Gary Johnson

I'm the ONLY One Talking About Entitlements, Free Trade, Regime Change: Gary Johnson on ABC News' This Week

Libertarian candidate notes he's polling better than Perot was in 1992 when allowed into debates.

|

Reason.com

Libertarian Party presidential nominee Gary Johnson appeared on ABC's This Week with George Stephanopoulos to discuss his exclusion from the presidential debate on Monday, how he differs from Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton on the big issues, and, of course, the need to colonize other planets.

Wuh?

It's another way of saying that the former two-term governor of New Mexico turned in a performance like all-too many of his media appearances: He was equal parts compelling and kooky. ABC set up the interview by replaying Johnson talking to a reporter with his tongue stuck out between his teeth, mumbling that all he would need to do to win the presidential debate was appear on stage and hold his tongue (get it?). That's unfortunate but then again, nobody forced Johnson to pull such a trick, did they? He did quickly get on to more-substantive topics, noting correctly that he is the only candidate who is openly and continually addressing pressing issues such as government debt and spending, entitlement reform, and the need to abandon regime change as the nation's go-to foreign policy. As important, he pointed out that he was the only candidate who is actually in favor of free trade, which he said (correctly) would increase economic growth and opportunity here.

Johnson also pointed out an inconvenient truth regarding the Commission on Presidential Debates' selection process: Back in late September 1992, independent candidate Ross Perot was invited to join President George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton despite polling at around 8 percent on average in national polls. Johnson is doing better than that (though it's true that earlier in the cycle, Perot was actually leading the race).

Stephanopoulos was more interested in pushing the idea that Johnson was at best a spoiler and, well, kind of a nut. On the first point, he pressed Johnson on whether Clinton or Trump would be less bad. On the second, he played a clip from 2011 that showed Johnson joking that the sun would eventually engulf Earth, so that "global warming was definitely in our future." Johnson laughed it off, replying "Can't we have a little humor once in a while?" before talking about how innovation is a better fix for the environment than government mandates.

ABC's writeup of the appearance, titled "Gary Johson Calls for Space Colonization, Vows To Stay in Race," is a mini-masterpiece of depicting a third-party candidate as a loon, though it's fair to say that the good governor rarely misses a chance to throw a few more sticks on the fire. At key inflection points, Johnson has either muffed a question or gone down a rabbit hole that almost certainly undermines his impressive track record as a governor and his seriousness as a candidate.

Later on, during an analyst's roundtable, Matthew J. Dowd called back to Johnson's appearance, observing (among other things) that Johnson clearly deserved to be on the debate stage and that neither Hillary Clinton nor Donald Trump could afford to "be themselves" in the debate given how much everyone hates them. (Matt Welch and I talked to Dowd at the DNC in Philly; go here for that.)

Johnson remains the best-performing third-party candidate so far since Perot in the 1990s. I don't doubt that he will finish strongly if he keeps pushing how his policies not only differ from both Trump's and Clinton's but how he and his running, two-term governor Bill Weld, have real experience at running things. And if he keeps his tongue moving, rather than stuck between his teeth.

Watch today's full segment below.

Advertisement

NEXT: Miami Marlins Pitcher Jose Fernandez, Survivor of Cuba's Castro Regime, Dies at 24

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. Tesla is fine when the subsidies and protectionist racket benefits them. They are being screwed on this, but…

      1. ^+1
        Musk is a master at sucking taxpayer money for his benefit; I’ll get sympathetic when he quits peddling his bogus ‘green certs’ at the public’s expense.

      2. Any company will try to get an advantage, so of course Tesla is fine with legislation that favors them. This isn’t about tallying up Tesla’s karmic burden.

        Does a state get to shut down Apple stores because the CEO of a local electronics chain happens to be the Governor’s aunt’s cousin’s favorite nephew?

    2. Can I buy directly from Ford? Franchise laws suck but why should only Tesla be allowed to flout them?

      1. Someone has to be first.

        1. If you leave the confines of HnR, this is how they actually think. Every time this comes up on Slashdot or other tech sites, the nerds suddenly become law-and-order for the sake of law-and-order types.

  1. “Can’t we have a little humor once in a while?”

    Butts were hurt.

    1. Was your husband that rough with you?

  2. As important, he pointed out that he was the only candidate who is actually in favor of free trade…

    And there’s a reason. No one wants to vote for a candidate who isn’t going to pretend to save his job at all costs.

    I really think ABC, like everyone else, is misjudging the dynamics of the race here. If Johnson is going to sap votes from anyone, it’s going to ultimately be Trump. They’re missing an opportunity.

    1. If Johnson is going to sap votes from anyone, it’s going to ultimately be Trump

      I’m not sure what you’re basing that on. But for the past several months, the RCP avg has shown just the opposite.

      1. Basing that on the idea that if GJ is taking votes from HRH, they’ll kill him but if he’s taking votes from Trump they’ll give him a camera and a mic and his own 5 minute segment on every channel. Whether or not it’s true, GJ and the LP are mising a helluva opportunity by not selling the networks on the idea he’s a Trump spoiler.

      2. The latest polls I saw had it as a slight tilt as more Trump voters compared to Hillary, but that’s misleading. There is a strong contingent of Republicans who refuse to say they’d go Trump. Johnson offers a way-out of sorts. How they answer in a two person race can be misleading.

        But it’s tough to tell who is actually making up the ~8% who would vote Johnson. I’ve seen ‘liberals,’ Democrats, who have said they will vote Johnson and it has surprised me. These are people who religiously vote Dem. Despite the Bernie craze, social issues are the biggest noose around the neck of conservatives.

    2. Fist I am going to disagree with you. From my perspective The former Bern Victims that I know are getting hard on the Johnson.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=en1uwIzI3SE

      1. Stein is getting her share of them. Talk about your fruitcakes. She makes Johnson look professional.

      2. I am telling you people that on Election Day, staring down the barrel of a Trump presidency, the usual Democrat voter will fall into line much more easily than the usual Republican voter because limited government is not a message one of the two voter bases traditionally wants to hear.

        Polls right now are next to meaningless.

        1. Speaking of barrels, I’m sure there will be people who don’t like Trump but will vote for him becauae of gun control fears with Hillary.

