Election 2016

"This Libertarian Is Too Freakey-Deakey To Be President": Gary Johnson on Full Frontal

Former Daily Show reporter Samantha Bee sits down - and goes rock climbing - with the LP nominee for president.

|

Fun, slightly disturbing interview of Libertarian Party presidential candidate and former two-term New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson by Samantha Bee of Full Frontal.

Among the magic moments:

Johnson: "I'm for Uber everything."

Bee: "Not looking forward to surge pricing in the middle of a colonscopy."

Like Larry King, Bee says she likes "every other thing" Johnson espouses. As King told Reason a year ago, "I like Gary Johnson a lot, we've had him on a lot. He's a good guy, I agree with half of what he says."

NEXT: The growing battle over the use of eminent domain to take property for pipelines

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. What is this show and why do I get a Jon Stewart feel during the interview?

    1. She used to be on his show. She’s the “next John Stewart” don’t you know.

      So I expect blatant lies and editing trickery.

      1. And as I recall her segments were some of the most deceptively edited to make the subject look bad on that show. Ans she wasn’t very funny either.

        1. Pretty much. She’s pretty insufferable too. Smug, yet ignorant.

          1. If Bee comes out in support of Johnson, that would be the most damning thing I’ve ever heard against his candidacy.

            1. ^Holy shit, if that isn’t the truth, nothing is.

    2. She was a correspondent on the Daily Show for years. And she’s Canadian.

      1. And she’s Canadian.

        They’re a foul race.

    3. Hah….was just about to ask the same thing.

    4. It’s like when Carson left The Tonight Show. Suddenly, that audience was up for grabs, and the networks have been duking it out for that audience ever since.

      Stewart’s gone, and they gave his job to a black guy. Colbert isn’t doing that kind of show anymore. So, yeah, you get a lot of competition. They’re probably using the same writers Stewart used to use, too.

      1. They’re probably using the same writers Stewart used to use, too.

        Well, they were willing to work cheap as no one else would hire them.

        1. I always thought Stewart’s show was basically a rip off of Saturday Night Live and their Weekend Update segment.

          Colbert was ripping off Sam the Eagle from The Muppet Show (itself a parody of Cronkite) by way of Les Nessman.

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pjf4WgIzdV0

          1. I always through Sam the Eagle was a John Birch Society parody.

      2. Colbert isn’t doing that kind of show anymore.

        From the few minute bursts of that show he’s on now, I think you are totally off base here.

        1. Left out : “That I’m able to tolerate,…”

    5. I’m pretty sure the show is called “Burning Down Straw Men with Samantha Bee” and is a weak imitation of the John Stewart era Daily Show.

    6. She’s Jon Stewart with breasts. Much like John Oliver is Jon Stewart with a British accent. And the Trevor what’s-his-name is Jon Stewart, but like 30 years younger. Same shtick, different face. Stewart cracked the code on how to have a popular program.

      1. Jon Stewart got a lot of hate around here, but in the context of comedy and timing, Stewart was an excellent, and very bright comedian. And when people sat at his desk for interviews (not the bullshit edited ones which I stopped watching years ago), even if Stewart didn’t agree with his subject, he always seemed respectful of the person sitting across from him.

        This is nothing more than sketch comedy where the subject has sometimes been utterly unaware of the format.

        1. Not always. And one of his tactics was to switch from serious interviewer to pandering comedian when the interviewee was gaining ground in the debate. He had a trained seal audience and used them to dig himself out of holes.

          1. I have to say it was his audience that bothered me the most. Same as with Maher.

            1. This. Again, going back to separating Stewart, his show and his audience, they really were different animals. Stewart was making a comedy show. His audience treated it as hard hitting news.

        2. Stewart was at least funny. Still a mendacious hack, but funny. The rest of these losers don’t even have that going for them.

          1. Remember when conservatives had a few hamfisted attempts at comedy shows and they were terrible? “Why can’t conservatives be funny?” People would point to Stewart and Colbert as examples that only liberals can be funny. Well, maybe they were flukes, because these new hosts remind me a lot of those terrible conservative comedy shows. They just aren’t funny.

            1. Actually, I thought Redeye was pretty entertaining.

              1. INTENTIONALLY funny.

        3. If he attacked everyone with the same force, people could respect him. He’s a great comedian, but he let the gutter coke of politics eat his nose away.

