13 votes

Petition To Gary Johnson: Change Your Foreign Policy, Get The Ron Paul Vote, Unite The Liberty Movement, and Win!

For most Ron Paul supporters, the largest issue of disagreement we have with Gary Johnson is his foreign policy. Rather than ask Ron Paul supporters to vote for a candidate who holds positions that are in direct conflict with their core principles, let's ask Gary Johnson to change his foreign policy stance so that he is more representative of the voters whose votes he is asking for.

If Gary will change his foreign policy to that of Ron Paul's, the question of getting behind (or not getting behind) Gary Johnson will be solved (to a very large degree) and the Libertarian Party will have its best shot at becoming the 'big tent" every party hopes to be.

To be fair, we can only expect Gary Johnson to change his position on foreign policy for us if he is assured we will give him our vote if he does so. That is why I'm asking you to please join myself and all those who want to unite the liberty movement in asking Gary Johnson to change his foreign policy to that of Ron Paul's in exchange for the vote of the Ron Paul community.

Please click here to sign the petition

And let's make it interesting. If we can get enough Ron Paul supporters signatures to sign onto this petition by September 30th, and if as a result Gary is willing to change his stance on foreign policy, we'll throw a moneybomb for Gary Johnson in the first week of October. The money will enter the coffers of his campaign in time to spend for the final push, the time when having money counts most.

Comment viewing options

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

Found this great coment online today

What the Libertarian Party stands for is an America that does not kill its own citizens and their 16 year old children without any form of due process.

The Libertarian Party stands for not invading nations and killing civilians when no threat to us exists.

The Libertarian Party stands for minding our own business in international affairs, and ending the ridiculous belief in American Exceptionalism that has turned our citizens into imperialistic, bloodthirsty morons.

The Libertarian Party is not bought and paid for by the Israel Lobby.

The Libertarian Party stands for ending the Patriot Act, the TSA, Warrantless Wiretaps, FISA courts, the NDAA, Gitmo and every other vehicle that the Feds have used post 9-11 to eviscerate what was left of the 4th Amendment.

The Libertarian Party rejects the concept of a Unitary Executive.

The Libertarian Party stands for ending the criminal War on Drugs, which has imprisoned millions of Americans for non-violent, victimless crimes.

All these things the Libertarian Party stands for are issues that progressives once attached themselves too. However, Democrats have continually supported Obama's expansion of Bush-era policies without so much as a peep. When you actually analyze much of President Obama's policy in the fields of civil liberties and foreign policy, you see a record closer to Bill Kristol and Dick Cheney than anything that could be remotely deemed progressive. So continue to fool yourself into thinking Romney and Obama are any different, because they aren't.

LL on Twitter: http://twitter.com/LibertyPoet
sometimes LL can suck & sometimes LL rocks!
http://www.dailypaul.com/203008/south-carolina-battle-of-cow...
Love won! Deliverance from Tyranny is on the way! Col. 2:13-15

GJ's foreign policy makes me wonder

if he's not someones puppet.
Can't figure what doesn't "sit right" with this man, but something niggles.

that just makes me sad.

I won't vote for him because of his foreign policy, and I won't vote for someone who would change their mind on that HUGE issue, just to get elected. "Not Obama" is not good enough and neither is "Not Romney".

=(

Wait...

You're wanting him to flip-flop in order to get votes? I thought that was one of the reasons why libertarians consistently criticize Romney. I could never vote for Johnson regardless of his foreign policy simply on account of his progressive views on the Constitution.

Consistency

It's what we've come to love about Dr. Paul.

Sorry, but...

If his position was akin to that of Ron Paul, or Jesse Ventura (even), I could possibly take another look at him. But, if he changes it now, only to acquire votes, I cannot trust that position.
It was like Obama changing whatever others found offensive to appease whomever he was speaking to (back in 08). I saw right through this and really don't comprehend how anyone else did not.

