Media Criticism

Rolling Stone: Don't Vote for Gary Johnson if You Think Legal Pot Is a 'Slippery Slope'!

We're officially through the looking glass, people

|

If you lean conservative, you may find this picture objectionable, even though you actually probably wouldn't give even one shit. ||| Rolling Stone
Rolling Stone

We've spent some time here critiquing conservative lamentations for the Libertarian Party ticket's insufficient libertarianism (in fact, here's another one from National Review's Jim Geraghty: "It's a shame the Libertarian Party couldn't nominate, you know, actual libertarians this year"). But my new favorite in the genre comes from Boomer-Left publication Rolling Stone, that fabled, long-ago home of Hunter Thompson, Grover Lewis, and a generation of independent-minded, dope-sucking New Journalists. It's a piece by Tessa Stuart with the subtle, free-thinking headline of "Why You Shouldn't Vote for Gary Johnson," and it spends most of its time unwittingly demonstrating the statist belief systems of liberals and conservatives, in the form of detailing why people who "lean liberal" and "lean conservative" should indeed not vote Libertarian. (My God, Johnson doesn't believe college should be tuition-free, or that candidate-attacking political documentaries should be censored before an election!)

But the best reasons for those of us of a certain age is embedded in the "If you lean conservative, and…" section:

…you worry that legalizing marijuana could cause a slippery slope:
It should surprise no one that Johnson, who stepped away from his role as CEO of Cannabis Sativa Inc. before launching his bid for president last year, is in favor of full legalization. "On the recreational side, I have always maintained that legalizing marijuana will lead to overall less substance abuse because it's so much safer than everything else that's out there starting with alcohol," he told CNN recently.

…and you certainly don't think it would be a good idea to legalize all drugs:
"Would the world be a better place if all drugs were legalized tomorrow? Absolutely. But pragmatically speaking, you're not going to go from the criminalization of all drugs to the legalization of drugs overnight," Johnson told the Daily Caller in 2012.

The. Horror. ||| Rolling Stone
Rolling Stone

Note: Around two-thirds of Republican Millennials now support marijuana legalization, and July of this year saw the first poll in which more Republicans of all ages prefer legalization over continued prohibition. So Rolling Stone's concern-trolling over why conservatives should not vote Libertarian is even more out of date than Eric Clapton.

What's the point in warning people whose politics you find you objectionable that a third-party candidate probably offends some sensibilities with which you also presumably disagree? Here's a suggested answer from Stuart's opening paragraph: "Today, Johnson is polling nearly ten times higher than [his results in 2012]; the Real Clear Politics average has the former New Mexico governor garnering about 9 percent of the vote nationwide in a three-way race with Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. In some state surveys – like in Utah, where Trump is widely disliked – Johnson is winning as much at 16 percent of the vote." In other words, even 9 percent is too popular, and we just can't be having that.

Related reading: "Rolling Stone Continues Proud Tradition of Kissing Obama's Ring."

Advertisement

NEXT: How can 'on the basis of sex' be ambiguous?

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. The whole article is an advertisement for Johnson. Every point was actually a reason to vote for him (if somewhat back-handed). I don’t know what they were thinking – maybe they support him without wanting to admit it?

    1. This. I read it and it’s literally a list of everything on which Gary Johnson is NOT some retarded extremist on the far left or right.

      He’s not for free college!
      He’s not against abortion!
      He’s not against anti-discrimination statutes!
      He’s not for the $15 minimum wage!

      It ironically portrays him as a sane centrist by explaining why wacko extremists shouldn’t vote for him.

      1. One of these things is not like the others…you don’t have to be a “wacko extremist” to oppose a regime in which mothers can legally kill their own children.

        1. It’s not the mothers who are doing the killing, per se.

          1. Technically speaking with the legal definition of “per se” they are doing the killing. The clauses loosely means demonstrated by being obvious. But that is all a digression.

            There are no Libertarians who think that abortion is a good and moral thing. Many think that it should be illegal, others agree with Johnson that to have government inserted there is inappropriate. Most think that a moral society would find other ways of ameliorating the evil, than to get involved in the doctor-patient relationship or claim domain over motherhood.

            1. There are no Libertarians who think that abortion is a good and moral thing.

              Certainly not in the sense that it’s something to be sought out or encouraged.

              1. What is Nikki, then, NOT the worst?

              2. Since we don’t live in a perfect world, I (a libertarian) would say abortion may be the best option in some situations, such as when certain severe, untreatable birth defects are detected early in pregnancy. Does that make it “good?” Only compared to the alternatives.