          1. This. When Bush was in office I never missed an episode of the Daily Show or Colbert Report. I thought they were “fighting the power” and “sticking it to the man”, or whatever. Then Obama came into office and the apologetics started, and I quickly recognized their true nature as partisan hacks.

        4. I agree with you that Jon was the pinnacle of this craft. I’ve seen all these shows and don’t find a TON of difference though. But I appreciate your response :).

        5. Stewart was funny earlier in his career, but he pretty much fell back to that tiresome ironic incredulity that became his mainstay and made him unwatchable to anyone outside of the mindless cult that became his core audience. His career ended the exact same day that George W. Bush completed his second term.

      2. I disagree. John Oliver is much more likable than the others. (Colbert was somewhat likable, but he was playing a character?it was an oddly charming character, and his ‘actual personality’ seems graceful and decent.)

        That summer that Oliver took over for Stewart on the Daily Show?that was the best the show was in a long, long time.

        Bee and Noah are just insufferable. As smug as Stewart, with none of the (few (I really don’t care for Stewart)) redeeming qualities.

        The black girl (Jessica something?) who was on the show in the same period as Bee was much funnier. Give her a show. Bee might be the worst correspondent they’ve ever had.

        1. And, in Oliver’s defen*c*e – his new show is often on point and mostly correct. He’s pointed out union hypocrisy multiple times on ‘The Daily Show’.

          Then he’ll go and completely fuck things up with episodes like the PR debt one.

  2. Ok, so the interviewer summed up:

    Pro:

    Auto-industry bailouts.
    Student loan bubble
    Teacher’s Unions
    Un-free markets*

    *I’m not listing this as a con, because she looked shocked when he said ‘free markets’. Like “whoa”.

    Anyhoo, I’m a bit tired of the “edited interview for comedy” purposes. Especially considering how many college educated people personally claimed they actually get their news from this format.

    1. If the point was to make Johnson specifically and libertarians generally look likeable and not scary, then Johnson hit a home run in that segment.

      And he got at least two RBIs.

      1. I think the point, ala Jon Stewart, was to make Libertarians look kooky and unserious. If I recall the Stewart show, those “edited interview segments” were specifically designed for the subject that deserved kooky treatment.

        For instance, I suspect the producers and writers would never consider interviewing Hillary Clinton on that format. She’d have sat at the desk with Stewart. And really, to Clinton’s credit, she’d never allow herself to be interviewed that way. Ever.

        1. “I think the point, ala Jon Stewart, was to make Libertarians look kooky and unserious.”

          I thought the point was to make fun of not taking him seriously and rib Americans for not taking him seriously.

          It is a comedy show. It’s supposed to be funny. Even when they did sit down interviews with Steward, they were supposed to be funny.

          As Steward famously quipped at one time (paraphrasing), “This is the Comedy Central. My lead in show is bunch of sock puppets making crank phone calls”.

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s_9WN_9D2nY

          1. Stewart certainly knew his show was comedy, it’s unfortunate so much of his audience didn’t.

            1. His audience turned out for the laughs.

              The butt of political jokes, of course, do and should take political. comedy seriously.

              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XppeqGaUSlM

              Hell, Jimmy Carter was laughed out of the White House.

      2. That’s typically the goal of progs.

        “You absolutely HAVE TO vote for Clinton in November. Do you want these kooky libertarians running things and taking away your Medicare?!”

        Yes, Medicare. They will scare Millennials about Medicare and those na?ve young ones will fall for it.

        1. We here at Hit & Run should be the last ones to misunderstand sarcasm. I think we’ve just been traumatized by 35 years of ridicule.

          It is possible to be both sarcastic and serious at the same time, but the overall point of this segment, if anything, was that in a competition between Trump and Johnson, Johnson should be taken seriously.

          Yes, the whole thing was sarcastic. It’s a sarcastic show.

          Johnson scored points for libertarians and our acceptability by the mainstream with that appearance. It was a victory for the big tent.

          1. Yeah, I agree with Ken. Sure, most of these comedians are in some sense progressives, but they’re just doing their job. It’s a political comedy show. I don’t think most of them really care that much about the politics, so much as the comedy and their brand.