Johnson won't get my vote because I disagree with his stance. He cannot change this, especially now, as it's much too late for that sort of thing. Do you want him to pander to his audience as O did?

We had SOME proof, but RNC does not care about Rules n Laws- they just break and then change 'em to suit whomever (not PAUL).

send this to Mitt Romney--

and have as much hope--

people/candidates are what they are--

it's hard to be awake; it's easier to dream--

Gary Johnson Foreign Policy is Great

The "Foreign Policy" of Gary Johnson is perfect. The author should recognize that the "foreigners" change their minds and imperial objectives all the time and foreign matters are mercurial. We all embrace Dr. Paul's foreign policy but it's the primary dig that Paul enemies used to denigrate him. Gary Johnson's attitude on this is much like Ron Paul but with teeth. It's a realistic view that recognizes that we live in an imperfect and dangerous world. Any president has to flex policy positions moment to moment to respond to threats to America. Gary Johnson's core ideas are already very, very close to Dr. Paul's. Getting Gary Johnson up higher in the polls is our current objective and I believe most Ron Paul supporters like myself know that. The GJ platform is well suited to garner the widest range of voters possible as a Libertarian and should not be changed.

jaseed's picture

Don't Forget Constitution Party

Even though in my opinion, Virgil Goode is weak and uncharismatic, he'd get my vote before Gary Johnson based solely on pro-life principle. But, if inebriated on election day, would be tempted to teach prince proboscis of Racine, Wisconsin a lesson and vote emperor O

“The God who gave us life, gave us liberty at the same time: the hand of force may destroy, but cannot disjoin them.”

– Thomas Jefferson

Didn't he already change his foreign policy?

Johnson's foreign policy has already changed since when he was running as a Republican in 2011.

Are any of his detractors bothering to listen to what he's saying now? Other than the silly "humanitarian intervention statement," he's already there.

Listen to his Paul Festival speech. Listen to his townhall interview from a week ago on VOKLE.com.

SUPPORT OUR FOUNDERS' AMERICA
Support the Constitution of the United States

Hahah,

I think Gj is a reader of the DP, I mean he just released a statement saying we should withdrawal from the mid-east. Coincidence?

“When a well-packaged web of lies has been sold gradually to the masses over generations, the truth will seem utterly preposterous and its speaker a raving lunatic.” – Dresden James

I think I've seen before that

I think I've seen before that he's a reader of the DP, GJ in the debates and at paul fest advocates withdrawing troops immediately

Did I Really SEE that?

I signed the pledge.
Did I just see the REAL "Carol Paul" sign at number 175.
Peace is in reach.

Feeling Fear? You're living in the future.
Feeling Depressed? You're living in the past.
Who would you be without your story? —Byron Katie

When the desire to bring about a change in you is not there,
the demand to change the world is not there eit

Carol Paul has her own mind..

But, I seriously doubt this was Ron Paul's wife, Carol.
She may like Johnson, yet I am pretty sure it's not enough to get online and sign some random petition for him. And, this is one of the problems with online polls; verifying real names and signatures is next to impossible, for the people who don't want their actual names posted.

We had SOME proof, but RNC does not care about Rules n Laws- they just break and then change 'em to suit whomever (not PAUL).

This site disappoints me yet again...

His foreign policy is already 98% like Ron Paul's. He wants to end the wars and wants overall non-interventionism.

As far as abortion Johnson's position is exactly the same as Paul's, leave it up to the states and Roe vs Wade was a bad decision. So those who are whining about that have absolutely nothing to stand on.

Also to those who want to support the "constitution" party... you really think harsher federal drug laws are constitutional? Goode also voted against pulling troops out of Iraq. LOL... and he's better than GJ on foreign policy? LOL.

libertarian party foreign policy

Issues
Foreign Policy

The foundation of libertarianism is mutual respect. It is a principle that extends to our relationships with people throughout the world.