            2. There are no Libertarians who think that abortion is a good and moral thing.

              Disagree strongly for two reasons:

              1) Due to proof that abortion, helped cause a decline in crime, I think, for those who feel early in the first trimester abortions is the same as removing cells and not equivalent to killing a baby, that a logical argument can be made that abortion is a societal good. Combine this with libertarians’ love of using arguments which know most people will disagree with it at the start, and I’d say a not insignificant percentage of libertarians believe this.

              2) No true Scotsman

              Disclaimer: I myself a small l libertarian who likes to stake unpopular positions, but do not personally believe abortion is a moral good. I only think given a particular worldview, one a left leaning libertarian might hold, and add to it the crime rate decline and some other logical arguments for legalized abortion, I think this person could easily and persuasively claim abortion is a moral good.

              1. Due to proof that abortion, helped cause a decline in crime…

                That sounds like correlation, at best*.

                And by that logic, literally everything done after the 1980s has caused a decline in crime.

                *If you have a stat that shows causation, I will withdraw the objection.

              2. the 1st point is completely wrong. From a strict scientific view it is only removing cells if it is done within the first few minutes of the sperm entering the egg after that there is a separate being with completely separate DNA that is growing.

                After that first few minutes it really is a matter of where your eugenics program draws the line of what is not acceptable. But make no mistake you are ending the life of a separate and distinct human being.

                So where is the hard line for you with regards to the N.A.P.?

        2. Oh, I thought you were going to pick on the anti-discrimination one.
          Point is a lot of the list is lists of things on which Johnson isn’t adhering to a partisan or doctrinaire position. And a lot of the quoted comments make him sound very reasonable.

          1. Abortion is his bugaboo. Railing against gay people is more of a sideline.

        3. When the mainstream in this country actually do support some form of ‘mothers can kill their own children’ then yes, you are an extremist if you strongly deviate from that position.

          Extremism, centrism – like ‘normal’, they’re all relative.

          1. I think it’s perfectly possible for a whole country to be extremist…or in this case, to put up with rulers who are extremists.

        4. What’s the point of even having children if you can’t kill them?

        5. Right on! And all those fat cows and their heavy periods? First degree manslaughter!

          Gonna get this right someday.

            1. Thanks, brother! We’ll save all those zygotes and blastocysts if it’s the last thing we do.

        6. I thought you were a traditionalist Catholic, Eddie. The original Catholic position is pro-abortion, because the soul is only complete after the first breath is taken.

          1. That is one of the most utterly preposterous and false things I have ever read, even by the standards of Internet commenting.

        7. Demographically speaking, none of those things are “wacko extremist”; they are all perfectly mainstream and supported at least by large minorities, which is why it is obvious that the article was an attempt to undercut him, not help him.
          .
          As for ideology, I’d like to think that the so-called “antidiscrimination statute” point easily qualifies as “not like the others,” especially when taken to the extent Johnson does. Interesting to learn I am a “wacko extremist” for not thinking Christians should be forced to bake cakes celebrating gay sex.
          .
          Further delighted to learn that Mr. Johnson explains this position, btw, by citing his support for restaurant smoking bans:
          .
          …what about the employees? Aren’t they hostage to a smoking environment, even if they don’t smoke?
          .
          This “libertarian” is just a neverending onion of pleasant surprises.

      2. but most of the readers won’t make it past the headline to read the article.
        they see “don’t vote for Gary Johnson”, nod their head, then turn the page
        silly sheep

        1. Wrong – most people are ‘sinners’ – they do the opposite of what you tell them.

          1. Support massive assumptions like this with data or you’re a moron, moron.

            1. If you want him to do that, you have to order him not to do that.

              1. No, you have to call me a ‘moron’ again and say nothing when someone else calls people ‘silly sheep’ and end up intentionally proving my point:

                1. In order for that to happen, wouldn’t you have to have a point?

        2. Does anyone read the political articles in Rolling Stone?

          1. I tried to read the one about how awesome Hillary is the other day and I almost died.

            1. Oh, they had a centerfold?

              1. My thoughts and prayers are with us all.

      3. Heh, yeah, I’ve been feeling less enthusiastic about Johnson lately, but RS has helped pique my interest again.

        I’m still voting Almanian!/Deez Nuts, though.

    2. They could have used the same bullet points and argued the exact opposite – Reasons to vote for GJ if you lean conservative / Reasons to vote for GJ if you lean liberal.

