Who's Gary Johnson Voting For?
The two-time Libertarian Party presidential nominee shares his thoughts on Chase Oliver and the election.

A little more than eight years ago, former New Mexico governor and Libertarian Party presidential nominee Gary Johnson nearly turned the two-party system on its head, coming within a couple percentage points of achieving the 15 percent threshold needed to join the 2016 presidential debate stage with Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. But as has historically been the case with third-party candidates, Johnson's support faded in the final weeks, and he and running mate Bill Weld ended with a little more than 3 percent of the national popular vote (still a Libertarian Party record). After another abortive Libertarian run for U.S. Senate in 2018, Johnson largely disappeared from politics, enjoying the good life in New Mexico at his homes in Santa Fe and Taos with longtime partner Kate Prusack and, as he related, spending 100-plus days on the ski slopes and taking part in the annual 2,800-mile Continental Divide Mountain Bike Race. But he broke his silence Monday in an interview with Reason to share his thoughts on the 2024 election.
Johnson, who says he voted for Libertarian Party nominee Chase Oliver, predicted a Trump victory—an outcome about which he confessed to having mixed feelings. "Half of what Trump does is good," he says. "The other half is crazy."
Johnson supports some of Trump's tax policies and sympathizes with his approach to the Russia-Ukraine war, but also chided the former president for anti-immigration rhetoric and says fears about Trump's threat to democracy are "legitimate." He's no more favorable to Vice President Kamala Harris and President Joe Biden. Calling the Biden administration's record "horrible," Johnson says Harris is honest and competent but opposes her "inflationary" policy proposals, including rent control, limits on food prices, and a wealth tax. He fears both candidates would continue to explode the national debt, the "biggest issue facing the country right now." Johnson is encouraged (and vindicated) by recent rhetoric from both candidates in favor of marijuana legalization. He still believes an independent candidate for president could win in the future, but that it would need to be a billionaire with the personal resources to compete with the two major parties.
Reason: The election is Tuesday. Have you voted yet?
Johnson: I have. I voted for Chase Oliver, the Libertarian candidate for president.
How do you see the future of the Libertarian Party, of libertarianism as a whole, and what do you think the party can do to become relevant again?
Well, based on my own experience, it is a two-party system. And the only way a Libertarian wins is if they have the resources to actually match what the Republicans or Democrats have, and I don't see that. I think most of us, whether we're registered that way or not, are independent, and it's too bad there is a two-party system.
Let's talk about the major candidates. Trump was in New Mexico recently, so let's start with him. Back in 2016, you called Trump "the epitome of who I would never be." What did you mean by that?
My whole existence is telling the truth and not embellishing. I found myself after the fact to have misstated a lot of things along the way, but I go out of my way to correct that with those that I've made a false or inaccurate representation of. That's my life. My life starts with the truth: Tell the truth, and you don't have to remember anything. And Trump is the person I don't want to be regarding the truth, regarding "who are you?" My best friends will say: "Gary, you're the only person that I play golf with that I don't keep your score because I know you're keeping it properly. At the end of the hole, I can count on you to record your 14."
Has your opinion of him changed at all over the past eight years?
Well, half of what Trump does is good. It's really good. I agree with it. The other half is just crazy. "They're eating the dogs! They're eating the cats! They're eating the pets of the people who live there!" And then you got Harris on the other side talking about a wealth tax, talking about a tax on unrealized gains, [letting] the Trump tax cuts expire. So there's that. I think everything she's talking about is inflationary—she's going to control rent and food. Well, to me, that's going to be food shortages, and nobody's going to build any sort of housing if they're going to be subject to rent restrictions.
You said half of what Trump does is really good and the other half is crazy. Can you speak about the good?
Well, taxation, no wars over the course of him being president. Economically, [with] either one of them, we're going to have the same $8 trillion in added national debt that Trump added to it if Harris is elected. I don't see that deficit growing as large with Chase Oliver, and I also recognize there's no way Chase Oliver gets elected. At this point, I'm going to predict Trump wins just based on what I'm seeing, and I could be as wrong on that as anybody else saying Trump is going to win, but that's my prediction.