In his first inaugural address, President Thomas Jefferson cited the essence of a libertarian foreign policy, "Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations -- entangling alliances with none." This echoed the advice of President George Washington that "the great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is, in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible."

The twin pillars of a sane foreign policy are:

(1) Building positive relationships, with an emphasis on free trade, and

(2) Avoiding negative relationships, with an emphasis on military non-intervention.

Free Trade: the Foundation of World Peace

While the economic benefits of trade are discussed constantly, more attention is needed to its role in producing peace. Europe experienced a remarkably long period of relative peace and prosperity that began in the mid-19th century and lasted for more than half a century. Key to this golden age was the decision by the British Parliament to repeal virtually all restrictions and tariffs on imports from other countries as of 1849, primarily in response to pressure from British consumers suffering from high food prices. The other major nations of Europe virtually all followed suit in order to enjoy the same benefits, and the thriving international trade built friendship throughout the continent and kept military conflict to a minimum.

Alas, politicians having motives that aren't always aligned with the public, a return to trade barriers began late in the 19th century, starting in Germany, and as French economist Frederic Bastiat warned, "when goods don't cross borders, soldiers may," with the decreasing trade being accompanied by increasing militarism and, ultimately, everyone taking sides in what is now recognized as one of the most pointless conflicts in history, World War I.

Although America benefits enormously from being a gigantic free trade zone, US politicians have frequently been reckless in international policy. Perhaps the biggest tariff increase in history, the Smoot-Hawley Tariff, was signed into law in 1930 by Herbert Hoover. Not only is it now considered by many economists to be a key factor in precipitating the Great Depression, but it led to massive retaliation by other countries and a trade war that virtually destroyed international commerce and, once again, was accompanied by an increasing militarism and an even more destructive world war.

Since the end of World War II, there has been a more concerted effort to lower trade barriers throughout the world, although special interests have regularly interfered and turned what should have been simple mutual barrier reductions into complex trade agreements that typically added restrictions as well as removed them. Nonetheless, international trade has increased greatly over these decades and both the frequency and destructiveness of wars decreased to the point that the first decade of the 21st century had the fewest war deaths of any decade in the entire post-WWII period.

Armed Neutrality: The Swiss Model of Defense

Of course, it seems odd to describe the years since the start of the 21st century as a relatively peaceful time, but that is because, as Americans, we are living with a military-industrial complex whose financial future depends on keeping us as scared as possible for as long as possible. Our country, as a result, has been a laggard. And US attempts to choose winners and losers in other countries have been marked by repeated disasters: Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, and Muammar Gaddafi all received military support from the US before they became US enemies.

The military budget of the United States, conservatively measured at around $700 billion (but probably closer to $1 trillion once all security measures and veteran benefits are considered), is approximately equal to all of the military budgets of all other countries combined. If the US military budget were cut in half, it would still be the largest in the world. Then, if it were cut in half again, it would STILL be the largest in the world. Then, if it were cut in half a third time, reduced to only one-eighth its current size, it would STILL be the largest in the world. And that's using the conservative measure.

Whatever motivates this enormous budget, it is certainly not for the defense of American soil. Indeed, when the Department of Homeland Security was created, this was a virtual admission that the Department of Defense had goals other than homeland security. No foreign army has the slightest capacity to invade the United States, and as North Korea has demonstrated, even the possession of a single nuclear weapon is enough to deter invasion.

When the United States was founded, Switzerland was close to celebrating 500 years as an independent republic. Many founders expressed admiration for the Swiss model of defense, which historian Stephen Halbrook summarizes as "armed neutrality." Switzerland managed to stay out of both world wars as well as innumerable other European conflicts over the past seven centuries by a policy of non-interference in other countries combined with the mandatory ownership of firearms by every household in the country. Of course, libertarians oppose compulsory gun ownership as consistently as we oppose gun prohibition, and given that the United States is blessed with both geographical and population advantages the Swiss lack, merely respecting the right to keep and bear arms can provide a voluntary reserve militia sufficient to deter invasion.

