192 votes

A call for unity between Paul supporters and Johnson supporters.

I have seen the war between Ron Paul supporters and Gary Johnson supporters and I think it is rather silly that people in this movement have such a hard time following Ron Paul's advice. It is pretty simple to me.

We can not force our goodwill on anyone, we can only set good examples and hope people wish to emulate us. --Ron Paul

My suggestion would be that if you support Gary Johnson, fine support him. That is what freedom is. If you support Ron Paul, fine. Most of us here do support Ron Paul and have for several years. If you support both fine, but lets stop eating our own.

The goal should be to grow the liberty movement not divide it. Great movements are always destroyed from within, not the other way around.

I have seen the arguments from both sides and many statements are misguided. The whole notion that some claim they are turned off on Gary Johnson because Johnson supporters are trying to cram Johnson down your throats is the same excuse where many called people that didn't support Ron Paul sheep because, those people claimed they wouldn't support Ron Paul because Ron Paul supporters tried to force Paul on them. Do you see how silly that argument is?

How can anyone force anyone else to support someone?

My suggestion would be if you are not going to support Johnson fine, don't result to name calling of Johnson supporters, this makes you no better than the people that did the same thing to Ron Paul that pisses us off. Talking to people in a civil manner goes a long way, insulting them is counter productive and will accomplish nothing more than to isolate people that may share many of the same things you support.

You may not like the people you are working with, they may not like you, but we are all supposed to be working towards the same goal. So why don't we start with the things we agree on first and worry about the rest later?

Michael Badnarik said this best: We agree with each other about 98% of the time on most issues but, we spend 98% of the time b!tching, complaining and arguing about the 2% we disagree on, this is why nothing gets done, and he is correct!

You don't like a post? Don't read it, it is easy to ignore posts and comments. You don't have to agree with people but you do need to find a way to work together to grow the movement and attempt to effect real change this country needs or we will accomplish nothing. Take the high road and let freedom work for a change.

For the record I have not given my support to Gary Johnson although I did spend some private time with him at Paulfest in Tampa because I was paulfest staff and had access to Gary. My vote is just that MY VOTE! I will not tell others what to do with their vote -- please don't tell others what to do with theirs. Set good examples and educate them in a civil manner, you will win more people over that way in the long and short term.

If we continue down this US vs THEM attitude we only divide our numbers even more. I prefer to follow Ron Paul's example of integrity and I hope you will as well.

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

Our votes as American citizens were lost on Primary Parkway.

They were found again on State Convention Street.
Where they got lost again.
Then located in Tampa on a cul-de-sac named National Convention Court.
Where they were lost again on Reince Row and Boehner Boulevard.
The GOP thinks we're now headed down a blind alley. We're not.
We're out on the Free Way.

When we try to pick out anything by itself, we find it hitched to everything else in the Universe.
~ John Muir

Voting for what??

I don't trust Gary Johnson, I don't even know what he stands for. It seems he can't make up his mind about the wars, and that's the most important issue for me. NO WAY am I going to have blood on my hands, voting for someone who "wouldn't necessarily" end drone attacks in Yemen and Pakistan (as Johnson told the neocon rag Weekly Standard.) To me, that's just murderous. This on top of his pro-death penalty stance.

Laurence Vance at Lew Rockwell puts it nicely:

Johnson won't win anyway, so why don't I just do what makes me feel good: write in Ron Paul.

Good point regarding the drone attacks.

Brings to mind what Michael Nystrom had to say a while back regarding foreign policy and non-interventionism:


Non-interventionism is a FOUNDATIONAL principle. Foundational means it is something that you build on. If the foundation is not solid, the whole edifice is comprimised." ~Michael Nystrom


So let me get this strait. We are going to split our vote 3 ways to a bowl of shit! All the hard work. All our labor and wealth spent. All the time we spent showing up to support RON PAUL and educating as many people as we could. All the time, work, and money is about to scatter in the wind, because we can't unite. Just like Bonds says in the movie Platoon; Take the pain. Take the pain. I know it's hard people, but we need to hold the RNC and DNC responsible for their actions. We have a Nation holding in the balance. Are we about to fall apart like the Tea Party? Are we a passing fad? The decision is not RON PAUL's. It's yours. If nothing happens from here on in, check the F****** box: Gary Johnson.