Do you think there's any chance Trump wins New Mexico?
None. Zero.
New Mexico is the most Latino state in the country, and polls have shown Trump making inroads among Latinos, but obviously Latino voters have been in the news since this whole Puerto Rico-joke hullabaloo. What did you make of that whole controversy?
Well, just "turn the page." Trump, when it comes to the crazy part, is just turn-the-page-to-see-what's-crazy tomorrow. The good and the crazy.
Do you think it's just crazy, or do you agree with people who say he's a threat to the republic, to democracy? Or is that overblown?
No, I think it's legitimate. That's the crazy side. The crazy side is that, based on the things that he says, there's validity in what you've just quoted.
What would be your fears if your prediction is right and he does become president? What is a rational fear, and what's an irrational fear?
The rational is that we continue to build on the national debt, and I think that's the biggest issue facing the country right now. It has to be addressed. He's anti-immigration. I think legal immigration is something that this country needs in a big way—immigrants to buy into the Ponzi scheme of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.
On the Puerto Rico note, do you support making Puerto Rico—and, for that matter, Washington, D.C.—a state?
I don't have any strong feelings on it. Puerto Rico, certainly. I don't know about Washington itself. But Puerto Rico, yeah, we're there, and why not?
How do you feel about the cases against Trump, the prosecutions? Trump says he's being targeted politically. Obviously, the Democrats reject that. How do you feel about the four cases?
I'm kind of in the camp that he is being targeted. I'm going to get the number wrong here, but when they come up with a judgment of $450 million. I've talked to my accountant friends. Where are the damages? Where are the damages that come to that amount of money? And yeah, there's a real case that he has been targeted—that it is weaponization of the justice system. That would be a fear also: Trump gets elected, he turns around and he does it to everyone he claims has done it to him.
Do you think he would be likely to do that?
I would think so. He's said he's going to do that. You know, that's the downside. I'll tell you a huge issue also, in my opinion, is World War III, and the fact that we're going to potentially use U.S. weapons launched against Russia on Russian soil? I think Harris is a threat there. And nobody wants to hear the fact that, initially with Ukraine, I said because of U.S. support, are hundreds of thousands of lives going to be lost when the inevitable conclusion of all of it is gonna be that Russia will prevail unless the United States steps in in a much bigger way? And that seems to be the path at the moment with the current administration.
At this point you would support pulling the plug on Ukraine?
When Trump says he can end this in a day, ending it in a day may be, or will be, the eventual outcome, potentially years from now after that many more people die as a result of what's going on. If that doesn't happen, it's going to be because we aid in the escalation of this with our support [and] weaponry that gets used on Russian soil. I mean, this is not a small deal.
Speaking of foreign policy, what do you make of everything that's happened in the Middle East since October 7, 2023?
I've met with Netanyahu. I've been to Israel, and the takeaway I had [from the Israelis] is "the United States, thank you for your support, but we can do without it if that's the case." And when you look at 9/11 and what happened here in this country and the number of people that died as a result of 9/11, which is Iraq and Afghanistan, arguably it's a million people. When you look at those that died in Israel and the relative reaction of Israel when it comes to Gaza, it's minute compared to our response following 9/11.
But clearly among young people, there's overwhelming sympathy for Palestinians. What do you make of the whole campus-encampment phenomenon?
Once again, based on our own reaction, Israel's reaction is muted compared to us. So there's a hypocrisy there if we're not citing ourselves for, you could say, a big overreaction. And I'm not saying any of this. There's an hypocrisy on our part that the protests weren't happening here in this country—and not that they weren't, but certainly [they] didn't get as much attention as the protests regarding Palestinians.
Let's move back to Kamala Harris. Leaving policy aside for a second, how do you feel about her as a person? Do you think she's honest? Do you think she's competent?