    3. My sentiments exactly. As I read that, it re-affirmed my decision to vote for Johnson. On the flipside, my heart was saddened when I realized there are knuckle draggers who are actually going to believe it and assume, “this Gary Johnson guy is a scary character because of (fill in the blank)…but Clinton or Trump are TOTALLY qualified.” This country is so screwed.

    4. I’m making over $7k a month working part time. I kept hearing other people tell me how much money they can make online so I decided to look into it. Well, it was all true and has totally changed my life. This is what I do… http://goo.gl/vLekWl

    5. Start working at home with GOOGLE! YAHOO. ABCNEWS AND MORE GLOBAL SITES? It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Monday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this ? 4 weeks past. I began this 7-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $97 per hour. i work through this web.. Go this website and go to tech tab for more details… http://goo.gl/jrG8Uv

    6. Start working at home with GOOGLE! YAHOO. ABCNEWS AND MORE GLOBAL SITES? It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Monday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this ? 4 weeks past. I began this 7-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $97 per hour. i work through this web.. Go this website and go to tech tab for more details… http://goo.gl/jrG8Uv

    7. I basically profit close to $10k-$15k every month doing an online job. For those of you who are prepared to do easy at homee jobs for 2h-5h each day at your house and earn valuable paycheck while doing it… Then this work opportunity is. Go To Web…. http://www.14earnpath.com

  2. No matter where you sit on the ideological spectrum, you’re likely to find something deeply objectionable in Johnson’s views.

    Feature, not bug.

    1. Anybody who completely agrees with every single thing a politician or political party supports is a dangerously brainwashed idiot.

      1. Unless they keep the issues to a few key issues that we can all agree on. i.e. Strong but lean Military defense and shrinking the Nanny State. Everything else is none of the government’s business.

        1. Agreed and I would add to it that there’s another possibility.

          Take some theoretical party which has positions on many more things than just the few you mentioned. If the party’s base philosophy contained very few principles, and all other positions taken grew logically from that base, then it would be possible to get a non-retarded 100% agreement.

          Of course in reality there really isn’t a party so logically consistent, disagreement is a thing of the past, nor any party really pushing just a few key issues, so I do agree that:

          Anybody who completely agrees with every single thing a politician or political party supports is a dangerously brainwashed idiot.

          But in theory….

          /pedant

        2. And a short term program to remove the progressives from America.

    2. Its my rules of libertarianism with the stupid turned to 11.

  3. Then there’s the idea that every “reasonable human being, of any political persuasion” thinks vaccines should be mandatory.

    Because nothing says “free country” like sending government goons with guns to steal children away from their parents and inject them with something against their will than making vaccination “mandatory.”

    Educate, argue, show? Yes. Require them for access to certain government services? Sure.

    Make them mandatory, with all that necessarily entails? You’re not reasonable, you’re a fucking tyrant.

    1. This stood out to me as well. I’m fairly moderate on the vaccine issue — my daughter will be following the recommended schedule, and I get the flu shot every year, but I didn’t insist that all of my family members get the flu vaccine before I’d let them hold her, and I don’t care if she’s around unvaccinated kids. I suspect most people are not extremists on this issue, but the extremists are the only ones who care enough to rant about it.

      1. Apologies, but I don’t think the current vaccination debate has anything to do with flu shots. It could be if those wanting vaccinations legally required might expand into this area should they win in the more fundamental areas of concern, but right now, Idon’t think requiring flu shots is a primary goal of those groups.

        Furthermore, given the libertarian arguments to supporting legal requirements for vaccinations, as well as those arguments used to support still require prescriptions for anti-biotics, are based on real, sometimes irreversibly damaging harms the non-vaccinated can potentially cause the vaccinated including bringing back diseases which used to be eradicated and/or the real harm abusers of anti-biotics can cause others.

        Given that stance, I’d say most libertarians who believe in required vaccinations using arguments logically consistent with NAP, would not include the flu shot as a vaccination which should be required and further add they wouldn’t have a strong argument which also remained consistent with NAP to require flu shots.

        Disclaimer: I don’t honestly know which side of this debate I fall on, though I lean towards “no legal requirement should exist”. But I also think in libertopia, where all schools, etc are private, that’s a world were vaccines are mostly required anyway.

        1. If vaccination works, why are unvaccinated people a threat to the vaccinated?

        2. So if all the people who believed in vaccination got vaccinated, and all the people who did not believe in vaccination did not we’d find out sooner or later who was right without the interference of the state. So you pro- vaccination people get vaccinated, protect your lives and shut up.