        2. Only the Hard Core Watermelons/Salon readers are going to vote for Stein. The rest of generation SJW retardation are going Johnson/Weld.

  3. After the interview Stephanopoulos asked Gasy Jasy, “You think I’m a cute hunk?

  4. Hey, Nick, serious question here. Is that pic of angry guy in pink shirt Reason’s best idea for making people take Gary seriously? Because every time I see it, the only thing I can think is ‘Why you mad, bro?’.

  5. …Need to colonize other planets….

    Finally, something I can get behind voting for.

    While this may sound like a joke, its actually a much more thoughtful approach to where the nation (and humanity) need to go and to do than any other candidate has demonstrated.

    1. Maybe we could get a libertarian candidate elected on one of Saturn’s moons?

      1. Desperately plotting to take over the solar system, so we can leave you alone.

    2. Why throw yourself back down into a “gravity hole” after you finally get out of one?

      Asteroids are the future…

    1. At least that version offers some entertainment value.

      1. and it doesn’t corrupt the libertarian brand

        1. Adam Ant was a pretty, pretty man.

          1. Heh OK now I’ll click.

            Love that song…

    2. Compared to this, it sucks ballz:

      Be a Libertarian

      1. Hey if my leftist neighbors are going to bully me then maybe in order to survive I should bully them. =D

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ta-Z_psXODw

  6. Jeebus, what an election year. Normally I would vote Libertarian, knowing my vote was just statistical noise, but I’d be making a symbolic point that matched my beliefs (mostly).

    But I can’t do it this year. Yes, entitlements need reforming, and free trade is good, and I don’t want us to do regime change. But I also don’t want us to do demographic/cultural change. Democrats want to flood the country with the Third World, out of misplaced idealism and plenty of self-interest. More welfare spending for the Mexicans and more surveillance for the Muslims are fine with them: the state expands, and Democrats get more votes. Win-win! And if there are more terror attacks, that’s somehow “a price we must pay.” What does Hillary care? She has armed bodyguards.

    Unfortunately, like many libertarians, Johnson seems to see no problem with that. “Freedom of movement” seems to have no real limits. Oh, we might hear “Just end the welfare state,” but that is not happening. Certainly not if you flood the country with future Democrats.

    Seen elsewhere:

    Orlando shooter: Child of ‘vetted’ Muslim immigrants.
    San Bernardino shooter: Child of ‘vetted’ Muslim immigrants.
    Boston bombers: Children of ‘vetted’ Muslim immigrants.
    Fort Hood shooter: Child of ‘vetted’ Muslim immigrants.
    Chelsea bomber: Child of ‘vetted’ Muslim immigrants.
    Washington Mall shooter: Child of ‘vetted’ Muslim immigrant.

    Only one candidate seems to grasp the obvious implications. Unfortunately, it’s Trump.

    1. In the real world we live in where it’s either/or, you have to do what you can to prevent a hillary win.
      This whole thing sucks, but you can’t give her the Supreme court.

      1. And you can’t give her Merkel like immigration policy power.

        1. True on both counts. Also, Hillary wants to expand Obamacare to illegals.

          1. How cute. You actually think there would be serious policy differences between a Trump administration and a Hillary administration. Check out the pic circulating right now of Michelle O hugging George W. These people are all friends when the cameras are off and the show is not being recorded.

            1. Of course there would be serious policy differences. You can accuse Trump of ideological impurity and inconsistency all day long, and be largely right. But he still beats the 100% certainty of Hillary’s leftist / SJW / establishment / statist / interventionist / mass immigration / multiculturalism.

              Hillary is Russian roulette with a semi-automatic. With Trump, at least we get to spin the cylinder.

      2. As if Trump’s SCOTUS pick would be any better. If you think he’s going to stick to the list that some conservative wrote and handed to him a few months ago, you’re deluded.

        Leaving aside the fact that the new Dem Senate is going to be out for blood in retaliation for McConnell’s idiotic decision to refuse to consider Obama’s pick. Goodbye cloture rule.

        1. Trump’s list is 100% better than anything Clinton would do. Trump could tear up that list and still do better. He’s not going to be appointing SJWs as Hillary would.

    2. Aren’t you in California, dude? I haven’t seen the polls lately, but I’m pretty sure one vote more or less for Trump ain’t gonna be the margin of victory in California.

      1. It’s exactly the same in every other state. Yes, even in Florida in 2000. The margin of victory was 537 votes.

      2. Clinton will win CA by at least 1 million votes, is my guess. Lifelong CA resident, so I can vouch for the stupidity of the avg voter here.
        As soon as I leave, I hope an earthquake sinks at least coastal CA into the Pacific.

          1. We hope you can evacuate first, of course.

            1. You have a source for good earthquake predictions…?

              1. Non-jailed Italian seismologists?

      3. I realize that. That comment was already max length, so to say more on that: By voting for Trump, I am not thinking I will propel him to victory, but am also making symbolic statements:

        – Borders and culture matter.
        – While immigration is often good, it’s always possible to have too much of a good thing.
        – Let’s drop the dewy-eyed view that all religions are the same. Yeah, I’m looking at you, Islam.
        – The SJWs need the biggest possible kick in the pants.
        – As do the GOP establishment, the neocons, the Democrats, Obama, the mainstream media, the academy, and the intellectuals.
        – And even the libertarians, on the specific topic of immigration.
        – People take the Presidency too seriously. Trump is an antidote to that.
        – The media needs to get back to being skeptical of government, instead of bootlicking the Democrats.

        On a personal level, my inner Dada/anarchist/punk self knows that Trump will be vastly more entertaining.

        And as a libertarian (still, more or less), I want the political chaos of Trump winning. When traditional parties realign or even die, that’s when smaller parties have an opportunity to grow. I hope that happens to the LP, but they’ll have to come to their senses on immigration.

        1. “The SJWs need the biggest possible kick in the pants.”

          And, unfortunately, a Johnson/Weld vote does absolutely nothing toward that end.

          1. Sadly true.

    3. The children of one parent families will commit 100 times as many murders as the children of “vetted Muslim immigrants”.

