Gary Johnson

Gary Johnson Explains His Foreign Policy Beliefs to The Los Angeles Times

He's "skeptical" of intervention but still seems to think most of the world's perceived menaces require some sort of, not always specified, U.S. action. Interview also hits health care, coal, the fair tax, and why he thinks the EPA is sometimes necessary.

|

The Los Angeles Times' editorial board interviewed Libertarian Party presidential candidate Gary Johnson.

Johnson continues to take things with his version of light wit, such as pretending it was the first time he'd been asked why anyone should bother thinking of voting for him, given how unlikely it is he'd win. He repeats, as he often does, his team's unique combination of being fiscally conservative and socially liberal, and "skeptical" about military intervention, and in support of free trade, with a general yen for giving the American people "choice" so long as those choices "don't put others in harm's way." That's a decent overview of the libertarian message.

Paul Hennessy/Newscom

Johnson says he believes his polling would come out as high as 20 percent if voters were first asked their presidential preference question including all the choices, rather than starting with Clinton/Trump and asking a second question including him. (I don't instantly see why that would be, but I might be missing something.) He repeats his self-deprecating recognition that in the search for any other choice Mickey Mouse would likely outpoll him if he were in the mix—"But Mickey's not on the ballot in all 50 states."

Johnson also stresses his support for immigration, and critiques both Trump (for a grabbag of his inhumane and anti-economic liberty stances) and Clinton (for being "beholden" and overly establishment—under Clinton, "Nothing's gonna really change, government's gonna have the answer to everything, and that's gonna mean taxes are gonna go up. If taxes go up, in my opinion, that's less money out of my pocket that I could be spending on my life.") He also slams her hawkish past and likely future.

The Times then presses him in great detail on his foreign policy thought. It's difficult to know whether you actually understand what specifically a Johnson administration would do from his answers.

He is confident that "ISIS really is regionally contained, they're not going anywhere. Think of ISIS as sand through an hourglass right now. I mean, they're done. They're cooked." When pressed as to what this means about what the U.S.'s actions toward them should be, Johnson answers "That we do continue to knock ISIS out and that that is inevitable." How and why this must be done is unclear, and becomes more so as Johnson goes on to question the efficacy of drones in terms of collateral damage, and says while he "supported going into Afghanistan at the beginning" we should now get out, though there will never be an optimal time to do so.

Johnson is pressed on the specifics of his foreign policy thought deeper than usual in this interview. It's not always clear what his actions would be, nor even how best to characterize his overall outlook. "I think the biggest threat in the world right now is North Korea," Johnson says, and says he wants to "get…them disarmed, joining with China diplomatically to address this situation." (Johnson had told me earlier that this does not mean joining China in actual military action against them, though it's hard to tell what it does mean specifically. As with his vague ISIS answer above, while always mentioning his "skepticism" he also seem reluctant to just say that some foreign perceived menace might not necessarily be our business to combat in any way, nor to specify in a way that would satisfy a military tactician or strategist exactly how we are to solve the problem.)

His answer on NATO also pivots from "We need to honor our treaty obligations" to saying we should reexamine them "and do we really want to go to war with Russia over the Baltic states?"

The interview goes beyond just foreign policy into great detail about Johnson's "fair tax" beliefs and his thoughts on the medical market—"What is genuinely needed when it comes to healthcare is a free-market approach, recognizing that healthcare right now is about as far removed from the free market as it could be. I reject the notion that in a free-market approach to healthcare we would have insurance to cover ongoing medical need. We would have insurance to cover ourselves for catastrophic injury and illness and we would pay as you go for a system that I believe would be absolutely affordable."

He tells an anecdote of environmental regulation during his days as governor of New Mexico in which he felt it necessary to bring a bad actor contaminator of the Red River, Molycorp, to heel by having them declared a federal Superfund site.

