MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Exclusive: Gary Johnson Running For President, Call Trump's Plans "Just Whacked - Just Nuts!"

Johnson running to be a "spokesman for individual liberty" but would ban the wearing of burqas in United States.

Updated on January 7: Gary Johnson has reversed his views on banning burqas. Scroll below for new information.

In an exclusive interview with Reason today, Gary Johnson, the 2012 Libertarian Party (LP) presidential nominee and a former two-term governor of New Mexico, confirmed he is running for the LP's nod again.

In the last presidential election, Johnson and his running mate Judge Jim Gray received about 1 million votes and 1 percent of the popular vote, the best showing by an LP ticket since Ed Clark and David Koch pulled similar numbers back in 1980.

In a wide-ranging conversation, Johnson told me that one of his chief concerns is the rise of sharia law around the world and the way he believes it underwrites Islamic terrorism, which he says is a major global problem and a rising threat here in America.

Surprisingly for a libertarian, Johnson, who recently resigned as the CEO of Cannabis Sativa, a marijuana marketing form, said that he would sign a bill banning the wearing of burqas in America. Sharia, he insisted, was not an expression of religion but of "politics" and hence many of its practices could be banned or limited without running afoul of the Constitution.

"Under sharia law," he argued, "women are not afforded the same rights as men." Under a burqa, how do you know if a woman has been beaten?, he asked rhetorically. "Honor killings are allowed for under sharia law and so is deceiving non-Muslims." Likening followers of sharia to members of the Ku Klux Klan, Johnson said that he wouldn't censor the speech of people promoting sharia law but would mount a cultural campaign to counter its growth here. He said the Islamic terrorism proceeds directly from the same sources as the thinking behind sharia and that the United States government must make sure it is not inadvertently funding sharia overseas.

[Updated on January 7: Johnson says that when it comes to banning burqas, "My response was wrong....banning face veils wouldn't work, and would be impossible to enforce without infringing on basic rights." For full statement, go here.]

In 2012, Johnson hewed a non-interventionist line and he sounded a similar note today. "Our military interventions are not the reason for terrrorism," he said, but "our interventions are making things worse."

The biggest issues facing America are out-of-control spending and increasing national debt, said Johnson, who pledged to veto any budget bills that did not cut spending to bring it into balance with taxes. "You can’t count on growing the [tax] pie," he said. "But you can count on balancing expenditures with revenue."

Johnson also espoused eliminating all individual income, corporate, and payroll taxes, and getting rid of the IRS. His preferred alternative to the status quo would be a national consumption tax. "Look at the fair tax and use that as a starting point" for reforms, he said, suggesting that a sales tax of about 28 percent could work as a replacement for current revenues. Using the example of a can of Coke that sells for $1.00, Johnson argued that there's a case that a 28 percent federal sales tax would "probably" not even raise the prices of most goods and services. "Most products already contain 28 percent in [tax] costs" when you add up corporate, income, and payroll taxes embedded in prices, he said. 

Johnson said that he isn't under any illusions about winning but thinks he can do better than his relatively strong showing in 2012. "Where are Republicans going to go" if Donald Trump is the candidate, he said.

"I was really disappointed with the showing I made in 2012," he confessed. "I don't view what happened in 2012 as a success, but others do." He expressed confidence that he could improve on those results because he will run a tighter, more effective campaign based on his experience.

For Johnson, whose official website is here, an important part of the reason to run again is to represent what he says is a broadly popular libertarian perspective in national politics. Nobody in either the Republican Party or the Democratic Party embodies what he said was the "fiscally conservative and socially liberal" viewpoint that he believes reflects the attitudes of most Americans.

Johnson assessed the major presidential candidates running for the Democratic and Republican nominations, dismissing them variously as upholders of a failing status quo, out of touch with reality, or dangerously reactionary when it comes to issues such as pot legalization, women's rights to abortion, and military intervention.

Hillary Clinton, he said, is "basically promising a Lear Jet in every driveway. Is she saying no to anybody?"

And if Bernie Sanders got his way, Johnson said, he would increase the national debt to a number approaching "$40 trillon."

"I get why Donald Trump is appealing," said Johnson. "I get the notion of 'I’m my own guy, I make my own decisions.' I made that same pitch in 2012. I don’t think I said anything as stupid. He's going to build a wall along the border with Mexico. Muslims are going to be barred from entering the country! He's going to kill the families of terrorists! That is just whacked—just nuts. Holy cow! It’s crazy!"

Ted Cruz, currently leading polls among Republicans in Iowa, is essentially acting as Trump-lite. "He wants to build this fence also," said Johnson. "Cruz is following Trump's lead on this whole deportation idea." Johnson also shrugs off Cruz as a "social conservative who believes in personal responsibility, except for certain areas [such as abortion]," where the state should be involved.

Johnson dismissed Marco Rubio as "the quintessential politician [who] will say whatever it takes to get elected." Johnson's terms as New Mexico's governor overlapped with those of Jeb Bush in Florida. He considers Jeb "a friend" and a "nice guy." But, Johnson said, "Are we really going to have a third Bush? How much of a change would that be?"

The appeal of Ben Carson, who has no political experience, leaves Johnson baffled. "This is where the political system is totally broken," he said. "Why give any attention to Ben Carson?"

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie "still wants to lock people up for using marijuana," said Johnson, who supports an end to federal prohibition. "He's such a law and order guy, such a prosecutor." Johnson said the Christie represents the sort of thinking that leads to "mandatory sentences" that have packed the nation's prisons and have given the government enormous power over criminal defendants, who feel a need to plea bargain to avoid onerous sentences even when they are innocent.