There is another Swiss tradition worth emulating. While the Swiss government has a strict policy of non-intervention, Swiss citizens have long been free to personally provide military and security services outside the country. In the past, Swiss individuals often chose to serve as soldiers in foreign regiments protecting neighboring countries, and to this day the Swiss Guard, a private group, protects the Vatican. In the 1930s, groups of Americans were concerned about fascism in Europe and tried to establish the “Abraham Lincoln Brigade” to fight that menace, but relentless harassment from the U.S. government for violations of neutrality laws prevented them from securing the funding and leadership that a free society would have permitted. As a result, American citizens were forced to do nothing until government officials decided otherwise. Private soldiers committed to taking on international bullies can act with organized efficiency without involving their neighbors. And so long as they are answerable for their actions, private soldiers shouldn’t be any more objectionable than private security guards.

Dealing with Terrorism

Criminal attacks on innocent civilians are not, properly considered, military issues, but policing matters. Having by far the largest military budget on earth obviously did nothing to prevent the bombing of an Oklahoma federal building in 1995 by American Timothy McVeigh or the 9/11 attacks by Al-Qaida. Preventing terrorism is a matter of intelligence, both in the sense of obtaining information and using our brains. So let's try both.

Louise Richardson, in her book WHAT TERRORISTS WANT, identifies three basic motivations for terrorism: revenge, renown, and reaction. McVeigh made it clear that the purpose of his action was to avenge an FBI siege of a religious group's compound in Waco, Texas two years before (the Oklahoma bombing took place on the second anniversary of the fire that ended the siege). Al-Qaida stated clearly, even before 9/11, that their plan to attack Americans was a response to three ongoing US policies: (1) the stationing of US troops in Saudi Arabia, (2) the embargo of food and medicine that had so far killed over a million Iraqis, and (3) support of Israeli persecution of Palestinians. Osama bin Laden also stated explicitly that his goal was to get a reaction from the United States government that would bankrupt the empire.[Note: like any good prosecutor, we are seeking the motives of the criminal right now, not justifying them.]

Charles Kurzman notes in THE MISSING MARTYRS that there are remarkably few Muslim terrorists: less than 1 Muslim in 15,000 has even gone as far as attending a terrorist training camp, let alone engages in terrorism. Muslims have often provided the tips to arrest terrorists, and the intelligence needed to prevent or punish terrorists would undoubtedly be greater in a world where the US government didn't build up so much ill will. That is another sense in which current policy is unintelligent.

We cannot indulge the ignorant desire to blame anti-American terrorism on a "hatred of freedom," "72 virgins," or other such nonsense. After a suicide truck bomber killed 241 US Marines stationed in Beirut, Lebanon in 1983, President Ronald Reagan wasn't justifying this massacre when he decided to withdraw American troops from the Middle East. He understood that people, all people, hate foreign armies on their soil. Unfortunately, his successor, George H.W. Bush, went back into the Middle East to expel Saddam Hussein from Kuwait, and his stationing of American troops in Saudi Arabia after that war was specifically cited as the primary reason for Al-Qaida's declaration of jihad against America. Since then, of course, the US military has undertaken attacks in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen, and Libya. If you were a Middle Eastern Muslim, might you think of some reason to hate Americans other than not liking freedom?

The best form of anti-terrorism insurance is to remove all troops from the Middle East, stop attempts to either preserve or change their current governments, and end all government-to-government aid.

Choosing Peace

It is time for American troops to come home, not just from the Middle East but from Europe, the Pacific, and everywhere else. At the same time, let’s drop all barriers to trade and travel and turn enemies into friends. Polls have long indicated that the rest of the world likes Americans far more than they like the US Government and admires America’s reputation as a land of opportunity and productivity. We have a great opportunity now to bring both peace and prosperity to our country and the world by restoring that reputation.