Yeah, I do. I mean, I think she's honest, I think she's competent, but that doesn't alleviate my fears if she's elected, and that's the whole inflationary everything.
Talk a little more about your top fears with a Harris administration.
Just that inflation continues in a really big way. She's talking about a wealth tax, she's talking about a tax on unrealized gains. I realize that that's for those who are making over $100 million, but that's the toe in the door, and I don't want to be part of having unrealized gains taxed, which would be the next step at some point down the road.
She came out recently for marijuana legalization. Do you feel vindicated that people have been coming over to your side on this issue?
Yeah, she's made some very positive statements regarding marijuana, and so has Trump, saying that he's going to vote for recreational marijuana in Florida. Harris' comments have been more positive, but who's to say that Trump doesn't follow that same route?
What about Joe Biden? What grade would you give his presidency?
I think it's been horrible. Giving away free stuff on the part of government. The [Inflation Reduction Act] has been just the opposite. The way that COVID was handled. And then the cover-up of Biden and his apparent senility. I don't attribute that necessarily to age because I'm getting up there myself. I think it's beyond age, that which Biden suffers from. [I'm] not meaning to say he's suffering, but clearly his faculties aren't all there.
Trump is also nearing 80 years old. Do you think he is mentally up to the job, or will be for the next four years? Do you have any concerns about his cognitive capacity?
Sure, I've got concerns just like everybody else does. He's gonna get elected, he's gonna be in office. He's that same [age.] I mean, here it is—this is what we're talking about, and there are legitimate concerns. I didn't vote for him. I didn't vote for Kamala. I voted for Chase Oliver, the Libertarian candidate.
What do you make of the two running mates, J.D. Vance and Tim Walz. Do you have anything to say about them?
Not really. I mean, you have a half-and-half split on each one of those. There's good, there's bad. You make a choice as a voter. I've made a choice as a voter, as zero impact my vote will end up having.
You're a former Republican. What do you make of the general direction of the party under Trump? What are your hopes and your fears for the future of the GOP? Are there conditions under which you would consider becoming a Republican again?
Yeah, absolutely. I think Trump has alienated a lot of Republicans, I'm one of them. Having been governor for two terms, what I recognize is, [when] you're the party nominee, you control the party. Trump right now controls the party, whether all Republicans like it or not. I do believe it's a two-party system. I do believe that an independent has a chance of getting elected, but that chance exists only when that independent candidate can use their personal wealth to match the fundraising of either the Republican or the Democrat. In the last election, Bloomberg would've been the only candidate that could have run as an independent and may have been successful.
Is there anyone else on the sidelines that you could see being that force of personality that does what you attempted to do in 2016?
The person that would have the biggest impact is, once again, the person who would have the resources to actually play in a game that costs zillions of dollars. So you're looking at a billionaire, an independent billionaire, that might run.
Do you think that Trump is going to run away with it? What makes you think he's going to win?
No, I don't [think he's gonna run away with it.] I'm taking one side of what appears to be a coin flip at this point. I guess betting odds—I guess people that bet may have a better inclination. That's just my gut feeling, and it's been off and on. I mean, who would have dreamed that Biden would have dropped out? Who would have dreamed that Kamla would have been the nominee so quickly and so easily? Who would have dreamed that Trump came within inches of losing his life, and that there seems to be a Trump resurgence in all this? And now you're looking at the swing states and the analysis that's going on there. Based on all that, I'm just thinking that Trump is going to win.
Is there anything else you have to add at this hinge moment in history?
In my lifetime, and certainly going back to Nixon-Kennedy, I understand that, statistically, that was pretty close before the election, but I was too young to really recognize that. But in my years of recognition, I think this is the only race where it's a coin flip.
And do you have any preference between the two major candidates?
I don't. I really don't.
This interview has been condensed and edited for style and clarity.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments 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 and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
If only Sarckles had earlier warned Johnson that Chase’s johnson likes to play Johnson & Johnson, Gary would have been able to pull out early and vote for another. This erection is frot with stiff realities.
