32 votes

Rational discussion about what to do for the 2012 race for POTUS

Most regular users of the Daily P.Au.L are aware that I openly support Gary Johnson. That is beside the point with respect to this post. My intentions here are only to encourage rational consideration of the available options left for Paulites in the general election and to attempt to spark a healthy discussion with no name-calling or other actions stemming from anger, disappointment, spite, etc. I hope you will set the emotional nature of the current times aside and genuinely consider what I have to say.

Option 1 - Vote for Obama:

Pros:

- Delivering the election to Obama is a method of punishing Romney
- Romney may be considered unelectable in 2016 given that Obama is much weaker than he was in 2008 and Romney may likely do worse than McCain did

Cons:

- Our troops remain in Afghanistan until 2014 (at least - whatever happened to the recent 2024 extension? Is 2014 election year fodder?)
- We may end up engaged in more needless militarism in Iran, Syria, etc, putting tens of thousands of American lives at stake
- Indefinite detention clauses in the current NDAA will remain
- The UN Small Arms Treaty will likely be signed
- Draconian censorship laws will likely be levied against internet freedom
- Whistle blowers will continue to be treated like sub-human criminals
- The government will continue to grow at an alarming pace
- We will likely get stimulated again with the current economic outlook
- The War on Drugs will continue even in states that have put in place legalization/decriminalization laws
- The healthcare mandate will endure
- There will be no audit of the Fed
- Foreign aid will remain untouched or maybe even increased
- The Welfare State will likely continue to expand

Option 2 - Vote for Romney:

Pros:

- Slight possibility that Romney would listen to Austrian solutions in another economic crisis (I doubt it though)

Cons:

- Romney will be rewarded for his underhanded tactics used to attain the nomination
- Our troops remain in Afghanistan until 2014 - at least
- We may end up engaged in more needless militarism in Iran, Syria, etc putting tens of thousands of American lives at stake
- Indefinite detention clauses in the current NDAA will remain
- Draconian censorship laws will likely be levied against internet freedom
- Whistle blowers will continue to be treated like sub-human criminals
- The government will continue to grow at an alarming pace
- We will likely get stimulated again with the current economic outlook
- The War on Drugs will continue even in states that have put in place legalization/decriminalization laws (likely at a more aggressive pace than Obama. Romney equated drug use to murder in a speech aired on HLN earlier in the year)
- The healthcare mandate will endure
- There will be no audit of the Fed (I don't trust Romney's sincerity)
- Foreign aid will remain untouched or maybe even increased
- The Welfare State will likely continue to expand (Medicare promises)

Option 3 - Write-in Ron Paul:

Pros:

- You get to vote for one of your heroes

Cons:

- No one outside of your personal contacts will know you did so
- A write-in campaign has no chance at successfully electing Dr. Paul

Option 4 - Vote for Johnson:

Pros whether he wins or loses:

- The votes will be counted (to some varying degree depending on the state - I doubt there would be 100% vote flipping) which would send a clear message to the GOP that the Liberty Movement won't just fall in line based on political rhetoric and/or coercion
- 5% of the vote puts the LP in major party status for 2016 which would likely help to solve problems with gaining participation in the debates
- Johnson will not be the last LP POTUS nominee. Others after him may be more universally acceptable to the Liberty Movement, and major party status would give those potential candidates much firmer footing
- It will piss off both the Democrats and the Republicans (Johnson affects the duopoly candidates differently depending on the state in question)

Pros for the outside chance he wins:

- Afghanistan will immediately be drawn down
- Avoid war with Iran, Syria, etc, potentially saving tens of thousands American lives
- A budget with $1.4 trillion in cuts - enough to balance year one (more than the $1T proposed by Paul) - will be submitted to Congress which would likely lead to real cuts (not just baseline cuts)
- In the event of a financial crisis, no economic intervention will be employed thereby creating an environment for real recovery
- If Audit the Fed hits his desk, it will get signed
- The Drug War will end
- If the legislation passes, the 16th Amendment will be repealed, the IRS abolished, and a consumption tax implemented which would eliminate all federal payroll withholding (saving entrepreneurs a fortune), eliminate taxes on all used goods (clothes, cars, etc), and distribute the federal tax burden over everyone that interacts with our economy (illegal aliens, tourists, other visitors) not just the employed citizens.
- Religious influences will no longer be employed to provide collectivist, government benefits to straight couples while punishing the gay and lesbian community. Separation of Church and State should not have exceptions, and the only argument that exists is based in religion.
- Although Johnson is pro-choice up to independent viability of the fetus, he takes the same policy approach as Ron Paul in saying it should be left to the states, thereby negating the importance of his personal opinions on the issue

Cons:

- If the legislation passes, some are concerned that the Fair Tax would create a new entitlement system due to the prebate that would be distributed to all US citizens. However, I would argue that collectivism is avoided because all citizens will receive it, and the prebate only represents the amount of tax that would be paid based on poverty level income (~$2000/yr) which is not nearly enough to survive on and provides a logical solution to the regressive nature of other consumption taxes
- Johnson said he may be willing to militarily intervene for humanitarian reasons in other countries; however, he said he would only do so with approval from Congress (giving respect to the process provided by the Constitution)

----------------------------------------------

Did I leave anything out? Please discuss.

