Libertarian-esque GARY JOHNSON in 2012?

[SkinnyDevil]

As a candidate, I like him better than Ron Paul. I wonder if he is serious about a 2012 run?

http://ouramericainitiative.com/

[PaleoPhil]

I wish there were more coverage of him. The media gives him even less coverage than Ron Paul.  He has reportedly been excluded from all but two of the televised Republican debates. In Gary's favor is the fact that he has successful executive experience as a former governor and business owner. In the few moments he's been given to speak in debates he came across as rather sharp and refreshing.

[PaleoPhil]

Skinnydevil, I liked your post on Gary Johnson, here:
http://www.rawpaleodietforum.com/hot-topics/what's-your-idea-of-a-perfect-society/msg46882/#msg46882

Surprised? Here's real-world proof: Gary Johnson.

Gary (a libertarian) ran as a republican for the state of NM. Dems were against him and republicans were against him. The state was in debt and in trouble.

To oversimplify history for brevity & discussion's sake, He won, then he told everyone things would be painful for a while. They were as he scaled back, privatized, and more. No one thought he'd be re-elected, but 2 years in things began to change...for the better. The state in the black, jobs increasing, unemployment decreasing, services increasing as costs went down.

We was re-elected by a large margin. Miracles continued.

He left office triumphant (though republicans hated him for calling for decriminalization of drugs), and then in came Bill Richardson (also a candidate in the last presidential election cycle). In  no time flat, the state was back in debt, services decreasing, and the like.

When will we learn? I don't know, but the point is, Ron Paul would be able to manage quite a bit to help the country.

and I find your political commentary generally enlightening. Would you care to comment on the plusses and minuses of Gary vs. Ron?

[TylerDurden]

The problem in the US seems to be that candidates are limited to 2 terms. I suppose that this measure is to stop potential corruption/vote-fixing not being noticed or acted against.  That does block good candidates from having a positive, long-term effect, though.

[SkinnyDevil]

Would you care to comment on the plusses and minuses of Gary vs. Ron?

Thank you for the kind words, Phil.

Johnson v Paul?

I don't find either to be the perfect candidate, but at the time of writing I preferred Johnson. As of this moment, I prefer Paul. That is based soley on one stance Gary took recently regarding taxation. Namely, he endorses Fair Tax (a system that does away with income tax and replaces it with a 23% national sales tax).

Stupid plan that has, for some odd reason, gained a lot of traction. Possibly worse than Cain's 9-9-9 (though it would depend on real-time rates of inflation, cost of living, etc).

By contrast, Paul wants to eliminate the income tax and replace it with nothing.

Johnson ultimately wants that, too...and both want to lower or eliminate the corporate tax (which both rightly point out is a double tax [at least when there is also a personal income tax]).

A big reason for my original stance was because I like Johnson's ideas on immigration better, and he's served in the executive branch for 8 years (Paul has served longer, but only in the legislative branch). I also thought that Johnson would make a better inspirational figure because of his back story. Both come from not-rich homes, both built successful businesses in the private sector, both have little personal baggage, and both are in excellent physical condition  (something I think a role model & inspirational figure should value). But while Paul hits the gym 5 days a week, Johnson is a triathlete and has scaled Mt Everest (he did so with a broken leg).

Doesn't get much more inspirational than that.

My position NOW is that Paul is a charismatic figure who has inspired a large movement, forced issues on the table that are now becoming mainstream (audit &/or abolish the Fed, end costly wars overseas, end the war on drugs, etc), and that his fiscal policies need to be implemented NOW. If not, we may be looking at a financial collapse of epic proportions. If that happens, any disagreements I have with him over immigration and the like (or disagreements others have with him over foreign policy or health care) won't matter.

No one wants to hop the border to a country with no jobs, and no terrorist will waste time, effort, & money attacking a nation that has collapsed, and no one will worry about health-care (free or otherwise) when they aren't even sure how they will house & feed their families.

[cherimoya_kid]

The problem in the US seems to be that candidates are limited to 2 terms. I suppose that this measure is to stop potential corruption/vote-fixing not being noticed or acted against.  That does block good candidates from having a positive, long-term effect, though.

The conservatives created the two-term limit after Franklin Roosevelt finally died in office.  Many of them still see him as the worst thing ever.

People can say what they like about the social safety net, but they weren't around during the Great Depression.  Those programs passed because so many people were undernourished, and in some cases even flat-out starving, because they were so poor.  This was the result of people moving to industrialized areas and away from farms.

 When the economy crashed, all the urban jobs went away, so these urban workers had no money, and couldn't even do subsistence farming, because they had sold their land and moved to the city, if they had land at all.

Dr. Price even noted the effects of the Great Depression on the bone structure and health of the poor in the US.  It was a bad, bad time for a lot of people.  Those social programs helped, at least in the short term.