This is why Queen Spermy Daniels (Who Art Glazed in Vaseline) is pretty pissed off right now!
Ass Sung by Spermy Daniels, AKA Dolly Hard-On
Joe Lean, Joe Mean, Joe Lean, Joe Mean,
I’m beggin’ you, please don’t take His Elections!
Joe Lean, Joe Mean, Joe Lean, Joe Mean,
Please don’t crush My Man’s Erections!
Your polls are woke beyond compare,
You’re the VERY best at sniffing hair!
Labor unions flock to your door,
Your pork barrels, they all adore!
You tell them what they want to hear,
Bidin’ yer time, to throw My Man out on His ear!
My Man still grabs my pussy,
Along with many another hussy!
Don’t steal my Man’s erection!
Else He’ll sink into much dejection!
I am still His Special Queen,
Specially glazed in Vaseline!
Joe Lean, Joe Mean, Joe Lean, Joe Mean,
I’m beggin’ you, please don’t take His Elections!
Joe Lean, Joe Mean, Joe Lean, Joe Mean,
Please don’t crush My Man’s Erections!
You could have most ANY hair to sniff,
Yet you keep My Man from getting stiff!
My Man, He needs to be pussy-grabbing,
Yet you call His Lies; prevent confabbing!
Joe Lean, Joe Mean, leave My Man alone!
I’m the only, lonely one who needs His Bone!
You don’t know twat He means to me,
He stands on me and takes a pee!
Upon my ancient flower,
He gives a Golden Shower!
To Him, should go ALL Power!
Upon Him, I bestow a blow-job,
To Joe-Bob, He’ll send a snow-job!
Joe Lean, Joe Mean, Joe Lean, Joe Mean,
I’m beggin’ you, please don’t take His Elections!
Joe Lean, Joe Mean, Joe Lean, Joe Mean,
Please don’t crush My Man’s Erections!
HELP me get the word out!!!
#SingItForUsSpermyDaniels
See Chumby's post above. That is how you do political satire with puns and turn of phrase. Not the garbage copy pasta you splurge in every comments section. Maybe ask Chumby to coach you up on it.
You outdid yourself. Made me laugh.
The important question is: Did Gary Johnson bake Chase Oliver a cake and, if not, how much should he be fined by the Libertarian Party?
It was a creampuff.
Wait, are you saying chase might be gay or something?
He's openly gay, that's no secret. But he also favors mutilating children under the guise of "trans inclusiveness" and was also a covid lockdown hanger-on.
His nomination to the party ticket in part prompted my recent exit from the Libertarian Party and the absolute need to keep the Demoncrats and their puppet Comrade Harris far away from the levers of power prompted my vote for Donald Trump.
Harris is honest and competent? What world does he live in?
Yeah, I know. Like VP Harris didn't notice a decline in POTUS Biden's cognition? VP Harris didn't know that Slow Minded Joe was going to be unceremoniously removed from the ticket, in a modern political coup? And she studied the maps regarding Rafah, a total crock.
Competent? LMFAO.
Yeah, I can’t believe I voted for this clown
Oh, man! They already voted! And we lost!
- Homer "GaJay" Simpson
"Johnson says Harris is honest and competent but opposes her "inflationary" policy proposals, including rent control, limits on food prices, and a wealth tax."
How many inaccurate things can you say in one half sentence? Lord.
1) If you say Harris is honest, you are pandering.
2) If you say Harris is competent you are gas lighting.
3) If you say "Limits on Food Prices" is inflationary, you don't understand economics.
Nothing in that sentence is factual, and we are supposed to care what Johnson says?
Johnson would have been good if he had any charisma.
PS: How many leppos does it take to disappoint a libertarian?