      Should the children of single parents and ‘vetted’ Muslim immigrants both be forcibly removed from the homes and given to two parent Christian families?

      1. The government needs to stop subsidizing the creation of single-parent families. But also, those murderers are not working to install a theocratic totalitarian ideology from 1400 years ago.

        1. Are you seriously afraid that perhaps a dozen psychopaths are going to bring about the Caliphate in the US?

          These idiotic religious movements burn themselves out rather quickly. The “Mad Mahdi” overran Khartoum and killed the British governor “Chinese” Gordon. The Mahdi was suppose to take over the entire Muslim world yet two years later the Mahdi was dead and his movement with him.

          The history of these movements reads like a biblical lineage – The Mujahedeen begat the Taliban which begat Al Qaeda which begat ISIS. There are no shortage of religious wackos in the Middle East and there will always be religious, tribal and clan slaughters there until the most anti-individualist philosophy ever (Islam) dies a well deserved death.

          1. Modern political Islam is not “burning itself out.” It’s spreading. It’s winning. Islam is running a Good Cop/Bad Cop routine on the world. The Bad Cops are the “dozens” of “psychopaths” and the dozens of terror groups. The Good Cops are CAIR and the other apologists. With the Muslim Brotherhood, the Iranians, and the Saudis in there somewhere. Pushing Muslims refugees to the West is religious warfare. Europe is obviously already suffering from their idealistic delusions about Muslims.

            It’s Islam, dude. This isn’t the first time they’ve done this sort of thing. They are the single largest, most powerful, anti-libertarian force on the planet today. And too many libertarians ignore that because they worship a sky idol called “freedom of movement.”

            1. ISIS has lost 40% of its territory over the last two years. It pretends to be a government but it can’t keep the roads in shape and can’t deliver any services. They can’t get recruits that can actually fight so they give them suicide vests. They are crumbling before any force that can fight. The Kurds are crushing them. ISIS claims to be planting jihadists among the Syrian refugees in the hope of scaring America into returning the refugees to certain death. As long as the Syrians can walk away from the ISIS thugs on one side and the Assad thugs on the other then ISIS can’t do much to win new recruits.

              ISIS will be gone before the next president faces re-election and will have been replaced by a “new” Islamist threat. And this threat will, no doubt, be YUUUGE!

              1. Your dismissal of the Islamist threat seems very outdated.

      2. Single parent families should absolutely be vetted. We don’t need more immigrants to collect welfare.

  7. What’s Johnson’s position on Uranus?

    1. He’s up for probing for some penetrating insights.

    2. Regular colonoscopys.

    3. He’s all in on colonizing Uranus.

  8. Stephanopoulos supports Hillary Clinton the war monger and defender of the racist and un Constitutional war on drugs.

    In short, Stephanopoulos supports a racist war monger.

  9. I remember when perot quit his second race in 96 because he said his family was threatened. Based on the clintons’ body count and shamelessmess, I believe him now. He spent most of his 92 campaign mocking bill.

    1. And going on about that “giant sucking sound” which, of course, turned out to be Monica.

    2. That was the 1992 campaign — supposedly there was a picture of his daughter kissing Madonna.

  10. My daughter brought home a video game called Dark Age Inquisition but in the dim light of the TV area I read the title as Dance Dance Inquisition.

    I don’t know what the goal of that game would be but I’m sure it would be fun to play.

    1. No one expects the Dance Dance Inquisition.

      1. No, we do not have the comfy-chair. You will dance, not sit.

    2. Dragon’s Age: Inquisition?

      If so it is. Sort of. For a couple of hours. Then you’ve seen everything and all the fights are just repeats – 2-3 guys standing around randomly waiting for you to stray too close to them spiced up with the occasional one walking through. Most people who ‘love’ it love it for the companions. Because they’re straight modern-Bioware, player-sexual dolls you can live out your solipsistic fantasies through.

      1. DAI is a really good RPG. Provided you play it on a PC. It will suck on baby toy consoles just like every other game does.

        1. Its actually barely an RPG. And the problem is that it, like pretty much all AAA games, is a console game – the PC version is just a port. Peasants do not like real RPG’s – there’s a lot of paying attention to what people say, persistent consequences to your actions, and *sometimes* there’s not ‘right’ choice to make.

          Plus there’s never a ‘best ending’ (a filthy fucking concept from jRPGs) and we don’t care about cheevos. All they care about are ‘is the graphics good?’ (as if 900p @ 30FPS could ever be good), ‘is the combat good?’. So that’s what gets made. They’ll add in some inconsequential choices to make along the game – none of which will make any difference to the course of the linear story – and then at the end you’ll hit one of three buttons to get your ending. All three buttons will be available no matter what you’ve done previously.

          Frankly, wRPG’s are in a serious decline that is only being slowed down by a tiny number of indie outfits.

          1. I’m encouraged by the success that Pillars of Eternity and Divinity: Original Sin had. I look forward to their followup projects.

            That said, the best platform for RPGs will always be a table, dice, and like minded players.

        2. It’s a massively flawed game, like every other Bioware game released post-Mass-Effect-2. That said, I’m an unrepentant addict to the Bioware formula, so I still loved it.

  11. I won’t be watching the debate. I don’t think Johnson’s inclusion would have changed that.

    1. “Honey, what’s that sound? It sounds like someone slapping two steaks together.”

      “Oh, that’s just the libertarians down the street, watching Gary Johnson in the Presidential debates.”

      1. “No, wait, it’s actually Hillary walking to the podium.”

  12. Arnold Palmer died today.

    **pours out a half measure of lemonade and a half measure of iced tea**

    1. Rather an extreme way of getting out of watching the debate.

      1. Looks like Tupac and Harambe needed 2 more for a round of golf.

        Requiescat in pace

    2. Worst year ever

      1. Best year Ever. Now we can seethe true purpose of the “State”

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zq0h5uIzVAs

    3. Just saw it. Fuck.

      Thank God Jack is still alive.

        1. And Francisco Franco? What about him?

    4. I keep watching people die and yet I’m still here. This internal debate I’m having over whether everyone else is only an NPC, continues.

  13. Of course we ought to be thinking about how to colonize other planets.

    It’s the people laughing up their sleeves at the very idea who are the weirdos.