One last note: To illustrate the unreliability of emotion based decision making, please consider the following questions -

What percentage of people in prison (barring victimless crimes) are there because they acted out of emotion? I would venture to say greater than 90%.

What percentage of people in prison (barring victimless crimes) are there because they made rational decisions? Very few.

Did your parents ever tell you to "think before you act?" If so, why did they tell you that? Was it because making emotional decisions out of anger or other emotions can often get you into trouble?

Is the purpose of the Liberty Movement to gain liberty? If not, what is the goal? Given the above information, what is the most productive choice for Liberty with respect to the 2012 race for POTUS on a rational basis, neglecting emotion?

The factors stated above are what led me to where I stand now.

Thanks ahead of time for your genuine consideration and responses.




Comment viewing options

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

You put Obama in as an option and left out Virgil?

It's all I said. But the more people lie to me about the possible choices - which is not rational thinking - but lying to me, the more I will never support you.

Lying is a type of force.

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.

I never lied...

...

Good points.

Johnson has a fair amount of name recognition and a political base as former two-term governor of New Mexico. Johnson would match of exceed Gerald Ford's veto record, throwing the bipartisan plot to bankrupt the country into chaos. Obama and Romney seem to be having a contest to see who can better alienate their base and alarm the country. Finally, Johnson will not likely implement the NDAA.

GET UNITED!

I am planning to vote for Gary Johnson because he has so many of the same ideas as Ron Paul. But WHATEVER we all do, we have to UNITE around one candidate and one plan. Otherwise, we just spread our votes and they go nowhere.

LRP

Well done!

You have cogently chrystalized why I am voting for Johnson.

(You are one of my favorite DP posters, by the way. Keep up the good work!)

Thanks!

I appreciate it!

Lol...

I wonder which people downvoted the above comment without bothering to actually respond. Probably Sue & Co.

I did - and I have read it all

dwalters post is nothing but an attempt to nudge us to vote for Gary Johnson.

At least he doesn't lie...

And he makes a reasonable argument. Which is more than I can say of his detractors...

Well - I think I make reasonable arguments

I think his profile picture subliminally bothers me... I always think he is laughing at me! Haha (though, I am a bit serious!!)

One option that does not appear in the original post is to push Gary to support more of Ron Paul's positions (I made a post in this thread just a few minutes ago about that). It seems like the Johnson supporters are content to take Gary as he is - there is no talk about trying to bring Gary closer to us.

Please link to this comment?

Really the only thing I've seen that separates Paul and Johnson is that Johnson does not outright push for the end of the fed... but really Paul does not either... he intends to phase it out, as he's said himself. Preventing them from bailing out the banks is at least a step in the same direction as Paul.

I would push Johnson to try to legalize competing currencies and end the prosecution of people who try to use their own currency to compete against FRNs. That's really my only criticism against Johnson.

It is just above a bit...

Why is the obvious not asked?

It just kinda baffles me that the Johnson supporters aren't interested in changing Gary's positions. I can respect it - it just surprises me.

Gary is even having an online townhall today (9/9 - 9pm est)

If I were trying to get folks to vote for Johnson - I would be touting this - telling folks to "Talk to Gary about your concerns - you might even be able to persuade him to the Ron Paul view" - but it is absent from the discussion about Gary. WHY??

I see and I responded...

.

The bias against Romney in this post is ridiculous.

Instead of saying what you personally think or don't think Romney will or won't do, you could at least have the objectivity to list only what the candidates are running on. The healthcare mandate will NOT remain if Romney becomes president. If Romney becomes president, they could very well implement the Ryan plan, which would put Medicare on a slow road to privatization, which is better than doing nothing with it like Obama is wanting. Romney has given no indications that he would "stimulate" us again if elected president.

Romney would sign Ron Paul's Audit the Fed bill if it passed the Senate, B. Obama would not. Gary Johnson isn't going to get elected, so, it makes no difference what he would do about anything.

Romney auditing the Fed

1. The Fed gives many billions of dollars to banks at about 0%. The banks like this a lot.

2. The banks give many millions of dollars to Mitt and Barack so they keep on getting many billions of dollars from the Fed.

Obvious Conclusion: Neither Obama, nor Mitt are going to do anything the Fed or banks don't like.

