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. Any other wacky conspiracies to share with us?

    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’m admitting that we’re so out of phase with enumerated powers

          Even Ron Paul rejects the concept.

      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.

        1. How is state any different … except to the anti-gummint mentality?

  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. 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.

                    One lame excuse after another,

              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!

          3. 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.

            Your hysteria is running amok again,

    3. MC Guru|
      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

      Sounds like another brainwashed puppet from Paulista Cult, the ones who don’t know libertarians have been socially liberal since 1969, by definition. Kinda like an orangutan studying calculus,

  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.

    2. some horrible half-spider-half-manatee abortion has crawled out of his mouth and tried to do an a-capella barry manilow medley.

      Is it difficult to type wearing your strait jacket?

  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.

    1. Only a fascist socon would call social issues irrelevant.
      Are you also in the Paulista Cult?

      1. Only a small-penis-having moron would fail to recognize sarcasm when it stares him in the face.

        1. Only 12-year-old boys compare dick sizes, right?

          An NSFW tribute to Michael Hihn

          Does it giggle when iyping?

          1. So, you’re saying 12-ear-old boys DO compare dick sizes? Have you observed this a lot?

            1. Sir Digby Chicken Caesar|8.1.16 @ 10:14PM|#
              So, you’re saying 12-ear-old boys DO compare dick sizes? Have you observed this a lot?

              When I was 12, chump. Like you and Fusionist are today.
              Thanks for the straight line. (smirk)

  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. Fusionits defends Trump — a fellow authoritarian
        Fusionist defends attacking the war dead.
        Fusionist defends attacking a grieving mother
        Fusionist thinks propagandizing for the Democrat Party is somehow worse than propagandizing for the Republicans. … on a libertarian website! (OMG)
        Fusionist, like Trump, is rejected by the entire leadershIp of his own favored party.

        AND PROUD OF IT!
        Bellowing Blowhards for Trump.(TM)

        1. You are as wise as your are beautiful.

          1. You are as wise as your are beautiful

            (blush) Just good at exposing assholes, liars and hypocrites.
            You were called out as an even bigger fool here

      2. 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. He’s not an idiot

        Not to the extent of you and Aerozppin!.

    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.

      1. So …. in public you proclaim your ignorance of what a libertarian is? We’re not all dumbfucks who sneer at getting elected.

        Only the anti-gummint Ron Paul cult, which causes the libertarian brand to be rejected by 91% of libertarians (per Cato) They’re like 12-year-old kids, each claiming their dick is the largest in the tree house.Bellowing blowhards beating their chests, who can easily be ignored in any election They just don’t matter,

        1. Wut are you even talking about? Did you respond to the correct comment? I’ve tried talking to you in a civil manner before and you flipped out immediately. Your posts indicate a very mentally unbalanced personality. Get help.

          1. Wut are you even talking about?

            I called you out.

            Did you respond to the correct comment?

            Sorry, I never imagined you are THAT confused.

            I’ve tried talking to you in a civil manner before and you flipped out immediately.

            Where?

            Your posts indicate a very mentally unbalanced personality. Get help.

            So much pissing and moaning because I challenged your ignorance of libertarianism.
            Instead of defending your slimeball attack you shoot the messenger, as an even bigger trashmouth.
            Typical of your ilk.

            1. Michael hihn,
              It appears that your high level of ignorance is most blatantly illustrated by your complete mis-understanding of why Libs like Ron Paul so much.

              I suspect you have never read much of his stuff.

              I suspect you have also never read Bastiat, Hazlitt, or Freidman. Try those guys and hit the Mises Institute occasionally and then come back. You might learn something.

              1. It appears that your high level of ignorance is most blatantly illustrated by your complete mis-understanding of why Libs like Ron Paul so much.

                You just made a fool of yourself. Read the Constitution, goober.

                He lies about the 10th Amendment, expressly denying the founding principle of delegated powers, says states can have powers that have never been delegated, never saw the 9th Amendment. … all tracing to Orval Faubus, George Wallace and the Klan. On his own words, he would agree with Governor Faubus that Eisenhower had no power to defend equal rights in 1957 Little Rock, which is a disgrace to individual liberty.

                We see Ron in liberty venues because, being tribal, that’s the only place we look. But he spends far more time recruiting cult followers from among the worst conspiracy nuts and wackos .. Alex Jones, Stansbury Research, Infowars.com, and others.

                Only a fascist would say “rogue judges” overturned DOMA, as he constantly says SCOTUS has no power to defend fundamental rights, a crazy version of states rights invented by southern racists. He tried to forbid the court from defending rights of homosexuals, among THE most bigoted acts in US history. He says NO founder even wrote about separation, pandering to uneducated goobers who nod like bobbleheads,

                P.,S. I read Bastiat, Hayek and Friedman in the 60s and 70s. (smirk)
                Stay at the kid’s table where you belong.

