17 votes

After Ron Paul, There is Another...

After Ron Paul, There is Another...


Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

I know the GJ debate is a heated on the DP...

And I am not advocating anyone to vote for GJ. Whatever his sincerity is, he is the only one talking about the issues I care about. Therefore I believe I will probably vote for him since my state does not allow open write-in's.

Whether he is the next ron paul? He would have to gain much more national attention, and make it through intense scrutiny nearly unscathed for the entire liberty movement to line up behind him. That is an almost insurmountably tall order.

Ron Paul - Intellectual hero

I agree that his responses are very rehearsed, but

I disagree with the statement that it makes him a a fake. I think we are looking at a candidate who's simply not as intelligent as our standard bearer. Ron Paul managed to both stick to the most important topics for the nation (the Federal Reserve, the police state, and our foreign policy) and give a unique spin, or at least a unique way of phrasing things.

Johnson talks about these same things, but he does so in a way that is repetitive. I multiple interviews, he has used the exact term "raging debate." For a few weeks, he has been suggesting that we "waste our votes" on him. I feel like he's running through every bit of rhetoric in his arsenal and testing it, seeing if it sticks.

I don't think he's a traitor or fake. He simply has a far shallower understanding than Ron Paul. I'll still support him, though, because I don't feel that he is at all evil.

I just watched GJ speak in person the other day.

He merely parroted some talking points he's been rehearsing.

His answers sounded disjointed and they didn't match the question. They were too "generic to the topic" which tells me, they were rehearsed and memorized.

He's merely saying things he thinks Libertarians want to hear.

Sorry, that's just my personal assessment.

I think overall, he's raising the profile of the LP, but he doesn't seem to even have a strategy to win even one State.

What's the point then?

The Point Is To Get 5% For The LP

which gives them matching funds. A stronger LP gives us more pull within the GOP.

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

He's much more likely to get the 5% nationwide if he

has a strategy to win at least one State.

Showing that he would win say, his home State of New Mexico would open the race up. He'd get press out of it, and more people would pay attention to him.

Having such a strategy for several states and having a strong showing in those states in the polls, while being in the lead in at least one would definitely secure the 5% mark, if not more.

If he wanted into the debates, he needed to go after Electoral Votes.

There is no such thing as a national popular vote.

It is absurd and laughable to have a campaign that treats the election that way.

Quite frankly, if a Presidential candidate has no strategy for Electoral Votes - he/she IS NOT a serious candidate.

Randomly campaigning here or there, filing lawsuits, running the campaign in a massive deficit, and whining on TV and radio about being excluded isn't going to get him 5% everywhere.

He's not going to get 5% in swing states.

So he'll have to make those numbers up elsewhere.

Does he have a strategy to do that?


So again, if that is his goal, and he doesn't even have a plan to accomplish it, WHAT IS THE POINT?

I saw him in person Saturday. He claimed he never put his mind to something and didn't follow through and accomplish it.

Normally, that takes some sort of plan, not just a "fly by the seat of your pants" approach.

Since that is what he is doing, this tells me, he is not serious about getting 5%, and thus he really isn't "putting his mind to it."

And he really needs to shape up or stop making campaign appearances. I was considering voting for him until I heard him speak in person and answer direct questions. His answers were so canned, so off topic, so vacuous, so rehearsed, that I can't in good conscience lend him my support.

I mostly agree

If he is going to campaign that way, he should at least be encouraging supporters to organize and form a committee in their county. The LP has a handbook for it even. Having a committee in every county in the country would be a major achievement and a big step forward in the quest to establish a 3rd major party in the foreseeable future. I hate to be cliche but, if we build it, they will come. When people can see it on the horizon or feel that it is within reach, they will come on.


Fancy Shmancy Fine Print:

Yes, we're trying to do just that in Louisiana right now.

So far so good, but it is slow going.

Most people don't want to lift a finger to do anything and expect that there is some "machine" out there called the "party" that just snaps its fingers and makes stuff happen.

