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.

1. If we all pooled our votes

1. If we all pooled our votes behind a 3rd party candidate, they would get historic numbers that wouldn't be ignored or joked about in the media. The 46% of Americans who believe both Romney and Obama are "two evils" and the 60-80% of Americans willing to consider a 3rd party candidate would realize that if they jumped their party ship and joined the growing support behind a better candidate, Johnson could have won. The old belief about being only able to choose "the lesser of two evils" and "3rd party can't win" now being gone would help people be more open minded to all candidates regardless of party affiliation in 2016. "Help end the two party duopoly" is referring to this being the beginning of the end of it IF we follow through with the strategy.

Even Paul himself in his 3rd party press conference mentions how a 3rd party candidate would have a chance and end the 2 party duopoly if the American people see both parties as being the same in the worst ways which is what would happen if Johnson were in the national debates.

Feel free to watch and wait for it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_b3y7BxFPJ4

2. If Johnson had a large number of support just after the GOP knew it alienated a huge group of voters, they would put two and two together and realize a large number of their votes lost went to him. If the GOP lost, in 2016 they wouldn't want to alienate again, they would want to get us back to vote for their side so they could win. If they won by only a small margin, which shows that it could have been a coin-flip to them, not the probability someone that wants to have, then they wouldn't want it to come down to the wire again in 2016. Again, they would want more voters. Plus by this time, they would have already noticed that our takeover has really begun and was in full swing.

3. Pretty sure that getting a libertarian nominated in the GOP and even made president so they can set an inspiring example to others would promote our takeover of the party seeing as more libertarians would wake up, get involved, some RINOs and neo-cons could change their mind about the way they look at their own beliefs and politics to the point they wouldn't even need to be replaced, and the GOP platform would be extremely libertarian in order to match up with what libertarian president would want to do... similar to Bush's "humble foreign policy" except this time... actually following through with it.

It all sounds realistic to me. Feel free to invalidate any of that reasoning if you can... or continue to just keep repeating your baseless claim that "it's just fantasy".

It may seem like "fantasy" to you, but you haven't put any deep thought into it. I bet stars being suns in other solar systems seemed like "fantasy" too a thousand years ago to those that didn't care enough to spend time figuring it out.

Critical Thinking > Emotional Thinking > Pseudo-Intellectuals that Saturate DP
Utilitarianism > Consequentialism > Deontology > Egocentrism
Making people feel "troll'd" with the truth > being an intentional troll > acting like one naturally

A fourth possibility might be

A fourth possibility might be mentioned, but that might not be appropriate here on the Daily Johnson.

This isn't a Ron Paul site...

This isn't a Ron Paul site... it's a libertarian site merely named in dedication with some forum space for his now non-existent campaigns.

The actual prerogative of this site is "Dedicated to restoring constitutional government in the USA".

Critical Thinking > Emotional Thinking > Pseudo-Intellectuals that Saturate DP
Utilitarianism > Consequentialism > Deontology > Egocentrism
Making people feel "troll'd" with the truth > being an intentional troll > acting like one naturally

That is the problem. When we hear libertarian precepts, it's OK

The Libertarian Party leadership has proven itself clueless to many libertarians.

As well as Independents who know the difference between making government bigger and shrinking government.

Free includes debt-free!

I'm not promoting Johnson as

I'm not promoting Johnson as a libertarian... I'm promoting him as a candidate that has more libertarian positions than the rest that would also wake people up about the similarities between obama and romney in the national debates... even getting many interested in ron paul and looking up the definition of liberty for themselves.

Johnson would shrink government, just like he did for 8 years in New Mexico. It may not be to the miniscule particle of dust you want it to be... but it would be the biggest change in modern US history.

Don't turn away steak because you wanted lobster... otherwise we're going to get stuck with mcdonalds until the end of time.

Critical Thinking > Emotional Thinking > Pseudo-Intellectuals that Saturate DP
Utilitarianism > Consequentialism > Deontology > Egocentrism
Making people feel "troll'd" with the truth > being an intentional troll > acting like one naturally

If one gets past the gag reflex there are lots of choices.

The Rumsfeldian choice is an unconvincing fallacy.

Free includes debt-free!

Claiming this as

Claiming this as "Rumsfeldian" without evidence or actually proving so is the REAL fallacy.

I've shown how many others here are willfully ignorant... and then those same people choose to be willfully ignorant of it in order to call me the one being willfully ignorant.

That's pretty funny.

I'm sorry, but the person using the fallacies is the real "Rumsfeldian" here.

Feel free to explain and backup your baseless claims. I say that knowing that you cannot. You've already proven that to me.