P.S. What part of 1. or 2. is confusing you?

"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty" TJ

Romney is a pathological liar.

You do not like a Romney position? Wait a few minutes and he will change it. Romney is also a thug. Look at what his criminals did to RP supporters.

Gary Johnson has a lot better chance of winning the POTUS than Romney or Obama have of completing the next four years without a military coup or an armed revolution. Wake up!

Romney protecting liberty seems totaly unrealistic to me.

His legislative record, business ethics and nomination tactics are a clear indication of what to expect from his future leadership intentions.

"A vote for the lesser of two evils is a vote to keep things the same", Buckminster Fuller..
A choice for liberty is always a choice for liberty.

I don't expect Romney to protect

many of our liberties that have already been sacrificed. However, I don't expect him to do what I fully expect Obama to do - take more away.

gun grabber

Romney is a confirmed gun grabber when he signed that legislation as Governor of Massachusetts. Romney implemented a forced health care mandate as Governor of Massachusetts.

I expect Romney to continue to erode our liberties. If Romney loses, we at least have a chance of a better candidate in 2016.

You do understand that in order for him to do

those things as president he would have to get Congress to go along with it right? Kind of like he had to get the Mass. legislature to go along with it?

A mans past actions are a good indication of his future actions.

If you want to see the true measure of a man, watch how he treats his inferiors, not his equals.
J. K. Rowling

"A vote for the lesser of two evils is a vote to keep things the same", Buckminster Fuller..
A choice for liberty is always a choice for liberty.

I believe it is better to let Obama win...

Then the left can't blame the economic policies of the "right" or "deregulation" when the SHTF in 2013-2014...

Plus I don't believe they will ever repeal more popular provisions in Obamacare.

That's an interesting comment.

If Ron Paul won the GOP nomination, would you have the same attitude? I mean, seriously, Ron Paul is good, but, he's not superman, he's still have to work with Congress to get anything passed. If the S is really going to HTF in 2013-2014 like you think, it would happen regardless of who's president. That means RON PAUL would be blamed by the left and the COUNTRY for the nation's economic woes because he would be president when the SHTF.

Plus, if you don't think they will ever repeal the more popular provisions in Obamacare with Romney president, what makes you think they would if Ron Paul was president? If Ron Paul was the nominee, a person could use the same arguments to encourage someone to vote for Obama over Paul so Obama will get blamed when the economy crashes and not Paul.

Ron Paul has openly and honestly stated that

the transition period in monetary policy might cause a temporary recession. Romney has never said anything bad would happen in his Administration. It's all sunshine and roses, and his 0.1% difference with Obama on economic policy will guarantee 12 million new jobs.

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

Let's say Dr. President Paul closes 700 unnecessary military bases in the first 15 minutes of his presidency and brings back half a million soldiers with a GI bill in pocket to buy up some of the empty houses.

Then the President lets a hundred thousand non-violent drug users out of jail in the second 15 minutes with Presidential pardons.

In the third 15 minutes he declares a national economic emergency suspending the income tax and asks all the businesses in the country to not take income tax from paychecks for 90 days, backed by a Presidential pardon to discourage any overzealous bureaucrat. This would create an economic boom the world has never seen, starting on the following Saturday. The people will NEVER allow the income tax again.

He would promise a Presidential pardon for anyone making or using alternate currencies.

He will probably need a glass of milk and a cookie after that.
--------------------
Harry Browne wrote a nice article about what a Libertarian minded President could do on the first day.
http://www.wnd.com/2000/12/517/

"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty" TJ

Good questions....

I honestly would (and did) have similar fears if Ron Paul won the GOP nomination, but I'd say the immediate end of the wars and the end of prosecution of federal drug laws would make up for the possible risks of libertarian economic policies being blamed. Plus, I thought there might actually be a chance of us having a real recovery before Ron Paul's first term was up even if the short term chaos could potentially be higher. Plus I felt he was a long shot anyway, and I also felt this would be his last chance to run as president because of his age.

For your second question, I think a Ron Paul presidency would push harder than Romney would because a Ron Paul white house would care less about re-election. Where as Romney cares more about being elected/re-elected than anything else.

Romney's rhetoric is like a howling wind...

...it fills the ears with noise, but has no discernible meaning or import. The man is such a shameless liar, you can't take anything he says seriously. To get a read on Mitt, one must look to his actions (which are akin to the those of a ruthless mafia don or crime boss), contributors (banksters, just like Obama) and advisors (neo-con madmen). They tell us all we need to know about Mitt, and it ain't good.

oh yes it will.. it will just

oh yes it will.. it will just have a Rom,ney spin on it.. Romney's onw signs have said REPLACE.... NOT REPEAL.