    1. The correct term is ‘luddites’. Remember when people didn’t want to sail west from Europe because they might fall off the edge? Almost all leftists are luddites.

      1. Not only are they luddites they want to reduce energy consumptio (prosperity) to stop an imaginary problem (AGW only exists in manmade GIGO models). We couldn’t stop an impending and certain ice age if we tried.

        1. Glacier? I barely know her!

        2. But we could easily survive it. Except for you know, we’re all helpless snowflakes and victims, having only 100s of times more technology than when the last humans survived an ice age.

          1. Adaptation is our only choice. Choking consumption and freedom is assinie.

          2. “helpless snowflakes”

            “Mommy, what’s a snowflake? Is it like those pictures in the book Daddy saved from the desert zombies?”

          3. Melting ice does not make me sad.

            1. Polar bear murderer! The bear had a name!

              1. How many people who watched that were unaware that polar bears can swim? Ice chunk surfing is probably a convenient way for them to fish.

                1. KOCHTOPUS LIES!

              2. The bear had a name!

                Yup… and it wasn’t Robert Paulson.

                It was “steak”.

                1. And the whole “polar bear” thing… Large amounts of body fat with leaner meat– I might wanna taste me some bear bacon!

    2. “It’s the people laughing up their sleeves at the very idea who are the weirdos.”

      When you’re on national television trying to convince non-libertarians to vote for you, you probably shouldn’t talk about the same things in the same way you would if you were here in the comment section at Hit & Run.

      Thank goodness he didn’t say anything about woodchippers.

    3. It’s ridiculous to talk about colonizing other planets when we can’t even colonize Antarctica or the Sahara Desert, which are far, far more conducive to human life.

      1. I don’t know.

        I might be willing to forego a breathable atmosphere if I could only escape progressives and their parasitic entitlement syndrome. The lack of female companionship is a deal breaker.

        Anyway, I don’t think it’s about finding a new world. You just need a spaceship that offers travelers a life that’s better than what they’ve got here.

        Would you rather spend your life in an awesome spaceship on the way to a destination you’ll never live to see?

        Or in a government project in Chicago or Detroit?

        The people who take the big risks, pull up their lives, and abandon home for the hope of a better world, they won’t be the well educated and prosperous among us. It’ll be people who don’t have any better opportunities at home. Like Mormons going to Utah or Pilgrims to Plymouth Colony. Like the Irish escaping the potato famine or the Germans fleeing religious wars. You don’t go to the New World because everything is great back home. You leave where you are because where you are sucks.

        1. “pull up their lives, and abandon home for the hope of a better world, they won’t be the well educated and prosperous among us.”

          Not very inspiring…

          1. I’m thinking there would be like a wealthy, eccentric patron to finance the construction of a ship and a lot of other people who don’t have many other opportunities back on earth.

            There’s a planet that might support life orbiting Proxima Centauri:

            If non-nuclear, conventional propulsion technologies are used, a flight of a spacecraft to a planet orbiting Proxima Centauri would probably require thousands of years.[88] For example, Voyager 1, which is now travelling 17.043 km/s (38,120 mph) relative to the Sun, would reach Proxima in 73,775 years, were the spacecraft traveling in the direction of that star. A slow-moving probe would have only several tens of thousands of years to catch Proxima Centauri near its closest approach, and could end up watching it recede into the distance.[89]

            Nuclear pulse propulsion might enable such interstellar travel with a trip timescale of a century, in the near future, inspiring several studies such as Project Orion, Project Daedalus, and Project Longshot.[89]

            . . .

          2. . . .

            If non-nuclear, conventional propulsion technologies are used, a flight of a spacecraft to a planet orbiting Proxima Centauri would probably require thousands of years.[88] For example, Voyager 1, which is now travelling 17.043 km/s (38,120 mph) relative to the Sun, would reach Proxima in 73,775 years, were the spacecraft traveling in the direction of that star. A slow-moving probe would have only several tens of thousands of years to catch Proxima Centauri near its closest approach, and could end up watching it recede into the distance.[89]

            Nuclear pulse propulsion might enable such interstellar travel with a trip timescale of a century, in the near future, inspiring several studies such as Project Orion, Project Daedalus, and Project Longshot.[89]

            http://tinyurl.com/zgambo6

          3. Chances are, the people who leave earth will never live to see it themselves, and their descendants on board might have more affinity for the ship than earth or some new planet.

            So the trick is to make the ship better than what people can have on earth. And it’s easier to do that with people whose lives on earth are already shitty. They might even be prisoners–people who would rather go into space than serve a life sentence in prison. Australia started out as a prison colony. They sent farmers there to steal their land and when they got in debt, but their descendants are freaking patriotic. I suppose it would be like that.

            If the journey were ten thousand years, I don’t know how people would manage avoiding overpopulation. They might only send females and just reproduce by way of test tubes until they arrived somewhere and decided they wanted to colonize.

            Regardless, the ship has to be the destination for the people who decide to leave.

            1. As long as its privately funded and has only volunteers I don’t have a fuck to give.

      2. Its ridiculous to be talking about colonizing other planets no matter what.

        Once you’re in orbit your halfway to *everywhere*. Why would you dive down a gravity well again. There’s nothing on Mars that isn’t more easily available elsewhere in the Solar System.

        Seriously. The only point of Martian colonization is *if* we terraform it sufficiently that you can survive there like a hunter-gatherer. Pre-technological hunter-gather with pointy sticks. Then you stick a bunch of people there to live like primitives while the rest of us take to the start on the off-chance that something wipes out potentially millions of self-sustaining mobile habitats spread across the solar system and potentially even in others.

        And then you *still* have to face the facts that Mars dies at the same time earth does when the Sun expands to a red giant.

        1. And then you *still* have to face the facts that Mars dies at the same time earth does when the Sun expands to a red giant.

          Anyone who thinks anything approximating humans will still exist in 4B years is batshit crazy. We will either be long extinct or will have evolved into something completely unrecognizable.

          1. Homo sapiens is only, what, 100,000 years old?

            Still, I don’t see what’s going to drive our physical evolution in the future. One thing the environmentalists have right is that we’re no longer subject to the effects of our environment as much as we are the biggest impact on the environment.