My Two Cents

As I've perused the DP over the last few weeks and watching Dr. Paul and his delegates shut out of the convention to some degree or another, I saw the need to switch over and vote for Governor Johnson. Why? Because he's perfect or a carbon-copy of Ron Paul? No. Not even I am a carbon-copy, and I would argue that no one here is a carbon-copy either. And that's good. I would find it quite scary if I found myself agreeing with everything one person said all the time. It would make me question how seriously I'm weighing the arguments and how much influence I am giving to one person.

So that brings me to the Fidelity-to-Paul question I have seen around here for the last few months. People have raked Rand over the coals for various decisions he's made, as well as Johnson, and maybe even soon someday we'll see the same with Amash. But my real question for everyone here is this: Would even a perfect Paul presidency have completely restored America? I think we'd all agree no. So if perfection isn't achievable, then what are our goals with the White House and the Congress? It's to have a good president who stops the bleeding. That's all. Whether that's economy, liberty, or war, we're just looking to stop the bleeding.

If we have a standard-bearer who does enough good for the country, future candidates will aspire to his or her success and retain many or most of that president's policies. And from there we can make incremental changes to the country. Not only that, but it increases the viability and credibility of Liberty candidates who take on that mantle, because the country has had a taste of a good president. They'll want more. So to put things in perspective, what we're really looking for is not a perfect one-hit wonder, but a trend-setter. If then that is what we really need and want, can we NOT afford to vote with the candidate that most represents our principles if the opportunity presents itself? I say let Ron Paul be Ron Paul, Rand Paul be Rand Paul, Gary Johnson be Gary Johnson, and you be you. It would be a terrible thing to turn down a Rand Paul presidency because of an Iran sanction and a Mitt Romney endorsement. Let's not be petty when so much good can be done.

I am one of the co-founders of the Christian game design studio Renewal Corporation. For our philosophy and upcoming product updates, please see our blog: http://renewalcorp.blogspot.com

You might want to double

You might want to double check whether or not you re really sticking to your principles when you vote with a write-in for Dr. Paul...

Which principle is more important... promoting liberty and potential for good every chance you get... or voting for who you want to win even if they can't?

What if both of those principles conflict with each other and you can only choose one?

One becomes the moral high ground and the other the easier and more selfish choice.

Guess which is which...

Check yourself before you wreck all of us...

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

Your framing of the questions

Your framing of the questions was rather biased.

I see voting for Gary as voting for someone you want when they can't win, and voting for Dr. Paul is voting for what is right even though he most likely can't win.

That is my biased statement in oposition to your biased framing of a question.

Gary will not get the Obama votes like Ron Paul could . . . not even the Republican votes. If we were unified behind Ron Paul and pushed things from every angle, then considering the anger brewing against both parties, there is a SLIGHT possibility that Ron Paul could come out on top. Something big may happen that will be the down fall of Romney and Obama if we push hard enough.

Ron Paul is seen as the way out of the two parties - not Gary Johnson.

You're over simplifying the

You're over simplifying the issue and basing it on simple emotional thinking rather than critical thinking looking at ALL of the aspects involved.

Here are the accurate pro's and con's of choosing Paul and choosing Johnson.


And this is how many convince themselves that a write-in is more important than all of the things they chose to not consider so the choice was easier to make.


Gary has a higher chance of winning than Paul seeing as he has a chance of getting in the national debates which could catapult his candidacy's support like it did for Jesse Ventura when he ran as 3rd party/independent, he will most likely be on all 50 states whereas paul's write-ins only count in a handful, and Gary being on the national debates has a nice long list of positive results for the country, liberty movement, and even out GOP takeover, whether he wins or loses than a write-in that only you will remember does.

"Ron Paul is seen as the way out of the two parties - not Gary Johnson."

You see things the way you do because you haven't considered everything available to you.

Feel free to invalidate the evidence in reasoning and facts I've offered... or keep making baseless claims that my reasoning and evidence invalidates.

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

Degrading my comment by

Degrading my comment by saying it is based on "emotional thinking" doesn't help your case one bit. It just goes to show that you don't have any rational base for your argurment since you need to make such degrading comments as that.

The "rational discussion" that you linked to didn't have much rational thought to it. Even the pros and cons for voting Obama where rather void of any proper rational comments.

