglas-turner/b11203

But Johnson is sounding more and more like a neo-con. See the following article from antiwar.com http://antiwar.com/blog/2012/04/12/gary-johnson-libertarian-...

Johnson says he supports U.S. military intervention in Uganda

He may continue drone strikes in Pakistan

He would keep US bases in Afghanistan and throughout the Middle East

He supports foreign intervention for "humanitarian" reasons, which Ron has warned us over and over only takes money from poor people in the United States to give to rich people in other countries...

Add this to his past statements that the FED should not be eliminated and his comments this week that the federal government should MANDATE states to recognize gay marriage. What happened to Ron's (and the Libertarian) positions that the federal government has no place in the marriage business?

I know many here are leaning towards Johnson, but he sure seems to be getting further from Ron's views each time he opens his mouth.

Comment viewing options

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

Are you aware that Gary Johnson isn't actually running against

Ron Paul?

Are you aware that Ron Paul is no longer a candidate?

Gary Johnson is now running (badly) against people with names like Barrack Obama and Mitt Romney.

So exactly how does it matter that Gary Johnson is not as good as Ron Paul? Its not like we have a choice between the two.

Gary Johnson is far from perfect. But he beats the cr*p out of

Romney and Obama.

Lets worry about getting a candidate CLOSE to our ideals, before we worry about getting the perfect one.

Lets worry about actually hitting the TARGET (or the barn door if you will), before we worry about getting a bull's eye.

Bump!

Excellent article from antiwar.Thank You!

A well-thought out post...

from RONonymous - Why I Love Ron Paul But I Also Promote Gary Johnson - http://www.dailypaul.com/246742/why-i-love-ron-paul-but-i-al...

Everyone should at least read his/her post before hating on GJ so hard.

If you really want to consider the most important thing about foreign policy on the U.S.'s plate right now, it is a bloody war with Iran. The Iraqi's largely surrendered upon arrival of the "Shock & Awe." Most of the fighting in Iraq was with insurgents that had no real "national pride" with respect to Iraq.

The Iranians are a very nationalistic people, and they will unite just as Americans emotionally connected after 9/11. It won't be insurgents. These folks will be motivated by national pride. They overthrew the Shah in 1979 - a nasty dictator which America installed in 1953. They are not looking forward to the next dictator we will impose on them. As well, they kicked the hell out of a U.S. funded Iraq during the 1980's.

Thousands more lives will be lost in Iran than were in Iraq. Gary Johnson offers Americans the ONLY FOR SURE opportunity in November to avoid this now looming conflict.

If you REALLY want to promote LIBERTY, get this man in the debates by SPREADING THE WORD ABOUT HIM. We must be ACTIVE. Obama or Romney won't cut it. We need PEACE NOW - not 4 or 8 years from now.

I'm voting GJ. Period!

delete

//

43%

That is how much Gary Johnson wants to cut the military, which is the blunt tool of our foreign policy.

Ron Paul wants to cut 15%.

It's a fact Ron Paul fanatics (as opposed to fans) conveniently leave out when discussing foreign policy.

"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"

Reason For Anti-GJ Posts On Daily Paul

This post follows a trend I have noticed, which didn't make sense to me until I read the linked article.

http://www.dailypaul.com/246404/real-reason-for-anti-johnson...

No

The real reason is because GJ sucks and he is not getting my vote. If a pollster calls and asks, I may say GJ just to get him into the debates, but come election night, my vote goes to RP.

It's Clear To Me

That the Obamney crowd doesn't want GJ in the debates. That's enough of a reason for me to want him in the debates.

I will go with Ron Paul's!

I will go with Ron Paul's!

So will I!

So will I!

Ron Paul 2012 - It's Almost Here!

I think it would be better to... you know

to bring up alternatives,,, to Ron Paul after he dropped out...

so wait till after tampa..

This is why I can't support him

I also smell the dishonesty on him. In addition, "lib" and John ashman's constant trashing of Dr. Paul needs to be addressed.

not thrashing, my comments are more on paul's staff.

and you really shouldn't equate the same. besides, no man is perfect as you claim he is.

if you can't smell the 'dishonesty' of that staff and speak about it, then you are infact ok with dishonesty, hence you move towards who are most dishonest.

jj

At least there's no

At least there's no 'dishonesty' in Paul himself. Johnson wants 'Humanitarian' Intervention(what makes that any better than the crusades of president's over the past few decades) and thinks Guantanamo is a necessary evil. Oh how Libertarian art thou...

