Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I know Gary Johnson has executive experience but how about on the issues? I know they are both libertarians but what's the difference between them? Why does Paul have more supporters? I'm thinking there must be some differences.
Johnson's a former two-term New Mexico governor who's been out of politics since his second term expired in 2003. Paul is a 30-year Republican legislator who has run for president 3 times. That's the main reason Paul has more supporters, he's much better known on a national level.
I know Gary Johnson has executive experience but how about on the issues? I know they are both libertarians but what's the difference between them? Why does Paul have more supporters? I'm thinking there must be some differences.
For starters Gary Johnson is probably pretty ignorant about the Federal Reserve and on Foreign Policy where Paul has been closely following both of these for decades.
For starters Gary Johnson is probably pretty ignorant about the Federal Reserve and on Foreign Policy where Paul has been closely following both of these for decades.
This is probably the biggest difference. I honestly know very little about Governor Johnson, but my guess is that he and Dr. Paul probably pretty much agree on how the government should be run, but Paul is the only one who has a clue as to how to make it happen.
This is probably the biggest difference. I honestly know very little about Governor Johnson, but my guess is that he and Dr. Paul probably pretty much agree on how the government should be run, but Paul is the only one who has a clue as to how to make it happen.
I think Gary Johnson would be good from the standpoint of cutting back on government spending and getting rid of departments that aren't necessary. He's proven he can do that but I don't think he's up on World Affairs or the monetary system.
I agree with Zadek on his assessment of Paul's foreign policy. It is far more logical. I agree that Gary Johnson's thinking on foreign policy is flawed and not consistent with his economic policy either. Why should we conserve at home but spend money on military expenditures abroad for "humanitarian" reason? That makes no sense. Gary Johnson just lost a few points in my mind.
In "Whose Better?...." Somin doesn't sound like she or he knows what a Libertarian is supposed to stand for. S/he says Gary Johnson says that the Bill of Rights constrains the states and the Federal Government as if he thinks that is a bad thing. That is a GOOD thing! He can't not support the Bill of Rights. If he doesn't then he loses more points with me.
I think that the thing that bugs me the most is the term "legalization of drugs", that is bandied about without understanding. This has a connotation that is simply hazardous. I would prefer if candidates would emphasize "decriminalization of drugs". It is not the drugs that cause the problem, anymore than it is the guns that kill people. It is the abuse of drugs, and the tacit permission of the courts that allow drugs to be an excuse for violating someone else's rights. Having been involved in EMS and in a minor way with LE, I have come across many people who have destroyed their own lives by abusing drugs. As self-destructive and offensive as some of us find this - it is still no one's business but their own.
When the drug abusers use the drugs as an excuse to abuse their wives and children, to destroy or to steal other peoples' property and lives, this is reprehensible. I personally do not care if you break into my house because you are a stoner in need of money to support your habit, or if you do it because you don't like me, or because you think you are entitled to take what I have earned - no excuse matters; you are invading my rights and should be punished.
By the same token I have known numerous people from all walks of life who did drugs occasionally, even as a weekend thing - who were responsible and contributing members of society, who did not infringe on any one else's rights, no different from the firefighter, cop, judge, or mechanic who goes down to the local pub on Saturday nights to watch the televised games and toss back a few; harming no one, relaxing and enjoying their lives.
We must separate the act from the physical substance. The physical substance is not to blame for the act. The individual is to blame for the act. If there is no invasion of others' rights, there is no crime. You can drink or smoke yourself into an early grave; you can abuse prescription drugs until your heart stops or your liver refuses to function, you can spend your last dime in Vegas gambling and end up panhandling on the street corner - your choice, your life, your death; not some nanny government's business. It is when you choose to invade someone else's rights - by assaulting them, taking what is theirs, taking away their rights - that you become a criminal - not before.
You are not going to stop an alcoholic from taking another drink, a mom from taking another 'sleep aid', a gambler from taking a dollar he finds in the gutter and shoving it into the nearest one-armed bandit, nor a druggie from crushing that can into a crack pipe, with legislation and imprisonment.
Gary Johnson needs to look more at his positions and solidify them with firm Constitutional (not anarchistic or neo-Libertarian) concepts and support, before he tries to enunciate them on a National platform.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.