Dr. Rand Paul is more libertarian than Gary Johnson.

[Anarchist420]

The Libertarian Party is not worthy of its name and hasn't been since Harry Browne. Gary Johnson supports "humanitarian wars", keeping bases in Afghanistan, he doesn't think the Fed needs to be abolished (he's not an Austrian because he doesn't realize "price stability" is subjective), he supported "privatization" of prisons rather than restitution, and he supports legalizing gay marriage rather than keeping the government out of marriage. He's also against ending all Federal drug prohibition. Finally, he said he would've liked to have voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and he supported NAFTA.

Whether Dr. Rand Paul is the "real deal" remains to be seen, but he seems so far like he's more libertarian than Gary Johnson is.

Why are so many people supporting Gary Johnson?

 

[Phokus]

Well, Rand certainly hates the gays. There's that.

 

[dank69]

Johnsons need support.

 

[nehalem256]

Why are so many people supporting Gary Johnson?

I did not realize he had so many supporters

 

[CallMeJoe]

Why are so many people supporting Gary Johnson?

Unlike the Pauls, Gary Johnson has the combination of Libertarian ideals and sanity.

 

[schneiderguy]

The Libertarian Party is not worthy of its name and hasn't been since Harry Browne. Gary Johnson supports "humanitarian wars", keeping bases in Afghanistan, he doesn't think the Fed needs to be abolished (he's not an Austrian because he doesn't realize "price stability" is subjective), he supported "privatization" of prisons rather than restitution, and he supports legalizing gay marriage rather than keeping the government out of marriage. He's also against ending all Federal drug prohibition. Finally, he said he would've liked to have voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and he supported NAFTA.

Whether Dr. Rand Paul is the "real deal" remains to be seen, but he seems so far like he's more libertarian than Gary Johnson is.

Why are so many people supporting Gary Johnson?

While Dr. Paul is obviously the best choice, Gary Johnson is miles ahead of half Black Bush or Mormon Bush.

 

[glenn1]

I did not realize he had so many supporters

Yep, he shares Ron Paul's biggest problem - too much damn support.

 

[nehalem256]

Unlike the Pauls, Gary Johnson has the combination of Libertarian ideals and sanity.

He also has a real last name. Never trust someone without a last name.

 

[Lemon law]

Wow what a question I never pondered, is Ron Paul or Gary Johnson the bigger of the two Fibertarian nuts?

Well color me neutral on the question, I have concluded both are nuts and why ponder past that? But cheer up, Gary Johnston is the younger fool and there is no fool like an old fool.

 

[Craig234]

The Libertarian Party is not worthy of its name

Sometimes, we agree, sort of.

Now, is Ron Paul someone who follows the Republican Party platform, or is he someone who is a 'real Libertarian' following that platform?

Isn't he a liar if he's running as a Republican, but not a Republican?

 

[werepossum]

The Libertarian Party is not worthy of its name and hasn't been since Harry Browne. Gary Johnson supports "humanitarian wars", keeping bases in Afghanistan, he doesn't think the Fed needs to be abolished (he's not an Austrian because he doesn't realize "price stability" is subjective), he supported "privatization" of prisons rather than restitution, and he supports legalizing gay marriage rather than keeping the government out of marriage. He's also against ending all Federal drug prohibition. Finally, he said he would've liked to have voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and he supported NAFTA.

Whether Dr. Rand Paul is the "real deal" remains to be seen, but he seems so far like he's more libertarian than Gary Johnson is.

Why are so many people supporting Gary Johnson?

You have a misspelling in your title. It's spelled S A N E.

This has been a public service announcement.

 

[nextJin]

Sometimes, we agree, sort of.

Now, is Ron Paul someone who follows the Republican Party platform, or is he someone who is a 'real Libertarian' following that platform?

Isn't he a liar if he's running as a Republican, but not a Republican?

Not a liar, just a very old school Goldwater Republican. Have to remember, the Libertarian Party did not pick up much steam (if you want to even call it that) till the GOP started transitioning over to a more batshit retarded base.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Ok and how is this is important to anyone other than a libertarian???

 

[Anarchist420]

Ok and how is this is important to anyone other than a libertarian???

It may not be, but I thought there were a lot of libertarians here. Anyway, Johnson is not a libertarian and libertarians need to wash their hands of him.

I think that if Dr. Paul doesn't win the GOP nomination, then the only way the liberty movement could continue is if the Articles of Confederation was reinstated. The Presidency needs to be abolished due to the fact that there is no single heir to Dr. Ron Paul. That said, his supporters need to start a movement to repeal all 7 of the U.S. Articles of Federal Republic.