            Evolution is the study of how our environment manipulates our genes.

            We’re probably at the end of that game on Earth already. We might need a new name for what’s been going on since the industrial revolution. The environment no longer manipulates our genes so much as we manipulate our environment to conform to our present genetic makeup. What environmental factor still has the power to manipulate our genes so much so than we can manipulate it?

            1. “What environmental factor still has the power to manipulate our genes so much [more] so than we can manipulate it?”

              Fixed.

            2. Evolution is the study of how our environment manipulates our genes.

              We will manipulate our own genes to make ourselves better, I suspect we’ll evolve to some sort of human/silicon hybrid, before the silicon takes over completely, replacing the carbon.

              What environmental factor still has the power to manipulate our genes so much so than we can manipulate it?

              Super volcanos, mega flares, ice ages, gamma ray bursts, technology…

              Humanity, as we know it, has a few hundred thousand years, at best.

              1. “We will manipulate our own genes to make ourselves better, I suspect we’ll evolve to some sort of human/silicon hybrid, before the silicon takes over completely, replacing the carbon.”

                One of the reasons I think people have started to shy away from religion is because they don’t find the idea of eternity as attractive as it used to be. Maybe I’m just getting older, too, but then I remember thinking I never wanted to be as old as I am. Still, my life is pretty good, but I’m not sure I’d want it to go on forever.

                And being something other than human isn’t something I want to be either. Having inhuman children seems horrific.

                I can understand making ourselves smarter or stronger. I’m not sure that enough of us will ever want to be something other than a good ol’ hairless ape.

                1. And being something other than human isn’t something I want to be either.

                  Not to worry, you won’t be. Neither will your children. But it’s completely irrational to think we won’t evolve over millions and billions of years. Humanity isn’t that good to begin with. There is infinite room for improvement. And improvement is a good thing.

                  Why in the fuck would I care if humanity doesn’t resemble me in the future?

              2. “Super volcanos, mega flares, ice ages, gamma ray bursts, technology…”

                Air conditioning, central heating, greenhouses, . . .

                We’re not looking at any radical changes unless we’re talking about changing those things.

                We’re not competing for food. We’re not being culled by predators.

            3. Still, I don’t see what’s going to drive our physical evolution in the future.

              We will. And we’re not, not subject to the effects of our environment. We are still subject to random selection – which comes from our environment and no matter how we change that the best that can be accomplished is that we change our environment so that our current form is the ‘best adapted’ (by whatever standard we set as there’s not actually any *objective* measure for that – the normal proxy is reproductive success).

              So, we move into space – we’re not going to change space to conform to us, we’re going to change us to conform to space. Prehensile feet, for example.

              Colonists on Mars aren’t going to want to wait an extra couple hundred years for the atmosphere to be made breathable if some tweaking can increase their CO2 tolerance.

              Stuff like that.

              Humanity will split into multiple clades. If you traveled a thousand years into the future this place would be full of aliens – our descendants in all their myriad forms.

              1. “So, we move into space – we’re not going to change space to conform to us, we’re going to change us to conform to space.”

                Yeah, we’ll change with an extreme environment off planet.

                Just a few generations traveling through space without gravity might change us dramatically.

                But earth is under our control.

        2. Yeah, nothing on Mars.

          You want another star system. We’ll be carrying foreign microbes,and those will wipe out most of the local inhabitants. We can enslave the survivors–sort of like Christopher Columbus did*.

          And the point that if people spend a lifetime or two en route to another star system, psychologically, they’ll probably come to think of their ship as their home. But we are talking about tremendous resources and opportunities for growth off ship.

          You’d expect population growth to make life aboard rather crowded, as well. I think enough of them elect to go down to the surface, but who cares if they don’t? I still say it’s about giving them a better life en route than they have on earth. I don’t think that’s possible on Mars.

          Who wants to go to Mars? Mars is a prison colony.

          *exactly like Columbus did.

        3. Aga-

          Dammit! Didn’t scroll down.

          You beat me by 13 minutes…

  14. “Johnson remains the best-performing third-party candidate so far since Perot in the 1990s.”

    He’s doing well despite the things he does and says–not because of them. He hasn’t smoked pot for, what, almost 12 weeks now? Non-libertarian family and friends are saying he should grow up already, but they’re holding their noses and voting for him anyway.

    McAfee wouldn’t do as well–despite the things he does and says. McAfee’s kookie is too far outside the Overton window.

    It’s also important to remember that Johnson isn’t the Messiah. He’s John the Baptist. A lone voice in the wilderness. Preparing the way*.

    The Messiah is in Kentucky, and whether he challenges Trump in 2020 or goes for the Republican nomination against Hillary, the Lord is coming. Make straight the way for the Lord*.

    *John 1:23

    1. Well, you know that climbing mountains and surviving on honey, locusts, and cannabis is a rough trial.

      1. He didn’t have to do that.

        He just had to put it in people’s minds that going libertarian isn’t necessarily the kookiest thing out there.

        Getting past that bias is a big deal, and it’s deep seated.

        Smearing Rand Paul as libertarianish won’t be a big deal in people’s minds next time.

        Before Johnson, a lot of people still thought it meant we were milita movement or something.

        1. Paul is more libertarian than Johnson, plus an incomparably better candidate. And for sure, I would be going to the polls to vote for him if he were the GOP candidate.

          1. Yeah, and won’t have as much of an uphill battle getting swing voters to think of him as an acceptable candidate.

            They’ll remember Johnson. They’ll remember Weld.

            They’ll think, “That guy wasn’t so bad. He wasn’t as bad as Hillary or Trump”.

          2. Paul is more libertarian than Johnson

            Debatable.

            Paul

            and

            Johnson

            1. Yes, that is very debatable. My guess is cosmos would fall on Gary’s side and yokels would side with Rand. Nothing would get resolved except that the two sides would end up hating each other a little more after the debate.

        2. “A lot of people still thought it meant we were militia movement or something.”

          For all I know, half of you were recasting bullets even as I was typing.