"So there's an example of the EPA and why the EPA should exist. And why government should exist to protect us against those who would do us harm," Johnson says. He openly disagrees with a standard libertarian argument for tort rather than regulation as a more efficient and just solution to environmental harms. "And in this case the Libertarian argument would be, as individuals we could have brought suit against polluters. We can bring suit individually. Well, in the case of Molycorp, you know what, they would have been able to withstand any individuals trying to bring that suit against them."

He also repeats an argument that aggravated many Libertarians at the convention that nominated him, his belief that the forces that are driving coal prices down lately are not from government pressure but that "The free market has brought an end to the coal industry." He says he believes in man-made global warming and is "open also the the notion of a carbon tax."

It is one of the most wide-ranging, and deep, interviews hitting Johnson on a wide gamut of current policy issues, well worth a full read.

NEXT: Zika Hits Florida - Avoid Travel to Affected Areas Warns CDC

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. “Think of ISIS as sand through an hourglass right now. I mean, they’re done. They’re cooked.”

    So are the days of Gary and William’s lives.

    1. To Whom It May Concern:

      This is not a threat; it’s a reference to a fucking *soap opera*.

      1. Let’s hope that is how our overlords interpreet it.

        1. What you did there, I saw it.

      2. Too late…no backsies.

      3. Some elderly soap opera actor named Macaulay Culkin or something like that used to say that at the beginning of each daily episode: “like sands through the hourglass…..these are the Days of our Lives.”

        1. “Dust…wind…dude…”

      4. Like the authorities would give a shit about death threats against a libertarian.

    1. C’mon, man. That comment is like saying “Blowflies love shit. Lemme show ya.” and then proceeding to shit on the dinner table.

      1. He’s plagiarizing my material.

        Unlike Melania, however, I don’t want to see him naked.

        1. Melania wants to see him naked?

  2. “So there’s an example of the EPA and why the EPA should exist. And why government should exist to protect us against those who would do us harm,”

    The EPA can absolutely exist, it just can’t exist in its current form and be within 10,000 miles of constitutionality. Every regulatory agency currently operating (and I dare not count them all) can in fact exist. They just can’t pass any laws regulations.

    The EPA and agencies like it should only be advisory agencies– and with that can also be the enforcement arm of the regulations passed by Congress. But the EPA can no longer be legislator, cop, judge, jury and executioner of US environmental policy.

    1. The EPA can absolutely exist, it just can’t exist in its current form and be within 10,000 miles of constitutionality.

      In addition to the illegitimacy of agency legislation, I mean, regulations, there’s also the small matter of which enumerated power is it, exactly, that the EPA is exercising?

      Believe it or not, the EPA is a creature of the interstate commerce clause, even though it regulates neither.

      1. I’m throwing the the federal government a bone here.

        I’m admitting that we’re so out of phase with enumerated powers that the obese, 420lb genie is never going back in the bottle. So let’s at least keep the three branches of government in check– and make sure what legislation we do have was passed by a body of elected representatives chosen by the people. If the feds are going to overstep, they’re going to do it with our direct consent.

        1. If the feds are going to overstep, they’re going to do it with our direct consent.

          Direct consent is, you have a bunch of choices, and can choose none of them if you want.

          Voting in an election where you are not the deciding vote, for someone who is not bound to abide by their campaign promises, and who can make choices affecting you even if you vote against the winner, is hardly direct OR consent.

          1. Electing our criminals is better than having them appointed, no? Can we agree on that?

      2. I think the answer is state level epa, regulating local pollution.

        Federal epa should have to demonstrate real interstate harm. Not the marijuana penumbras of interstate commerce.

  3. Better than the other three but still an inarticulate and jumbled mess with no philosophical foundation. He’d make a fine liberal Republican though (because that’s what he is).

    1. Darrell Castle, Constitution Party

  4. Darrell Castle is 10x as libertarian is Gary Johnson. And on top of that he doesn’t bend over backwards to appeal to proggies, either

    1. Constitution Party

      1. Not a critique, I’m all for voting your conscious, but is Castle gonna be on enough state ballots to hypothetically win? I did a cursory DuckDuckGO and I was gonna have to do math to figure it out and I’m too drunk to want to do math.

