3 votes

What Gary Johnson Supporters Don't Understand...

"Credibility" for the LP doesn't come from 5% of the vote. You can't buy credibility with federal matching funds. Credibility comes from the PEOPLE who populate the LP. It comes from being a principled statesman, not a flip-flopping hack. It comes from logic and reason, not attempts to browbeat people into voting for your guy and censoring his negative traits. It comes from being a leader, not a coat-tail rider.

Ron Paul's credibility isn't derived from a party or an amount of votes. It comes from decades of holding steadfast to PRINCIPLE, of speaking truth to power, and of doing the right things, not saying things that sound good. The LP, GJ, and their base will never be credible until they understand this concept.




Comment viewing options

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

what you don't understand

is that if you expect all the people you vote for to live up to the Ron Paul standard you'll be very disappointed. Sometimes you have to vote for someone who's trying their best to do what's right and IMO that's Gary and that's why I voted for him.

I wish a write-in for Dr. Paul would count here in AZ but they don't so, I voted only L across the board.

*sigh* -- More logical fallacies, as usual

"It comes from decades of holding steadfast to PRINCIPLE, of speaking truth to power, and of doing the right things, not saying things that sound good."

That is a non sequitur. How can the Libertarian Party demonstrate that they "do the right things" when there are no Libertarians in the National Congress and maybe 1-2% of state and local governments? (and many of those run as "Independent"). [could also be a strawman, but you didn't provide a fictitious resultant action]

And futhermore, you added a begging the question fallacy. You say that the LP only "says" things that sound good as opposed to accomplishements. Well.....as much as I hate to bring it up.....what Ron Paul bills were passed? How many times did he get all the Republican members of congress to go along with him? Isn't that just "saying good things" and voting alone? Wasn't it his principles and philosophy of constitutional government that hooked us in the first place?

You are just ranting emotionally. I'll stick with thinking.

"In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot."--Mark Twain

I am completely OK with taking money from the control

of the Democrats and Republicans. If the Libertarian party wins 5% of the vote then they get control of those millions. How is that a bad thing?

I was listening to Ernie

I was listening to Ernie Hancock this morning on Liberty Radio network and he made some good points. The Libertarian party who is against economic and social welfare is campaigning hard to get political welfare. It makes no sense and will simply put the L party in the same position as the Dems and Repubs by making them a state sanctioned party. So, basically, the party of small Govt people, or no Govt people is begging to be recognized by the Govt they eschew so they can get political bailouts from the same Govt that they dislike for giving social and economic bailouts. In other words, they are a joke and have sold out.

Blessings )o(

The other choices are to take money from big billion dollar

corporate controlled PACs or simply not to have enough money to compete.

Which one is preferable to you?

Or better yet, let the market

Or better yet, let the market decide. If people want someone for a candidate they'll fund him. We funded Dr. Paul. So, why isn't Gary getting funding from the people? Why is no one out there with boots on the ground raising money and campaigning? That's how its done and that kind of work doesn't exist for Johnson. Perhaps, the people have already spoken, eh?

Blessings )o(

Ron Paul got by far more donations from ordinary individuals

then the other Republicans did. But he could not compete with billion dollar Political Action Comittees.

Clearly you don't understand PACs.

Can you kick in millions?

Even if you have it - you can't do it because of limits. But PACs can do it by remaining outside the official campaign. and that results in influence foing to the highest bidder. If Ron Paul doesn't bow down (and he won't) he can't get anywhere near the money others do.

The math simply isn't there. Under current campaign fiancing laws big PACS can provide millions more than individuals can,

So?

If your candidate is good enough then the big PACS will get behind him too. Ron Paul had PAC contributions because those people decided to back him. So your point makes zero sense to me. There is nothing preventing GJ from getting PAC contributions as there was nothing stopping Dr. Paul from getting them either. Anyone can start a PAC so, to me, your argument makes no sense. If you believe in the candidate, and want to give access to big money, start a PAC. Seems pretty obvious to me.

Blessings )o(

I made an educated, informed and principled choice.

On most of the issues most important to me, Johnson is pretty good:

1. End the IRS and federal income tax
2. End the undeclared, illegal wars and occupations
3. End major federal agencies like the Dept of Education
4. End the Patriot Act
5. End NDAA
6. Audit/end the Federal Reserve

Ron Paul is NOT RUNNING ANYMORE.

I didn't like how the campaign fizzled at the end either.

I wanted to write him in until I found out it would no be counted.

So I sought out the closest liberty candidate running and Gary Johnson was it.

NOT because I want federal matching funds.

So don't insult my intelligence.

"We have allowed our nation to be over-taxed, over-regulated, and overrun by bureaucrats. The founders would be ashamed of us for what we are putting up with."
-Ron Paul

We dont have to insult your

We dont have to insult your intelligence, you do it to yourself. GJ is not against undeclared, illegal wars and occupations. That has been established.

The fundamental problem...

is believing that you can actually elect a libertarian as president, and compromising on principle in hopes of reaching a larger audience of voters.

The only use for the political process in libertarianism is as a platform with which to educate people about our philosophy.

Ron Paul understands this, our job is to educate.

This system is to fundamentally corrupt and inherently broken.

The only way to bring about real change is to reach the point at which we have enough people willing to withdraw from the system.

Mass individual secession is the only way out of this.

To reach this goal, we first have to educate people.

Politics is useful as a platform to teach with, but it is not in itself a solution.

We are not going to repeal leviathan through the legislative process.