    2. Neither Obama nor his Surgeon General support absolute vaccine mandates. It’s insane how uninformed there people are.

      1. But Ronald Bailey does.

    3. I do not think vaccines should be made mandatory by the state. However I also have no objection to any school (including government schools), preschool, playgroup, HOA, business, or whatever that wants to exclude unvaccinated children.

  4. Fuck Rolling Stone. They haven’t been relevant since the Rolling Stones were relevant which was somewhere around ten years before the Stones’ Steel Wheelchair tour. They should stick to hard hitting journalism like uncovering the campus rape crisis and the like or maybe, just maybe, they should stick to music.

    1. According to my uncle from the era, the Stones stopped being relevant right after Exile.

  5. Rolling Stone just has a sad that it’s becoming less relevant than libertarians.

    1. I dunno, I’ve seen Rolling Stone in the news a hell of a lot in the past couple years…

      1. Not in a good way.

  6. I find it funny that reason still is in denial about GJ not actualy being a libertarian.

    1. He’s more libertarian than either Clinton or Trump.

    2. Define libertarian.

      1. To answer my own request, I define libertarian as someone who’s primary moral concern is protecting individual liberty. At an extreme end of that spectrum, one views individual liberty as the *only* moral concern. Slightly less extreme, as a moral concern that trumps all others. On the more moderate side, the default moral concern but one that might be trumped in certain limited circumstances.

        Johnson clearly falls in the latter group, but I’d still call him a libertarian.

        1. He’s libertarianish – MacAfee could have been elected and people either would have called him ‘not libertarian’ for something or, if he somehow managed to pass the purity test that no one in the history of the world has, a wackjob for being *too libertarian*.

          The fact is, its not actually important. Baby steps. Johnson (and even Weld – to an extent) are centrist politicians (on the right/left spectrum) and lean towards more freedom and less state control. Which makes them orders of magnitude better than any of the other candidates.

          1. Yes. This is the part people are forgetting. BABY. STEPS.

            McAfee would not have gained traction for libertarians. Shit, idiots like this idiot in the idiot magazine only idiots read try to paint a painfully moderate like Johnson as an ‘extremist’. Imagine what McAfee would have produced from the mainstream and left media!

          2. A big tent libertarianism that is large enough to win a 3 way election, will have to include Johnsons and Welds.

            Although the last is definitely on the fringe.

          3. I would totally splooge if we got someone libertarian enough to lean on congress and actually get a balanced budget passed, shrink the federal budget by even 5%, and eliminate even one cabinet level department. Johnson might actually be capable of that. I doubt Trump will, but it’s not impossible. Hillary is pure evil and would never do those things, and Stein is a fucking collectivist piece of shit.

        2. I think there can be a necessary and good-faith argument about how libertarian Johnson is (and I fall on the “not-all-that-much” side), but it don’t care to debate it when it is just a stalking horse for anyone urging libertarians to vote for Trump or Hillary instead.

          1. Yeah, supporting either Trump or Clinton because the Libertarian isn’t libertarian enough is a lot of things, but a rational decision isn’t one of them.

            1. I don’t think GayJay is particularly libertarian, but he is leagues better than either Trump or Clinton. There are two types of commenters on here that bitch about GayJay not being libertarian: the purists and the yokels. I can respect the purists, since I tend in that direction. The yokels are just using it as a cover for their hate of GayJay’s social liberalism.

              1. Pretty much. GayJays not really, really, really, libertarian, so you should vote for Trump because Hillary is the whore of Babylon. Also Trump is really good on the core libertarian issue of keeping immigrants out.

                1. Also Trump is really anti-war. Honest, trust me.

            2. It depends — if your objective is to cause the most libertarian candidate to win, then it’s ludicrous. If it was just a protest vote and you don’t believe he has a shot, it’s possible that it diminishes the value of the protest enough that you would take a consequentialist view instead.

            3. Confirmed!

        3. Libertarians are averse to gradualism; I don’t want to speculate on why. Don’t necessarily think that’s my guiding principle this election, but I suppose that is in play with the luke warm support for GJ from libertarians

    3. Is that Monolithic Being Called Reason in denial?

    4. Where do you see this?

      Matt’s amusement is with the concern trolling from the right and the left, who would be snickering if a ‘pure’ libertarian were nominated.

    5. Meh. Close enough for electoral politics. If I want libertarian purity, I don’t look to electoral politics. If the LP wants to be a political party and not a club for weirdos competing for the title of libertarianest libertarian, they have to find someone who will be somewhat pragmatic and diplomatic.

      At this point, I think I’d have preferred McAffee. He’s more what I’d like to see and more interesting. But I think Johnson probably is the right guy if they want to try to gain some ground in national election.