        1. “Bill Mohr, who chairs the U.S. Taxpayers Party of Michigan (the CP’s state affiliate), told AFP that while the CP has ballot access in 19 states, it’s intent on soon getting at least five more, to establish the basis for getting sufficient electoral votes.”

          Here is their ballot-access map.

          1. And even by taking a few states, they’d theoretically be able to move the election into the House of Representatives.

            1. In the House, they would choose among the *top three* Electoral College vote-getters.

              Each House *delegation* would have exactly one vote.

        2. Writing “Darrel Castle” is lighting the Eddie sign, which is of course a silhouette of Beefcake Jesus.

          1. Thanks, Crusty, now we’re going to have Christian riots because depicting… oh wait. Carry on.

          2. I’d pray to that.

      2. The Constitution Party is not libertarian or pro-liberty. They’re basically theocrats from what I can tell.

          1. Oh, just about everyone. From their platform:

            “We affirm the God-given legal personhood of all human beings from fertilization to natural death, without exception. The first duty of the law is to protect innocent life, created in the image of God.”

            Stuff your superstition up your butt.

            1. I know you are, but what am I?

              1. Ha, ha. edie, that was funny the first time…
                No, it wasn’t either.
                Stuff your superstition up your butt.

                1. Wow, your mother is much nicer to me!

                  1. Your mean streak must come from your father.

                    You know how angry mailmen can get.

                    1. Stuff your superstition up your butt.

                    2. Look, an argument is a series of statements intended to establish a proposition.

                      This is just abuse.

                    3. I must be at the wrong office.

                    4. Stuff your superstition up your butt.

                    5. Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of any statement the other person makes.

                    6. Stuff your superstition up your butt.
                      Since you are a dishonest piece of shit, you are getting what you deserve.

                    7. So you’re saying I *deserve* your mother?

    2. Unless you’re gay, in which case you might be concerned by the fact that his party still has the criminalization of homosexuality in their platform.

      1. The closest I could find was the part which “affirm[s] the rights of states and localities to proscribe offensive sexual behavior.”

        Castle should explain that.

        Of course, that presupposes that he’s on the debate stage answering questions.

        1. Or maybe a Reason reporter could ask him this and other tough questions?

          1. We reject the notion that homosexuals, transgenders or those who are sexually deviant are deserving of legal favor or special protection, and affirm the rights of states and localities to proscribe offensive sexual behavior. We oppose all efforts to impose a new sexual legal order through any courts or legislatures. We stand against so-called “sexual orientation” and “hate crime” statutes that attempt to legitimize inappropriate sexual behavior or stifle public opposition to its expression. We oppose government funding of “partner” benefits for unmarried individuals. Finally, we oppose any legal recognition of homosexual or civil unions.

            We recognize that parents have the fundamental right and responsibility to nurture, educate, and discipline their children. We oppose the assumption of any of these responsibilities by any governmental agency without the express delegation of the parents or legal due process. We affirm the value of the father and the mother in the home, and we oppose efforts to legalize adoption of children by homosexual singles or couples.

            That first sentence…

            1. Like I say, it would be nice if someone would ask Castle about it, but that would require taking valuable resources away from covering the naked wives of other candidates.

              1. affirm the rights of states and localities to proscribe offensive sexual behavior.

                we oppose any legal recognition of homosexual or civil unions.

                we oppose efforts to legalize adoption of children by homosexual singles or couples.

                What more do you need to know?

                1. What more do you need to know?

                  Are they frowning or smiling when they say it?

                2. What the President of the United States, especially one with constitutional scruples, would be able to do to implement these planks? That’s what would be nice to know.

                  The Dem Presidential candidates would be willing to take away, on vague standards and with minimal or no due process, the right of gay people to defend themselves against gunmen who want to massacre them. The Republicans want to be able to strip gay people of their arms-bearing rights without a jury trial and without the rule of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

                  The Libertarian candidate would make gay bakers bake cakes for nazis, and probably for the Westboro Baptists.