As stated earlier, the globe has been turning toward trade and away from war. There is great cause for optimism, and we should make the choice to abandon international offense in the name of national defense before we are forced to do it. On top of killing or displacing millions of innocent foreigners and making Americans less safe, the massive US military budget is bankrupting the country. In the 1990s, when the fall of the Soviet Union resulted in a temporary decrease in the US military budget, people talked openly about the "peace dividend" the economy received. It's well past time for another, more permanent such dividend.

Trevor my friend

Watch Gary Johnson's Speech at PAUL Fest:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4tLN5NBZ5KU

Let's 'Bomb Iran' Romney whose ALL foreign policy advisors are warmonger neo cons must not become president -- helping RR ticket come in 3rd place is my aim.

LL on Twitter: http://twitter.com/LibertyPoet
sometimes LL can suck & sometimes LL rocks!
http://www.dailypaul.com/203008/south-carolina-battle-of-cow...
Love won! Deliverance from Tyranny is on the way! Col. 2:13-15

Just more proof

The Liberty movement is all about liberating Ron Paul supporters from Ron Paul.

?

?

‘Each individual is separated from others by a "taboo of personal isolation"...this "narcissism of minor differences"'
--Sigmund Freud

Can GJ just Change "Policies"...???

IMO, if GJ can just "change" policies to please constituents, he really does not understand Liberty.

GJ differs from Ron Paul on is the vey essential element to protecting liberty. RP says “"Unless we understand…we must protect life, we cannot protect liberty."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MkAsLPrnJGc&feature=player_em...

Debbie's picture

I wouldn't want a candidate to change policies just to get votes

Ron Paul understands the basis of non-intervention and why the Founders advised it. Without that understanding and belief in it it would be meaningless.

Debbie

Policies can change at any time to get more votes.

Your words are much better than mine:

Me: to please constituants

You: to get votes

If policies are changed to get votes, I suppose policies can change at anytime to get more votes. Policies are no longer based upon foundational principles, but upon the whim of the voter.

That certainly is not the way Ron Paul rolls.

Press break through needed first

As with ALL Libertarian candidates, Gary Johnson has yet to break the MSM barrier of silence that has kept every Libertarian candidate out of the public eye. I don't see that breakout happening in this campaign either. Ron Paul was eviscerated by the MSM because he challenged the status quo of the Establishment. Gary Johnson represents another threat to their power.

It only takes one to KEEP AMERICANS FREE. Know your duties & rights as a juror. Stop the unconstitutional conviction of innocents in federal custody. The Fully Informed Jury CALL 1-800-TEL-JURY www.fija.org IMMEDIATELY if not sooner. It's that important.

George Stephanopoulos

When Ron Paul announced his candidacy, Stephanopoulos asked him why he wasn't running in the Libertarian party.

When Dr. Paul suggested that Stephanopoulos probably wouldn't even have him on his program if he were running as a Libertarian, Stephanopoulos took umbrage and seemed to suggest otherwise.

Let's see whether Stephanopoulos was for real with that comment or whether he was just trying to save face.

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

OK

How about some petitions that get sent to each major media station asking them to have Johnson and or Goode debate with Obama and Romney? While were at it the commission for presidential debates too.

Homeland security statement: patriotism is now considered terrorism.
I love www.isidewith.com shared it with everyone I know. If anything they realize its not just a red and blue idiot running for reelection.

I understand your vallant effort...but most have our minds

...made up. I also hear many not liking his stance on abortion or his lack of practice of Christianity although he does believe in God. Fairtax is another sound bite.

From what I gather his foreign policy is to stop all foreign aide and end the wars. Nonintervention unless we're being attacked. Does not want to rule out humanitarian intervention on such greivence as genocide----that's his Achilles heel as a libertarian spokesperson stated.