Former Hewlett Packard CEO Carly Fiorina is "really slick," says Johnson, and "not in a positive way." Many of the statements that she makes in a very convincing way during appearances, he said, turn out to be "kind of a stretch." Johnson pointed to Fiorina's invocation of her stepdaughter's death from an overdose. Lori Fiorina, he noted, had a long history of alcoholism and addiction to prescription drugs, yet Fiorina invokes her daughter's death "as if it gives her some unique perspective about marijuana."

When it comes Rand Paul, the libertarian-leaning senator from Kentucky, Johnson has some kind words. "He's the one I would vote for out of the current crop [if I had to]," Johnson told me. "But he is a social conservative and I'm not."

Johnson is at least the second person to throw his hat in the ring for the Libertarian Party presidential nomination. A few weeks ago, John McAfee, founder of the computer anti-virus program that bears his name, announced his bid. He spoke with Reason's Brian Doherty here.

Last July, Reason TV caught up with Johnson at FreedomFest, the annual gathering of libertarians held each summer in Las Vegas. Watch now:

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.

  • sarcasmic||

    I plan to vote for Gary's Johnson.

  • DEATFBIRSECIA||

    I hear it's UUUUUUUUUUUUUGE!

  • MJGreen - Docile Citizen||

    ...Johnson?

  • EndTheGOP||

    Gary Johnson says:

    "He's [Trump] going to build a wall along the border with Mexico. Muslims are going to be barred from entering the country! He's going to kill the families of terrorists! That is just whacked—just nuts. Holy cow! It’s crazy!"

    Mr Johnson failed to explain WHY this is whacked, nuts or crazy so let's see if any of you dunderheads here at Reason can explain why this is whacked, crazy and nuts.

    I bet you can't.

  • Chipper Morning Wood||

    Banning of burqas? I guess I am not voting for him. What the fuck, Gary? What's next, Halloween costumes? How do we know you are not beating your kids under that Winnie the Pooh costume?

  • Chipper Morning Wood||

    Just to clarify, it's not that this burqas thing is a deal breaker, but that it reflects idiotic thinking that makes me question his judgment in general.

  • Westmiller||

    For me, it IS a "deal breaker". I never imagined any libertarian advocating a compulsory dress code, much less the suppression of speech, whether it's religious or political.

  • Artimus||

    I don't understand how a guy could claim to be for ''individual liberty'' and then call for a ban on personal clothing items.
    Bad thinking.

  • FarAlSamShaidar||

    Agreed. I tend to be an incrementalist voter - willing to swallow a bit of crap to move the needle ever so slightly in the libertarian direction (I respect idealistic voters though). There are certain issues I can't tolerate a president being too authoritarian (or just plain stupid) on, so I've already determined of the main party candidates I only possibly vote for Paul or Bush. Neither, especially Bush, perfect, but both swallow-able. However, neither of them is going to get the nom. So I was basically planning on voting LP this year. Guess not, since apparently the Libertarian candidate is a giant raging authoritarian. I'm assuming Johnson'll get the LP nom, of course. What. The. Actual. Fuck.

  • Slingity Schlonge||

    Slingity Schlonge Ding Dong Wing Wong Bong Kong You been schlonged!

  • Florida Man||

    I too plan to vote for Gary.

  • Slingity Schlonge||

    Schlonged in Florida, Wingity Schlongity Dong!

  • Plàya Manhattan.||

    You vote? Get out of here!

  • Florida Man||

    Do you validate parking?

  • Plàya Manhattan.||

    I'll tell you that I do, and then you'll find out after it's too late.

  • Florida Man||

    Why are we going into the broom closet to validate my ticket?

  • colorblindkid||

    Far better than the combined fields so far.

  • some guy||

    "He's at most 98% horrible."

  • Spoonman.||

    ...He would sign a bill banning burqas? What the fuck?

  • DEATFBIRSECIA||

    On what conceivable basis could a law banning certain types of clothing be considered constitutional?

  • ||

    The only thing that I can come up with is that this would be an extension of the laws which prohibit wearing of masks in public by anyone. And while I'm not a big fan of those laws it would apply equally to would-be robbers and to observant muslim women. I certainly think businesses have a right to ban face coverings, including hoodies, for security reasons.

  • Mongo||

    Everyone wears full masks in the winter here.

    I take it back about voting and donating to this dumbfuck. Sheesh. ...

  • ||

    Ah...hadn't considered that since I live in a less cold part of the country. Do they wear their masks even in the convenience store? The stores here are seriously against masks and hoodies.

  • Mongo||

    Yes. In fact, during the 80s the pigs would hassle black people for wearing full masks in stores until they were told to knock it off.

  • Mongo||

    It's supposed to be -5f with a wind for the Vikings-Seahawks game outdoors on Sunday!

    Be prepared to shit yer pants when the camera pans the crowd, GayFuckingJay.

  • ||

    In New York, it is illegal (Penal Code 240.35) for two or more people to congregate while masked or disguised.

    In DC, it is illegal (22-3312.03) to enter into a public street or be on public property while wearing a mask.

  • ||

    It's a felony in Virginia unless you are doing it for a medical condition, for work or for a holiday costume or masquerade.

    In Ohio it's illegal to wear masks, but only white ones while committing a misdemeanor with two or more other people.

  • Private Chipperbot||

    In Ohio it's illegal to wear masks, but only white ones while committing a misdemeanor with two or more other people.