                  I’m not saying Castle is the gay candidate, just that the other candidates *aren’t*.

                  1. I would presume that if Castle appoints enough Supreme Court justices they’d overrule *Lawrence v. Texas,* which could reinstate those 13 state laws which banned private, consensual adult sodomy in the home. (the other states, IIRC, had repealed their laws before Lawrence)

                    Of course, enforcing a ban on private, consensual adult sodomy in the home would be difficult thanks to the 4th Amendment. Not impossible, just difficult.

                    Which is why the overwhelming majority of sodomy busts have historically been for sodomy in public places, or prostitution, etc.

              2. Why do you want to take resources away from the naked wives of candidates?

                1. ENB should not spend an hour typing up a piece about a Melania Trump’s sweet bod, she should be asking Darrel Castle about his definition of “offensive sexual behavior.”

                  1. It’s icky, I know that.

      2. Is that right? Can’t vote for him either then. Fuck it, I’m going to write myself in.

        1. As best as I can determine, a President Castle would say, “you want to stick heroin needles in your arm or engage in sodomy? Avoid doing it in interstate commerce and watch out for any state-level regulations which apply to your behavior.”

          A President Johnson would have a *federal* antidiscrimination law so broad as to enslave bakers, including the gay ones, to bake nazi cakes. Apparently Johnson would also continue the *federal* War on Drugs Besides Marijuana. You’d have the right to sodomize each other, but not to shoot heroin or snort cocaine – so I guess it comes down to what your favorite vices are and whether it bothers you to have a *federal* war on vice.

          1. Yeah, I’m going to have to look into it further because Johnson seems to be a bit of a disaster. What a disappointment.

            1. Here is the platform and resolutions.

              You probably won’t like the porno stuff, just to disclose that up front.

              And Castle is actually more open to decriminalizing drugs than is the party as a whole – here is the CP on “Drug Abuse” –

              “The Constitution Party will uphold the right of states and localities to restrict access to drugs and to enforce such restrictions. We support legislation to stop the flow of illegal drugs into the United States from foreign sources. As a matter of self-defense, retaliatory policies including embargoes, sanctions, and tariffs, should be considered.

              “At the same time, we will take care to prevent violations of the Constitutional and civil rights of American citizens. Searches without probable cause and seizures without due process must be prohibited, and the presumption of innocence must be preserved.”

              1. Crime:

                “Crime, in most cases, is to be dealt with by state and local governments. To the degree that the federal government, in its legislation, judicial actions, regulations, and executive branch activities, interferes with the ability of the people in their communities to apprehend, judge, and penalize accused lawbreakers, it bears responsibility for the climate of crime, which has grown more destructive with each passing year.

                “We favor the right of states and localities to execute criminals convicted of capital crimes and to require restitution for the victims of criminals. Federal involvement in state and local criminal justice processes should be limited to that which is Constitutionally permitted.

                “All who are accused of crimes, petty to capital, shall have a trial by jury upon request, and the jury shall be fully informed of its right to nullify the law. Furthermore, we oppose defendants being charged and tried by both state and federal jurisdictions under different laws for the same alleged criminal act, thus violating the constitutionally secured prohibition against double jeopardy.

                “We are opposed to “hate crime” legislation and to enhanced penalties for so called hate crimes. We recognize that a real result of the designation of “hate crime” is to extend federal jurisdiction to crimes which would otherwise be in the province of the states.”

              2. I appreciate the link. From what I saw it’s mostly a good platform, much better than the two major parties, but, yes, the obscenity and drug stuff kind of kills it for me. I’m open to some of the immigration platform but that too would repel many libertarians. They’re close for me but just not quite there.

                1. I didn’t want someone else to drop that on you as “something Eddie forgot to mention.”

                2. But keep in mind, as if you needed reminding, that candidates != party platforms.

                  1. Hence my suggestion that Reason interview Castle already.

          2. As best as I can determine, a President Castle would say, “you want to stick heroin needles in your arm or engage in sodomy? Avoid doing it in interstate commerce and watch out for any state-level regulations which apply to your behavior.”