Johnson was emblematic of the problem with blue state libertarians. From his voice selection to his bake the cake statements. He is really just what would be a blue dog Democrat in the 90s.
https://libertarianinvestments.com/2016/08/27/10-reasons-gary-johnson-is-not-a-libertarian/
Disagree, he vetoed 700+ bills as governor. He has many a flaw but he did what he could to limit the Democrats in NM's legislature in the 90s. Certainly ran a terrible campaign in 2016; fighting for Weld to be his VP from the start being the worst flaw of the campaign.
Doesn't disagree with the notion of being a blue dog Democrat as they were largely the ones keeping the other democrats in check in the 90s.
We had a balanced budget in the 90's. I would not mind recreating that.
Led by Newt, not Clinton or democrats.
Blue dog dems are known for their big gov spending while being more culturally conservative. Gary vetoed a lot of spending and was one of the first sitting governors to come out in favor of marijuana legalization.
Blue dogs were the mildly restrictive spending portion of the DNC Caucus in the 90s. They were the ones who would cross over during budget talks.
They were even largely on board for welfare reforms.
A. A leppo.
It's a caricature of our worst assessment of the bloggers' analysis here lately:
Meaning what makes Trump good and Harris bad is consequential, and what makes Trump crazy is inconsequential (eating the dogs and cats), yet those factors are weighted against each other equally.
Words mean more than action to many. The types who would cheer a benevolent dictator.
What if for examples of "crazy" he had said a 20% across the board tariff, absolute immunity for police or deporting ~15 million people. The 1st would be highly inflationary. The latter 2 a big step toward a police state. Those all seem crazy and consequential to me.
TARIFFS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Shouldn't you have at least made every other letter lowercase to effectively undercut my point.
Or were you just helpfully pointing out my missing "s"?
It would be helpful if you researched what he actually said instead of CNN sound bites.
Today you said:
10%, 20% for China. With downwards revisions if other countries reduced US tariffs.
https://reason.com/2024/11/05/whos-gary-johnson-voting-for/?comments=true#comment-10786517
Last week you said:
-Trump has said 20% globe, 60% China in multiple interviews. With the ability to negotiate down if those countries modify their tariffs on US markets.
https://reason.com/2024/10/29/tariff-gambit/?comments=true#comment-10777393
Where are you getting your news?
Based on what he revises his plan to. It was most recently JD revised their plans. Believe he even stated it on Rogan.
Thats the thing with campaigns. They change and modify their plans from voter responses or criticisms.
It is why relying on stale CNN talking points doesn't actually give you good information.
The plan will ultimately be put on paper the first 100 days. It is in Flux as are all campaigns at this point.
So I update based on what they say. Not what CNN claims they say. See their continued push as Trump being a Project 2025 acolyte.
But you do you.
Ironically even media is showing the ranges he has given as he has modulated his numbers.
https://www.cnbc.com/2024/11/04/trump-tariffs-retail-price-spikes-nrf-report-2024-election.html
10 to 20%, China being higher.
Again, the plan isn't written down yet.
Based on what he revises his plan to. It was most recently JD revised their plans.
The plan will ultimately be put on paper the first 100 days.
It is in Flux as are all campaigns at this point.
Ironically even media is showing the ranges he has given as he has modulated his numbers.
Again, the plan isn’t written down yet.
I would have settled for a “Sorry for insulting you because there is no way to know what I mocked you for not knowing.”
So, any nation that enforces any kind of border control and immigration management is a police state?
No, that's not what I'm saying.
It is the rounding up of 15 million that are already in the state that will require some sort of intensification of the police state. You can't get rid of 15 million people without a lot of police powers. This is very different from border enforcement or bureaucratic visa denials.
OK, thanks. But prosecuting any crimes means empowering police. One first step could be disempowering sanctuary cities and states.
Yes. I agree with you on these points. Some degree of police state is necessary. I think we're beyond where we should be already, but we could use drastic shifts in priorities. Had Trump said, shift the FBI and DEA to ICE duties, I'd probably be on board.
Yes disempowering sanctuary cities and deporting anyone picked up for other crimes makes perfect sense.
What is your solution to the Catch 22 the Democrats have put us in?