Of course, I think welfare should be largely abolished, and mostly replaced with a much larger earned-income tax credit.  The poor need to eat, and have places to live.  However, they should also be required to contribute, if they are able. 

[TylerDurden]

Hmm, I have recently been reading about Huey Long,  widely derided as a socialist, but who seems to have been more populist and perhaps more effective than Roosevelt. Roosevelt always seemed a bit dodgy, given him being crippled by polio, and then there was his wife, Eleanor.

The way I see it, evaluations of jobs need to be reorganised. I mean, it is disgraceful that CEOs/company directors can routinely award themselves  6 to 8 figure salaries.  The trouble is that laws taxing the rich heavily, tend to backfire as the rich have enough money to use available tax-loopholes. Those less rich simply refuse to pay high taxes and go black-market (look at Greece as an example). 

What I find amusing is that the former Communist countries of Eastern Europe(even Russia!) have mostly heeded the Laffer Curve and  adopted low flat-rates of income tax, as suggested by the brilliant libertarian economist, Milton Friedman.

[PaleoPhil]

Wow, brilliant stuff SkinnyDevil. Thanks! I agree that there are plusses and minuses with both Johnson and Ron Paul and that there are many more plusses with both of them than the other politicians, and the reason you gave for supporting Ron ("his fiscal policies need to be implemented NOW. If not, we may be looking at a financial collapse of epic proportions") is the same reason I was leaning strongly towards him.

I was discouraged by what I read from Ron Paul supporters in another thread, but you represent both Ron Paul and libertarianism very well indeed. You make it sound like for once in my life I have a choice between the greater of two goods instead of the lesser of two evils. Sadly, I suspect that the economically clueless Obama and thus that ignorant ass Bernanke (who I would hand over to Darth Tyler to be hung, drawn and quartered) may end up winning unless the economy takes a dramatic turn for the worse, but the fact that 99% of the people underestimate Ron Paul could help. He could end up taking Washington by storm before his enemies can react and take him seriously enough in time to stop him and his movement. I don't think the Republicans or Democrats understand the full extent of the growth of the libertarian movement among young, Internet-literate people who can bypass the dumbed-down mass media and the blathering entrenched politicians to connect directly to the facts via folks like you.

Tyler, have you read Milton Friedman's classic, Capitalism and Freedom?  His proposal for ending the mandatory licensing of doctors is looking better and better these days in light of raw Paleo nutrition, probiotic microbes, symbiotic so-called "parasites" and so forth that are very effective and yet despised by the medical cabal of the mediocre.

[cherimoya_kid]

 I mean, it is disgraceful that CEOs/company directors can routinely award themselves  6 to 8 figure salaries. 

Income inequalities corrode a society.  Better public education is one of the best ways to reduce that problem. When people are better-educated, they become aware and literate, and better-informed, and are less willing to tolerate such nonsense.  They also can command higher salaries.  A large mass of unskilled, uneducated workers is becoming less and less of a good thing, as automation increases.

[TylerDurden]

Hmm, I must read that book by Friedman. I have to admit he has a point there. On the other hand, we don't want to go back to the bad old days of quacks - otherwise people like Frank Abagnale could pose as doctors without needing any medical skills whatsoever.

[SkinnyDevil]

...Sadly, I suspect that the economically clueless Obama ...may end up winning unless the economy takes a dramatic turn for the worse....

He might, but I see him as a one-term guy. The economy is wrecked and, unless it improves dramatically, I don't see how he can win. He no longer inspires people to action (other than writing big checks), so I think he's done....

...unless Newt takes the nomination. Just not an inspiring guy, either.

If Ron Paul places 1 or 2 in Iowa (and is ahead of Newt), I think Newt will fall and the real fight will be between Paul & Romney.

That said, it looks as if Bachman &/or Perry may re-surge. Hoping I'm wrong on that and that is someone else is to surge (other than Paul) perhaps those who say Huntsman is about to surge are correct.

I think Paul or Romney or Huntsman could beat Obama. Hoping it's Ron Paul who gets the shot.

[ys]

What I find amusing is that the former Communist countries of Eastern Europe(even Russia!) have mostly heeded the Laffer Curve and  adopted low flat-rates of income tax, as suggested by the brilliant libertarian economist, Milton Friedman.

It will change as tax code matures.  Tax code in these countries is in its early infancy.  Most people are still getting paid cash with no paper record whatsoever.  They have no choice but to establish very simple tax code.  Corporate tax is much more complex because it must have supporting documents.  Russian monetary/banking/tax business is roughly equivalent to the US in the 20s of last century.

[ys]

I think Paul or Romney or Huntsman could beat Obama. Hoping it's Ron Paul who gets the shot.

Paul has no chance to beat anybody because he does not have the finances to spread his message on national TV.  Remember, the average voter is the one who buys things because they see celebrities endorsements on TV, they watch garbage reality shows, and stupid sitcoms, they shop BlackFriday because national TV created a frenzy.