I think he still has a bit of his learning curb yet to draw the hard line in the sand on a nonintervention policy. I'm hoping RP will take his offer on a cabinet position. His advice is like gold and Gary would listen to him.

why in the world does a man's

why in the world does a man's religion have anything to do with his ability to govern? The youth movement is highly non-religious, and that is the direction the country will eventually take.

seperation

Church and state are supposed to be separated. There is a reason for it. Religious stance means nothing when it comes to governing yes. I would say a good set of morals and understanding of the constitution and the will of the people are the most important things to have. Not religion.

Homeland security statement: patriotism is now considered terrorism.
I love www.isidewith.com shared it with everyone I know. If anything they realize its not just a red and blue idiot running for reelection.

Ahhhh but

While I agree with you, I think the very thing you mention about morals is why (rightly or wrongly) religion matters to alot of voters as in their minds it is the only way to judge a candidates morals.
I was talking with Alan Keyes once about some of this and he said that things like infidelity and abortion while dismissed by some as one's 'personal business' should be public and his reason was this: If a man cannot even be loyal to a woman he exchanged personal sacred vows to, how could you ever trust him to be loyal to his word with anyone else? Same with abortion, if a guy supports allowing the killing of innocent life through abortion form how can you expect him to place lives first in other decisions? (war, etc. etc.)
Again, I am not advocating anything, I'm just saying why a candidates religion is important to alot of people. For me religion itself in a candidate doesn't tell me much since for about 99% of candidates it's all show anyway.
(please because I mentioned Alan Keyes, do not turn this thread into a pro or con Alan Keyes thread. I've met alot of people and this topic just reminded me of that conversation. I love most all of you, but I know how easily some of y'all get sidetracked! lol)

Ron Paul

supporters... I AM ONE OF YOU... I am not here to convince you to do anything you don't want to do, so let's not have that assumption. I was in this from the beginning for RON PAUL and no-one else. But guys, we have to wake up to the fact that Ron Paul isn't running! He is not running third party. In other words, his votes will not be counted when it comes time to display the election results. Don't get me wrong, I do no agree with the fact that that is the case, BUT IT IS. Don't down vote me for supporting Johnson before you hear me out. Trust me, most of us voting for Gary Johnson would absolutely LOVE to vote for Ron Paul instead. And if it weren't for Gary Johnson, I would be writing his name in on the ballot. I do not agree with absolutely 100% of what Gary Johnson says, but I do agree with most. He is NO Ron Paul, but he is a good guy! Here is my reasoning, if we unite behind Gary Johnson and the libertarian party ticket gets very large numbers in this upcoming election, the tyrannical two party system will take a huge hit. Next election cycle we may be able to actually run a viable third candidate (Jesse Ventura, anyone?) So my decision to support Johnson isn't as much about Johnson as it is about supporting a 3 party system. Make sense??

"No physical quantity explains it's own existence, and no amount of time can consume an infinite series of events to bring you to the present, which means all of these somewhere have to be explained by one self-existent cause which is not physical."

There is a big difference between RP GOP and RP supporters

RP GOP joined RP in the GOP and are working to take a dirty party and clean it up. RP supporters refuse to get dirty and want to re-invent a wheel they plan to run RP over with.

What is going on lately with supposed believers in LIBERTY

presuming to speak for the movement?

"For most Ron Paul supporters, the largest issue of disagreement we have with Gary Johnson is his foreign policy."

Really TL? Where is your hard supporting data for that assertion?

The MB idea was good-thanks. Um, do you think that bestows some special authority?

"If Gary will change his foreign policy to that of Ron Paul's, the question of getting behind (or not getting behind) Gary Johnson will be solved (to a very large degree)..."

Your view/wishful thinking, it is no more than that-your view inspired by your personal wishes.

There is another thread floating around with a similar gem:

"Ron Paul supporters have agreed, in mass, to support Libertarian Gary Johnson due to...blah, blah, blah"

The full court press on this GJ thing was bad enough coming when it did with RP in full vitality(rumors of RP's demise was definitely greatly exaggerated by the GJ pusher man/woman) but it keeps growing creepier by the second.