If we are going to educate, then we need to make sure our message stays pure and we must not compromise.

We have had tremendous success so far, because we have had a messenger who does not compromise and does not water down our philosophy.

Whoever we pick to represent the message of liberty in front of a national audience, must be principled and uncompromising.

Ron Paul has been the perfect representative, but he is now retiring.

Whoever we pick to carry the torch next, must be at least as good or better (if that were possible).

We cannot go backwards, we cannot begin to compromise, we are making incredible strides toward a free society.

Check out the Laissez-Faire Journal at LFJournal.com


"The State is a gang of thieves writ large." - Murray Rothbard

Leviathan unchallenged..

Hear, hear!

"We are not going to repeal leviathan through the legislative process."

As someone said the other day:

"You can't vote your way out of Mordor."

But that's exactly what some 3rd-party apostles seem to believe, with their - controlled dissent - imaginary friend joining ranks at the State trough.

Kind regs from / Amsterdam (clip) /, Holland,
Richard

R3V ON!

+1

For actually making a post with a valid point rather than calling people who disagree with you "trolls" at the drop of a hat like so many others do when it comes to anything GJ, for or against.

The arguing and mud-slinging on both sides is starting to get embarrassing to even acknowledge, much less read.

A signature used to be here!

"Credibility" means having

"Credibility" means having the money to compete, being able to debate and being taken seriously as a real candidate.

It doesn't mean "individual credibility" because God-knows Michelle Bachman and Herman Caine never had that - but both of them had credibility as candidates because both had money and access to debates and news media coverage.

Neither

does the clown you support.

See
http://www.dailypaul.com/261896/what-gj-supporters-dont-unde...

November 6th 2012 I voted for Dr.Ron Paul
"We must remember, elections are short-term efforts. Revolutions are long-term projects." ~ Ron Paul

We are not Gary Johnson

We are not Gary Johnson supporters, we are RON PAUL supporters that voted for Gary because rons not running

EXACTLY. Writing Ron Paul in is merely a distraction because he

isn't a candidate.

But we can still promote Ron Pauls ideals with a candidate Ron Paul called "wonderful".

Really?

We can support Ron's ideals by voting for the guy who had the RP newsletter smear front and center on his campaign website and refused to take it down?

"Wonderful" my ass. Vote for GJ if you want, but don't pretend you're honoring Ron.

I don't play, I commission the league.

Im not voting to honor Ron

Im not voting to honor Ron Paul, I'm voting to try and help my future

YES REALLY!

In a Fox interview — cut into this longer Johnson campaign video — Paul said this of the former New Mexico governor: “I think he’s wonderful and I think he’s doing a good job and people should look at him and every individual should make up their own mind.”

"Lying Is My Hobby" doesn't have a clue.

HE thinks Ron Paul is a candidate. He isn't.

He thinks Ron Paul had plenty of money. With no pocket billionair or big PAC Ron Paul stopped campaigning in the end because he "DIDN'T HAVE THE MONEY" to compete.

He thinks it can be done without money or access to debates.

He lives in a fantasy land.

From what I understand...

Ron still had campaign money left over after the convention. Unlike Gary, who was quickly reduced to begging for a cut of the public largesse, Ron spent his money wisely and carefully budgeted his resources.

Ron has not dissuaded us from writing him in. He is the most principled voice this movement has and he's the only political figure who's qualified to be president. Period.

I don't play, I commission the league.

What part about not having enough money didn't you get?

“Moving forward, however, we will no longer spend resources campaigning in primaries in states that have not yet voted,” Mr. Paul said in a statement from his campaign. “Doing so with any hope of success would take many tens of millions of dollars we simply do not have.”

Read more: Ron Paul ends his hunt for votes from primaries - Washington Times http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/may/14/ron-paul-end...
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

That was just more crap from Jesse Benton...

who hated our delegates and did or said anything he could think of to stop our progress.

I don't play, I commission the league.

Did you GET who's mouth those words came out of?

They came out of the mouth of a man named RON PAUL. Did Jesse Benton crawl in that mouth and manipulate Ron's tongue?

I don't think so.

Man: You HAVE to get out of fantasyland and denial. If I was related to you I would be WORRIED about you.

READ the shit you post!

The blurb you quoted clearly said it was "a statement FROM HIS CAMPAIGN"!

I don't play, I commission the league.

Wrong

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G40RyysZcWc

Ron said that, not Jesse Benton.

...or what, did Jesse fake that video as part of his nefarious plot?

"Alas! I believe in the virtue of birds. And it only takes a feather for me to die laughing."

What does "Mr Paul said...." mean to you?

It doesn't say "Jesse Benton said...."

It doesn't say "A represntative from Mr. Paul's campaign said"

Is says "Mr. Paul said..."

Unless you want to tell us that Ron Paul is such a fool that he surrounds himself with liars. But if thats the case, if he cannot manage his own campaign, then he should be President anyway.

But thats right you have your head so far up your behind, you don't realize he isn't a candidate, that he ran out of money or that he termed Gary Johnson "wonderful".

In short you are simply to dumb and removed reality to debate with.

Credibility doesn't win elections. Money does.

Cold hard fact.

If credibility was what you needed to win, Ron Paul would be running for RE-election right now as the incumbent President.

Viability is however what money buys and what is needed to even be considered by the media and hence, the voters.

You're missing the point of this movement.

We're AGAINST the corrupt crooks who buy elections. We're supposed to be doing things honorably.

I don't play, I commission the league.