Most young people and hispanic/black who usually do not vote voted for Obama because there was hope-change frenzy created by Obama campaign.

If Paul can create similar frenzy and put it on national TV only then he could win.  He does not have the money and he is not willing to accept money form Wall Street/Lawyers/Big oil/Defence.

Not that he can raise money from those groups.  His disengagement policy may bankrupt some of them.

I predict his campaign will be same as in 2008. 

[PaleoPhil]

He might, but I see him as a one-term guy. The economy is wrecked and, unless it improves dramatically, I don't see how he can win. He no longer inspires people to action (other than writing big checks), so I think he's done....

...unless Newt takes the nomination. Just not an inspiring guy, either.

Newt is not as bad as Romney the chameleon though, surely? At least Newt offers up some interesting ideas of his own now and then, and I like his porky-pig pudgy face. LOL

I know Romney only too well, having lived in Massachusetts when he shocked the hell out of me and claimed to be more gay-friendly than Ted Kennedy, then quickly back-tracked on that once he got elected, and pulled many other effing political tricks. I will NEVER vote for that effing chameleon in a million years. Most of the country doesn't know how spineless he is. I HATE liars. That's one reason I like Ron Paul and Gary Johnson. Even if they say unwise or even bad things now and then, if they are true to their core, then I greatly appreciate that. I will forgive a politically incorrect man a hundred times. A liar? Maybe once or twice.

Hell, Tyler could insult me a million times and I would never be as angry at him as I am at LIARS! Insults are nearly irrelevant. Lies are disgraceful, especially when they are as ridiculously blatant as Romney's.

That said, it looks as if Bachman &/or Perry may re-surge.

Morons, and an embarrassment to the Republican Party. Not as bad as liars, but morons nonethelesss.

I predicted to my father that Sarah Palin would not help McCain, which turned out to be correct (it didn't take any genius, as she is an annoying moron). That Bachman has managed to out-moron Palin is incredible. A sort of achievement in a weird way. How the hell did the Republican party, once the party of William Buckley, end up down this effing hole of "six-pack soccer moms"?

Hoping I'm wrong on that and that is someone else is to surge (other than Paul) perhaps those who say Huntsman is about to surge are correct.

I think Paul or Romney or Huntsman could beat Obama. Hoping it's Ron Paul who gets the shot.

Thanks for helping me to focus on the most important thing--the potentially catastrophic debt--Skinnydevil. I knew I could count on you, as wisdom and temperance ride with you.

Huntsman seems rather OK, maybe more than OK, though even he seems to pander too much.

Death before Romney. Give me a tobacco-chewing rank asshole who's honest any day rather than a liar.

Debt is evil.

[TylerDurden]

Hmm, sometimes a politician needs to lie to the people just in order to get elected. Once he's in, he can then do some of the things that are desperately needed by the nation but which the majority of people don't really want. Not saying Romney is like that, but lying is usually necessary in politics, whether in doing good or evil.

[PaleoPhil]

Sure, some lying is expected from politicians, but when they do a 180 on a dime and change in very unexpected ways it's another thing. You'll see if Romney is elected.

[SkinnyDevil]

YS said

Paul has no chance to beat anybody because he does not have the finances to spread his message on national TV.

Not accurate.

2012 cycle top 5:

1) Barack Obama - $90 million
2) Mitt Romney - $33 million
3) Rick Perry - $18 million
4) Ron Paul - $13 million
5) Michelle Bachmann - $8 million

Here's a prediction for Iowa (first primary): Romney wins with Ron Paul in 2nd. Gingrich will implode due to his record and his personal baggage.

And:

Most young people and hispanic/black who usually do not vote voted for Obama because there was hope-change frenzy created by Obama campaign.

That is why he will lose if the nominee is an inspiring individual like Ron Paul.

PaleoPhil said:

... focus on the most important thing--the potentially catastrophic debt

This is without doubt the PRIMARY issue. Anyone who doubts it can take a look not only at Greece, et al, but at Paul's predictions about the housing crisis, the bailouts, the world financial crisis.

I dislike Romney, but I'm not sure whether he or Newt is worse. Let's hope we don't have to find out.

Tyler said:

sometimes a politician needs to lie to the people just in order to get elected

Then he doesn't deserve to be elected.

Those voting need to know what a man stands for, and a man has, ultimately, only his words and deeds. All the money in the world won't buy you the respect of your family, your peers, or an endorsement of history.

We need to aspire to greatness. A politician who lies to get elected is not a man of greatness and deserves nothing but our scorn and ridicule. A man who votes for a liar is letting go of aspirations for greatness for himself and his country/community.

It is a path that lacks all honor.