No snark, I’m genuinely interested as I’m not enthused by what would be necessary to accomplish the goal, but it’s untenable to just let them stay consequence free (nevermind the message it sends to others who are thinking of coming illegally). AND it’s a huge slap in the face to all my immigrant coworkers/partners who toiled away to come the legal way.
Hi DesigNate,
You probably won't like my "solution" because I don't really think it's feasible to deport that many people. But, here goes:
1 Remove all welfare for non-citizens, legal or illegal
2 Deport any illegal arrested for any crime
3 Secure the border to stop the influx
4 Disband the DEA and transfer those resources to investigating foreign based gangs and cartels operating within the US to take advantage of #2. (This is a pipe dream, I know)
5 Let the rest stay, work, pay taxes if they apply for a green card including vetting and subject to deportation for any future felony.
I agree, it’s not really feasible to round up that many people, so actually, I could go along with all of these points with maybe a few of my own.
Cheers!
A) 10%, 20% for China. With downwards revisions if other countries reduced US tariffs.
B) in some cases, not all cases. Mostly to stop soros abuses causing the Ferguson effect.
C) focus on criminal illegal aliens, not rounding them up in concentration camps.
Helps to read primary sources, not CNN interpretations.
The fact you think enforcing immigration laws is a police state is hilarious by the way.
Helps to read primary sources, not CNN interpretations.
Not when we're dealing with Trump's campaign promises. He is a very poor messenger; unclear, unorganized and inconsistent.
The fact you think enforcing immigration laws is a police state is hilarious by the way.
Will deporting 15 million people not require the use of police powers to enact? Is that not another step toward a police state? (Which is what I actually said).
QB, I understand the police state concern. It is completely legitimate.
Hobbesian choice. In this case, I would argue that the benefit of removing 15MM illegal aliens outweighs the potential negative consequence of heightened police activities for a temporary defined period of time.
I would agree, except that historically we have a huge problem with the “temporary defined period of time.” Like the war on drugs and the war on terror. If we let it happen, we keep it.
BTW if I was suggesting a plan, I would suggest no welfare for non-residents.
The fears of becoming more of a police state are valid, if a little overblown.
I think it behooves both sides in the immigration debate to acknowledge the downsides of their preferred policies. Something the open/no borders people do a shit job of, repeatedly.
All reasonable points.
“But as has historically been the case with third-party candidates, Johnson’s support faded in the final weeks”
Um no, that might have been part of it but that’s not the reason his support fell apart. Johnson’s support faded because he came off as an “aw shucks” buffoon, lacking charisma and confidence in most of his interviews. I’m sorry but he blew it. And Bill Weld put the final nails in the coffin for their campaign when he decided to defend Hillary Clinton on MSNBC.
I wonder what a competent charismatic candidate with Johnson/Weld’s experience in gov’t, and with the media’s eye on them, might've accomplished in 2016. Probably not a win, but maybe he could’ve gotten that magic “5%” third parties keep harping about.
Yeah Weld was really appalling. I still voted for him but I'm not proud of it. In retrospect I should have stayed home.
Same.
Johnson was already a lousy candidate seeking the Republican nomination for president in 2011. Wet dishrag.
His 4.3M spoiler votes sure got rid of a bunch of crappy laws. I was really happy to have sent him some money.
2% sufficed on average to put the communist income tax AND the Jesus Caucus prohibition amendment into the Constitution. http://www.hankphillips.com/caseforlp07.html
...
So unless Trump just rolls over and plays victim forever, rather than fighting back, that's to be feared?
That's what I just cannot wrap my around. All of these "libertarians" are so worried that Trump will retaliate in kind to the Dems with lawfare. They (usually) acknowledge that it's going on right now against Trump and MAGA, but are so afraid that Trump could also act that way. Are they not worried that a Kamala victory means the same lawfare that's happening now will continue with her administration? Why are these folks not concerned about the lawfare and weaponization of the justice system continuing with a Kamala admin?