      1. ‘Interesting’……..in the sense of a reality show subject. McAffee is a weirdo, regardless of his politics.

    6. The great thing about being libertarian is, I don’t have to listen or care what your definition of libertarian is.

    7. You know who never lets ideological purity tests prevent them from voting? Everyone who has voted for a politician who won. Guess who makes the laws? It’s not the One True Scotsman.

  7. As long as the progressive media believed that Johnson was taking votes away from Trump he could safely be talked about and even encouraged. Once it became clear that Johnson was taking more votes from Hillary than from Trump he becomes “the enemy”.

    If it weren’t for Trump, Hillary would be in single digits. Even Johnson could beat her one on one.

    1. If it weren’t for Trump, Hillary would be in single digits.

      As someone whose GF is a liberal, and most of my sibs are liberal — I’ve heard the groupthink first hand. No matter who was running as an R or LP candidate, Clinton would have most of the electoral votes needed to win locked down right from the get go.

      1. Wife and daughters gushing blood liberals. All in-laws Hillary must die Rs. Trying to explain the meaning of the constitution, an effort equivalent to drunken masturbation.

        1. I do great work that way … Just say’n

      2. I have a plan to save America. Take everyone who voted for Obama in both 2008 and 2012, and kick them out of America for good. All their assets will be redistributed as reparations to all the good Americans their stupidity has harmed. That should allow things to get fixed for the foreseeable future.

      1. Scroll down to see the Robby Soave retweet on her feed, then look me in the eye and tell me that again.

        1. Stupid women need the most attention.

        2. I am not scrolling her Twitter feed because I do not hate myself that much. I do not want to engage her in an intellectual discussion, I was merely stating that she is a pretty gal.

        3. Not fair. Robby makes all women look plain next to him.

        4. Oh god I went looking for Robby but after a bare minute in the pit of snakes I had to climb my way out.

      2. More like high average and a bit cute.

        1. I wouldn’t kick her out of bed for eating crackers. I would, however, kick her out for saying any of her dumbass political opinions.

          1. Before or after?

            1. I’d wait until after. Dumb can be fun.

          2. She’s at that level where it comes down to personality. Like if her personality sucks or she’s an idiot or whatever, she’s not pretty enough where I could ignore it. OTOH, if she’s cool and fun to be around, she could potentially outperform better looking competition.

          3. Just fill her mouth with something.

    1. Dear lord. She actually has a unicorn hat. I hate my generation. Millennials are not only ruining politics, but ruining culture as well.

      1. Every generation ruins culture. That’s how culture happens.

        1. Though the hat is just retarded.

            1. Only one way to know for sure – take it to Chicago and see if they try to tax it.

      2. I hate my generation

        Warning: video includes a lot of lil’ somthin somthin for Crusty.

    2. I’d gladly teach her a little something about the presumption of liberty and its implication of a polycentric legal system.

    3. Gary Johnson:Glenn Beck::Mariah Carey:Jennifer Lopez, but you still shouldn’t, under any circumstances, vote for him

      Um, ok.

      1. Is Mariah Carey supposed to be better than JLo? Is this a Voice or American Idol or whatever thing?

        1. You know what other “new media” columnist has an obsession with Mariah Carey?

  8. Yeah, RS can go fuck themselves. A hollow, irrelevant shell of boomer hyperbole, now just as craven and ridiculous as any of the traditional institutions it still doggedly attempts to mock.

    It’s actually a perfect representation of the boomer culture: debutante, neoptistic publisher, static reverence for a music period far, far past it’s time, and zero journalistic integrity in the service of it’s sacred cows. The last issue had some fucking awful botlicking article on how wonderful a Clinton administration would be. Just another in a long line of bootlicking, like the fawning fellatio job they gave to Obama.

    It’s irritating and telling that you are signed up for the magazine when you buy tickets these days. No one’s gonna subscribe otherwise, I guess. When will the fallout from the campus rape article lawsuit get to where they can feel some financial pain?

    1. I don’t know if it’s so much “boomer” anything. It was much better when actually run by that generation.

    2. RS: Millennials with pony tails!

      1. Nah, long hair is just for old people now.

        1. It’s all top-knots now.
          Top-knots and beards.

    3. The oxymoron for the current age is journalistic integrity. There is no fourth estate, it’s all just pandering for their preference.