    Are you serious, Clark?

    Is that a no Klan law?

  • Pan Zagloba||

    They are just having real ghost problems. It's like Shadowfell over there.

  • ||

  • ||

    Good research, sloop. Thanks.

  • ||

    You're welcome. Any time I can elevate the conversation on here and bring in outsiders to engage in a rational conversation, I'm glad to help.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    He forgot the federal Keene Act of 1977.

  • Jickerson||

    Those are merely more violations of the constitution. You can't use past violations of the constitution to justify future violations of the constitution.

  • EscherEnigma||

    People keep trying to get teens arrested for wearing saggy pants, so it's not like it's anything new.

    Not saying it's not horrible, but it's not new.

  • Chipper Morning Wood||

    At the rate it's going, troubled youth are gonna be walking around with their pants around their ankles soon.

  • colorblindkid||

    Nobody's perfect.

  • ||

    That's hugely disappointing.

  • kilroy||

    I hope there's a Reason.tv video of this interview. The quotes in this piece seem a bit odd to me. I hope he was referring to being *forced* to wear a burqa and was just poorly quoted.

  • GILMORE™||

    No, his idiotic conception is probably the same idea that drove the ban of religious garb in France, where forcing everyone to secularize themselves in public is a great accomplishment for Tolerance

    Besides, he's showing his Yokel-appeal by calling all Muslim garb "burqas" when the Niqab and Chador are far more commonly employed.

    This just goes to show how some people's quest for a perfectly-cosmotarian candidate is utterly hopeless. They're all going to pander to the hayseeds regardless. Its how politics works.

  • kilroy||

    France isn't really big on individual liberty and historically Johnson has been. I find it difficult but believe he would want to legislate an individual's personal choice of clothing. It seems more likely to me that he is on the side of allowing Muslim women to choose not to wear a burqa (or Niqab/Chador).

  • GILMORE™||

    "France isn't really big on individual liberty"

    Well, a francophile would say they just define it differently. Liberté + égalité, fraternité

    "I find it difficult but believe he would want to legislate an individual's personal choice of clothing."

    In his own statement he points out he doesn't think it IS a choice, but a religious obligation which should be 'banned'. of course, if he were to follow the french logic, this would also ban Sikh headgear, Hasidic uniforms, mennonite suspenders or something.

    "It seems more likely to me that he is on the side of allowing Muslim women to choose not to wear a burqa (or Niqab/Chador)."

    That would seem to be the side of "keeping government out of it", which is clearly not what he's suggesting. What a faith does or does not "permit" is not the business of the state. You might as well be demanding he "allow" Kosher jews to eat cheeseburgers.

  • kilroy||

    In his own statement he points out he doesn't think it IS a choice,

    Which is why I want to see the video of the interview to see if this is a misquote or if that was really his statement.

    That would seem to be the side of "keeping government out of it", which is clearly not what he's suggesting.

    Clearly, as represented here. But that bit of information doesn't appear to be a direct quote if the other quotation marks in this piece mean anything. If that's really his position I'll join the WTF? group. It just seems wildly out of character to me and I'd like to hear it from the horse's mouth.

  • Not okay||

    I think the idea is that Burqas are forced on some women which may be true in some cases but there's no way to know if it's voluntary or not so I can't see any good justification.

  • Loki||

    Still miles better than any of the motherfuckers running. Except maybe Rand, he's only a couple thousand feet ahead of him.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    BUT HE'S GOING TO STEAL VOTES FROM TRUMP.

  • Slingity Schlonge||

    Gay Jay will be schlonged!

  • BiMonSciFiCon||

    President Gary Johnson. I like the sound of that. /Goldie Wilson

  • ||

    Get back to sweeping!

  • Mint Berry Crunch||

    A Libertarian President - that'll be the day!

  • Hooha||

    You wait and see! He's gonna' clean up this town!

  • Slingity Schlonge||

    You glibertarians is so silly.

  • ubik||

    Will be voting for him again.

    But banning the wearing of burquas in public...WTF!

  • Tak Kak||

    Does that make him a SoCon too?

  • ||

    It certainly sounds like he's pandering to them.

  • Florida Man||

    That's dumb. Women could be hiding their bruises! Yeah and I could be carrying a shotgun under my trench coat.

  • Swiss Servator||

    I admit it...what's to say...yeah...
    I'll relive it...without pain...mmm...
    Backstreet lover on the side of the road
    I got a bomb in my temple that is gonna explode
    I got a sixteen gauge buried under my clothes, I play...
    Once upon a time I could control myself
    Ooh, once upon a time I could lose myself, yeah...

  • Florida Man||

    16 gauge? Where you finding shells for that. Also used a 12 gauge like gawd intended!

  • ||

    12 gauge? Are you taking your kid sister hunting?

    Get a 10 gauge, son.

  • R C Dean||

    Can't aim for shit, can you?

    Real men hunt with .410s, because we can hit what we aim at.

  • BakedPenguin||

    And if you eat it, a lot less lead to dig out. Although much smaller pellets.

  • BakedPenguin||

    ...depending on the shot size, oc

  • ||

    I've shot a 10 gauge exactly twice. Thought it broke my shoulder both times.

  • Chipper Morning Wood||

    I am still having trouble hitting grouse with a 20, so I will bow before you if you can hit one with a 410.

  • In League with the Dark Ones||

    Swiss is signaling his gentleman status.