Oh, and don't BS us with "I mostly attack Paul's staff", I've seen you post dozens of times...you're not fooling anyone.

paul's destructive friendship w/ romney is not good.

and at least johnson does not have romney at his side and their campaigns don't have 'weekly conversations' as those of paul and romney. that must make you proud - that is that frequent interaction b/w romney gang of thugs with the cronies on paul.

jj

Hmm

DailyJohnson getting lonely or something? :)

So the fact that Dr. Paul and

So the fact that Dr. Paul and Mitt became friendly on the campaign trail is destructive? What planet are you from? Ron gets along with everyone...Did you see that Bernanke hearing? He was even friendly with the Chairman of the Fed. I am glad I am not in your world where civility equals destructive.

As far as "weekly conversations" between the campaigns....Cite a source or you are full of crap!

Ron Paul 2012 - It's Almost Here!

I was about to say the same

I was about to say the same thing:).

It seems far to many have a double 'standard' about procedure and wish to treat specific people as less than human. It's not supportive of Romney to be civil with him.. Just as much as we may hate certain individuals, we still leave their rights to them. But alas, far too many want us to just 'rip' at anyone we disagree with the slightest, and many of those are the ones who wish to be the first to enact violence to change things. That's one way to lose. Our movement loses credibility(not via compromise, but via hypocrisy) the day we start to prefer incivility and violence to changing hearts and minds.

Ron Paul is no diff than GJ in some ways - OP is misleading.

Ron's advisors are all from CFR as well - and like a typical young naive rp supporter, the OP is intentionally misleading and omits that paul has the same and even more crappy advisors. RP supporeters that are against all other liberty candidates like this OP and many dp'ers infact are serial hypocrites, bec they love ron's crony staff and are very obedient to them and behave as slaves and have long shut down their thinking processes to absorb whatever the thuggish campaign wants them to think and do.

GJ and his staff are aligned with libertarian party and not corrupt gop party, hence GJ is far more aligned with liberty. And GJ has actual governance experience.

While GJ tends to side more with Israel, liberty movement tends to side with Islam.

jj

Let's look at this a bit more

Let's look at this a bit more seriously.

We have something like 1000 bases around the world. No President, not even Ron Paul, could close all of them in 8 years. And it would be potentially dangerous to do so. Further, I have never heard, but maybe someone has a quote, that Ron Paul advocates or has promised to close ALL foreign bases. I have said that he wants to close bases overseas, but I haven't heard the word "all" involved.

Ron Paul wants to build MORE bases at home, he has said this. Gary Johnson has never suggested that we need more military bases in the US.

Point - Gary Johnson.

When it comes to waging war, Ron Paul fans suggest that he is 100% anti-war, will only wage war as a pure defensive posture and essentially would ignore Congress apparently. He has never suggested this at all -

"""""
* Avoid long and expensive land wars that bankrupt our country by using constitutional means to capture or kill terrorist leaders who helped attack the U.S. and continue to plot further attacks.

* Follow the Constitution by asking Congress to declare war before one is waged.

* Only send our military into conflict with a clear mission and all the tools they need to complete the job – and then bring them home.

""""""

Well, that seems to be EXACTLY the same as Gary Johnson! Okay, but Ron Paul has suggested that he was against helping people who are being murdered or calling mass murder genocide. I'm pretty sure he'd not ever help anyone in Africa.

Point - Ron Paul

When it comes to cutting military spending, Ron Paul wants to cut military spending by 15%. Gary Johnson wants to cut it 43%. Huge difference. Why does this matter for foreign policy? It's hard to go around bullying the world with a small military budget.

Point - Gary Johnson

"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"

If you've ever resided in a domestic area

that shut down a military facility due to budget constraints and witnessed the economic distress caused by such a closure and could understand that our over reaching over seas brought about the necessity of such a closure you might understand why Dr. Paul would consider this as a path to put the economy back on track. Not to mention it might help change our war mongering image, which is very prevalent in most of the world.