  9. Eric Clapton: The third most talented musician in Cream.

    1. Fourth. Don’t forget the late great Felix Pappalardi.

      1. Renegade gets it.

        1. But does he get Tales of Brave Ulysses?

          1. Pressed Rat and Warthog.

            And many years after Cream, a wonderful cover of Jack Bruce’s “Theme For An Imaginary Western.”

            1. I would argue EC was the third best musician in Blind Faith. Suck it Ric Grech….

  10. That’s a disingenuous argument in a year where the majority of the country dislikes each candidate and there are highly convincing “the progressive case against Clinton” and “the conservative case against Trump” arguments to be made.

    Also, they saved the vaccine bullet for its own category and closed with it like it was some sort of holy-shit revelatory moment that would shoot Johnson’s support to zero by tomorrow. I’ll go ahead and say it, if “vaccine policy” is in your top five issues that you choose a president on you’re a strange, stupid person who doesn’t understand politics or the role of the presidency.

    1. “Disingenuous” is a pretty generous way to describe it. I was going with “frankly retarded.”

  11. I saw my first Gary Johnson bumper sticker out here in Seattle today, it was from 2008 though.

    1. Still waiting for mine to come in the mail. I wonder if the USPS has banned their bling?

  12. Hillary is losing votes!!!! Help her Rolling Stone!!!

  13. Per the RealClearPolitics polls, GayJay is drawing more from Hillary than Trump. Therefore, he must be stopped.

  14. The left still thinks they are the ones that rebuke authority. They still think they’re the anti-establishment hippies from the 60s, when the truth is that they are the ones who are actually “the man” (or agendered authority figure, to use their newspeak)

    1. Nothing says “Stick it to the Man” like demanding that he pay for your every want and protect you from every ill, real or imagined.

      1. I was slowly making my way down the threads to make this point.

        There’s Marley smoking a joint on the cover. Oooo soooo coooool. Stick it to the man! Think free man! Question authority!

        Yet, when it counts most, musicians and artists are the biggest cowards and superficial quacks quick to support tyrants and government welfare.

      2. I have these chicks that do my trimming for me. They consider themselves anti-establishment. yet everything out of their mouths is how to get more welfare money and state aid. The lack of self awareness is astounding.

  15. Gary at 9%? Too bad he’s not running against Buttplug.

  16. If Rolling Stone has any interest in this matter of Johnson, it is because he would be taking votes away from their preffered candidate who I don’t even need to bother to name [her]. So they will use any specious and tangential “reasoning” their writers can conjure out of their caldron to tell you to not vote for him, because he is either too conservative for some or too liberal for others.

    I just hope he garners enough votes to throw the whole f’n process and no one gets a majority. That could at least keep a “law abiding” by the skin of her teeth criminal and progressive mofo from becoming POTUS, and a shit slinging Mussolini wanna be from ruining the country. Virtually any dark horse would be better.

    1. Exactly.

      Johnson drawing equal amount of support from both sides, and Jill Stein is taking another 3% from the left. Taking down a relatively clean candidate with some universal appeal will take more than just defaming him as a government hating right winger. So RS engages people who passes as “conservatives” in their minds.

      Gary Johnson is literally the only reason why Trump isn’t completely wiped out. With him and Stein included in polls, Clinton loses 3-5 points. Her grasp on the electoral map is ironclad, but she has TONs of baggage and a record amount of people won’t choose Clintrump. RS knows this.

      If conservatives were running the debates, GJ would have a guaranteed seat in the table.

  17. An “article” like that isn’t entirely unexpected from Rolling Stone. It’s been a mouthpiece of the Establishment for years.

    1. At least when the correct party is in charge.

  18. Hunter S. Thompson spinning in the grave.

  19. I don’t get it. Are they concern trolling? Just plain trolling? Full retard?

  20. Is Rolling Stone still around? Wow! I thought they died, alone, a long long time ago.

    1. Stop its motherfucking presses.

  21. “It’s a shame the Libertarian Party couldn’t nominate, you know, actual libertarians this year”

    Ignoring the source, the is still a true statement.

    1. So, who did they run last time?

  22. Cool. Gary Johnson is for a smoking ban.

    This must that new non-icky, moderate freedom Gary Johnson is telling us so much about. I guess King Gary will let you have whatever freedom you want as long as he says it is okay.

    1. I’m against smoking bans on principle, but I have to say that I have little sympathy for the inconvenience of smokers who have consistently been obnoxious about their habit in public and seem to think that the whole world is their ashtray.