They have no clue that a political party is made up mostly of volunteers like them.

Truly, organizing locally and focusing on local elections is going to be the only way we end up winning at the national level.

You can't but the cart before the horse.

What You Say Could Apply To Dr. Paul's 1988 Campaign As Well

Do you feel that campaign also lacked a point?

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

I know little about his campaign in 1988.

If he had no strategy to try to organize in at least one State and try to win Electoral votes, then yes, I say the same assessment applies.

There are only two ways to win the Presidency. Both require winning at least one Electoral Vote.

If you have no strategy to do so, your campaign is pointless.

You really don't have a campaign in that sense. You have a PAC that is using the election as an excuse to get a message out to the people.

but he's right

sam is not incorrect, if Johnson is not campaigning for 2016. But that doesn't mean you're incorrect either. Your reply is a valid point, if Johnson is campaigning for 2016.


Fancy Shmancy Fine Print:

He would be served much better in campaigning for 2016, if he

actively campaigned in 2012.

Just when does one expect to magically get a ground game and build the organization it takes to win? NEXT election?

Why not start NOW?

Wouldn't it be much easier to see success in 2016 if he won some Electoral votes in 2012?

If G.J. is for real and...

...Judge Nap., J. Ventura, etc. back him, then what is it about G.J. that some people on this site don't like about him? Haven't studied him much yet and he seems pretty good. I don't get it...slow I guess.

this is why...


He's a typical beltway Reason/Cato/Koch Libertarian ("social liberal, fiscal conservative") with no foundation in Austrian economics or the non-aggression principle. I wouldn't want someone like that misrepresenting my views on a debate stage, while touting themselves as a libertarian.


...but do you think he is better than the other two? I don't understand why he would want to intervene in any more countries! Although, I must say that I remember Paul saying(when many of the candidates were still in the debate) that "any of these men would be better than Obama". I often wonder if Paul sees an agenda beyond the "puppet employment" in Obama. I read that Obama signed over 900 E.O.'s only 1st to W.Bush with over 60. Obama seems extremely anti-American to say the least.

I also hear people saying G.J. jumped to the Libertarian Party quickly to avoid Paul doing it or to split our vote. What I cannot figure out is why J.Ventura and Judge Nap. would endorse him if he was really bad. Is that their lesser evil?

Please don't up or down vote...I'm just trying to figure all this out.

That email is garbage. Here's the reply I sent when I got it:

Those EO counts for each President are laughably wrong.

To show that so many Presidents had so few EOs, but Obama had hundreds, is
a flat out lie.

Each one had 150-300 or so, FDR had over 3,000.

Obama has only signed 135 - par for the course 3 years into one term.

Mostly, they were re-authorizing or continuing orders issued by previous

Every "bad" EO that Obama has issued with regards to emergency powers was
issued by a previous President - yes, including Republican Presidents.

The dirty secret most in Washington don't want anyone to know is that
we've been living under "emergency rule" declared by the President since
March 1933. That "emergency" was the result of a bankruptcy of the
Treasury and has been continued and added to by every President since.

The other dirty little secret they don't want you to know is that EOs have
no force of law upon you and me.

The President has no authority over individual citizens. His orders are
effective only upon employees of the executive branch of the national
government. (the same goes for orders issued by Governors in their
respective states - those do not apply directly to the People either)

Every EO issued, is issued under the authority of legislation passed by

Thus if you have a problem with an EO, I suggest you take it up with them
- as the President is merely issuing orders he finds necessary to
implement or "execute" the laws that Congress has passed. His EOs are
orders directing the employees under his charge to perform a certain way
so that the laws are properly implemented and carried out.

And Congress is essentially, save perhaps State Governments, the only
entity that can protect We the People from on overreaching President who
thinks he can take over in dictatorial fashion or that his EOs have any
force of law directly upon Citizens.

I abhor the "emergency rule" that FDR started, and I fault every President
since for holding on to that power. But I understand what Executive
Orders are, and what they are not. And I don't go crying like Chicken
Little over them.