Critical Thinking > Emotional Thinking > Pseudo-Intellectuals that Saturate DP
Utilitarianism > Consequentialism > Deontology > Egocentrism
Making people feel "troll'd" with the truth > being an intentional troll > acting like one naturally

Another con for Johnson

Suchba high sales tax would make everything more expensive and people would go insane and poor...

"Believe half of what you see, and none of what you hear." - Benjamin Franklin

It would turn us all into snitches. Some would love to snitch.

It's just another tax con.

Taxes are the first love of big government politicians.

Free includes debt-free!

Paul HIMSELF said that he

Paul HIMSELF said that he would vote for Johnson's "Fair Tax" if it came up for vote in the house.

If you hate on GJ for the fair tax, you're hating on Paul for his support of it as well.

Critical Thinking > Emotional Thinking > Pseudo-Intellectuals that Saturate DP
Utilitarianism > Consequentialism > Deontology > Egocentrism
Making people feel "troll'd" with the truth > being an intentional troll > acting like one naturally

the order is all messed up

1. Ron Paul or not at all

2. Paul & Ventura 2012 if the libertarian party wants to actually win for a change

3. did I mention Paul or not at all?

there are no other viable choices, sorry . . .

Maybe if enough of us don't

Maybe if enough of us don't vote, they won't choose a president!

/sarcasm

Getting behind Johnson promotes the liberty movement, wakes up America to what's going on, and gives us an upper hand with the GOP in 2016.

Quit the emotional thinking and use your head.

You're choosing the moral low ground of two conflicting principles.

Critical Thinking > Emotional Thinking > Pseudo-Intellectuals that Saturate DP
Utilitarianism > Consequentialism > Deontology > Egocentrism
Making people feel "troll'd" with the truth > being an intentional troll > acting like one naturally

I will vote

... I'm in "Full Spectrum Response" to the dark eugenics cult

Vote every second of every day through myriad choices which become visible to ...

those with eyes to see

http://www.objectivistalphamale.com/objectivist_alpha_male/d...

1) Stock up on canned goods...

2) Buy gold
3) Make friends with your local militia

Obedience to God is resistance to tyrants.

All I see is pipe dreams, smoke and mirrors.

By voting any of those choices, I only see subscribing to the tyranny that is coming regardless. It is already here.

Where are the calls to bring tyranny to an end?

Free includes debt-free!

Just vote third party. It does not matter who as long as it is

third party. I don't like Gary Johnson and there is nothing anyone can do or say to get me to vote for him. I will vote for a third party candidate and it will NOT be GJ.

Great Choice, Deny the Chosen Ones Your Vote

To begin with, I hate all political parties because they always spiral down into corruption. But I will choose some anonymous third party just to take a vote away from the pantheon of putridness; the Republicans and Democrats.

It's not about some third party winning, it's about standing up in one small but resolute way and shove it in their despicable faces.

LP has already degraded the conversation on DP.

It started with Barr and it continues with republican who turned "libertarian" spoiler in late 2011.

Instead of talkin' liberty a whole cadre here seems determined to convince us not to worry GJ will take up our banner. Followed by a whole fantasy world about how people will stand up and listen. Is smells of a bad made for TV script.

Liberty is its own banner and it's breeze is an active and expressive conscience.

Free includes debt-free!

Voting to take a partial vote

Voting to take a partial vote away from Obama or Romney is the same mentality those that vote for Obama and Romney to keep and get the other out of the white house.

If you REALLY wanted to stick it to both people... get Johnson into the debates and let America see just how similar the two are and in the worst ways rather than America trying to notice the minute differences.

Critical Thinking > Emotional Thinking > Pseudo-Intellectuals that Saturate DP
Utilitarianism > Consequentialism > Deontology > Egocentrism
Making people feel "troll'd" with the truth > being an intentional troll > acting like one naturally

.

.

Are You Forgetting About The "No One But Paul" Pledge

wherein many of us promised to write in Paul if necessary? Are we to abandon our word? For those that made that pledge, I don't see any "choice."

___________________________________________________________________________
"Bipartisan: both parties acting in concert to put both of their hands in your pocket."-Rothbard

If Paul himself wasn't

If Paul himself wasn't worried about people thinking he had power or influence over people's votes... I'll bet you he would discourage people writing him in.

What captain wants his crew to go down with him when there's a lifeboat nearby?

Critical Thinking > Emotional Thinking > Pseudo-Intellectuals that Saturate DP
Utilitarianism > Consequentialism > Deontology > Egocentrism
Making people feel "troll'd" with the truth > being an intentional troll > acting like one naturally

The Question As I See It Is The Following

When I (and others) said to the RNC that I would be writing in Paul if he didn't get the nomination, was I just BS'ing them?