  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)

    1. GayJay likes new taxes,

      You are one sick fuck. But plenty of your fellow goobers will swallow anything. Their eagerness to be brainwashed is as bad as the little proggies.

      What’s your position on global warming and climate change,

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

      The fucking proggie agrees with Reason’s science correspondent and all three Koch foundations … which REALLY pisses off the brainwashed conservatives.who conform to Groupthink like puppets on a string.

  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!

        2. I understand that, and agree with you. I also think he’s using terms differently than we do around here

          Only the anti-gummint dumbfucks in the commentariat The make-believe cult that thinks Ron Paul is libertarian. (lol)

      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.

        1. Darrell Castle is the most libertarian of all of them, by far.

          He’s a fucking fascist, lying about the Constitution as badly as Ron Paul who claims only “rogue judges” would defend individual rights from abuse by government, that states have powers which have never been delegated. lies through his teeth about the 10th Amendment … promotes perverse version of federalism, actually States Rights as created by southern racists and the KKK.

          A cult with goobers eager to be brainwashed.

    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.

        1. Winston|
          There is also the fact that Johnson is more likely to get his vetos overridden

          As proven by over 700 vetoes that were not overridden in a Democratic state. One more conspiracy theory!

      2. Thus revealing your ignorance of both “demographics” and “mayors”

  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.

    1. Even though no other insurance works that way? Just as wacky as Obamacare selling $9,0000 deductibles to low-income Americans. Does not know that NO health insurance in America covers only catastrophic injury and illness. None.

      In a free market, NOBODY would buy such a policy.

      1. Michael Hihn|8.1.16 @ 10:02PM|#
        “Even though no other insurance works that way?”

        Is the sun purple on that planet, or are you just an ignoramus?

        1. As between Sevo and Hihn, my money’s on Sevo.

          1. The Fusionist
            As between Sevo and Hihn, my money’s on Sevo.

            (smirk) Pay up, loser!

        2. Sevo defends $9,000 deductible health care for low-income Americans. Defends health care that never existed! The Fusionist (of course) agrees!

          We would have insurance to cover ourselves for catastrophic injury and illness

          Even though no other insurance works that way? Just as wacky as Obamacare selling $9,0000 deductibles to low-income Americans. Does not know that NO health insurance in America covers only catastrophic injury and illness. None. .In a free market, NOBODY would buy such a policy.

          the sun purple on that planet, or are you just an ignoramus?

          We ridicule Obamacare for selling $9,000 deductible insurance to low-income Americans. But when the other tribe propose the same thing ,…. their followers are equally brainwashed as the proggies. Including both Sevo and Fusionist (so far)

          Catastrophic healthcare would provide first-dollar coverage for …. catastrophes! (DUH) Cancer, heart attacks. Severe car crashes etc. Am I going too fast?

          the sun purple on that planet, or are you just an ignoramus?

          (smirk) In a free market, how many would buy the high-deductible policy defended by Sevo … and Fusionist? How many would instead buy first-dollar coverage for catastrophic events?

          The defense rests. (while laughing)

          1. See, Sevo, we really have a lot in common, you and I.

            1. The Fusionist|8.1.16 @ 11:07PM|#
              See, Sevo, we really have a lot in common, you and I.

              (laughing) You’ve both been humiliated.
              Yet again

              (Boldface in defense of repeated aggression by known thugs)

              1. You have no idea how much you just insulted Sevo, tying us together like that.

                1. You have no idea how much you just insulted Sevo, tying us together like that.

                  (yawn ) It was you who tied the two of you together!

      2. In a free market, NOBODY would buy such a policy.

        Then who are you to tell them they can’t. Let’s have a free market and see.

        1. Just don’t, Hammie.

          1. Ikr? Here, this is more appropriate.

            Best Fucking Cookies Ever

            2 and 1/2 c. flour
            1 and 1/2 tsp baking soda
            1 tsp baking powder
            1/2 tsp salt
            3/4 c sugar
            3/4 c brown sugar
            1 c peanut butter
            1/2 c fat in some manner (coconut oil, shortening, margarine)
            1/2 c butter
            1 and 1/2 tsp vanilla
            1/2 tsp almond flavoring
            2 large eggs
            5 oz. Butterfinger baking bits
            5 oz chocolate chips
            1/2 c chopped nuts (optional, but more fool you)

            Bake at 350 for 7-9 minutes, or just until browned on the bottom.

            1. Creepy good timing. I’ve got 6 of my daughter’s friends coming over in an hour. Gonna make chocolate chip cookies together to give them a taste of Americana. Using pancake mix though because I don’t feel like cleaning for 2 hours afterwards. 7 year olds. The girls will clean. Boys will make the mess.

              1. Hamster of Doom|8.1.16 @ 10:50PM|#
                Here, this is more appropriate.
                Best Fucking Cookies Ever

                Not really, but not as bad as your ignorance of health care

                1. Citation required. Pics that you made the cookies, Hihn. Because if you want to call me ignorant, I’ll give you that one freely, and if you want to call me ignorant on healthcare, well, I suspect that you’re either very young or have a bad memory, but these cookies? You do not want to die on this hill, Michael.