            This isn’t Salon. The hackery is subtle and probably not even really there. I doubt they care that much. (What was it Louis said about misanthropic Ivy League graduates writing for comedy shows? They’re just self-involved. Probably cantankerous alcoholics, as many comedians seem to be. Hackery for political causes? Why bother?)

            1. *Louis CK, not XIVXXXCCCABCD or whoever.

            2. In what sense *aren’t* they progs?

              I could believe they don’t care that much if they ever took some serious swings at the left, but they never do. Stewart would occasionally take some very mild, tepid shot at a Democrat, but that was about it.

              1. In the sense that most of them aren’t agitating for social justice and hitting every ostensible nail with an identity-politics hammer. They’re mostly self-involved and self-motivated.

                When Tina Fey stopped doing Weekend Update, she stopped feigning to really give a fuck. When Marc Maron stopped doing his Air America radio show, he was mostly just left with an overall distaste for politics and turned to the personal.

                The Al Frankens are mercifully very rare.

      3. That’s probably her plan ? get the audience watching Gary for the first time to come away thinking that he’s a little goofy but worth a closer look. Then scratch that itch for more information with part 2 of the interview where she will focus on the batshit crazy convention funfest. It’s the perfect set up piece to ultimately scare the audience back to safety of Hillary and get them to pay no more attention to Gary. Stay tuned

        1. That is probably the best explanation.

  3. Bee: “Not looking forward to surge pricing in the middle of a colonscopy.”

    1. That’s not how surge pricing works, Bee.

    2. Fine, have it your way. Call us back in 3 months to see if we have an opening to schedule you an appointment with our appointment scheduler.

    1. dammit

      1. *does a little dance, does a little dance, on his catwalk*

    2. “1. That’s not how surge pricing works, Bee.”

      I dare you to ask Bee or any of her ilk to explain to you what ‘free market’ means. I bet you cant listen for 30 seconds without jamming your fingers into your ears, closing your eyes and falling down on the ground while screaming “Stop! Stop! Just stop!”

      1. I dare you to ask Bee or any of her ilk to explain to you what ‘free market’ means.

        Koch brothers.

        *drops microphone*

        1. Koch brothers bad.

          Kochs own/are libertarians.

          Libertarians bad.

          That’s the extent of the thought process.

      2. I’m sure she figures it out just fine at contract time with TBS, then conveniently forgets it after the deal is signed.

    3. Eh… who cares how surge pricing works. The point is that stupid people bought something for more than they thought it was worth. So, obviously some evil corporation fucked them over.

      The fact that they agreed to the price before receiving the service means nothing.

      1. No, the complaint is that the price goes up when they “need” it the most and demand is highest. You should be able to pay your driver the exact same amount every time and the driver should drive through a blizzard for the same pay.

  4. Bee: “Not looking forward to surge pricing in the middle of a colonscopy.”

    then wait 6 months like in Canada or the UK and hope you don’t have cancer now.

    not to mention that Uber doesn’t surge price in the middle of a ride.

  5. Wasting time with a Jon Stewart leftist? Oy.

    Might as well sit down with Trevor Noah on The Daily Show since he had Rand Paul on during the GOP primaries and seemed genuinely enthused.

    1. According to Reason, these are the people we need to impress.

      1. Rand did a pretty good job while talking with Trevor Noah. I think it incrementally makes a difference. “He is just another evil republican” goes away when he proves he is not that.

        1. the one thing I’m truly sad about this election, and the thing that makes me scoff at the idea of a “libertarian moment”, is how little traction Rand got. No, he’s not perfect, but he’s the closest thing to a libertarian major party candidate we’re likely to get, unless by some miracle Amash’s stock skyrockets within the GOP. Which a)is unlikely b)still doesn’t speak to any desire on his part to run for higher office in the first place.

          I’ll take Rand over Johnson every time.

          1. the one thing I’m truly sad about this election, and the thing that makes me scoff at the idea of a “libertarian moment”, is how little traction Rand got.

            yes

            I’m also miffed at the way he got treated in these pages for his perceived deviance from Dogma; yet its all smiles and ‘sins forgiven’ for anything Johnson/Weld let utter from their collective derp-holes.

            I would also take Rand every time.

