Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

How come Ron Paul hasn't endorsed Gary Johnson yet?

page: 1
4

log in

join

posted on Oct, 5 2012 @ 08:38 PM
link   
I'm a big fan of Ron Paul and thank him for empowering the youth and creating and propelling his movement!



That said, why the is it so hard for him to even say the name Gary Johnson? At least it seems that way in a recent Fox Business New phone interview. Lets be honest, Ron Paul isn't taking the run for president seriously anymore, right? Is he not fully endorsing Gary Johnson because he hasn't officially dropped out of the race? Either way, I get the impression the name Gary Johnson leaves a bad taste in Ron Paul's mouth. Am I missing something?





posted on Oct, 5 2012 @ 09:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Swills
 


Listening to him I don't think he has decided yet because maybe Johnson isn't exactly who he wants to get behind. He knows that whoever he backs is most likely going to get a lot of his followers vote. That's a big decision for him I'm sure.
I wouldn't blame him if he doesn't endorse anyone and just keeps deflecting the question until the election is over. If I was running and I was asked who I would endorse I would say "myself". Maybe Ron Paul should also.



posted on Oct, 5 2012 @ 09:14 PM
link   
Ron Paul knows that every vote that goes to a third party is a vote for Obama.
He wants Obama to lose.
Easy as that.



posted on Oct, 5 2012 @ 09:23 PM
link   
Why would he?

Seriously?

Why should he back anyone at this point?

Johnson is a social conservative- Paul is a fiscal conservative.

Some of their beliefs are the same- but not all. They are two starkly different individuals.

I like Ron Paul- I like Johnson too. I just wouldnt expect Paul to come out cheerleading for anyone else at this point.
The GOP treated him like dirt this entire election season. Im sure he could give a F by now.



posted on Oct, 5 2012 @ 09:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thunderheart
Ron Paul knows that every vote that goes to a third party is a vote for Obama.
He wants Obama to lose.
Easy as that.


Why doesn't that vote go to Romney? Why Obama only?



posted on Oct, 5 2012 @ 09:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Common Good
Why would he?

Seriously?

Why should he back anyone at this point?

Johnson is a social conservative- Paul is a fiscal conservative.

Some of their beliefs are the same- but not all. They are two starkly different individuals.

I like Ron Paul- I like Johnson too. I just wouldnt expect Paul to come out cheerleading for anyone else at this point.
The GOP treated him like dirt this entire election season. Im sure he could give a F by now.


How is Johnson socially conservative? They are both social liberals and fiscal conservatives. There are differences in their own solutions to issues but they both follow similar themes.



posted on Oct, 5 2012 @ 09:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheLieWeLive

Originally posted by Thunderheart
Ron Paul knows that every vote that goes to a third party is a vote for Obama.
He wants Obama to lose.
Easy as that.


Why doesn't that vote go to Romney? Why Obama only?


Because most GOP folks are too narrow to accept the fact that Ron Paul had many liberals supporting him. It could be either way depending on the party that the voter normally rallies for.



posted on Oct, 5 2012 @ 10:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Cuervo
 


Ron Paul is not a Social Liberal. I dont know what you have been reading.

Fiscal(small government)conservatives are not social liberals.

Fiscal Conservatism and Social Liberalism are contradictory.



posted on Oct, 5 2012 @ 10:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Common Good
reply to post by Cuervo
 


Ron Paul is not a Social Liberal. I dont know what you have been reading.

Fiscal(small government)conservatives are not social liberals.

Fiscal Conservatism and Social Liberalism are contradictory.


I'm not sure you understand what "Fiscal" and "Social" mean. They are mutually exclusive concepts.



posted on Oct, 5 2012 @ 10:21 PM
link   
Common sense tells me it has to do with the same reason
Gary Johnson
never endorsed Ron Paul.



posted on Oct, 5 2012 @ 10:25 PM
link   
I never liked this whole endorsement concept.
Next thing you know Wall-mart will endorse McDonald's,
and share the same retail space.

Shopping Malls will have Food Courts where only endorsed corporations,
can share the same space, which limits our freedom of choice.



edit on 5-10-2012 by Rudy2shoes because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 5 2012 @ 10:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rudy2shoes
Common sense tells me it has to do with the same reason
Gary Johnson
never endorsed Ron Paul.


Not at all true.

Former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson Endorses Ron Paul


www.reuters.com...



posted on Oct, 6 2012 @ 10:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cuervo

Originally posted by Common Good
reply to post by Cuervo
 


Ron Paul is not a Social Liberal. I dont know what you have been reading.