The fact that you think you stated facts in your above post shows your inablility to have a rational discussion, so don't bother making insults about me being an emotional thinker.

I placed a simple disagreement and you come back as if you have some sort of super reasoning skill.

Johnson is just another politician and will not have anything special to help anyone on the national debat scene. I know he didn't have much time, but with the time he has had he has already proven that.

"Emotional thinking" was an

"Emotional thinking" was an observation after the fact of ALREADY having a rational base. I'm sorry that I did it out of order for you... that you couldn't figure that out. The rational base was in the posts I linked you to.

Simply claiming that there was a lack of rational thought to the pros and cons, of say, Obama, doesn't make it so. For once it would be nice to see someone on here ACTUALLY BACK UP WHAT THEY SAY.

Implying that I don't know the difference between a fact or an opinion as an attempt to discredit me by claiming that I can't have a rational discussion is again, another fallacy. Feel free to show the flawed reasoning or untrue facts in the post you're referring to to BACK UP YOUR CLAIM.

You just discredited the "rational base" with fallacious claims you YOURSELF can't even back up.

I countered your "simple disagreement", whether you acknowledge it or not, and the only thing you can do is go "nuh uhhh, you're crazy and I don't have to explain how"... simply put.

The fact that you can't even see your baseless claims as the fallacies they are while trying to discredit me shows that you're the pot calling the kettle black.

"Johnson is just another politician"

The superb end results of his highly unlikely 2 terms of governor of New Mexico show otherwise.

"and will not have anything special to help anyone on the national debat scene."

Whether he's a true libertarian or not... the policies he will be advocating in contrast to those that BOTH Obama and Romney are for WILL wake people up to how similar the two parties are and how they're BOTH the problem in government. Paul himself said Romney was the status-quo and that he didn't trust him. Why would Paul then HIMSELF tell people that Johnson was "wonderful" was doing a "good job" and that "people should look at him" for those reasons?

"I know he didn't have much time, but with the time he has had he has already proven that."

He has little to no time on the 2 GOP debates he was allowed in and with mainstream media only paying attention to the GOP nomination for the last year and the national debates haven't even started yet... when has he had the chance to "prove" anything?

You're making exaggerated assumptions and claiming them as fact.

All of my theories are realistic and have supporting evidence. 0% fallacies.

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

But if Ron Paul isn't even going to be on the ballot?!

*rolls eyes*

My God, where do they find you guys?

Where do they find arrogant

Where do they find arrogant pricks like you?

There's a difference between

There's a difference between arrogance and assertiveness. Your irrationality and clear ability to convince yourself otherwise is what gives us that reason of assertiveness.

Claiming it as "arrogance" is just another reach at ammo out of desperation of having nothing else worth saying.

As long as you get to feel like you won when you walk away... you're happy... even though the rest of us know you didn't.

I bet you tell yourself that the up-ratings on your comments me you were right too when in reality it just shows there are other willfully ignorant users on here as well that take a loyalty to what you all WANT to believe OVER integrity to what actually is.

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

Wow . . . your a real

Wow . . . your a real jewel.

Rolling eyes and saying "My God, where do they find you guys?" is just assertiveness in your books? Tell me what the fools comment was supposed to achieve Mr. Genious? And tell me why you want to defend comments like that Mr. Genious.

I want nothing more to do with the two of you. You guys are obviously totally out to lunch.

1. You missed the point of

1. You missed the point of his response, because you didn't read the sarcastic title

You: "Ron Paul is seen as the way out of the two parties - not Gary Johnson."
Him: "But if Ron Paul isn't even going to be on the ballot?!"

He was pointing out that Paul has less of a chance NOW than Johnson does at influencing the 2 party duopoly.

Plus, Paul was trying to work within the system, not disassemble it.

2. You're being a hypocrite... except he and I have made valid points with which you haven't been able to invalidate, just with baseless claims with not evidence to support them.

"You guys are obviously totally out to lunch."
"Where do they find arrogant pricks like you?"
"My God, where do they find you guys?"

You use ad hominem fallacies as a half-a**ed attempt to discredit us, while our remarks are observations backed by unrefuted evidence and reasoning...

...unless... you want to try invalidating anything we've said... which you have yet to have done.

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 think you mean "you're"...


What I will do...