            1. Exactly. Rand was held to a higher standard than Johnson.

              1. Ah, but Gary is pro abortion and pro bugger wedding cakes, so all is forgiven in the world of Reason editors.

          2. For some reason Rand decided to go all in on religion, which was obviously the wrong way to go in this election.

            I like Gary, but he is so goofy, but at least he is not evil.

            1. Yes, obviously, because the Republican Party is so hostile to religion.

              Which is why Cruz got about 600x more delegates than Rand.

          3. “the one thing I’m truly sad about this election, and the thing that makes me scoff at the idea of a “libertarian moment”, is how little traction Rand got.”

            It doesnt just make me scoff at the libertarian moment, I was really disheartened about nearly everything. I knew then we were all going to be eating shit sandwiches no matter how the election turns out. The shitshow that has commenced since then confirms that.

            To be fair to the voters their poor judgement doesnt quite hit 11. Rand did run an awful campaign.

          4. From the popular perspective, the GOP primaries boiled down to a single issue… were you running as Donald Trump or were you running as a person who isn’t Donald Trump. Rand was one of about a dozen people running on a platform of not being Trump. He got lost in the crowd of non-Trumps. Unfortunately, a large chunk of people who might have voted for him were already satisfying their contrarian urges via Trump. I voted for him, but he had already dropped out at that point.

            From the perspective of this website, I think Crusty is correct. He ditched too much of his libertarian-ish cred in an attempt to appeal to the larger GOP audience. That’s how he got lost among the also-rans.

            Johnson has some issues with his “purity”, but he isn’t as far right as Rand and he hasn’t (yet) made as much of a rightward shift as Rand did.

        2. “He is just another evil republican” goes away when he proves he is not that

          until the commercial break, maybe.

      2. Well, they are. As is everyone else. We aren’t going to win a ton of converts anywhere, but there is more than a handful of people on here (myself included) who were left leaning, if not outright socialists in our younger days. People do sometimes change their minds.

        1. A person who can present libertarianish ideas to an audience who would dismiss them because Republicans are not “cool,” or Ayn Rand sucks, is important. It is especially important because GJ is the only person saying he would legalize marijuana and not bomb the shit out of ISIS.

          1. Absolutely. I’m not going to say that people are wrong in all their criticisms of Johnson, but I still think he is a very good candidate to have running. If we could elect someone who was really good on even just one libertarian issue it would be fantastic. But no, we have to bitch about how he doesn’t loudly oppose public accommodation laws and then argue about gay marriage some more.

          2. Rand Paul put his dick on the chopping block standing up for inalienable rights and this governments flagrant violation of them, and that was long before election season. He is a smart guy, well educated and apparently a pretty decent human being.

            When I explained that to people I got nothing but blank stares.

    2. Trevor Noah on The Daily Show since he had Rand Paul on during the GOP primaries and seemed genuinely enthused.

      This may be why Stewart’s old audience isn’t very enthused with Noah.

  6. So I guess Gary wanted to look cool or something? Any reasonable person who follows these programs would know that your being on there is a sure fire way to NOT appeal to younger people. But I suppose his campaign team just wants that sweet sweet face time on air.

    1. I read articles here and I have watched only a single speech or campaign event so I know little about the candidates personalities, but I get the impression that Johnson is really an awful politician. Too much of the wacky weed? He seems dull.

      *the only event was Trump’s press conference about his raising money for vets. It was short and he was engaging enough to keep watching. When the press began asking questions they were very dishonest and asked leading questions, begged the question like crazy, etc. The press coverage on it the next day was stunning. They really were telling bald faced lies.

      One of the reasons Trump gets the support he does is because the press is so transparently in the tank for the established political class and lies their asses off about anyone that challenges them. There are some writers around here that should get that through their thick skulls. Put down your goddamned cocktails and pick your integrity back up.

      1. One of the reasons Trump gets the support he does is because the press is so transparently in the tank for the established political class and lies their asses off about anyone that challenges them.

        The article last week about the pol in the Philippines who spoke openly about shooting journalists is a prime example. How many people (not here on this site, obviously) shared his sentiment? To most Americans, it sure looks like journalists are corrupt party hacks who try to skew the coverage to the establishment Democrat as much as possible. My dad has said to me multiple times, “The media is going to choose our next president,” and he’s convinced it’s going to be Hillary unless a miracle occurs, despite his disgust for the Democratic establishment. I know he’s far from being alone in his assessment.