  • ||

    To be honest, there's a lot of women that I'm in favor or wearing one, the ones that completely cover the face. Get Hillary in one right away.

  • Tak Kak||

    "Johnson also shrugs off Cruz as a "social conservative who believes in personal responsibility, except for certain areas [such as abortion]," where the state should be involved."

    That sounds extremely dismissive, honestly. I hope he didn't intend to come off like a complete ass.

  • Citizen X||

    He's got a ways to go to out-ass the rest of the field.

  • Private Chipperbot||

    Go on...

  • Citizen X||

    This is sort of an illustration of the kind of thing we're dealing with.

  • Not okay||

    Cruz also believes in personal responsibility except after the baby is born then he wants to force parents to care for their child. Anyone who truly believes in personal responsibility knows you shouldn't be responsible for any actions that occur from your own actions.

  • Jickerson||

    Force parents to care for their child? That's not something I want. The government has no business forcing such a thing. If the parents want to get rid of the child, of course they should be able to do so.

  • Not okay||

    And who pays to take care of the child.

  • Acosmist||

    Hey, the Bob Barr candidate is back!

  • Slingity Schlonge||

    I thought that dude was still on The Price is Right.

  • Winston||

    ban the wearing of burqas in United States.

    Seriously, WTF!?

  • ||

    I might vote for Cruz if he gets the GOP nomination. Otherwise, looks like Gary, wasting my vote again in the most important election ever.

  • ||

    He's really backed off the government spying since the Stand With Rand days. Hell, it's not even on his official website! It's one of the few things he could likely reverse as President, but he's totally dropped it.

    If he picked it back up, I think I could seriously consider ditching my vote for Gary, but I'm not holding my breath.

  • ||

    Rand and Cruz seem to have had a few spats. I think that Rand believes that Cruz is stealing his libertarian voter base. But I think he's wrong about that, he's lost his libertarian voter base by not being libertarian enough. The youth crowd that was so strong for his dad, just disappeared because Rand starting talking like a SoCon, which most young voters are not going to go for.

  • Not okay||

    He spent the last debate talking about it.

  • ||

    I know he has. It's just not on his campaign website as one of his issues (forget it being a core issue) and not even mentioned in passing any longer.

    He's also been silent on the topic during debates. Granted, it's not been brought up much, if at all, but what better way to differentiate yourself from the field?

  • Suicidy||

    I'll vote for Johnson. My state of WA is full on commie anyway. So my vote is worth nothing.

  • Entelechy||

    Where does he stand on Klansmen wearing burqas under their hoods ?

  • ||

    [wild applause]

  • Los Doyers||

    Only if they're circumcised.

    /runs

  • Chipper Morning Wood||

    Did you hear the one about the Saudi chick that accidently bleached her burqa?

  • brady949||

    The Fair Tax? Really?

  • JFree||

    I don't get this nonsense either. Bad enough that the government has basically outsourced much of its tax farming to banks via the income tax and their IRS reporting requirements. Now he wants to do nothing about their government-created monopoly over money issuance/distribution - while transferring the tax farming/reporting requirement to every retailer/person in the country - and prepping the ground for a regressive tax reform that will allow all cronies to benefit even more. And then libertarians will wonder why they are viewed as tools of billionaire cronies.

    Libertarians are completely screwed up in their economic/fiscal priorities. First, identify and either get rid of or tax to high heaven every damn element of government created monopoly/cronyism. Then reduce the spending/policy side that is often a consequence of tilting that playing field to benefit elites and punish the unconnected. Then and only then with the deficit under control and govt to 'as fair as you can expect' do you figure out how to do the revenue/tax/debt stuff.

    Putting 'taxes' first does nothing but play the crappy little Dem/Rep game that got us into this mess

  • american socialist||

    Is this going to get in the way of the Freedom and SacredFetus in the Uterus Train of Ted Cruz? If so, I'm against. Sorry, Gary.

  • Slingity Schlonge||

    Get schlonged you ding dong!

  • Pompey||

    Hoff! More please, actual racist piece of shit!

  • Sevo||

    american socialist|1.6.16 @ 3:44PM|#
    "Is this going to get in the way of the Freedom and SacredFetus in the Uterus Train of Ted Cruz? If so, I'm against. Sorry, Gary."

    Will it get in the way of Bernie's death squads? If so, I'm all for it!

  • grrizzly||

    Johnson-Trump fusionism: ban immigration of anyone who doesn't take an oath not to promote sharia law.

  • kinnath||

    Fuck Gary for walking away from a guaranteed seat in the Senate 4 years ago.

    Running for president is just a vanity project at this point.

  • ||

    The movement needs both idealists and realists, kinnath. And it's important to maintain ballot access in the states so that liberty candidates for local offices have a chance.

  • ||

    They could have gotten that from Jim Gray. A Senate seat for a Libertarian would have broken the glass ceiling to national political office, IMO.

  • kinnath||

    A libertarian in the Senate can have a big impact on pending legislation (see Rand when he wants to). A block of 3 or 4 libertarians could completely derail bad legislation.

    A Rand/Johnson partnership in the Senate could have real world impact for decades to come.

    Running as a Republican and then stepping aside if not successful can get Libertarian ideas out in front of a wider audience, so it is useful.

    Throwing away a chance at an open seat in a state where you have been very successful in the past to chase a national campaign where success is a 2% draw on election day . . . . well that just plain stupid and vain.

  • ||

    He probably thinks this song is about him.