Fiscal(small government)conservatives are not social liberals.

Fiscal Conservatism and Social Liberalism are contradictory.


I'm not sure you understand what "Fiscal" and "Social" mean. They are mutually exclusive concepts.


Oh I know what they mean, and I still stand by my statement of Ron Paul being more Socially Conservative than socially liberal.

If you wanna get technical, hes a social moderate, because he believes in rec use for pot, but not too big of a fan of abortions.
Hes a traditionalist, but he doesnt care what you do in your own bedroom. Hes small government.

And I can agree that they are both fiscally conservative. Just not socially liberal. Johnson is, but not Paul.

Not IMO at least.



posted on Oct, 6 2012 @ 01:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Common Good

Originally posted by Cuervo

Originally posted by Common Good
reply to post by Cuervo
 


Ron Paul is not a Social Liberal. I dont know what you have been reading.

Fiscal(small government)conservatives are not social liberals.

Fiscal Conservatism and Social Liberalism are contradictory.


I'm not sure you understand what "Fiscal" and "Social" mean. They are mutually exclusive concepts.


Oh I know what they mean, and I still stand by my statement of Ron Paul being more Socially Conservative than socially liberal.

If you wanna get technical, hes a social moderate, because he believes in rec use for pot, but not too big of a fan of abortions.
Hes a traditionalist, but he doesnt care what you do in your own bedroom. Hes small government.

And I can agree that they are both fiscally conservative. Just not socially liberal. Johnson is, but not Paul.

Not IMO at least.


But you said that "social liberal" and "fiscal conservative" were contradictory. This means you don't understand the definitions. And besides, RP and Johnson both want to legalize substances, legalize gay marriage, etc. That's socially liberal no matter what they think on their own time. Politically, that is liberal.



posted on Oct, 6 2012 @ 02:08 PM
link   
Yeah, I don't get it either. Johnson is the candidate whos policies are closest to Paul's. I mean, Johnson wants to end the FED and the IRS, and end the wars which is the biggest difference between the two hand picked idiots the establishment chose.

In the back of my mind, I can't help but wonder if Ron Paul and his family were threatened by the elite. When Rand sold out and endorsed Romney over his father (who wasn't even out of the race yet) things started just not sitting right with me.

Now Ron Paul refuses to endorse the candidate who shares most of his views. (not to mention, Johnson has endorsed Ron Paul in 2008 and 2012)

The only other reason I can think of on why Paul won't endorse Johnson is his son and the republican party. I sure hope this isn't the case because the republican party hates Ron Paul as we saw time and time again for over a year. Paul owes the GOP nothing, and he's made it clear before that he is not his son.

Dissapointing either way.
edit on 6-10-2012 by Wookiep because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 6 2012 @ 02:13 PM
link   
Ron Paul, or someone from his campaign was asked if he will endorse G. Johnson... His answer was a solid NO. Didn't tell why, though...



posted on Oct, 6 2012 @ 02:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Wookiep
 


Yeah I pretty much agree with everything you said there. At this point I'm convinced Dr. Paul isn't at all expecting to win the presidency come November and isn't taking it seriously anymore. Why not give your endorsement to the other guy whose running for president with the same party he ran for president the first time back in 1984? Ron Paul the Republican I never bought into. I always viewed him as a wolf in sheep's clothing posing as a Republican. So being that this year is his last year being in the political game why not endorse the man who not only closely resembles his positions but is also running with the party he once ran with? Hell, after the way Ron Paul has been treated by his "own" party is just 1 more great reason why Ron Paul should endorse Gary Johnson and too boot Ronny doesn't like either Romney or Obama, but yet he is still silent and can barely the name Gary Johnson. Something isn't right here and I say they got to him.

/tinfoil hat still on

So either he's doing it for Rand and or TPTB are trying to put a lid on him because lets be honest, if all the Independent voters all went to vote and voted for Gary Johnson he could very well win. But, keep these voters separated and split on candidates then that means the R & D will win.

So I say F Rand Paul and give your endorsement to Gary Johnson. Release your supporters to the other guy, the Independent, and see what happens. May be history in the making.

Reality Check: Who Is Behind The Commission on Presidential Debates? Are The Debates Rigged?



edit on 6-10-2012 by Swills because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 6 2012 @ 02:31 PM
link   
Because it's not himself.
edit on 6-10-2012 by rambo1112 because: (no reason given)





new topics

top topics



 
4

log in

join