143 votes

I propose... An alliance!

I propose an alliance between two of the "factions" of the Liberty Movement.

I am a Gary Johnson supporter. Why? I hope to register a large enough percentage of a protest vote for Johnson to send a message. And if by some miracle he gets in the debates, we can position ourselves to win.

However, those who are going to write in Ron Paul? I totally get it. You guys aren't compromising, you're voting for the best man for the job. You don't care what they think, you're voting your heart, through and through.

I think that what you supporters of write in are doing something admirable. You've chosen to go for the best man for the job.

Johnson supporters have chosen to not go with the best man, but with a very good man who has more of a chance of winning. I can understand why you'd reject this, just from the standpoint of purity. I'm going to support Johnson.

But we need to make an alliance between ourselves, because we're supporting liberty candidates. We need to oppose the following three factions:

- the "vote for Romney because he's lesser of two evils" faction
- the "vote for Obama to spite the GOP/because he's lesser of two evils" faction
- the "let's not vote because it'll be rigged anyway" faction

I get it, people are lost and disappointed that we didn't get RP the GOP nomination. But what did we keep saying during the campaign? We kept saying that we weren't going to vote for the lesser of two evils, and that we weren't going to sit idly by.

Let's continue this movement through November and beyond. How? VOTE FOR A LIBERTY CANDIDATE. Either Ron Paul or Gary Johnson.

And Paul and Johnson supporters? Let's stop going for each other's throats for a while in order to combat the three aforementioned ideas, all of which are very dangerous ideas that could jeopardize the future of this movement, this country, and this world. I propose: an alliance.

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

Do you see Ron Paul endorsing him?

Actually, working on my doctorate in economics, thanks for asking. Voting for the lesser of 3 evils is still evil. A fools errand. Policies would not change under Johnson apart of the same establishment. GJ supporters are exactly the same as Obamna fools in 2008. Clueless

So ask yourself is you candidate better than Ron Paul? Then you are a fool for voting for him. If you can't keep the promise for liberty then just vote Robama so you don't embarrass us further.

Let me get this straight...

...you don't like Romney or Obama, but you will accept one of them as President because you want to stick to your principle? I don't follow the logic. Wouldn't a liberty-oriented candidate who has a chance be preferable to Obamney??? Independents comprise 29-40% of the electorate. If Johnson gets into the debates, he has a fighting chance with the Ron Paul movement behind him.

Voting for less evil is still evil.

This logic is simple. Is you candidate better than Ron Paul? Then you are a fool for voting for him. Do you see Ron Paul endorsing him? Then you are a fool for even asking. Why not vote for Ron Paul like you said you would or are you a liar too. Then vote Robama.

I heard Ron Paul say

That he thinks Gary Johnson is wonderful. But you make up your own mind.

Yet again, the GOP has FAILED to get my vote. I will deprive...

them (again) of my "confidence" for their farcical TOOL (Romney)...due to the disrespectful treatment of Ron Paul (for decades, and the recent) and for my fellow Ron Paul followers/delegates.

Johnson on abortion

Maybe, I'm mistaken, but doesn't Johnson agree with Ron Paul that the issue of abortion should be decided on a state by state basis and not by federal decree?

You ar correct and this may be the most important issue

Dr. Paul agreed way back there, over 20 years ago, to support the Constitution over his own 'pro-life' leanings. Johnson has done the same, in opposite form of course. Anyone making an issue of it today is just trying desperately to split the pro-liberty vote.

RP did, 25 years ago...

Not that you have to,
but it's worth pointing out...

No The LP Conformed To Paul, Not Vice-Versa

I'm sorry I can't find the source, but somewhere I heard that he said as much.

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

That the LP platform went pro-life...

before the election in 1988? Well I'll be damned! :D

Either way, RP did not hold out, nor was such a platform change a condition for him to accept the nomination or campaign as LP candidate.

Not Exactly (I Found The Source)

The source is Dr. Paul's Wikipedia entry (see below), which references a Houston Chronicle article (see below). Here's what it says in Wikipedia:

"He said that he had never read the entire Libertarian platform when he ran for president as a Libertarian in 1988, and that 'I worked for the Libertarians on my terms, not theirs.'"

So he didn't sign on to the platform (didn't even read all of it), and since the terms were Dr. Paul's, one can surmise that the LP either dropped abortion from its platform, changed its platform position to pro-life, or discarded its platform altogether in favor of whatever Dr. Paul wanted to focus on.

Regardless, it seems that Dr. Paul did not sign on to a pro-choice platform.

Wikipedia entry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul#cite_note-chron96-114

The Houston Chronicle article: Robison, Clay (1996-02-15). "Campaign 96/U.S. House/Paul Favors Repealing Federal Anti-Drug Laws". Houston Chronicle.