There are no politicians or bankers in foxholes.

Hey, I know all about that.

Hey, I know all about that.

Gary Johnson and Ron Paul BOTH know that we need to close as many bases as possible with the ultimate goal of "all of them".

As you well know, making missiles might help the false economy, but it doesn't help the real one, because it is a misallocation of resources which creates an unnecessary bomber, instead of hundreds or thousands of homes, cars, schools, roads, etc, etc.

"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"

Huh? Ron never said we need

Huh? Ron never said we need to close as many bases as possible. In fact we should open more bases, preferably along our southern border. Just close the totally unnecessary ones in Germany, Cuba, South Korea and over a 100 other countries.

Support Rand, Amash & other liberty candidates? Check out: http://www.LibertyConservatives.com/

Um, I know you're going to

Um, I know you're going to call me out on not being 'willing to debate' for saying this, but there is so much about that that is sheer ignorance of the reality of things and what Gary Johnson himself has even said... If you really wish for 'debate' with some reply then I guess...

That is a typically "liberal"

That is a typically "liberal" response.

"You are ignorant, but I refuse to waste my time explaining why"

Come on, we're supposed to be better than that. I have spent a whole lot more of my time battling "liberals" and it saddens me when supposed freedom people act exactly like them "logically".

"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"

No, I was asking if you

No, I was asking if you really wanted to go through with this, here we go...

"We have something like 1000 bases around the world. No President, not even Ron Paul, could close all of them in 8 years. And it would be potentially dangerous to do so. Further, I have never heard, but maybe someone has a quote, that Ron Paul advocates or has promised to close ALL foreign bases. I have said that he wants to close bases overseas, but I haven't heard the word "all" involved."

First off, to deny the current powers invested of the President to do just that is to forget his role. There is much the President can do because of his position's powers alone. The vast majority of those nations we have bases in DON'T WANT the U.S. there, so they would gladly cooperate in any 'negotiations' you might be thinking they do(I assume you mean a power vacuum, since you mentioned the 'dangerous' nature of that action). The ones that do want the bases there are more often than not allies close enough in relations to negotiate 'withdraws' anyways. It's not to say that it'd be a cakewalk to simply tell them "We're not going to support you with military assistance anymore", but it is by no means impossible. Purely off the nature of both situations, the vast majority of bases should be easy to shut down.

Secondly, Paul has said HUNDREDS of times, "All foreign bases", he has made it quite clear about local bases, as that is expected of his defense stance.

"* Avoid long and expensive land wars that bankrupt our country by using constitutional means to capture or kill terrorist leaders who helped attack the U.S. and continue to plot further attacks.

* Follow the Constitution by asking Congress to declare war before one is waged.

* Only send our military into conflict with a clear mission and all the tools they need to complete the job – and then bring them home."

You say that he has 'never mentioned' these things. But he has clearly stated them hundreds of times. A good example is in the chapters on War and terrorism in both his Liberty Defined book and the Revolution:A Manifesto. He is all for getting those who attacked us, making a clear mission and the tools needed to do so, and getting out. And of those 3, I'm astounded that you've never heard him mention Congress needing to declare war. It's one of his most audible issues.

"Well, that seems to be EXACTLY the same as Gary Johnson! Okay, but Ron Paul has suggested that he was against helping people who are being murdered or calling mass murder genocide. I'm pretty sure he'd not ever help anyone in Africa."

I'm not sure if you're trying to dis Paul for not wanting to do blind 'humanitarian' intervention or not here...

"When it comes to cutting military spending, Ron Paul wants to cut military spending by 15%. Gary Johnson wants to cut it 43%. Huge difference. Why does this matter for foreign policy? It's hard to go around bullying the world with a small military budget."

To clarify, it's 15% and a freeze, ignoring the 'baseline' increases that are set in place. Tying back into bases at home, a large portion of that would be spent at home, and not particularly on bombs and 'war vehicles'. Some of it will, for maintaining defense, but as stated many times(again, a good source for that is his books, Liberty Defined lays out specific issues into 50 different chapters, so it's easy to navigate if you're having 'trouble' finding the quotes you keep mentioning you've never heard), it would be more focused on paying the soldiers and keeping them home than on weapons and gear.