[TylerDurden]

Well, I can only say that honour is not the only path to success/glory. Many past great humans/aka "scumbags" have ultimately achieved wonderful things for the human race, by lying repeatedly to their  electorate about what they were going to achieve and then doing the exact opposite, simply because the latter approach worked far better  for their society than what the mass of the people wanted.  Simply put, the "mob" has often/usually been wrong, whether in Roman times or present day, due to aberrant mob-psychology. The mob often develops a mindless, inferior mentality that one superior person can easily surpass if he just has the chance to con the mob.

Agree with you re Newt Gringrich:- Given his past behaviour with his ex-wives, I am truly amazed that he has the gall to try for the Presidency or any other position.

[ys]

Here's a prediction for Iowa (first primary): Romney wins with Ron Paul in 2nd. Gingrich will implode due to his record and his personal baggage.

Let's see how good your predictions are in about 4 weeks.  Correction - Iowa holds a caucus not a primary.

[PaleoPhil]

I dislike Romney, but I'm not sure whether he or Newt is worse. Let's hope we don't have to find out.

I suppose I should try to be optimistic and hope that Romney's better self blossoms in office if elected, but politicians tend to live up to our worst expectations. For example, I had tried to stay optimistic that maybe by some miracle Obama would quickly de-escalate US involvement in Middle East conflict, aside from Afghanistan, like he promised--instead he expanded the Iraq war and added a third war to the existing two. How long before we're at war with Iran or some other nation with endless people willing to become martyrs if Obama, Romney, or Newt Gingrich are elected?

On the bright side, it looks like things are going much better in Iraq. It hasn't been in the news much, which is a good sign. I hope we won't feel obligated to go back in if civil war breaks out at some point in Iraq.

One thing I like about Ron Paul is that he's the opposite of chameleons like Romney. Some compromise is OK, but excessive flip flopping, especially of overall political ideology and especially within short time spans that are convenient for winning political contests, is icky.

[SkinnyDevil]

Let's see how good your predictions are in about 4 weeks.  Correction - Iowa holds a caucus not a primary.

Ahhh...you are correct!

A caucus differs from a primary in process.

In that case, Paul might actually win Iowa, or be a VERY close (rather than sub-20%) 2nd.

[Aaaaaa]

YAY, I am so glad to find this thread here!  I am a big Ron Paul fan : )  Before I heard about him in the last election, I had a very bad attitude towards politics...kind of "I just don't wanna know" LOL. 
He is the first political figure I've ever heard of who's philosophy actually makes sense!  I'm sure he's not *perfect*, but hey, who is?  I think he'd be a great president!  I was super excited to see that there are actually *2* other people at my job that have Ron Paul bumper stickers, besides me.  LOL--that is saying something, because people at my job are usually Democrats and very left-wing.
I agree he is very charismatic, and more and more people seem to know about him, in spite of how bad the media coverage is.   Speaking of, have you seen the video about him being ignored by the media on the Jon Stewart show?  Hilarious!  ...and true : P

[TylerDurden]

I am, quite frankly, disgusted that there are no Ron Paul-like politicians in the UK or Austria. All we have in the UK is idiots like Cameron. This fool, up till now in love with the EU, has now decided to rebel against the EU on the only occasion when the EU has done something intelligent for once. The EU recently proposed stricter controls over EU countries' budgets, the idea being that any EU countries going further into deficit re budgets would get fined, and the politicians responsible would be convicted and imprisoned. Sounds sensible to me so Cameron is just being a retard over this issue.

[PaleoPhil]

Months ago, for the first time n my life, I bet money on a presidential election--$100 saying that Romney will lose--the most I've ever bet on anything--and he is not disappointing me:

Slipping in polls, Mitt Romney assures voters ‘I care’

It helped that I had experience with Romney, having lived in Massachusetts during his election campaign and reign there. Back then I was astounded by the audacity of his flip-flopping, extreme as it was even for a politician, and his demonstrated utter lack of core values beyond maybe suaveness, politeness and grooming, but I'm not surprised by it now.

Maybe next election cycle the Republican establishment will realize that people with long-held values like Ron Paul have just as much chance, if not more, than chameleons like Romney. Even if Ron Paul had lost, he would have inspired many young people to join the Republican Party. By choosing Romney, the GOP has assured their continued demise and narrowed their base further. Instead of the elephant, they would be better represented by an extinct dinosaur. This is something the Neoconmen (hat tip to Tyler for the term) have not yet understood.

Short of some rare negative event for Obama, I guarantee that Romney will lose. Mind you, I know, thanks to Nassim Taleb, that rare events do occur, but they are, by definition, rare.

I'm still leaning to voting for Gary Johnson, though I'm open to reasons to vote for other candidates. One big plus in my book is anyone who doesn't want to obliterate Iran from the face of the earth and bring on Armageddon (the not-so-secret wish, apparently, of many evangelical Christians in this country, unfortunately).