  7. Go easy on Gay Jay, guys.

    He’s a washed up politician who has decided to run third party; in effect he has leapt from a big pond into a little one, leapt from a pond full of bigger fish to one that only has smaller ones, making him the #1 fish in his little backwater pond.

    Politicians, being worthless parasitic scum, are generally either very evil or very stupid. The evil ones thrive in the major parties; the stupid ones can be found throughout the ecosystem. It’s likely Gay Jay is one of the stupid ones.

    The desperation for people to notice him shouldn’t be surprising.

    1. That sums it up nicely.

    2. Thank you, tarran. Well said.

  8. Is that a Comedy Central show?

    1. TBS. Which shows stuff other than the NBA, apparently.

      1. Sure they do – they also show endless re-runs of Seinfeld. Not that I mind.

        1. There is apparently a show with Sam Bee’s husband and Natalie Zea which is almost assuredly terrible, but hey, Natalie Zea.

          1. wow you just summed up justified.

          2. Sam Bee’s husband

            Yeeesh! So………………….he blind, or something?

            1. I think it would be better to be deaf if you were married to her. Dead would be better still.

  9. If anyone wonders why I want Gillespie fired, his last two articles are prime examples. Libertarianism is a big tent party with plenty of room for progressives, and plenty of room for compromise on their social issues. But wait…social conservatives? Nah, those people are icky (even though they are far more likely to agree with libertarians on most things than progressives – who agree on just about nothing).

    If your libertarianism boils down to ass sex, Mexicans, and weed – you are a shitty libertarian.

    1. If anyone wonders why I want Gillespie fired, his last two articles are prime examples.

      Who do you think is waiting in the wings to take his place? someone MORE interested in core-libertarian ideas, and less concerned with pandering to the millenial-left?

      what irritates me is this idea that merely by overlapping with “social liberals” we’re supposed to therefore be able to sell them on “the other stuff”. (which of course they spend no time or effort really trying to ‘push’)

      Its a foolish presumption. We don’t overlap w/ social-liberals for the same reasons.

      It seems to be the opinion of the editorial-board here that it will be harder to convince conservatives to reduce our military-footprint, or be more-open to gay marriage or legal weed …. than it is to convince a MSNBC liberal that “less government” is a noble objective.

      Why they believe this, i don’t know. But i think its insane, and from what i’ve seen there’s little/no evidence that way lies “growth”.

      1. I’ll just point out that I came to hard-core libertarianism through interest in drug policy. Like I said above, you aren’t going to convince most people. But there are people out there in the cultural left who can be convinced.
        Maybe there are more on the right. The economics is certainly an easier sell there. But there is an awful lot of commitment to the war on drugs, supporting the police, trade protectionism and an enormous military there as well.

        1. Not so long as the Kochs agree (“principals over principles,” right?).

          Criminal justice reform? Oh wait, Rand Paul and the Koch brothers want that. Must be bad.

          1. My point is that there are people who can be turned away from that kind of thinking. Even if it is a small number, it’s not pointless to try.

            Funny thing about the Kochs is that they do agree with the social liberals on a lot of things. And almost none of them have any clue.

        2. You don’t need to convince people. That’s an uphill battle that leads to silly unproductive ego battles. You sell them on the overlap that they’re willing to buy. Know your audience. People can vote for the right person without having to chug the whole jug of ideological Kool-Aid first.

        3. But there are people out there in the cultural left who can be convinced.

          Twenty years ago, I would have said you were right. But, today, the cultural left isn’t liberal. It’s progressive.

      2. It seems to be the opinion of the editorial-board here that it will be harder to convince conservatives to reduce our military-footprint, or be more-open to gay marriage or legal weed

        While the rank-and-file “conservatives” are backing Trump who is running on reducing our military footprint, seems fine with gay marriage and, for over 20 years, wanted to legalize ALL the drugs.

      3. Good point. How many Rand Pauls or Justin Amashes are there in Congress on the Democratic side?

        Why have most (all?) LP presidential candidates of the last few years come from the Republican Party? Yet Reason and Johnson/Weld want to focus on peeling off some Bernie supporters. Missed opportunity.