  • kinnath||

    yup

  • Suicidy||

    The movement isn't picking up the presidency until it can do things like pick off some seats in congress. Why don't we target some demographically vulnerable House seats to start with? Maybe work towards taking over a state legislature?

  • ||

    This is the very reason why I'm not too upset that Rand is not going to be president, I like him just fine as a Senator. The addition of Johnson would have been great.

  • kinnath||

    Right. It would have been fabulous if Rand pulled off a miracle. But keeping his Senate seat is vital.

  • Ken at Popehat||

    So: the probable Libertarian candidate just invoked false consciousness theory to justify regulating people's clothing choices.

    That's just fucking great.

  • Citizen X||

    It's false consciousness all the way down.

  • Florida Man||

    I don't really have a problem with women getting beat if the women choose to do it. If they're in American they can pick up the phone and have the piece of shit hauled away, no matter what their religion says, if they don't want to get hit. Banning clothing isn't the solution.

  • Chipper Morning Wood||

    Florida Man would say that.

  • Los Doyers||

    Watch out! It's a Popehat provocateur!

  • Citizen X||

    Yeah, Ken finally showed up to give us our nice lunch or fruit basket or goat porn or cock punch or whatever!

  • Los Doyers||

    I'm interested in only two of those.

  • Citizen X||

    ...and you've already had lunch and are allergic to fruit.

  • Los Doyers||

    Nah, I don't break out into hives when I hang around the 'mos. Just ask jesse.in.mb.

  • ||

    I don't think "fruit" is generally a term applied to someone who can and will cleave your head with a hatchet like a ripe melon if you take some kind of student debt forgiveness deal.

  • Los Doyers||

    Well from my perspective the student loans are evil!

  • Heroic Mulatto||

  • Los Doyers||

    Porn is better when it's halal.

  • ||

    Is that kosher?

  • Crusty Juggler||

    Who has a potty mouth.

  • Los Doyers||

    Then he'll fit right in.

  • Citizen X||

    The fuck are you talking about, shithead?

  • Los Doyers||

    DICKS AND STONES

  • ||

    What is a Popehat?

  • Citizen X||

    It's the hat the Pope wears, Hyperion. Do try to keep up.

  • ||

    Did it become animate by some divine miracle?

  • Plàya Manhattan.||

    Sounds like juvenile bluster to me.

  • Je Suis Reason (Fmr. AuH20)||

    So far, the LP candidates I know are running are McAffee (who is a nut) and Johnson (yeah, that was... disappointing). Of those two, I favor Johnson, as I think he will make libertarians look less cuckoo banana nuts.

    BTW, Ken, is this your first time officially posting in the much derided cesspool of reason comments? Because, if so, welcome. And I'm sure Warty will be along soon to welcome you as well!*

  • brady949||

    A burqa ban is pretty cuckoo banana nuts, particularly coming from a libertarian.

  • Los Doyers||

    949, eh? You must be a spy for the orange curtain.

  • brady949||

    It's all safe and white down here. Just like in President Trump's America.

  • Swiss Servator||

    How about STEVE SMITH?

  • Je Suis Reason (Fmr. AuH20)||

    STEVE SMITH is a suprise.

    No matter how prepared you think you are, it's still a surprise...

  • Je Suis Reason (Fmr. AuH20)||

    STEVE SMITH is a suprise.

    No matter how prepared you think you are, it's still a surprise...

  • Je Suis Reason (Fmr. AuH20)||

    Even if I warn you twice, it will still be a suprise!

  • Loki||

    Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition STEVE SMITH!

  • brady949||

    good WR

  • ||

    I'm hoping for a Adam Kokesh/Adam Corolla ticket.

  • Irish ♥s ESB||

    I know. Complete lunacy from him and very disappointing.

  • Crusty Juggler||

    Fact: "Just whacked -- Just nuts" was my nickname in college.

  • Plàya Manhattan.||

    That doesn't come naturally; you have to earn it.

  • Los Doyers||

    Crusty is Private James Francis Ryan, from Iowa? Now it's coming together.

  • ||

    Fact: "Just whacked -- Just nuts" was my nickname in college.

    Sounds like your mohel had Parkinson's.

  • flaPjacks||

    Go ahead, throw your vote away.

  • Citizen X||

    I can't decide whether to sit this one out, pull for Vermin Supreme, or really make my vote count* by selling it to the highest bidder.

    *towards my bottom line

  • ||

    Don't blame me. I voted for Kodos.

  • Citizen X||

    Fun fact: Facebook has this post listed under "Donald Trump - Trending."

  • Slingity Schlonge||

    Trending! Slinging! Sclonging! Trumpity Trump de Bump!

  • Bill Dalasio||

    Our military interventions are not the reason for terrrorism," he said, but "our interventions are making things worse.

    You know, rather than hew the altruistic line, it would be nice to at least once hear a libertarian politician argue the line "You know, our interventions probably don't consistently cause problems. Hell, in some cases, they may actually help the locals. But, you know what? I don't give a shit. I'm not going to send a bunch of our young people to die and spend a shitload of our hard earned dollars for some a bunch of ungrateful assholes who might very well hate us anyway."

  • flaPjacks||

    I'd vote for that.

  • Florida Man||

    Hear...

  • colorblindkid||

    This

  • Bill Dalasio||

    Our military interventions are not the reason for terrrorism," he said, but "our interventions are making things worse.

    You know, rather than hew the altruistic line, it would be nice to at least once hear a libertarian politician argue the line "You know, our interventions probably don't consistently cause problems. Hell, in some cases, they may actually help the locals. But, you know what? I don't give a shit. I'm not going to send a bunch of our young people to die and spend a shitload of our hard earned dollars for some a bunch of ungrateful assholes who might very well hate us anyway."