___________________________________________________________________________
"Bipartisan: both parties acting in concert to put both of their hands in your pocket."-Rothbard

They laugh at your write-in,

They laugh at your write-in, because it promotes someone that has no chance to impose on their agenda.

A vote for Johnson on the other hand, someone they're trying EXTREMELY hard to get off of state ballots, someone they don't want to get into the national debates, someone they don't want people to think they can actually get behind with throwing out the "3rd party has no chance" rhetoric, THAT is someone they wouldn't want you to vote for.

I pledged to write-in Paul too... but that was BEFORE i put a lot of consideration into all of the aspects now and possible conclusions in the future.

This is how I went from "Stop bugging me about Gary Johnson, I'm writing in Ron Paul!" to "I'm voting for Gary Johnson for a nice long list of good reasons".

http://www.dailypaul.com/251148/should-we-write-in-dr-paul-i...

I "flipped" to a better choice because I'm choosing critical thinking over emotional thinking.

Until someone gives me a reason to "flop" by invalidating my reasoning or showing how there is more negatives than positives by getting behind Johnson... I'm going to stick with what I both believe and have fully explained... is the current full potential for the country and the liberty movement both now and for the future.

Critical Thinking > Emotional Thinking > Pseudo-Intellectuals that Saturate DP
Utilitarianism > Consequentialism > Deontology > Egocentrism
Making people feel "troll'd" with the truth > being an intentional troll > acting like one naturally

Option #4 please!

Smoke 'em if you got 'em :-)

“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.”
- President John F. Kennedy

Because Ron Paul is not on the ballot

I will vote for Gary Johnson.To me,this is an obvious and easy decision.i feel fortunate to have this back up plan.But whether it was Ron or Gary as the Libertarian candidate,there absolutely has to be a mass advertising blitz on tv and facebook to get into the debates and have any chance of winning and to at least win more hearts and minds for the truth/freedom/peace message.I believe that we have to directly challenge all the people who are planning on voting for obama or romney.Maybe a message like this:"Both Obama and Romney refuse to bring our troops home from Afghanistan which will DIRECTLY lead to more deaths of troops and civilians.Therefore,I refuse to vote for either Obama or Romney because I believe the lives of troops and civilians are more important than voting for Obama or Romney."

This I know for certain

Do whatever you personally think is correct. But I personally will NEVER vote For Mitt Romney and I hope he doesn't win. So I am either voting Johnson, Obama or I may write in Ron Paul. I hope others here will not vote for Mitt Romney. The GOP needs to be put down like a wild dog IMO. I've been a republican for 23 years and I haven't got ONE think from this party other than LIES, and corruption; all the things that the GOP "claims" the liberals/Democrats do, they do themselves. GOP and Dems are the same party, but GOP offends me the MOST now though because there are actually some very good people in the GOP, but they are SOOO blind that they RUN nothing and they continually come back for more. Also, we really NEED Mitten's to lose, so the party is gutted and demoralized, and we need to continue to do this until there is no GOP or it's taken over by liberty candidates.

"Many of us agree that you and I have no right to use coercion against people who don't owe us anything. The same prohibition applies to groups of people who constitute the government. The reason is simple: unjust acts do not become just when legalized. "

Leaning GJ but he's just riding Dr Paul's coattails

I was leaning GJ and did some research.
All his statements about "he would step aside"
Then "he would make Dr Paul VP"
And every time it changed, I know there are ballot deadlines, etc.

But if he wants to ride the coattails of Dr. Paul, he needs to make a statement that at least Dr Paul would have a financial cabinet position. I know Dr Paul would have to agree, but I do not think it would be a problem, it would not hurt Rand's chances because sometimes cabinet members keep their jobs between presidents.

I dont think Rand or anybody else has any chances anymore after the outright theft that Romney pulled.

I am happy to say from the many die-hard Romney fans I have talked to, most are so shocked by what he did and what he tried to do, they have told me they are just not voting at all!
Please discuss, thanks

Gary Johnson HAS said that he would be open to Ron Paul...

having a cabinet position in the administration, if Dr. Paul were to show interest.

the one thing you left out

is the libertarian party has no chance. Ron Paul himself learned this the hard way. He's been down this road before. Now all you GJ supporters are going to throw away your votes instead of making a decent showing for RP. This machine has to be taken over from within. RP's showing in the GOP primary has brought us far closer than we have ever been, and now all you GJ supporters are going back to old tactics.