If Gary Johnson is on the ballot, I will vote for him. Otherwise I will write in Ron Paul. Seems the most intelligent choice for having our voices heard. Those who say otherwise are just demagogues and lack a rational argument.

Seems to me, someone on the ballot will get more votes than someone who isn't, and if neither Ron Paul nor Gary Johnson are on the ballot then Ron Paul is more likely to get write-ins than Johnson.

Those who say otherwise, please present a logical argument or just admit you're riding on nothing other than emotion.

first, I am not a demogogue and I have a rational argument

You are back to choosing the lesser of two evils, where has that gotten us? Ron Paul already ran third party and got nowhere. He then changed strategy and tried to take over one of the two entrenched parties and was far more successful. As much as I like the LP party platform, supporting them is an exercise in futility. When was the last time you saw an LP candidate on tv. Can't remember? How many times was RP on tv this year? Third party candidates will simply be ignored.

And writing in Ron Paul is better if Johnson is on the ballot?

That's not an argument at all... You're just rehashing the "wasted vote" fallacy, and in a way that makes even less sense than how it is usually used.

so much for unity. I guess I

so much for unity. I guess I am a demagogue. I can't vote for Gary Johnson. He might be peoples idea of what a liberty candidate is but not me. He represents very little if anything that I to supported and admired Doctor Paul for. That is rational enough for me. You seal my determination to never vote for the man. Death penalty, wars, abortion, gay marriage,increased taxes and a continued FED. In my mind his supporters doing just what your doing has divided us.

Strawman after strawman argument...

His positions on abortion and gay marriage are functionally exactly the same as Ron Paul's. LOL. Leave it up to the states.


is a warmongering fake "liberty" candidate and the increasingly shrill and desperate trolls that come here trying to divert our attention to another useless campaign that will be even EASIER to cheat than the RP campaign are getting annoying. Not to mention the "call for unity" commie-speak. To claim that "we" "MUST" throw our support to fake liberty CFR candidate Johnson or "we" are doomed is ludicrous. The only thing that will doom liberty is staying within a controlled political paradigm where the establishment can continue to derail us. Time to move on. YOU Johnson trolls can vote for him but any discerning libertarian can see what he is. This constant haranguing Paulians to become Johnsonites needs to cease. I'm not much of a one for censoring, but if I ran this site, any Johnson posts would be deleted. I don't come here to read about another CFR stooge pretending to be libertarian.

Trolls, demagogues and strawmen arguments...

How does thanking the troops make him a "war mongering fake liberty candidate"?

The fact comments like the above get upvoted makes me lose all hope in the liberty movement, or at the very least the DP.

I cannot find any evidence he is CFR, either!

google Doug Turner

google Doug Turner

I voted up your comment

but would like to know where people are getting the idea that Johnson is CFR? 'Best I can find is info that his campaign manager for NM elections, Doug Turner, is CFR.

I don't believe Johnson is

I don't believe Johnson is CFR, but he dances with them. Watch your toes!

Next Ron Paul

There will never be another Ron Paul. Many of us feel like we have to support the best liberty candidate on the ballot. By the way, has Ron Paul registered as a write-in candidate in your state?

There have been other Ron Pauls

Harry Browne was about as Ron Paul like as you can get (and vise-versa). I voted for him in '96. I think Aaron Russo was very much like RP and I would have voted for him, but the LP didn't nominate him. And there will be others like Ron Paul, there are quite a few already (Tom Woods and Peter Schiff are just two examples). I'd love to see the LP become a real player on the political scene, but until it starts nominating excellent candidates like Browne again, it never will. Nominating phonies like Bob Barr last time around and Gary Johnson this time only generates distrust of the LP and scares people away.

individuals will vote individually. Or will they

We all in a way have a mind of our own and at the same time sit and wait to be told what to do.

I don't agree with it, but it seems to be the way people trend. And then we say, we want our freedoms and liberties, but at the same time follow the crowd. Quite confusing.

The only way I will vote is so I can look at myself in the mirror. But others have their reasons. I agree, why can't we still be together in the name of freedom, instead of in the name of a candidate? We are dividing ourselves and we will have noone to blame, but ourselves.


and go create the dailyNEOCON!!!

Aaron Russo, Nikola Tesla, Ron Paul, I'm jus' sayin'