  23. This article also explains perfectly why Rolling Stone doesn’t allow comments.

  24. God I’m glad we spend our time criticizing publications that criticize our candidate. It’s so much more productive than, following the advice of inartcile mentioned “National Review’s Jim Geraghty”: “It’s a shame the Libertarian Party couldn’t nominate, you know, actual libertarians this year”. My word! Where would we be if we had nominated Austin Petersen? You know, someone who agrees with Libertarian LAS Ron Paul on everything but doesn’t look and sound like a gremlin.

    Anywho, Matt, this is the magazine that never fired the “Jackie” author…who gives a crap?

    1. Peterson, like Rand Paul, is an anti-choice republican infiltrator. The other guy, who also had good patter, was a legalize-murder anarchist. The noob who expected the nomination five months after paying dues is looking more and more right about Gary and Whoosis. So what we have is a dysfunctional nominating procedure. I would offer the real Gary Johnson from Austin, or our Travis County Texas treasurer as ideal candidates, and there must be a hundred others.
      But since the top slot is merely symbolic, Gary would still be the best available choice if he would just shut his trap and read the goddam platform.

      1. Libertarians disagree and will always disagree on abortion.

        Rand Paul and Austin Petersen are infinitely more libertarian than these carbon tax, gun grabbing, eminent domain, anti-discrimination law, affirmative action, green energy subsidy, Patriot Act supporting and religious freedom hating progressive that the Libertarian Party members nominated.

        1. Hank jerks off thinking about abortion while rambling about prohibition and 1930’s republicans. My guess is that he is institutionalize somewhere, and his comments are the product of brief escapes where in he gains access to a computer in the admin office.

  25. I was one of those Rolling Stone readers back before anyone had heard of Reason or the LP, thanks to looter media exclusion. Back then we were expected to either help soviet communism tax us (and sort of hint at eventual repeal) or help national socialism napalm them commies (and sort of hint at eventual tax cuts after the blacks and hippies were safely jailed). Many of us expected McGovern to win based solely on that vague hint of repeal in our lifetimes. Economics was a foreign subject only marxists were into. But now that the LP is delivering what Alan Watts and Tim Leary urged us to accept before it was fashionable, it is sad to see Rolling Stone flip to drag us back into the commie/nazi one-straight-line-fits-all world of 1945.

  26. Rolling. Stone.

    Telling me to be scared of drugs being legal.

    Rolling Stone has never mattered.

    (No, not even when they had Hunter Thompson, who while very entertaining to read was basically a hack in every other way.)

    1. I’m voting for GayJay, but it’s embarrassing the degree to which Reason is in the bag for him.
      .
      Tess Stuart is a journalist, and Johnson is a fucking presidential candidate–as it happens, a supposed “libertarian” who is selling himself as liberal, conservative, and centrist as opportunity arises. That is just normal politician behavior, of course, but in turn he should get normal politician treatment. Isn’t it, you know, Stuart’s job to try to put Johnson’s strategy under the microscope from all angles? But in the hands of Reason thorough, multi-perspective, critical journalism apparently becomes some nefarious plot to destroy St. Gary.
      .
      That very journalistic perspective was, in fact, the very thing that attracted me to Reason even before I became a libertarian. They speak truth and don’t carry water for any ideology, even their own: There is no shortage of criticism of the behavior of pro-choicers, LGBT activists, the NRA, or whatever here. Except, of course, for Johnson. May his light ever shine.

  27. I’m voting for GayJay, but it’s embarrassing the degree to which Reason is in the bag for him.
    .
    Tess Stuart is a journalist, and Johnson is a fucking presidential candidate–as it happens, a supposed “libertarian” who is selling himself as liberal, conservative, and centrist as opportunity arises. That is just normal politician behavior, of course, but in turn he should get normal politician treatment. Isn’t it, you know, Stuart’s job to try to put Johnson’s strategy under the microscope from all angles? But in the hands of Reason thorough, multi-perspective, critical journalism apparently becomes some nefarious plot to destroy St. Gary.
    .
    That very journalistic perspective was, in fact, the very thing that attracted me to Reason even before I became a libertarian. They speak truth and don’t carry water for any ideology, even their own: There is no shortage of criticism of the behavior of pro-choicers, LGBT activists, the NRA, or whatever here. Except, of course, for Johnson. May his light ever shine.

  28. I continue to be entertained by liberals and conservatives defining libertarianism to me.

    1. I don’t see why anyone, liberal, conservative, or libertarian, should be particularly qualified or unqualified to “define” a term of language. But far more importantly than that, I fail to see what is particularly “entertaining,” rather than compelling, informative, and completely insightful and reasonable, about this particular journalist’s objections to Johnson’s positions from a libertarian perspective. I have seen a lot passed off as objections from a “libertarian” perspective that are utterly ridiculous, but all of Stuart’s are completely spot on. She even avoided the marginal, so-beloved “social liberal” stuff that is actually quite contentious within the actual movement, like immigration and abortion.

