13 votes

Does Gary Johnson have a philosophical core? What is it?

Most of us are probably at the point where we can 'channel' Ron Paul's philosophy onto a subject. It is pretty easy to say "What would Ron Paul say about this." - and figure it out with a pretty simple analysis.

Johnson? I have no idea what his core philosophy is. The recent Daily Caller article about Johnson's foreign policy pretty much exemplifies that. Basically he makes himself look like a fool on foreign policy... oh - and his foreign policy is nothing like Dr. Paul's!

So I ask, does Johnson really have a core or is he just winging it?




Comment viewing options

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

GJ is now the lessor of 3 evils

Ps: I just saw my first GJ post that wasn't aimed at RP supporters on FB today. They appear to be expanding their campaign message to a larger audience.

"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.

People always said Ron Paul

People always said Ron Paul wasn't a good speaker ( I never thought that) but god, GJ is soooo boaring to listen to. I wish he'd get with a speeking expert. Research says human communication is about 80% toneality, 18% body language and only about 3% of the actual words you say. GJ is monotone, which turns people off IMHO. RP excitemnet talking about his views brung us all in, got us interested in otherwise dull subjects...GJ has a lot to learn.

Okay...

So, you're going to use the same argument people had against Paul on Johnson?

Love thy enemy.

People always said Ron Paul

People always said Ron Paul wasn't a good speaker ( I never thought that) but god, GJ is soooo boaring to listen to. I wish he'd get with a speeking expert. Research says human communication is about 80% toneality, 18% body language and only about 3% of the actual words you say. GJ is monotone, which turns people off IMHO. RP excitemnet talking about his views brung us all in, got us interested in otherwise dull subjects...GJ has a lot to learn.

If anything he's a classical liberal

Neither Paul nor Johnson are libertarians in the purely ideological sense. Paul is more of a constitutionalist. Both, however, are great fighters for liberty. I will be supporting Gary Johnson.

But my question is does he have a philosophical core...

I can't guess what his position would be on many subjects.

I mean, Paul - he is almost like a computer - you can plug in 100 variations of a question and always get the same logical - philosophically centered answer.

Johnson wants to keep our drones ready to attack Pakistan - Now how do I reconcile that? I wouldn't have guessed that was his position. I thought he was anti-war / anti-intervention like Paul. HE ISN'T.

I think that is a great appeal of Ron Paul - you know where he stands - he is predictable and consistent. He has shown us a philosophy that can be applied to life and government... I don't get that from Johnson.

Candidates might not always have a philosophy that is

as ideologically pure as the one that we're familiar with, but that shouldn't mean that what they propose is any less without merit.

You're taking a leap when you say, "Johnson wants to keep our drones ready to attack Pakistan."

That's certainly not the story that I receive when he says that he leaves all options on the table. We know he claims to be non-interventionist. We know that he believes drone attacks create more enemies than they kill.

This leads one to believe that when presented with the facts of the matter, he will lean towards the side least corrupted by false information created by the military industrial complex.

Like I said before, Johnson is not the ideologue that Ron Paul is, unfortunately. However, his practical senses have led him and, I'm sure, will lead him into congruency with Ron Paul.

Love thy enemy.

I feel the same way.

Ditto to your comments and ditto to your comment that they, "are great fighters for liberty."

Love thy enemy.

I'm pretty sure his foreign policy is very much like Ron Paul's.

Johnson is correct in saying that Iran has voiced their stance they they don't want nor believe in having nuclear weapons; Ron Paul's stance.

He doesn't want to preemptively strike any country without a declaration of war by the congress; Ron Paul's stance.

In humanitarian cases, he would deliver aid through a volunteer service through the use of Marque and Reprisal; somewhat Ron Paul's stance. At the very least he won't send the volunteer military that didn't volunteer for humanitarian causes.

He doesn't believe in delivering foreign aid except in benevolence to catastrophe stricken areas such as Haiti after the earthquake; mostly Ron Paul's stance. He has, also, declared that if we don't have the money to give, if we had to borrow the money, he wouldn't send it.

Johnson's core philosophy is very much Ron Paul's. His is just more practical or transitional, not that I wouldn't flush the current governmental philosophy in an instant. Johnson is just one or two steps behind Ron Paul and that ain't bad to me.

Love thy enemy.

I am pretty sure

I don't think his foreign policy is anything like doctor Paul's. It is just better than Obomney.

You're entitled to your opinion.

I agree it is better than Obama's and Romney's foreign policy.

Love thy enemy.

To me... it doesn't seem he thinks much about it

This stems from a Daily Caller article that was cited by AntiWar.com and reason.com. This was all around April, 2012.

Perhaps he changed his position since the article - but there are some pretty disturbing revelations in there... Continued drone war, leaving bases in Afghanistan, supports the U.S. mission to help capture Joseph Kony, the leader of the Lord’s Resistance Army...

So - even if he changed his views on these points - could I trust him? If he did change his views, why? Political expediency?

So - he is like Ron Paul except when he thinks Ron Paul's philosophy isn't practical?

No, I'm not saying that Ron Paul's philosophy isn't practical..

I'm saying that Gary Johnson's philosophy is more transitional than Ron Paul's philosophy, but only by a hair when you think about the policies he is putting forth.

He acknowledges that the drone strikes, "...in Pakistan and Yemen creates more enemies than it eliminates." If this isn't a Ron Paul position, I don't know what is. How many steps away from Paul is Johnson? Just think about it.

His views on Kony have now been revised through his studying of Ron Paul as listed in my Marque and Reprisal paragraph. Johnson can't be valued by how much time he spends on libertarian websites such as the DailyPaul of LewRockwell, he should be valued on his ability to shift values towards more productive libertarian leaning positions such as Marque and Reprisal when exposed to them.

I believe you can trust him. It is fully up to you to decide to do so.

I just hope that if you live in a state with a write-in vote that doesn't count, you would at the very least choose Gary Johnson as your third party candidate as I'm sure much of your liberty-siblings would choose should they go third party.

Love thy enemy.

If he is shifting positions...

... then he doesn't have a philosophical core - which answers my original question.

He shouldn't be studying libertarian philosophy - he is the Libertarian freaking candidate! He better know it. He should be teaching it.

I am starting to feel he is changing his position towards Ron just to pick up the votes.

I feel a lot of folks around here just want to be 'in the game' come November. I don't think Johnson advances our cause - I don't want people to see him in general election debates and think 'that is the guy all the Paul people are voting for - because he is just like Ron Paul' - I wasn't inspired in the least by Gary's debate performance.

Gary is not my man.

Not buying it.

But then again, I'm a purist.

Wall of logic crits silly

Wall of logic crits silly emotional thinker for 10k. Can't attack for one turn.

Freedom in our lifetime! - fiol.us

What is this, reddit?

Sorry, I wasn't aware that differences of opinion weren't allowed.

He listed out a bunch of

He listed out a bunch of logic and reasoning as to why you are wrong, and you came back with "nuh uh". Differences of opinion are allowed, but emotional/illogical decision making is frowned upon.

Freedom in our lifetime! - fiol.us

I understand.

.

Love thy enemy.

Thank you

It's not that I dislike Gary Johnson, he's alright in my book. From what I've read, his foreign policy bothers me a bit though. I'm very non-confrontational / non-interventionist in my personal life, and would like to see more of that reflected in our leaders. He's obviously better than most on this (e.g., wants to cut military spending), but not quite my ideal candidate.

Well, I hope you find some way of expressing yourself

during the general election. If so/not we are still only two years away from the next major step in taking over the GOP. I hope you are still with us!

Love thy enemy.