I'd also caution anyone from falsely making claims of their applicability
lest you fill the role of the "useful idiot."

If you don't know what I'm talking about - perhaps you should read this:

The Tyranny of the Useful Idiots -

You can view the disposition of and count of EOs issued by all Presidents
from Hoover on at Archives.gov here:

There is also a link on the left of that page to view the text of the
orders if you wish to inform yourself more and actually read them.


Thank you!

A Great Question -- Here's What I Think

Jesse is a lot like Gary: fiscally conservative, socially liberal, generally in favor of less government -- but not much grounded in Austrian economics or the non-aggression principle.

Judge Nap is a little harder to figure out, but it may well be that he sees an opportunity for the LP to reach the 5% matching-funds threshold, which would be huge for the party. I can say that this is the main reason I am considering voting for Gary. A stronger LP will give us more pull within the GOP.

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


...makes good sense. I am starting to see why there is such a division among the D.P.ers on G.J. Frankly, I don't condemn either side for their choice. All seem to have valid reasons for their support or non-support. All of us staying on the same side in the long run regardless is most important to me personally and I would suppose Paul would say the same.

Please PUMP this to the front page!

Let’s keep this issue alive, it’s too important to let fall to the way side.

Everyone we RESPECT in this movement is endorsing Gary Johnson, we should too.

Please everyone, put your GOD like love for Ron Paul aside, as he's out of the race.

We need to BREAK this two party system once and for all!

The Winds of Change!

Not Everyone

Tom Woods has specifically said he will not be voting for Johnson. He said if he were going to support an LP candidate, it would have to be more of a hard-core libertarian. I respect his position.

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

The Main Reason I'm Considering Voting For Johnson Is For The LP

If he gets 5%, the party gets matching funds and takes a major leap forward. I'm thinking of the party more than the candidate. A stronger LP will give us more pull within the GOP.

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

For Liberty

Nebraska congressman Howard Buffet was the Ron Paul of his day:

His wife said he considered only one issue when deciding whether or not to vote for a bill: 'Will this add to, or subtract from, human liberty?

Like Dr. Paul in lots of ways:

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 change yourself is not there,
the demand to change the world is not there either. —U.G.

I wish somehow we broke the

I wish somehow we broke the two party duopoly and got Gary om the debate stage...but the duopoly knows the consequences of that scenario so that is not going to happen.

Any one who cannot whole heartedly support Gary Johnson, after

all these endorsements, including Ron Paul himself, NEVER truly understood Ron Paul or this movement.

PLEASE support Gary Johnson before it’s too late!

The Winds of Change!

stop spreading lies.

ron paul never endorsed anybody.
also, i don't need people's endorsements to decide who i should vote for.
stop thinking like a sheep.

You didn't watch the video did you!

As My daddy said; there's a fool born every minute.

The Winds of Change!

that was hardly an endorsement.

it's too bad your daddy didn't know he brought one into the world.

EXACTLY how much of an endorsement do you need???

Ron Paul has never said any other candidate was doing a "pretty good job". But he did say that about Gary Johnson.

What the hell is wrong with you. He cannot give a full endorcement, afterall he ran as a republican. What part of that do you NOT understand!

The Winds of Change!


> He cannot give a full endorcement, afterall he ran as a republican.
Exactly how is Ron restricted from endorsing a third-party candidate?
He ran for the presidential nomination as a Republican back in 2008 and still endorsed Chuck Baldwin of the Constitution Party.

So how is it any different here? Maybe your candidate just isn't good enough?
Maybe Gary Johnson should quit pandering and start putting more emphasis on our key issues? Like a non-interventionist foreign policy and an auditing of the Fed?

So how is it any different here?

2 words and some numbers for you.....

Rand Paul 2016

Official Daily Paul BTC address: 16oZXSGAcDrSbZeBnSu84w5UWwbLtZsBms
Rand Paul 2016