  • Florida Man||

    ...hear!

  • Trouser-Pod (The blowhard)||

    I'm not sure I understand his gripe about not having political experience. I thought people who make careers out of being politicians/elected officials were the problem (especially from a Libertarian perspective), not those who have never played the game before.

    I will probably vote for him this time around, as well. That being said, he's coming across much more angry, in an "old man" way, than I saw in the past.

    Maybe I missed it then...

  • Deckard||

    YES! Gary is running again! Someone I'm not embarrassed to vote for!

    "We're gonna ride this freedom train all the way to the Whitehouse! Then we're gonna ban the burqua!"

    Wait... wut?

  • Slingity Schlonge||

    Gay Jay gonna get schlonged. Burquas gonna get Schlonged. Everybody gonna get Schlonged!

  • R C Dean||

    We were talking about how to manage transsexuals in our hospital (its unexpectedly complicated). One issue was how to room them in semi-private rooms (2 patients per room). My contribution:

    "Well, we all know those robes fall open, especially when people get in and out of bed. I'm betting we don't want 80 year-old Aunt Mabel to get schlonged by a pre-op trans-sexual by surprise."

    Nobody batted an eye.

  • Pan Zagloba||

    NHS Response: "What's the worst that can happen? She frees up a bed early?"

  • ||

    The trick is, if you have to be in a hospital, is to get 2 of those things and put one on from the front and the other on from the back. The tie things are just stupid functionality wise.

  • Crusty Juggler||

    Sportcoat and T-shirt? Is he a 1980s-era cocaine dealer?

  • Citizen X||

    Yes, why?

  • Los Doyers||

    You're dating yourself, old man.

  • Crusty Juggler||

    I wonder if he drives an Iroc-z.

  • Los Doyers||

    Shudder

  • ||

    Because his 300Z with t-tops,is,in the shop. Duh!

  • R C Dean||

    Hey, don't be ragging on the Z cars. I've had a chubby for them since high school.

  • Bill Dalasio||

    Maybe he's hoping to roll out the slogan "Liberty - All the Cool Kids are Doing It"

  • Medical Physics Guy||

    I thought that was sport coat and Malibu shirt. Or was that the 80s vice cop look.

  • Loki||

    Duh, and/ or hello!

  • Ken Shultz||

    Americans (and Europeans) misunderstand the appeal of Sharia to Muslims--because in the West, we're accustomed to the rule of law. In the Muslim world, the rule of law has not been the default standard in practically anybody's experience.

    Whether you're talking about dictatorships in North Africa, like Libya and Egypt, vicious dictatorships in the Middle East, like Saddam Hussein, the Iranians, or the Saudis, or whether you're talking about kleptocracies in sub-Saharan Africa like Nigeria or others in Central Asia--you're talking about Muslims who have little or no experience living under the rule of law.

    To those people, Sharia means holding their leaders, politicians, and courts to a standard higher than the whims of strong men. Many of these places didn't enjoy the rule of law in the colonial period, much less the post-colonial period. Yes, the rule of law under sharia is brutal and patriarchal--but it's not as if the rule of vicious dictators and kleptocrats wasn't also brutal.

  • Pan Zagloba||

    Which doesn't explain why over in Europe, second and third generation of Muslim immigrants is a bigger fan of Sharia then their parents/grandparents. Or natives converting to Islam wanting Sharia, either.

  • Ken Shultz||

    They don't see elections as bestowing legitimacy. They see legitimacy as stemming from conforming to God's will as given to the Prophet.

    Quite frankly, I don't see elections as bestowing legitimacy (a justification for government force) myself. To my mind, legitimacy stems from the government effectively protecting our rights.

  • Irish ♥s ESB||

    "They don't see elections as bestowing legitimacy. They see legitimacy as stemming from conforming to God's will as given to the Prophet."

    Which completely contradicts your claim above that they're just upset by capricious dictators.

  • Ken Shultz||

    I didn't say they were just upset by capricious dictators.

    I said they see sharia as the rule of law--a set of standards higher than the whims of strong men.

    Yes, they believe in the divine origin of those laws as well, but part of the reason for that may be because the secular dictators were so very rotten for so very long.

    This was why people in Egypt initially supported the Muslim Brotherhood in the first elections. Let's give the Islamists a chance! At least they're honest, right?

    Not like Mubarak.

  • Pan Zagloba||

    Then it means they can live under genuine Rule of Law for two millenia and it will not change their opinion one whit, so arbitrary/Rule of Law distinction is irrelevant. Only a theocratic government guided by all believers (Sunni) or chosen ones (Shia) is acceptable.

  • Ken Shultz||

    I honestly don't get what you're saying here.

  • Pan Zagloba||

    They don't see elections as bestowing legitimacy. They see legitimacy as stemming from conforming to God's will as given to the Prophet.

    This means "these people" can never be brought into Western/Elightenment/Liberal/whatever the hell idea of Rule of Law you want, if you give them a thousand years of Pure And Incorruptible Rulers/John Galts/Anarchists/Whatever The Shit Is Shiny Platonic Ideal, because only Sharia will ever satisfy the conditios for Rule of Law, and everything else you said is meaningless. Because according to the above, Mubarak could have been combination of best of Solon, Pericles, Cincinnatus and George Washington, and still it would not have counted for anything.