There, are you happy? I simply wanted to make sure you truly were wanting a response since it took some extra time out of my day to answer(and what's the point of answering one with a cognitive dissonance or other illusions?)

Okay, thanks for taking the

Okay, thanks for taking the time.

1. Actually, I should apologize, we only have a couple of hundred miltary bases at the most, but we have approximately 600 "military sites"

2. Yes, the President has a lot of power, but Congress has found nifty ways of blocking or doing end runs around the President by earmarking funds or reassigning power over certain things or putting limits on agencies and the President to cut funding or to manage the programs he's supposed to manage. That being said, it would be great to see a President challenge these in court or say, as Andrew Jackson did "stop me" (paraphrase). I'm not sure about Paul, but I do know Johnson has zero fear of Congress and has always flexed his power to the limits to get the job done.

3. I can't find him saying that ANYWHERE. I have seen him IMPLY it, but he implies a LOT of things that he has no intention of doing. If you can cite a quote where he says that HE would close all military bases or even that we SHOULD close them all. I have seen him say things like submarines could replace foreign bases, but well, no, they can't do that. It's like saying your swimming pool would make a great garage. But I digress.

4. What I'm saying is that he is saying that if Congress declares war, what is he doing to do? He has said that they need a purpose, blah, blah, blah but if he disagrees is he going to countermand Congress? He hasn't said. He leaves a lot of this up to the mind of the reader (he does this regularly) so that you get what YOU want out of his speeches, without him boxing himself in. He's VERY good at this. He is able to imply that he is both for something and against something, often in the SAME sentence, as long as you don't say "hey, yeah, uh, wait, WHAT???"

5. What I'm saying is that what if there is a situation, like say the Holocaust or something similar where people are just getting slaughtered and we have the ability to help, the American people are demanding action and Congress has authorized the use of force. Paul has IMPLIED that he will do nothing. I don't believe that for a moment. But let's say that is his ideology and he's sticking to it, no matter what Americans and Congress say. All Johnson is saying is that he will CONSIDER it under SOME circumstances, but typically he would not involve himself in other countries unless there is obviously a threat to the US AND Congress has given him permission. Has Ron Paul EVER said he would let innocents on principle? Ever?

I would be curious to see if you have exact quotes to back up what you believe he has said.

"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 either didn't look, or

You either didn't look, or you didn't try hard. It's plastered all over his chapters on war in his various books or in his interviews off the Campaign(on the campaign trail, the MSM never asks him about 'war' because it's their touchy subject). Interviews with people like Kokesh, Napalitano, and more. It's been said hundreds of times, enough that I could 'recreate' it with synonyms and one of the variations of it might be one of those hundreds of times. I'm asking you to look for it because you've shown that you won't believe me anyways(I cited his exact books and the chapters)

Maybe 'video' will do better, something you can't simply discredit cause you don't want to follow my citations.... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ify0fcNYtj0 , and many of the 'recommended' videos on the side(look through the debate footage, CNN occasionally even got around to the subject.

But I can say in response to number 5, which is often answered, just not in the way people expect(it's not a 'yes' 'no' question the way it's usually asked), how many 'lives' lost calls for an intervention. Do we just have a magic number that we say 'okay, we need to go in there and do something'? Have you not learned a damn thing about blowback so far, how most of it is done in response to these fears or 'humanitarian interventions' that our nation goes around committing? Paul has mentioned over and over about blowback. Almost everytime he mentions it in a review, he's cut off, take for example the Bill O'reilly interview where he shouts at Paul about 'no time a history lesson'. When he mentions blowback, he often talks about the 'crusades' of good intentions that went wrong. In particular he'll mention WW1 and how it directly caused the factors that led to Hitler's rise. Ask yourself, if we had not intervened in WW1, had Versailles not come to pass in the manner it did, how many lives would have been saved? Far more than any military intervention would have.

You posted a video that says

You posted a video that says that Ron Paul wants to close all military bases but no where in the video does he actually say that or anything even close.

"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"