            Under a Castle administration, armed men will be free to bust into the homes of gay people in the middle of the night, kidnap them, and straight up murder them if they resist. But rest assured that those beatings will be delivered by men wearing sheriffs badges, and not FBI badges, the way God intended!

            1. Sigh – a man in a uniform!

  5. RE: Gary Johnson Explains His Foreign Policy Beliefs to The Los Angeles Times.

    The concept of non-interventionism can never be tolerated.
    One only has to look at recent 20th century history to realize the American interventionism is a policy that has proven wise and beneficial to not only America and Americans, but to the Vietnamese, the Iraqis, Nicaraguans, etc.
    I won’t get into what a wonderful job interventionism has done to Americans fighting these needless wars, how it drains excess money from our nation’s treasury or how our allies and enemies see us today. Therefore, let us all end this ridiculous idea of non-interventionism and invade Logos, Bolivia, Belgium and host of other rogue nations who threaten our national security and our way of life.
    We’ll be a better nation for it.

    1. “We’ll be a better nation for it.”

      Vote for Boyle/
      Son of toil/
      Or maybe Uncle Jay

  6. Nice to see a major newspaper treating Johnson seriously as a candidate.
    Too bad “Gary Johnson” still doesn’t even register in Google News as a sub-category, even in “Elections”.
    For every mainstream media article or interview, we get 200 stories on how it’s Trump vs. Clinton.

    1. Except that they called him a “possible spoiler” in their headline, instead of just “presidential candidate”.

      1. I’ll say this much for Gary Johnson – he’s not “spoiling” anything. It’s spoiled already.

        1. I’m probably going to use that with my family at some point.

    2. That’s because they think he’s going to harm Trump and help Hillary. Wake me up when the proggies don’t think that getting rid of the Department of Education, HUD and Commerce is literal genocide.

      1. Liberal Facebook is awash in “why voting third party is selfish”.

        Short answer: It’ll help Trump and hurt Clinton.

        1. Perhaps. They are worried about the Bernie bots.

        2. That said It is pretty clear that the LP is getting a lot more ink this time around since they have the Sensible Republican aura around them. And of course we all know what happens to these Sensible Republicans once they are actually campaigning against the Democrats…

        3. Selfish? It’s about who and what I want, not about making someone else’s dreams come true.

          Screw those people-they sure aren’t thinking about me in their voting, other than what they can have taken from me.

  7. His answer on NATO also pivots from “We need to honor our treaty obligations” to saying we should reexamine them “and do we really want to go to war with Russia over the Baltic states?”

    Well at least Libertarians aren’t liars and offering vague platitudes…oh wait.

    “open also the the notion of a carbon tax.”

    So will the LP just rename itself the True Republican Party?

  8. I guess this won’t be the first time I vote. God damn why couldn’t they have found someone decent? Here’s the platform he should be running on:

    1. Bring home the troops
    2. End the War on Drugs
    3. Seperation of Economy and State
    4. Open source development of the Molten Salt Thorium Reactor

    1. Open source development of the Molten Salt Thorium Reactor

      I’ll take obscure policies that most people don’t know about for $1000, please Alex.

      1. You just won this watch, but I can’t read the brand. Is that OK?

      2. Everyone doesn’t know obscure policies?

    2. OK, I’m writing in IceTrey.

  9. I think it is reasonable to both say we should honor our treaty obligations and that we should question the wisdom of going to war over the baltics.

    The answer is that we should reevaluate our treaty obligations.

  10. I haven’t read this yet, but is it cynical of me to assume that Gary seriously shit the bed somewhere with this too?

    because the last 3 or so times i’ve heard him speak, some horrible half-spider-half-manatee abortion has crawled out of his mouth and tried to do an a-capella barry manilow medley.

    It hasn’t been good, iow.