    2. Nick just needs an intervention. His cocktail addiction is starting to spill into his professional life.

    3. I don’t know – can’t we just put Matt in charge? He’s far less ridiculous and will piss of the yokels less, but still cosmo-y enough for the cosmos.

      1. Matt is in charge of the magazine. Which is probably why he writes fewer columns these days.

        1. And the magazine is just fine. Only the website has gone off the rails.

          1. I do rarely bother to read Nick’s stuff anymore. Is there stuff on the website besides H&R?

    4. Libertarianism is a big tent party with plenty of room for progressives, and plenty of room for compromise on their social issues.

      It’s easier to get them to compromise for us sometimes.

      Nah, those people are icky (even though they are far more likely to agree with libertarians on most things than progressives

      Not really.

  10. Christ, that was awkward. For a dude who got into politics 20 years ago, he sure seems to have a hard time not seeming like that one creepy neighbor everyone has.

    I’m sure this was edited to make him look fringier, but some of the inflections and facial expressions he used have no valid reason to exist on a human.

    1. That’s just you.

      Interviewer: “Your name sounds like someone in a witness protection program. Who is Gary Johnson?”

      Gary Johnson: “Just google him!”

      Voice Over: “Gary Johnson is a two-time governor of New Mexico”.

      Gary Johnson didn’t look creepy at all. He looked the opposite of creepy.

      “Psychological projection is a theory in psychology in which humans defend themselves against their own unconscious impulses or qualities ( both positive and negative ) by denying their existence while attributing them to others.”

      Maybe we imagine other people think libertarians are sooooooo creepy, and since we’re libertarians, we want to project that creepiness onto Johnson?

      It’s not our fault everybody thinks we’re creepy–it’s Johnson’s fault!!!

      This from a segment meant to make fun of people for imagining that Johnson is creepy.

    2. If everyone has that creepy neighbor, doesn’t that mean that an awful lot of people are that creepy neighbor? I think you are underestimating the political clout of the creepy neighbor demographic.

    3. If you look at Gary Johnson and see a refined public speaker, you are drinking the kool-aid. That video is a prime example. He comes off as awkward, for some reason he seems to be kind of shaking like he has parkinson’s, and his voice sounds like the gay Southern dude from Family Guy. He isn’t winning over progressives who have been conditioned to support government on reflex. He isn’t going to win over conservatives because of his complete lack of charisma and the positions he’s ‘compromised’ on.

  11. Dude that looks like its gonna be good. Wow.

    http://www.Got-Anon.tk

  12. Please replace that home page image on your website please.

  13. The problem is, they don’t understand the other half of what he says.

  14. Re: The Fair Tax discussion in a Johnson thread yesterday.

    My issue with it is that it would require a constitutional amendment and require one to be repealed. This pretty much makes it a non-starter politically.

    Second issue is that it would surely get hijacked, turned into a VAT, and then the income tax would still exist and we’d be like Europe.

    Thirdly consumption taxes, even if you exempt food are highly regressive. Marginal propensities and all, it’s a brutal way to tax for the poor and middle class. Without the social safety nets / free shit from the governments in Europe, it truly would be hell to burden with the VAT.

    A NIT is a much better idea. The FairTax already has a rebate thing that’s like a UBI anyway, it would be more effective to simply push for a NIT that added means testing to the equation and use the IRS to do it. This is a much more realistic goal than amending the constitution to remove the IRS and to replace with a consumption tax.

    Of course neither of these ideas are truly libertarian solutions, but they are the best we’re going to get and it would reduce government spending a lot. It would also have libertarian consequences in the way the poor spend their money.

    1. I just can’t understand why you’d go so far as to try to amend the constitution, risk the whole thing getting hijacked and turned into a VAT and then also risk not even eliminating the IRS.

      NIT as a replacement of other social programs is a goal that might actually have some tiny chance in hell of succeeding and would save us a shitload of money.

      It would also have positive effects on the poor and give them an incentive to make money because they would still get subsidized somewhat as long as they are making below a certain amount.

      Of course you could argue the NIT might get hijacked and just tacked on to current social programs. However, I think the FairTax getting hijacked is a far worse scenario and would pretty much lock us into European style VAT + Income tax combo from hell.