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


"one can surmise that the LP either dropped abortion from its platform, changed its platform position to pro-life, or discarded its platform altogether in favor of whatever Dr. Paul wanted to focus on" -AllianceWithNone

...or kept it in their platform, and ran a candidate that wasn't 100% in sync with their platform [which is not an uncommon occurence in any party]

"While the Libertarian Party supports the right of women to choose an abortion, Dr. Paul believes that abortions are morally wrong. A group called Libertarians for Life failed in its attempt to change the party position." -NYTimes,1987

"He had money, power, and agreed with everything on the party platform except abortion (Paul is pro-life, the platform isn't)."
"There are enough radical elements in the platform to draw media attention away from the abortion issue and anyway Ron Paul has promised to distinguish between his personal viewpoint and the party platform." -Reid

RP was certainly not the only pro-life LP member at the time, but the majority was pro-choice, pro-choice was in the platform, and there it remained. I'm sure they have existed, but I'm personally unaware of any worthy candidate who has endorsed all planks of his or her party's platform. RP apparently came close in 1988 though, all but one plank. Perhaps he was unaware [as you've mentioned that he didn't even read the platform]. Did LP conform to RP? Did RP conform to LP? Who knows? The original term in this particular string is "align". RP most certainly aligned himself with a group whose majority was pro-choice. That was my initial point to AnAppealToHeavenWash. Did the group, whose majority was pro-choice, align with RP? Most certainly! More specifically, RP was a member of the group itself. He was a Libertarian Party member at the time.* Beyond that, consider this possibility - that RP may have agreed with more of the many LP platform planks [which were simply reflections of varied majorities] than anyone else in the room that day at the convention in 1987.

*It's interesting that Ralph Nader was never actually a member of the Green Party.

By the way, here's the only reference to the 1988 LP run, in that Houston Chronicle article from 1996...
"Paul, who unseated U.S. Rep. Greg Laughlin of West Columbia in
the April GOP runoff, temporarily left the Republican Party to
become the Libertarian Party’s 1988 presidential nominee." -Robison


Interesting, I Stand Corrected

And yes, interesting that Nader was not a member of the party that nominated him for president in 2000.

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

How important will that issue be if....

How important will that issue be if... we fall into an economic/monetary collapse with widespread rioting and killings. How many people will die if we're led into the next world war? Fight your anti abortion battle on your state level and the Congressional level. Your single issue isn't going to change if Obama or Romney are elected. You can support the best choice going for liberty in Gary Johnson for President and still continue to press for your cause.

Do you support

the death penalty?

Like Dr. Paul

I am in favour of the death penatly in theory, utterly opposed in practice. You cant give me a system that is utterly racists in actuality and fool me into endorsing it in some fairy world that doesnt exist.

I'm still in favour of the death penalty in favour, I am just not naive enough to be in favour of it in actuality.

Death Penalty Is Big Government

Empowering the state to take a life.

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

Does Ron Paul?

A bit of a stupid question then wasn't it. If you not with Ron Paul your against him.

I think you've crossed a line.

You are sounding a bit like a Nazi or something.


That was the point.

Same tired establishment different argument. Same liberal foolishness Obama spews and Romney then not Romney Then Romney again, who knows what Romney believes this day.


"If you not with Ron Paul your against him."

Dubya? Is that you?

A signature used to be here!

The Establishment One Party-Bird/Two Wing SCAM has to be BROKEN!

One more reason I'm voting (as an RP-Republican) Third Party (yet again) this year...for the only Liberty candidate left in the POTUS race, and that happens to be Gary Johnson.

I voted for Baldwin, the last go around ('08)..I could surely go for Johnson this Nov.

With you 110 percent!

I'll be voting for Gary Johnson specifically so that they have to announce his percentages. If Johnson gets over 10% it sends a clear message that the GOP had better cater to our positions or wither on the vine. A write in for Paul will be anounced as "other" on election night and not buy us anything except for a sound nights sleep.

In the meantime let's keep taking over the GOP at the local levels by any means possible and be as much of a thorn in the national committe's side as is humanly possible.

They want us discouraged, they want us to not show up. Ron Paul would want us to prove them wrong and keep fighting as best we can. We have numbers, we need unity. Right here and now in the Presidential election of '12 Gary Johnson is the candidate to unite behind.

Use things not People. Love People not things.

I voted you up, but

there is something to be said for a sound night's sleep.

Guys we need to look at this

Guys we need to look at this like we would with a girl that we like but need to break up with for both you and the girl's benefit. Ron Paul created a movement and face it, although very healthy for his age he is still 77 years old. Eventually the liberty movement HAS to transform and that's what his dream is! Make it happen while he is alive to create liberty candidates.

Liberty Patriots

Gary CAN win this thing.
He is just starting to go viral.
We can have GJ come at 35% in this 3 way race & win this!

LL on Twitter: http://twitter.com/LibertyPoet
sometimes LL can suck & sometimes LL rocks!
Love won! Deliverance from Tyranny is on the way! Col. 2:13-15

Its NOT just Presidential!!!

There are State House, State Senate race's going on as well as U.S. House, U.S. Senate race's

i'm not voting for johnson because i don't like him- get over it

i didn't decide on not voting for gary johnson because i'm in the "ron or nobody" cult, but because i don't think gary johnson is good enough.

i don't need someone like him misrepresenting my views and principles to the public, especially on foreign policy. ie, going into uganda to get joseph kony. i don't need a sheep as a leader, that's gullible enough to buy into a phony propagandized movement conjured up by globalist leftists.

But Johnson does have his good points, doesn't he?

You would prefer Obamney on foreign policy? How about going for the preponderance of the evidence for Johnson's liberty credentials? Man does not live by foreign policy alone.