    1. I skimmed and it’s not as bad as I thought it would be.

  11. “I’m one of those people who roll their eyes on hearing Republicans talk about repealing Obamacare”

    “I’m not going to be dictator ok”

    90% of the interview is GJ talking points you might expect from a middle of the road “RINO” and pimping himself as a third party star. He did not represent libertarian ideals to a mainstream publication. You can just FEEL his strain to overlap “limited government” with anti establishment feelings of the Bernie Bros. Vetoing all those bills as NM governor? To us, that was a governor restraining government spending. To the LAT, it’s about “leveling the field”.

    The LAT made an astute observation on entitlement / healthcare taking up most of the budget (more than the military spending) and Johnson did nothing with it. He rambled on about caregivers that went nowhere. WTF, Gary? Do you not read anything from CATO? Where is the case made by leading libertarian experts on this?

    I swear, the next time someone asks GJ “Would you legalize heroine” or “Should we just let sick people die” and he continues to be elliptical, he can kiss my vote goodbye. Not because I’m down with drug legalization, but these sort of question come from tired strawman assumptions about libertarianism. Yeah, drug legalization and religious freedom might be unpopular, but personal freedom overrides moral codes and sense of “discrimination”.

    That’s what you expect to hear from a LP candidate, right?

    1. legalize heroine

      I think superhero females are wonderful authority-figures.

  12. Strange, it’s almost as if a candidate’s squishiness on those irrelevant “social issues” predicts his squishiness across the board.

  13. Johnson says he believes his polling would come out as high as 20 percent if voters were first asked their presidential preference question including all the choices, rather than starting with Clinton/Trump and asking a second question including him. (I don’t instantly see why that would be, but I might be missing something.)

    First question: pick between just these two choices.

    Second question: if you didn’t pick one of those two, which of these third party choices would you choose?

    The phrasing isn’t as blunt as that, but people tend to rationalize their first choice rather than starting from scratch: “I picked that, so it must be what I want.”

    1. OK, I can see that.

    2. If you first ask people to choose A or B, and then follow up with “what if we add C?”, the implication is completely obvious – C isn’t as legitimate a response as A or B.

      Is this really not entirely self-obvious?

      1. Not to me. My mentality in such a situation would be, shit, you gave me two crummy choices, fuck, and I feel some pressure to pick one? And then following that up with the freedom to NOT pick those two crummy choices, I would, as GJ seems to recognize with all his Mickey Mouse comments, be MORE inclined to go for one of those new picks regardless of what they are. But when explained, I can see that other mentalities might find their preferences shaped differently. And perhaps I am a complete outlier in thinking otherwise.

    1. Congress, for better or worse, passed a law letting wealthy foreigners basically pay for visas for themselves and their relatives. It seems that Mr. Khan is an immigration attorney who helps wealthy foreigners take advantage of this law.

      He helps wealthy clients get their rights under a law which many people don’t think should exist…that seems to be the problem here.

      I’m not going to criticize him for that, I’m going to focus on his propagandizing for the Democratic Party.

      1. Yeah, me neither. A lot of countries let you buy your way in. I think if we want anybody, it’s rich people.

    2. German Open Borders Advocate Gets Raped ? Then Lies About it to Help Image of Migrants

      We need battered prog shelters

      1. Dunno if it means anything, but she appears to be of Turkish descent – with that name.

  14. Donald Trump is riding in an elevator. The elevator doors open, and a gorgeous blonde steps in. She sees him, and says, “Oh my God, you’re Donald Trump!” And he says, “Yes, I am.” And she says, “Can I suck your dick?” And he says, “What’s in it for me?

    1. Goddammit Crusty, you just made my day.

  15. Gary Johnson explains his TRUMP TRUMP TRUMP TRUMP TRUMP TRUMP

    Seriously though, GayJay is kind of an idiot and unable to properly form ideas. I’m going to do a very rare thing and agree with Bill Kristol. They should swap the ticket. Weld can put a sentence together.