      It’s just so much more realistic especially short term to push for a more simple income tax code and to replace all or most social programs with a means tested NIT.

      1. You’re ruining my utopia with your realism… stop it

    2. My issue with it is that it would require a constitutional amendment and require one to be repealed.

      First of all a national sales tax is a retarded idea. But, why would it need a constitutional amendment? It wouldn’t.

  15. Fun, slightly disturbing interview of Libertarian Party presidential candidate and former two-term New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson by Samantha Bee of Full Frontal.

    Another way to put it: The disgusting pig who is known for blatantly dishonest editing sits down with Libertarian Party presidential candidate Gary Johnson who naively accepts to be interviewed by the disgusting pig of a person. Oh, and she’s also a Marxian.

  16. RE: “This Libertarian Is Too Freakey-Deakey To Be President”: Gary Johnson on Full Frontal
    Former Daily Show reporter Samantha Bee sits down – and goes rock climbing – with the LP nominee for president.

    Really?
    Mr. Johnson is “too freaky-deaky to be president?”
    Obviously this woman hasn’t taken a good look at Comrade Sanders, Heil Hitler or Trump the Grump.
    Perhaps we should all chip in to buy this woman some glasses and a hearing aid for her.
    Or maybe she was just born brain dead.
    Then we can’t help her.

  17. Dear Gary,

    Start wearing collared shirts with your sport coats. You’ll look more presidential and no additional cost.

    1. Yes. I do agree with this. Looking professional will at least make him look like he is taking the role seriously.

    2. I think this is now a core part of his schtick. “I’m a libertarian; you don’t tell me what to do or how to dress, man!”

      It’s exactly the kind of thing you would expect someone play-acting at being a libertarian to do.

  18. “I’m for Uber everything.”

    Um. Ich bin f?r uber alles?

    1. California uber alles!
      uber alles California!

    2. You looking to get him banned in Germany?

  19. Is Gary moonlighting as an understudy for an off-Broadway production of Miami Vice:the musical? You know, in case this whole president thing doesn’t work out.

  20. I was cringing though this and convinced it was a complete disaster and embarrassment… and then I dared to read the comments on YouTubez and finding lots of positive vibez sprinkled among the “what about Bernie/Jill Stein” babble… so what the fuck do I know anymore… shine on you crazy candidate!

    CE DA
    I’m sincerely thinking of voting for him?

    CharlemagneXVII
    I’m voting for him. He’s got a sense of humor, he’s not politically correct but he’s also not crazy like Trump, and he’s honest unlike Hillary. Sounds like the only decent option.?

    Brian C
    I may not support Gary right now, but I am definitely liking him! He is not an establishment politician like Hillary and he has gubernatorial experience unlike Trump!

    Katrina K
    I would totally vote for him over Trump or Hillary!?

    Similitude
    I don’t necessarily agree with all parts of his platform but he seems like a really cool and interesting person.?

    Jelena Fivesmiths
    He won me with that whispered “…gravitas…” XD?

    Lorenz M?ller
    Sanest man running for office!!!! Gary Johnson 2016!?

    master procrastinator
    ok gary johnson> trump or clinton?

    JPC viral
    He sure knows how to have great time. He’s got MY vote.?

    ??????? Antonis
    For some reason I find him very sexy. Such a DILF.?

    Anne Stoessel
    I like him! johnson 2K16!?

    Chris York
    I love that he’s clearly having fun with this interview.?

  21. I’m sure this sequence was creatively edited to make Johnson look goofy, as a setup for profiling the weirdos at the LP convention in Part 2.

    Still…

    He came across as a nice guy.

    And the stuff he was saying wasn’t the stuff about accommodating himself to the establishment, instead it sounded like he was attacking most of the establishment policies which have gotten us to where we are today. So good for him.

    If I weren’t a sky-daddy bleever fundy, I’d really be turned on – politically – by this presentation.

    And so far, contrary to what I feared, the progs are not exploiting his “concession” about compulsory cakes to attack “extremists who reject the views of this responsible libertarian” etc.

    Of course, I know where Bee is going with this, as someone mentioned above…with a follow-up story about the goofiness of the LP convention, it will be “OK, audience, you’ve had your fun imagining this guy as President, but come on, you’re not going to leave the Demcratic reservation for *him,* are you?”

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.