  • Ken Shultz||

    I don't see elections as bestowing legitimacy either.

    Barack Obama won a popularity contest, so now he gets to make decisions about my life for me?

    Not in my mind!

    Does that mean I can never be brought into the Western enlightenment?

  • Pan Zagloba||

    Does that mean I can never be brought into the Western enlightenment?

    Do you belive rule of law requires conforming to will of God as dictated in a holy text?
    If yes, it will be difficult. Not impossible. But difficult.

    It's not the first part that's the problem. It's the second part. IF only legitimacy stems from divine providence, we are done with Enlightenment, and it's back to Civitates Dei.

  • Ken Shultz||

    I believe both establishment rights and free exercise rights exist regardless of what some popularity contest winner says or does by executive order.

    Yes, if the law conflicts with my freedom of religion rights, then generally speaking the law is wrong.

  • Irish ♥s ESB||

    I also wonder what you're basing this on other than your armchair psychologizing. Turkey has historically been secular and had democratic elections, yet they have been trending more extremist over the last decade. Almost 50% of Indonesians support Sharia and they have not been subjected to nearly the degree of oppression seen in MENA.

  • kbolino||

    Turkey has been woefully corrupt, in a third-world sort of way. But that is hardly changing. Saying that sharia stands against corruption is absurd. The Islamists who take over a place are just as corrupt, if not more so, than the "secular" authorities they replace. They just espouse different bullshit.

  • Ken Shultz||

    I'm saying that sharia stands for the rule of law in the minds of people who've been subjected to the whims of dictators for decades or maybe even a century.

    Turkey's present quasi-Islamist leadership got to where they are because a critical mass of voters hoped that an Islamist would be an honest ruler--which is my point.

    Sharia is seen is the alternative to arbitrary dictatorship by lots of people in the Muslim world. Whether sharia actually is the alternative to arbitrary dictatorship is a separate question.

    There are Mormons who would rather do business with other Mormons, I'm sure. It makes them feel safer about trusting somebody. Whether they're actually safer putting blind trust in another Mormon is another question entirely.

    Regardless, I hope the point is getting across that when some Muslims voice a preference for sharia, it isn't necessarily because they're stupid, hate women, and like cutting people's hands off. Part of the explanation is that it represents to them what we mean when we say "the rule of law"

  • tarran||

    Turkey has historically been secular and had democratic elections, yet they have been trending more extremist over the last decade.

    Let me tell you an anecdote from my family history that will buttress Ken's point.

    My dad was able to get his military service defered so that he could go to grad school in the U.S. He got his PhD, and returned to begin his service. Because my dad is weird about things, he refused to pull any strings but trusted his fate to the military assignment system. The capricious personnel gods commissioned him as a naval officer and assigned him to teach physics to midshipmen. And just to apprise you guys how capricious it was, my dad's best friend from the same grad school, who was inducted on the same day, also with a PhD in physics was sent into the army as an enlisted man and spent a couple of years in 'Turkish' Armenia freezing his ass off with a rifle watching for a Russian invasion that never came.

    My father's refusal to pull strings caused a major family rift. He had an uncle who was a General. The guy found out that my dad had been commissioned and posted to the naval academy without his intercession, and assumed that my dad had a different patron. He expected my dad had bribed this patron rather than coming to his uncle for help. This was an utter insult! The general thought that my dad's behavior was disrespectful to his family, and signaled to the world that his relatives didn't care about each other...

  • Pan Zagloba||

    Nothing in the anecdote sounds a bit off to me, who grew up in Slavic, secular, nominaly Socialist country, either (and our Muslim part didn't rush into Sharia, despite Saudi efforts). So yeah, I believe that in some cases, in some places, Sharia is not only looking good, it's can be a less corrupt option. No, that doesn't apply everywhere for everyone, and certainly does not explain second generation Muslims in "The West."
    To boot, just about every place that did get Sharia soon learned that it doesn't bring Rule of Law either.

  • kbolino||

    How is modern Turkey any different, except that your connections have to be within the AK Party instead?

    I'm not disputing that "secular" rule wasn't perfect, I'm saying anyone who believes sharia is better is either a fool or a knave.

  • tarran||

    Basically, there is a false dichotomy, encouraged by the mullahs and utterly ignored by the Nasser style socialists and various strongmen.

    The mullahs point to the corruption and say "this is the western way". Shariah, by contrast, is God's way and treats all men equally.*

    The ruling classes deny any corruption, while blatantly ripping off the peasants.

    A third alternative, classical liberalism, has no champions, and so it might as well not exist in people's minds.

    * When the mullahs get in power, they engage in corruption too while denying it exists. It's kind of like the cycle of life.

  • kbolino||

    Oh, I get the point. But Ken acts like nobody outside of these places "understands" what's going on. I understand it alright. Which is precisely why I call it bullshit. "Homegrown" oppression is still oppression.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "Ken acts like nobody outside of these places "understands" what's going on."

    From the post at the top:

    "Surprisingly for a libertarian, Johnson . . . said that he would sign a bill banning the wearing of burqas in America. Sharia, he insisted, was not an expression of religion but of "politics" and hence many of its practices could be banned or limited without running afoul of the Constitution . . . . Likening followers of sharia to members of the Ku Klux Klan, Johnson said that he wouldn't censor the speech of people promoting sharia law but would mount a cultural campaign to counter its growth here. He said the Islamic terrorism proceeds directly from the same sources as the thinking behind sharia"

    In response to this, I wrote, "Americans (and Europeans) misunderstand the appeal of Sharia to Muslims--because in the West, we're accustomed to the rule of law. In the Muslim world, the rule of law has not been the default standard in practically anybody's experience."