          1. Actually….I was earlier today.

        3. But Rand doesn’t run as a libertarian. He runs as a republican in a republican primary.

          1. Yeah, and he loses the nomination because he’s thought of as being a libertarian.

            And if he wins the Republican nomination, he’ll need non-libertarianish people to vote for him.

            And his opponent in the general would try to smear him for being a libertarian wolf in Republican sheep clothing if he or she could.

            That will be harder to do now that Johnson has come across to a huge chunk of swing voters as the sanest alternative to Trump or Hillary.

            That was Johnson’s job. Prep people to think that libertarians are just as sane as the Republican and Democrat nominee. Voting for small “l” libertarians–it’s not just for kooks anymore!

            1. GayJay is a capital “L” Libertarian. He abandoned whatever small “l” tendencies he once pretended to have.

            2. That will be harder to do now that Johnson has come across to a huge chunk of swing voters as the sanest alternative to Trump or Hillary.

              A huge chunk? Seriously?

              1. “A new poll shows that the former governor of New Mexico is in double digits in no fewer than 42 states. In 15 of those states, he’s at 15 percent or higher”

                https://reason.com/blog/2016/09…..in-most-st

                Yeah, double digits in 42 states was a huge chunk of the swing vote.

                Seriously.

                It’s also much higher than the margin of victory will be.

                Even more important in swing states.

                And since all reports suggest that Johnson is pulling more more support from Clinton rather than Trump, if Rand can win the nomination, he’ll find a nice fat slice of the people who would rather vote for a Libertarian than Hillary Clinton.

                That can only work to his benefit.

                1. LOL. That was an unscientific survey, not a poll.

                  This Washington Post-SurveyMonkey 50-state poll was conducted online Aug. 9 – Sept. 1 among 74,886 registered voters. The sample was drawn among the respondents who completed user-generated polls using SurveyMonkey’s platform during this period, and results are weighted to match demographic characteristics of registered voters in each state. No margins of sampling error are calculated, as this statistic is only applicable to randomly sampled surveys.

                  Didn’t you wonder how Johnson was only at 8% nationwide if he’s in double digits in 42 states?

                  1. Are you Tulpa?

                    1. Ken-

                      It’s always amazing how easy it is to tell when the Tulpatard switches ID’s. He confirmed it earlier when he explained cried like a little bitch that everyone blocks his known ID’s in “Reasonable” in another thread earlier today.

                    2. And he wonders why people block him…

                      I’m, personally, shocked.

                    3. It’s the willful obtuseness that’s a dead giveaway for me.

                      His first step is always to suddenly go stonewall stupid like he can’t understand math or English.

            3. “That was Johnson’s job. Prep people to think that libertarians are just as sane as the Republican and Democrat nominee. ”

              GayJay the Baptist.

      2. Locusts? Honey?

        I thought GayJay was a vegan?

    2. I think that Thomas Massie would be a better pick from Kentucky than Rand Paul. He’s a bit more persuasive and his engineering background gives him a more analytical approach that allows him to rip a bad argument to pieces. If someone says “Illegal immigrants who commit crimes have a 30% recidivism rate” Massie would immediately ask “What is the recidivism rate for the population as a whole?” (answer – 60%).

      I like RP but he doesn’t come across too well with average people despite (or perhaps because of) a solid knowledge of economics and the Constitution. If you ever get the chance watch him talk to the Heritage Foundation on the subject of judicial restraint. Heritage is the bastion of judicial restraint and Paul took the opposite position and advocated judicial activism. His presentation was excellent, probably because his advisor was Randy Barnett. Randy Barnett is an industrial strength libertarian, not libertarianish.

      Massie, despite a BS and MS in engineering from MIT, exhibits minimal nerd-dom. He comes across as smart without being the least bit condescending. He’s younger than Paul and projects an optimism that Paul lacks.

      If the Republican party doesn’t “primary” him (quite probable considering what they did to Amash and Huelscamp. Amash survived, Huelscamp didn’t) he’ll be quite force in Congress over the next four years.

      1. Thank you.
        I really don’t follow the two-party political personalities and rely on places like this to find info on them. He seems like someone worth watching.

      2. He’s a bit more persuasive and his engineering background gives him a more analytical approach that allows him to rip a bad argument to pieces

        Yeah! You know those medical doctors and their thinking as sloppy as their handwriting! I mean, just how do they come up with all those crazy diagnoses! It’s not like they spend more than a decade honing their skills in inductive reasoning to infer what illness their patients are suffering from based on the symptoms they present and from that determine the best course of action. Pshh..ain’t nobody got time for that! LOL, am I right?

        1. Doctors aren’t taught to think. They just have to memorize a whole bunch of stuff. Engineers are taught a particular way of thinking that is foreign to most people. I have met many dumb doctors. I have yet to meet a truly dumb engineer.

          1. I have yet to meet a truly dumb engineer.

            Lucky you…

          2. I’ve worked with hundreds of engineers. Chemical, petroleum, and mechanical mostly. Plenty of dumb ones. Far fewer than in the general population, but enough.

            E.g. Jimmy Carter, nuclear engineer.

      3. ‘Having an analytical bent’ is a yuuuuge disadvantage for a mainstream pol at the national level (especially there). Folks aren’t looking for someone who acts smart. They want someone they can believe is smart but who acts all folksy and charming and shit. Like that pig from Green Acres. He’s charming enough that you forget he wallows around in filth all day.

        Its why Clinton keeps doing the Forrest Gump accent. Its why W got the nod and won that first election. Its how Carter and Reagan got into the Oval Office.

        1. Its also why Rand and Johnson have had such a battle – neither of them is folksy and both of them are thoughtful. The latter looks like hesitation when put next to someone like Trump or Clinton. Trump and Clinton are constantly wrong – but they never hesitate, never give even the slightest hint that maybe the situation is more nuanced than whatever snap-bullshit spews out of their mouths.

        2. An analytical mind spots the weakness in an opponent’s argument. Using that weakness in a vicious or condescending way isn’t nearly as effective as calmly and even humorously pointing it out. Massie does this easily. He’s basically a happy-go-lucky type person who can show you a mistake and make you grateful for his pointing it out. An audience hearing him are more likely to think “I never thought of that” than “I hate that smug, smart ass for trying to make feel stupid”.