Feeling very coup-like, very military junta-ish. What gives GJers.

Make your case-let the chips fall as they may-YOU KNOW like in a LIBERTY system?

What is with the RNC elites tactics? What is with asserting fabrications regarding your boy.

Hell, he may yet become my boy-but I'll be damned if he gets there by the RNC equivalent-or worse-shenanigans route.

Cool it please with this GJ tyranny crap.

Are you the same people that put cranberry in everything? Back off cranman. We don't need the bums rush treatment.

"You are a den of vipers and thieves."

I mean to rout you out!

-Just because you are among us, does not make you with us

-The door is wide open, anything can slither in

Then you

will have the people saying he is flip-flopper. But I will sign it. Either way I am still voting for Gary Johnson.

Educate and inform the whole mass of the people... They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our Liberty. -Thomas Jefferson

Great post.

Very rarely do I ever encounter a petition worth signing, but for me, this is one of them.

Sorry, if you don't come into the arena with the right answers

you get ate by the lions.

Patriot Cell #345,168
I don't respond to emails or pm's.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=qo8CmO...
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution, inevitable.

+

Yeah-just tell'em what they want to hear Mit er Gary and they will fall in line like all the regular dupes.

Sorry, TL but I would need a lot more than a death row conversion on that issue to feel comfortable-on that issue.

Of course, being RP supporters-FP is not a big issue.*

*Note: I have learned that sarcasm around here needs to be labeled as such-That was sarcasm.

"You are a den of vipers and thieves."

I mean to rout you out!

-Just because you are among us, does not make you with us

-The door is wide open, anything can slither in

.

I would just be happy if GJ signed an oath/ (committed) to paying his campaign debt off in full instead of running it in the red which is a LOSING strategy for ANY third party.
I hope GJ doesnt leave the stage owing any American money for helping in his fraudulent campaign. Anyone who takes 100% of anothers message but ads nothing of their own, and no explanation for those positions they hold, are fraudulent and must not be trusted.
Especially when running a presidential campaign thats in DEBT!

GJ could just as well be a liberal democrat. He could flip tommorrow and no one would notice.
Curiously Dennis Kucinich stays away from GJ even though they hold the same basic humanitarian beliefs.
They are both interventionists, sometimes.

"OH NO! He has a SON?" Neoconservatives and Liberals EVERYWHERE!

Rand Paul 2016

Fiscal responsibility isn't on the LP platform

this year.

Patriot Cell #345,168
I don't respond to emails or pm's.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=qo8CmO...
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution, inevitable.

Then what do you call balancing the

Budget?

10 years ago.

Yet he's having trouble doing it now. Maybe he's just bad with "his" money?

Patriot Cell #345,168
I don't respond to emails or pm's.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=qo8CmO...
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution, inevitable.

A better idea, that is at least more consistant with RP

Why all this talk about wasting time with Gary Jonson rather the constitutionalist Virgil Goode? Perhaps all this talk about liberty isn't really about liberty, it is about getting wat you want at the expense of other.

To be labelled a constitutionalist, shouldn't one, you know

establish a record of supporting the Constitution while in office?

I'm in , regardless of

blowback !

One problem that made me a

One problem that made me a little leery was a post just recently by Justin Amash and politifact which suggested that Johnson supported subsidizes for the movie industry, not cool there.

Commerce with all nations, alliance with none, should be our motto. - T. Jefferson rЭVO˩ution

"Everyone wants to live at the expense of the state. They forget that the state wants to live at the expense of everyone.” - BASTIAT

Trevor, this is one we can all get behind

Except that I think it should ONLY be a petition to ask Gary Johnson to change his foreign policy view. Gary is a man of honor, and only when he -believes- the same things we do will he change his position. I believe that the petition should be nothing more than a unified cry for reason, made by us Ron Paul supporters directed toward Gary Johnson.

Michael Nystrom's fists can punch through FUD.