                  Make the cookies.

                  1. Hamster of indiocy

                    you want to call me ignorant on healthcare, well, I suspect that you’re either very young or have a bad memory,

                    You were totally ridiculed, here chump.

                    You can still redeem yourself. Simply point to ANY health insurance that covers … catastrophes! Not like Obamacare which requires cancer patients and heart attack victims to first pay the same $8,000 deductible as anyone else.
                    (smirk)

                    1. Do you think that someone who is already sick should pay the same deductible and / or premium as healthy folks?

                    2. Do you think that someone who is already sick should pay the same deductible and / or premium as healthy folks?

                      Of course not.
                      Why do you ask, dumbfuck.

                    3. MUH BOLDED COOKIE TANTRUMZ!!

                      (walks away smirking, shits Depends)

                    4. Red Rocks Okey-Dokein|
                      MUH BOLDED COOKIE TANTRUMZ!!

                      In defense of aggression, I jammed it up his ass. Are you as fuckling stoopid on healthcare?

                    5. Hamster’s a female, you moron.

                    6. Red Rocks Okey-Dokein|8.2.16 @ 10:45PM|#
                      Hamster’s a female, you moron.

                      Are you as fucking stoopid as HER on healthcare?

                    7. I’m a hell of a lot smarter than you are on it, that’s for damn sure.

                      (corpse-fucks thread, laughing)

              2. I hope they enjoy it, Straffin. These are my family’s favorites. I have to make them judiciously, because we’d all be fat bastards if I kept the cookie jar stocked with a ready supply.

        2. In a free market, NOBODY would buy such a policy.

          Then who are you to tell them they can’t.

          Liar. Too late for a retraction. You’ve been publicly humiliated.
          Again.

          1. Hihn knows why 91% of children reject Hammie’s cookies. Is it lack of *snickers*, Mikey?

            1. straffinrun
              Hihn knows why 91% of children reject Hammie’s cookies. Is it lack of *snickers*, Mikey?

              While you giggle and talk like a 12-year-old … avoiding the subject … I prefer documenting the retardation and ignorance of your tribe on health care.

              https://reason.com/blog/2016/08…..nt_6308821

              XOXOXOX
              -Mikey

              1. Stop punishing the rest of society for your daddy issues, Hihn.

                1. Red Rocks Okey-Dokein|8.2.16 @ 10:09AM|#
                  Stop punishing the rest of society for your daddy issues, Hihn.

                  They travel in packs like wild dogs, making nonsense attacks that they think are brilliant.

                  1. MUH BOLDED COMMENTS

                    (smirks, shits pants)

                    1. Fourth evasion (yawn)
                      Are you as fucking stupid as her on healthcare?

                    2. MORE MUH BOLDED COMMENTS AND CORPSE-THREAD FUCKIN
                      (chortles)

  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.

    2. Umm, you missed the biggest fuckup of the Fair Tax. It’s a massive tax cut for ONLY the rich. A MUCH lower tax rate … on FAR fewer dollars … so would then pay today’s MASSIVE subsidy of the middle-class share of taxes.

      Even worse than the remarkably stupid Flat Tax
      On top of ll the other tax quackery for brainwashed ant-gummint goobers (as in pro-liberty vs anti-gummint libertarians)

      Here’s those hateful proggies at Forbes

      … lower-income households spend more than they earn… (see chart). . …. the proposal effectively allows a 50% deduction for the average high-income household. Because it is also a flat rate tax, it would be especially regressive.

      Anyone else not know that the rich consume only a tiny portion of their income?

      1. You only have to read the “Fair Tax” book to understand it.

        Try that first before acting like you know something.

        1. timbo|8.2.16 @ 9:39AM|#
          You only have to read the “Fair Tax” book to understand it.
          Try that first before acting like you know something.

          (laughing) Did Forbes read the book, Sparky?
          If all you read is the book, no wonder you’ve been duped.
          You REALLY don’t know the rich consume a tiny fraction of their income?
          Progressive tax rates subsidize half the entire middle-class share of the income tax, so you’ve been suckered into defending a doubling of your own taxes!
          Why do you say a 30% sales tax would not punish (and reduce) consumption?

          The anti-gummint mentality is SO eager to be brainwashed,
          (smirk)

    3. , 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

      Why are ant-gummint libertarians so ignorant and confused …. and conspiracy wackos?
      Congress has no power to amend the Constitution.
      You’ve got it entirely backwards (at best) on income taxes.
      There’s more but I can’t stop laughing.

      that in World War II withholding was expanded from federal payroll withholding to the new system of private business withholding,

      (laughing) Explain how federal payroll withholding worked.

      Got it?

      Your asylum now provides computers?

  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.

    1. Do you know what “non sequitur” means?

  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.

    1. So you’ve been brainwashed about warts. Anything else?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.