          Here is his bio:

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Massie

      4. If someone says “Illegal immigrants who commit crimes have a 30% recidivism rate” Massie would immediately ask “What is the recidivism rate for the population as a whole?” (answer – 60%).

        I hate these retarded statistics more than anything.

        How many of the “illegal immigrants” were immediately deported after serving their sentence- thus not able to commit another crime in the US? Besides the felony they commit when they chose to re-enter the US illegally again?

    3. Thomas Massie? You’re not talking about Rand, are you?

      1. I like Rand Paul a lot but I think that Massie presents the issues more clearly. That’s not a knock on RP. It’s just the difference between good and better.

  15. Talking points! Get your fresh, steaming hot duopoly talking points right here!

    “There will be a lot of also-rans in the 2016 presidential election. According to the Federal Election Commission, 1,928 hopefuls have filed a “statement of candidacy” for president this year, otherwise known as FEC Form 2.”

  16. Extra points for salty, sweet tears reference.

    http://m.townhall.com/columnis…..s-n2221769

    1. Ouch:

      “Technology made you superfluous. Hey, I’m right here in my pad writing a column just like you, with three key differences: I’m not pretending to be unbiased, I don’t have to wear pants, and this time next year I’m not going to be looking for a new job at some place where the term “Frappuccino?” is a thing.”

    2. Urgh. While the linked article is decent I made the mistake of looking at another one praising fucking Arpaio. Even staunch ‘close the borders’ types should be ashamed of everything else that man has done.

  17. Maine Civil War veteran receives final salute as he’s laid to rest in Hodgdon

    “Williams’ remains arrived at the cemetery in a horse drawn carriage, along with a police escort and three groups of Civil War re-enactors, who helped re-create an 1873 Civil War funeral service. He also received present day military funeral honors, including a three volley salute and the playing of Taps.

    “Pastor Robert Smith of the Hodgdon United Baptist Church…[said] “…That is the great thing about Aroostook County. People know that no matter how far away they go or for how long, they can always return home.”…

    “Mike Edgecomb, the Maine state captain of the Patriot Guard Riders, talked about receiving Williams’ remains in Virginia and the reception that the riders received all across the country….

    “”There is an old saying that an old soldier never dies until he is forgotten,” Edgecomb said. “Williams was not forgotten, his memory just faded for a bit. Now he is remembered again.””

  18. Relax about Johnson’s lack of gravitas. You want gravitas, we’ve got Bill Weld for that, and no libertarians want Weld on the top of the ticket. Johnson is way more presidential than Trump and way more genuine and trustworthy than Clinton. The reason Johnson’s stuck on 9 percent is because the mainstream media has given him less than 1 percent of the news coverage. If you tell people over and over it’s a 2-person race, they tend to believe it, even if the third choice is better and would be favored by more voters than either of the other 2 candidates if everyone knew all 3 candidates and picked the one they liked best.

    1. Johnson is way more presidential than Trump

      You people are hilarious.

      1. Unless your idea of ‘Presidential’ is ‘likes to pose bare-chested while wrestling bears in staged photoshoots’ ala that faux machismo of Putin then . . . yeah. Johnson is tons more Presidential than Trump.

        1. I think the correct answer is neither of them are presidential.

  19. I’ve come across a http://www.enterprisepub.com/o…..htmldebate that’s actually interesting:

    “Most people have strong opinions about their preference for deep-dish ? “Chicago style” ? or thin-crust ? “New York style.” Sports Editor Tyler Dahlgren and Managing Editor Katie Rohman debate.”

      1. Lincoln/Douglas, move over, this here is a *real* debate.

          1. I thank God for my nipples every day, thank you very much Mr. Evil.

          1. I have been blessed by the squirrels Eddie. =D

            Your God is nothing, and Sevo’s Atheism is Shit.

            1. You misspelled it:
              “…Sevo’s atheism…”

            2. But I haven’t even *mentioned* the supreme Triune God.

  20. So my father ,who is an old-old man and a natural shit stirrer, has gone full Trumpster. He recently got a red “Make America Great Again” ball cap and wears it everywhere, just hoping for a chance to engage in debate browbeat anyone who remarks on it. Today someone noticed that his hat is ill-fitting and kinda cheap looking, He admitted that he bought it from Amazon for 7$ ,it seems that the Trump store wants 25 to 30$ for one and that’s too pricey. Irony wasn’t acknowledged.

    1. Which one came with the “Made in China” label?

    2. Ha! On Saturday I saw an older, fat white guy in SF’s Mission District with a Trump t-shirt. I nearly stopped and complimented him on his courage.

      1. “Dude, Lompoc is that-a-way!”

        1. But the interesting thing continues to be the fact that I see almost no Hillary flair in SF. Signs and stickers and buttons: way, way fewer than 2012, not to mention 2008, when you couldn’t walk a block without seeing Obama signs. There are almost as many old Bernie and Obama signs still around.

          1. Same here in NYC. I haven’t seen a single Hillary anything.

          2. The worn-out Espirit dimbulb is trying to build some enthusiasm in the innertubze, but no one seems to be buying it.
            She never figured out that her ‘business success’, like her politics, were built on fashion.

      2. “Ha! On Saturday I saw an older, fat white guy in SF’s Mission District with a Trump t-shirt. I nearly stopped and complimented him on his courage.

        Maybe they’re on bumpers over in Pacific Heights; Steyer/Pellosi/Feinstein ‘hood, but I sure haven’t seen ANY Clinton bumper stickers down town or on the east side. Haven’t seen any Trump stickees, either, but that’s no surprise.
        I’m sure the trained lab-apes of SF will pull that D lever, so any lack of enthusiasm won’t make a lot of difference.

        1. I am not so sure. I’ve seen a lot of evidence that many gays are siding with Trump on Muslim immigration alone. They don’t want more violent Third World homophobes around, no matter how hot they may be.

          Another anecdote: I know an established local artist, who is totally in the SF art/gay/hipster scene. She told me months ago: “I hate it when people say anything nice about Trump.” She was not talking about online support. She meant people she knows and meets, who say things like (I imagine): “I don’t like Trump, but I think he has a point about….” That sort of hedged, tentative support is a sign to me that Trump has a noticeable underground support, even here.