    1. He’s not an idiot, his IQ in high 90’s to low 100’s. I’m not hitting much higher, but I’m not applying for the job.

      1. I’m up around 150 and would definitely be an unmitigated disaster.

        1. It’s a back-handed to compliment to American culture that very smart people tend to veer away from politics here.

    2. US Presidents tend to rank in the 120 to 135 IQ range. One or two standard deviations above the mean, but rarely more. John Adams was sporting a 150+ IQ but that’s off the beaten trail. No politics – both HRC and Trump are within the ordinary band for the office.

      I listened to Gary Johnson during a local LA radio broadcast. Seems nice enough, pass the bong.

      1. Yeah, I don’t think our best and brightest go into politics.

        Politics seems to be reserved for the unscrupulous narcissists who are good at talking.

        1. I don’t think our best and brightest go into politics.

          Thank god. Simpsons did it, and the eggheads ruined the town.

    3. Weld can put a sentence together only because he’s not even trying to be a libertarian. Gary has trouble because he tries to have it both ways.

  16. Built 50 miles of four-lane highway in New Mexico — that had never been done before. Built prisons.

    Would you legalize heroin?

    GJ: I would not legalize heroin.

    Well, we need to honor our obligations. We need to honor our treaty obligations.

    If I could shift gears briefly, although it’s not a brief topic. What’s your position on global warming and climate change, and what’s your position on the Paris Accord?

    GJ: Well, that it does exist and that it is man-caused.

    I’m open also to the notion of a carbon tax.

    This is not a tax cut by the way. This is designed to be revenue-neutral.

    Very briefly, a consumption tax is regressive, for starters, OK? Well, the way that it gets beyond being regressive is that it issues a prebate check to everybody through the Social Security administration to the tune of $200 per month that allows all of us to pay the consumption tax up to the point of the poverty level. A 28% tax on goods and services

    I’m sorry, I didn’t get a sense of what the U.S. approach [should be].

    GJ: That we do continue to knock ISIS out and that that is inevitable.

    This transcript has been lightly edited for purposes of clarity. *

    GayJay likes new taxes, but he doesn’t want increases or cuts His ISIS policy is the same as Trumps. The LATimes doesn’t bring up his desire for more “humanitarian wars”, not in the US interest.

    *(LATimes disclosure quoted. I just pulled quotes from the interview)

  17. Is it possible that GayJ’s time as a Governor opened his eyes, as it were, to the value of “more government”? I mean, his experience has been touted in the past as a reason for him to be the L candidate, but he keeps finding scenarios where government should be the answer, even though a lot of those things are esoteric, at best, and easily cut.

    Does he actually want less government, or just government work/intervention?

    1. Gay Jay’s not an anarchist. We was a governor of a state. During that time, he vetoed the shit out of a ton of bills. At this time, he’s the best candidate of the two majors running, and the best of the two minors running.

      1. I understand that, and agree with you. I also think he’s using terms differently than we do around here, and isn’t interested in reducing the size and scope of the FedGov to the extent that most of us want.

        I voted for him last time, and will do so again. That said, he doesn’t come across as “libertarian” these days as most of us proles. Maybe I’m being radical, or impractical, but it would be nice if he denounced more non-freedom situations (a la “forced baking”), as opposed to saying they are legit.

        1. “…and isn’t interested in reducing the size and scope of the FedGov to the extent that most of us want.”

          If that’s the bar, we’re going to wait a long time to find a candidate. We’re quite a ways from what most of the population considers the fringe.
          Long tail? You bet!

          1. Long tail? You bet!

            Umm, what?

      2. There’s at least 3 “minors” running. Darrell Castle is the most libertarian of all of them, by far. GayJay is more idiot than evil but I’d hate to see him elected with Weld playing Edgar Bergen to Johnson’s Charlie McCarthy.

    2. New Mexico, the Land of Enchantment, has very different demographics than the US on average. He was more like the mayor of New Mexico.

      1. There is also the fact that Johnson is more likely to get his vetos overridden, his vetos to be attacked by the MSM and the MSM will tear him apart during a shutdown.

  18. So will the LP finally get their long-sought Romney endorsement? Good news is that if Trump does indeed destroy the GOP forever (seriously I will very surprised if he does win) then the LP can easily pick up the slack on being “pragmatic” minarchists.