Or is it really as simple as they hate Trump, so any excuse is fine, lawfare is fine, as long as Trump is the target?
So meanwhile the New Hampshire Libertarian party and Joe Rogan endorsed Trump yesterday. I voted for Johnson in 2016. He made himself irrelevant then and he's even less relevant eight years later.
Nobody cares. And I voted for the guy.
So how does anyone read this analysis and not translate Johnson's thinking into practical terms and conclude Trump is overwhelmingly better?
Illiteracy and superstition are up to that task.
hey... forget about Gary, what about the New Hampshire Libertarian party ... who did they endorse?
(Hint - Trump)
What is the situation in the NHLP? Does Kauffman run the whole show? Who else is involved in all of their shenanigans.
Ignorant Trumpanzee left off a question mark.
Reason: Let's move back to Kamala Harris. Leaving policy aside for a second, how do you feel about her as a person? Do you think she's honest? Do you think she's competent?
Gary: Yeah, I do. I mean, I think she's honest, I think she's competent, but that doesn't alleviate my fears if she's elected, and that's the whole inflationary everything.
---------------------------------------
Quite the truth teller I see.
Or idiot.
'Who's Gary Johnson Voting For?'
Al. Al Eppo.
Johnson says Harris is honest and competent
Wait what?
I see I wasn't first.
Did he not also say Hilary was a “fine public servant”? Or was that Weld?
Nothing offends a schaißtposting Trumpanzista like a polite LP candidate spoiling the vote in 13 States.
Yeah, why would a LIBERTARIAN get upset about their candidate saying the Democrat warmongering candidate was “a fine public servant”? That’s just crazy banana pants.
Johnson says Harris is honest and competent
I don't know what he bases this on which calls his analytical ability into question. Let's consider Harris:
- She's never accomplished anything except attaching herself to other powerful people using sex inappropriately to gain advantage.
- In her offices she accomplished nothing of note other than general left wing support. No meaningful reform or efficiency.
- Complete failure as a candidate. She doesn't understand people enough to relate to their concerns, and is so personally offensive her campaign staff turnover was unmanageable and she had to quit despite massive institutional support given, not earned, solely because she is a black woman with a senior enough job to be plausible.
- Called Joe Biden a racist, then celebrated with him with "we did it". This shows either that she's willing to call people racist for a campaign advantage or that she'll support racists for personal advantage (or both). Either is despicable.
- Demagogues her opponents as racist / fascist / white supremacist instead of advancing ideas, which is understandable since her only ideas are spending every dollar she can pretend we have and controlling every business in the country.
- Cannot speak extemporaneously, can only message through rehearsed talking points.
- Thinks scapegoating and extremism is the path to the Presidency.
Am I missing anything? Where's the honesty and competence?
I think what Johnson means is that's she's not an outlier in any way from other Dems, which is probably true. But the fact that effectively every Dem is dishonest and will fail to achieve any of their stated goals hardly justifies making her president.
So Birney the noob did a really good job of ignoring the leveraged law-changing spoiler vote clout Gary wielded. With over 4 million votes Johnson covered the gap between contending looter parties in 13 states casting 127 electoral votes. Immediately the Dems realized their bolters to the LP had let the Orange guy slip past the electoral vote. Suddenly States began protecting women from mystical violence and repealing laws urging cops to shoot people over plant leaves. Fourteen states legalized non-toxic plant leaves since Gary's performance, and overdose deaths dropped steeply. https://libertariantranslator.wordpress.com/2024/09/20/legalize-non-toxic-cannabis/
So Gary Johnson again voted for the best political platform with tried-and-true integrity. I appreciate my candidate's vote for my current candidate. May the looters and bigots cry into their mirrors for the next four years. https://libertariantranslator.wordpress.com/getting-their-attention-with-spoiler-votes/
Johnson says Harris is honest and competent
This is how you know the libertarian party is clown world. This right here. Reason does this kind of thing all the time.
They're not Libertarians. They're Democrats who just want to have more drugs and whoring.