          I know a guy who works for a state Dem politician. I can’t wait to ask him what the mood in those circles about Hillary vs. Trump. I suspect doubt and panic are spreading.

          1. PapayaSF|9.25.16 @ 11:46PM|#
            “I am not so sure”

            You have a better opinion of the average SF voter intelligence than do I.
            I certainly have nothing other than history and anecdotes and the latter can suggest a change.
            The former says “no”.

            1. Eh, politics is about values and emotions more than intelligence.

              I am not saying that Trump is going to take SF or even CA, just that my gut sense is that the rumblings I detect indicate a force more than enough to counteract the equivalent force on the other side: the #NeverTrump right.

              I sensed something similar before the ’94 election. Vast numbers of people are dissatisfied with the status quo, and Hillary represents the status quo. I see some Bernie voters preferring Trump. I see large numbers of “haven’t voted recently” types for Trump. Hillary is ill and flailing. Her campaign is giving up on Ohio. If Trump does OK in the debates, he’s in.

  21. I live in CA. My presidential vote counts only as a statement; that hag owns the CA delegation.
    Cue SIV to tell us how Johnson is not really a good Trump impersonator; I don’t care.
    Johnson gets my vote under the standard libertarian standard of: ‘I’d rather vote for what I want and not get it than the alternative’.

    1. And at the risk of eddying, redundancy is redundant; ignore one “standard” please.

      1. Hey like I said upthread. If your neighbor is going to bully you through a ballot box. Bully him/her back. =D

  22. “Good evening, boys and ghouls, this is Alistair Cooke, returned from the dead to bring you good short films…no, just kidding about the “good” part. Here is a film about a coed alone at home, when suddenly the phone rings…and it’s a land line, ha ha ha!”

  23. By way of apology for that last one, let me give you a story that’s actually, technically, good.

    1. Two guys are trying to cross a desert and are concerned about their camel making the journey.

      “Stupid animal. It doesn’t want to drink any water from this pool. There will be no more water the rest of the journey.”

      “I have an idea. Let’s force it do drink. I am going to hold his head under water.”

      “How is that going to make him drink?”

      “While I hold down his head, you start sucking on his asshole, forcing the water into it’s mouth.”

      “All right, let’s give it a shot.”

      ……

      “Hey, you are holding his head too low!! All I am getting is mud!”

      1. Maybe it’s just my alcohol level, but I laughed…

  24. Johnson remains the best-performing third-party candidate so far since Perot in the 1990s.

    We’ll see how that goes on election day. Even if we generously assume he’ll keep the poll numbers he has now, he’s running against the two most despised major party candidates in recorded history.

    The “two term governor” schtick has always been weak sauce. GJ hasn’t been a governor for 14 years, Weld for 20. Jesse Ventura and Arnold Schwarzenegger could make the same claim.

    1. Did you have a point, or just a glass of whine?

        1. Ha, that was my first thought when I read his reply to me, above.

      1. The point is Johnson has been a disaster in what looked like the best election for third parties since 1860.

          1. Looks like the truth hurts. Bad.

            1. The TRUTH is that you are a lying shitbag troll.

        1. “The point is Johnson has been a disaster in what looked like the best election for third parties since 1860.”

          Really? Care to give us a rundown on how he’s become a “disaster” compared to all 3rd-party candidates since 1860? Or would you just like to admit to being called on BS now?
          And if you’re going to whine about him, what alternative would you propose, other than whine?
          Frank: Could be tulpa; could be SIV; a whiner regardless.

          1. Sorry, my fee is $20/hr for reading comprehension lessons.

            1. ykw|9.25.16 @ 11:39PM|#
              “Sorry, my fee is $20/hr for reading comprehension lessons.”
              Good luck getting anyone to pay you for anything.

          2. Let’s put it this way: almost any of the commenters in this blog could have done a better job in this campaign than Gary Johnson.

            Whatever his experience as governor from 1997-2002 might buy him in terms of respectability and trust is never considered due to his bizarre statements and behavior on the campaign trail in 2016.

            This is coming from somebody who, once Trump and Clinton clinched their nominations, thought he would be OBVIOUSLY voting for Johnson this year. Yet he’s managed to lose my vote since then.

            1. ykw|9.26.16 @ 12:04AM|#
              “Let’s put it this way: almost any of the commenters in this blog could have done a better job in this campaign than Gary Johnson.”

              Let’s put it this way: whine, whine whine. And fuck off.

  25. This thread is dead, and speaking of corpses, check this out.

    1. Speaking of dead threads, has anyone heard from Hihn?

  26. If Samantha Bee or someone from ABC treated Donald Trump like a nut on camera, his base would go on a war path And who can forget how Clinton’s harpies flew to her defense when she collapsed on 9/11.

    And that’s why Johnson won’t win. He doesn’t have hyper partisan base that’s emotionally driven and can be manipulated by a cult of personality. These people literally pull things out of their ass to justify their support of their candidates. Like Clintonistas praising Clinton for “powering through” her illness on 9/11 (cuz nothing else happened that day) and Trumpsters attacking Cruz and Rubio for being “globalist sellouts”.

    It hurts that Johnson is playing a nice guy when most of the electorate is ticked off and wants to lash out at something. The libs are getting the message that Johnson COULD hurt Clinton. The NYT and LAT both endorsed Clinton and the LAT is making a case that millennials shouldn’t be voting for Johnson (because that’s vote for Trump and libertarianism is bad for them). The time for Johnson to act with some energy and passion is now.

  27. He’s not _really_ talking about it though. I think we ought to note that the only third-party candidate who made a dent in modern history was Perot. He did it by showing people graphs, and sounding authoritative. Of course his argument was very weak, but he still got a surprising amount of the vote.

    Johnson ought to model himself after Perot, but use better arguments. Like: this is the unfunded obligation of government at all levels, and it amounts to something like a million dollars per household. This is going to have to come from somewhere, and eventually we’re going to have to ask the middle class for it. Can you spare a million bro?

    I think using numbers to point out to the middle class that we’re about to go over a cliff that will hurt them and will really hurt their children could be a very powerful argument, just as Perot’s (misguided) argument against NAFTA was powerful.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.