The only reason the Articles of Confederation lasted only 8 years is because the Federalists cheated, bribed people, were corrupt, and used threats of violence. There really was never anything quite like the u.S. Articles of Confederation other than maybe a few stateless societies hundreds of years ago.

 

[nageov3t]

the good news is that Ron Paul is just as likely to win the Presidency as Gary Johnson.

 

[Craig234]

The only reason the Articles of Confederation lasted only 8 years is because the Federalists cheated, bribed people, were corrupt, and used threats of violence.

Link to credible history that was the only reason? Not to libertarian propaganda.

 

[Craig234]

Not a liar, just a very old school Goldwater Republican. Have to remember, the Libertarian Party did not pick up much steam (if you want to even call it that) till the GOP started transitioning over to a more batshit retarded base.

Barry Goldwater isn't quite who his libertarian wroshippers think, just as Ronald Reagan isn't who today's right-wing worhsippers think.

Check the book by John Dean that was critical of the modern right that he began writing with Goldwater.

The Libertarians picked up some steam when the wealthy David Koch ran on the ticket in 1972 IIRC, learning that he has no appeal to the people and should use his money instead.

That's why the Kochs provided the funding to start the libertarian Cato Institute - one of the many harmful 'gifts' they've inflicted on the American people. From Wiki:

Charles and David Koch also have been involved in, and have provided funding to, a number of other think tanks and advocacy organizations: They provided the initial funding for the Cato Institute,[19] they are key donors to the Federalist Society,[19] and they also support the Mercatus Center, the Institute for Humane Studies, the Institute for Justice, the Alexis de Tocqueville Institution, the Institute for Energy Research, the Foundation for Research on Economics and the Environment, Heritage Foundation, the Manhattan Institute, the George C. Marshall Institute, the Reason Foundation, the American Enterprise Institute.[24][25] and the Fraser Institute.[26][27]

 

[Anarchist420]

That's why the Kochs provided the funding to start the libertarian Cato Institute - one of the many harmful 'gifts' they've inflicted on the American people. From Wiki:

Heritage Foundation supports CISPA and they made the blueprint for Obamacare if I'm not mistaken. They're not libertarian and the Kocktopus funds these non-libertarian think tanks as propaganda so they can get more money from the tax payer via government contracts. None of the organizations mentioned in your post are libertarian.

However, I do agree with you that Goldwater wasn't really a pure libertarian (he voted for the Gulf of Tonkin resolution and supported Eisenhower over Taft), so I'm not sure why nextJin thinks Dr. Paul is trying turn the Republican Party back into the "Party of Goldwater"... Dr. Paul hasn't invoked Goldwater much during his political career.

There are several historical Democrats (or Old Republicans, like John Randolph of Roanoke and John Taylor of Caroline) Dr. Paul is closer to than any Republican throughout history. Dr. Paul is also more like John Tyler than Jefferson.

 

[CallMeJoe]

...The Presidency needs to be abolished due to the fact that there is no single heir to Dr. Ron Paul...

So you support the Presidency if someone of your choosing gets to fill the office, but oppose it otherwise?

Such an extremely principled and consistent stance...

 

[Anarchist420]

So you support the Presidency if someone of your choosing gets to fill the office, but oppose it otherwise? Such an extremely principled and consistent stance...

That's not the broadest picture. I'd prefer the Articles of Confederation regardless of who is President. The reason is because things can change too much under the U.S. Federal Constitution. It gave too many priveleges to special interests, so trust me when I say I'd rather have the Articles of Confederation than have Dr. Paul as President.

 

[thraashman]

That's not the broadest picture. I'd prefer the Articles of Confederation regardless of who is President. The reason is because things can change too much under the U.S. Federal Constitution. It gave too many priveleges to special interests, so trust me when I say I'd rather have the Articles of Confederation than have Dr. Paul as President.

Well you won't get either. The Articles of Confederation are no longer in use and have zero power in the US and will never again have any power. Ron Paul has suspended his campaign and really had no chance of being elected. There is no state in which a majority of members of any party wanted him.

 

[conehead433]

I'd love to see Johnson get elected. With him as president Congress would get absolutely nothing done. That's right, I think we would be infinitely better off with zero legislation getting passed by our Congress as opposed to all the corporate welfare they pass now. Just let the little shits meet if we need to declare war.