  29. Holly crap! We can’t legalize drugs now . . . we’d put all those crime cartels and street gangs out of work and welfare cost would go thru the roof.

  30. “See, I think drugs have done some good things for us, I really do. And if you don’t believe drugs have done good things for us, do me a favor, go home tonight and take all your albums, all your tapes and all your CDs and burn ’em. Because, you know what, the musicians who made all that great music that’s enhanced your lives throughout the years… rrrrrrrrreal fuckin’ high on drugs.”

    Bill Hicks seemed not to have agreed with Rolling Stone on the impact of drugs on musical inspiration.

  31. Does RS have a subscriber base? Who knew?

  32. “even more out of date than Eric Clapton.”

    you should apologize. five bucks said you were fondling yourself to some miley cyrus tune when you wrote that.

  33. My mothers neighbour is working part time and averaging $9000 a month. I’m a single mum and just got my first paycheck for $6546! I still can’t believe it. I tried it out cause I got really desperate and now I couldn’t be happier. Heres what I do,

    —————— http://YoutubeJobs.Nypost55.com

  34. “even more out of date than Eric Clapton.”

    you should apologize. five bucks said you were fondling yourself to some miley cyrus tune when you wrote that.

    ????? ???
    ???????

  35. 1. Rolling Stone is not, never has been, and never will be libertarian. They like government force, so long as it is forcing the things they want forced.

    2. Government permission to consume a plant is not libertarian, but clearly Rolling Stone fears that it could one day lead to libertarianism.

  36. Facebook gives you a great opportunity to earn 98652$ at your home.If you are some intelligent you makemany more Dollars.I am also earning many more, my relatives wondered to see how i settle my Life in few days thank GOD to you for this…You can also make cash i never tell alie you should check this I am sure you shocked to see this amazing offer…I’m Loving it!!!!
    ????????> http://www.factoryofincome.com

  37. Facebook gives you a great opportunity to earn 98652$ at your home.If you are some intelligent you makemany more Dollars.I am also earning many more, my relatives wondered to see how i settle my Life in few days thank GOD to you for this…You can also make cash i never tell alie you should check this I am sure you shocked to see this amazing offer…I’m Loving it!!!!
    ????????> http://www.factoryofincome.com

  38. Yes, on the more moderate side, the default moral concern but one that might be trumped in certain limited circumstances.

  39. Piper . I see what you mean… William `s storry is amazing, on monday I got a great Smart ForTwo since I been bringin in $6208 this past four weeks and-even more than, ten-k last-munth . this is certainly the best-work I’ve had . I actually started three months/ago and pretty much straight away was bringing home over $69 per-hr . check out this site..

    CLICK THIS LINK ??????? http://www.earnmax6.com/

  40. Piper . I see what you mean… William `s storry is amazing, on monday I got a great Smart ForTwo since I been bringin in $6208 this past four weeks and-even more than, ten-k last-munth . this is certainly the best-work I’ve had . I actually started three months/ago and pretty much straight away was bringing home over $69 per-hr . check out this site..

    CLICK THIS LINK ??????? http://www.earnmax6.com/

  41. Piper . I see what you mean… William `s storry is amazing, on monday I got a great Smart ForTwo since I been bringin in $6208 this past four weeks and-even more than, ten-k last-munth . this is certainly the best-work I’ve had . I actually started three months/ago and pretty much straight away was bringing home over $69 per-hr . check out this site..

    CLICK THIS LINK ??????? http://www.earnmax6.com/

  42. You could make very similar lists for Clinton and Trump as well. Centrist politicians aren’t purist radical ideologues?! You don’t say!!

    Moreover I find it hilarious how fearful Clinton supporters are of GJ stealing their election. I thought libertarianism was a “radical right-wing philosophy” according to them? He should be robbing the election from Trump… And shouldn’t Clinton fans like Rolling Stone be encouraging conservatives to vote for Johnson?

    1. And finally this is the most hilarious part: the Left bashed the hell out of Rand Paul when he defended private business’s right to discriminate, now they try to bash Gary Johnson for being against it. Libertarians have nothing to gain politically from that stance and everything to lose. It’s why libertarian purists will never get elected, even if you spin it as a stance that could work in minorities’ favor. Reaching out to black voters and gay voters should be one of our top priorities and one of the best ways to grow our base.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.