  19. Johnson does lead to the big problem of the LP: how pragmatic can you get before you cease to a libertarian and just become a Republican? What is there to correct this drift once it becomes too unlibertarian?

    1. Depends on what you think your opponents would’ve done had they gotten elected. There’s an enormous amount of room between current policies & total freedom, & how far do you think everyone else will go in that direction?

  20. You guys realize we’re in an election where even all the 3rd party candidates suck. Trumps bad, Hillary is fucking awful, and even the LP guy is shitty.

    1. Or perhaps 95% of politicians always sucked and we just didn’t realize it.

        1. +1-Great movie.

          1. *Searches pockets for gum*

  21. Supporting free trade isn’t a very good look in this election. Especially not for the guy trying to abscond party lines. Both people on the right and people on the left are anti-free trade.

    Maybe it is the purist Libertarian position, although I think it’s debatable. But there’s no doubt that it’s just an unpopular opinion to hold right now.

    1. If so, it may be just the swing of the pendulum, the snapback of the rubber band, etc. International trade is freer now than it’s been in a very long time.

      1. As technology and efficiency continue to reduce jobs and the population continues to grow, I suspect free trade is going to grow ever more unpopular. The super rich multi-national corporations maximizing profits at the expense of the welfare of the blue collar worker and their home country’s economy is a really easy thing for people to hate.

        The solutions will be where people differ. People on the left will want the government to force companies into bringing things back and punish them for moving jobs internationally. People on the right will probably argue something along the lines of cutting taxes so keeping operations in America is more economically appealing. But who knows, Trump supporters seem to be OK with the leftist by force method.

        1. Trump is supporting both positions.

  22. “What is genuinely needed when it comes to healthcare is a free-market approach, recognizing that healthcare right now is about as far removed from the free market as it could be. I reject the notion that in a free-market approach to healthcare we would have insurance to cover ongoing medical need. We would have insurance to cover ourselves for catastrophic injury and illness and we would pay as you go for a system that I believe would be absolutely affordable.”

    That’s what I’m fucking talking about.

  23. the whole fair tax-flat tax debate is so old, so tired, so wrong…I understand the income tax scam run by the US is fairly complicated, involving more than one source. You have to examine the Civil War income tax, understand that it was never repealed, that the 16th amendment was simply to overturn the Pollock cases that were wrongly decided, that since Congress put the word “income” in the constitution the Supreme CT alone can define income, that it is always defined as an excise tax, that an excise tax cannot tax a right, that working for a living is a right, not a privilege, that in World War II withholding was expanded from federal payroll withholding to the new system of private business withholding, that the IRS uses terms of art that are not everyday usage, that after WWII in 1954 the tax code was rewritten to obfuscate terms, that the code anyway is not law but the tax laws are in hundreds of separate statutes, that despite the clarity brought by the Supreme ct the district courts are corrupt and do not obey the Supremes but no on can get the Supremes to police them, etc etc. aside from that, the fraud is obvious-the US Individual income tax is the American version of the classical liberal public office duty. And, remarkably, the IRS does in fact process refunds for all withheld money if you ask them correctly. Got it?

    1. So, to sum up…if she floats like a duck, she’s made of wood?

      1. I am impressed. I tried three times. There’s so many words, and it’s all in a big block. There’s some weird shorthand thing going on, and is that all one sentence?

        1. I believe it’s a summary of some key tax-protester arguments.

          1. In its own special way, it’s the perfect summation of the tax code.

        2. My eyes glaze over too.

  24. BB (Big Blowhard) Donald vs Slitherin’ Hillary what a world!

  25. He is entirely wrong about coal, global warming and the EPA.

    If a private enterprise polluter is causing harm to others, the courts and contract law abide for that reconciliation.

  26. Is there anyone here who seriously won’t be voting for GJ, warts and all?

    Is he a perfect Libertarian candidate? Not even close.

    Is he better than the other two douchemongers, and deserving of our vote? By miles.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.