    No, I don't think Johnson "understands what's going on". How can it be a party foul to take issue with something Johnson said--in a thread about what he said? It's like you're faulting me for being on topic.

  • Pan Zagloba||

    A third alternative, classical liberalism, has no champions, and so it might as well not exist in people's minds.

    There's a bit in Road to Serfdom in which a German exile is quoted as, roughly, saying "Nazis claimed to be heirs to German socialism, and in that, to our shame, was a grain of truth. They could also, with a grain of truth, claim to be inheritors of Conservatism. They could even claim to be true defenders of Christianity. But there is one political tradition they never claim for themselves and that was Liberalism."

    BTW, tarran, your anecdotes seriously make me want to visit Turkey to test out my theory that Serbs are better Turks than Bosnians are. Everything I heard make Turkey sound both familiar and awesome.

  • kbolino||

    Yes, nothing says rule of law like the rulers being able to behead and rape with impunity.

    Anyone who believes the dreck you just wrote is as much a useful idiot as the Chinese peasant who believed Mao's communism would deliver him a better life.

  • Ken Shultz||

    I don't know where you heard that sharia to Muslims means beheading and raping with impunity.

    Maybe that's a reference to the behavior of the House of Saud?

    Saudi Arabia is a vicious dictatorship, and if Muslims equate Sharia with the idea of the rule of law, they might be hoping to impose it on the House of Saud rather than suffer under Saudi brutality.

  • kbolino||

    Look, I know you like playing obtuse, but the key exponent of sharia right now would be ISIS.

    Or have you not read a newspaper in a decade?

  • Ken Shultz||

    ISIS claims a lot of things. They're actually backwoods bumpkins, sharia wise.

    Here's a map showing sharia around the world.

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

    The oldest and most prominent schools of Islamic jurisprudence have been around for centuries, and you'll find that the most prominent among Islamic legal minds among them at the most prominent schools are often in direct opposition to ISIS and other Wahabi and Salifist Islamist groups.

    I don't think there is a more important progenitor of sharia than these guys in Egypt:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Azhar_University

  • kbolino||

    So now you're just gonna play games. A university closely associated with the government of Egypt represents an ideology opposed to the government of Egypt.

    That's brilliant, Ken. Thoughtful analysis.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Um, it's the most important and influential school of sharia anywhere in the world.

    I guess it's been that for a thousand years?

    Deal with it.

  • Suicidy||

    The beheadings are less about their criminal system, and more about getting those quickenings.

  • Ken Shultz||

    There can only be one.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Live under an arbitrary tyranny for a hundred years, and you might start liking the looks of a system that approximates something like the rule of law, too--even if the system in question was brutal, misogynistic, etc. At least, try to understand that for most of the people in the Muslim world, the assumed default alternative to Sharia is not western style democracy and the rule of law as we enjoy it in the West. In their experience (going back a hundred years), the alternative to Sharia is arbitrary dictatorship--and they don't want that anymore.

  • kbolino||

    In their experience (going back a hundred years), the alternative to Sharia is arbitrary dictatorship--and they don't want that anymore.

    Who the fuck is this "they" you speak of? The rapers or the raped? The beheaders or the beheaded? Righteously overthrowing capricious dictatorship sure does seem to involve a lot of wanton brutality against unrelated victims.

  • coloraDOOM||

    Banning the option to wear one or just banning them?

  • Fun at Parties||

    Best of luck to you Gary. You'd have my vote if you stood a chance at beating Hillary.

  • ||

    Where's Michael Badnarik when we need him???

  • Los Doyers||

    Moving to New Hampshire, like the rest of us.

    /packs up station wagon, buckles cooler of beer in the front seat

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Shit.

  • Los Doyers||

    Hey, you dug the Free State Project hole, now lay in it.

  • ||

    FREE MARY RUWART

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Or die?

  • Fun at Parties||

    Trump killed it in NH. Over 40%

  • Slingity Schlonge||

    He's slinging, he's schlonging, he's ding dong donging.
    Because he's slinging and schlonging and plotting the course
    He's trumpin and bumpin and riding on his horse
    He's going the distance
    He's going for speed

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    As the NH primary isn't until another month, I don't see how Trump has "killed" anything yet. I also have no idea where you're getting 40% (of what/whom?) from. As of today, Trump is polling 27% in NH, which is still 13 points ahead. Interestingly, of NH Republicans, only 49% report viewing Trump favorably, with 44% viewing him unfavorably (and the remainder neutral, I guess?).

  • Fun at Parties||

  • Sevo||

    Well, we needed him in the worst way, and that's the way we got him.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Well shit, I guess I AM voting in this election, bitch.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    "Under sharia law," he argued, "women are not afforded the same rights as men."

    This is why America needs increased Muslim immigration. Amirite?

    *looks around(

    Am I right?

  • ||

    Wait...Gary? Not this guy? I would vote for this guy in a second: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LFnHdtEoSHQ

    I understand the sentiment. Banning open support for chattel slavery and barbarism is understandable, just not constitutional.

    Unfortunately this kind of talk sways idiots into supporting such displays.

  • Suicidy||

    How about banning communism? I'm totally for that. As it existentially requires the overthrow of our constitutional republic. By the way, is this a good time to discuss my plan to euthanize all the progressives? Lots of extra business for our veterinarians there.

  • Free Market Socialist $park¥||

    You're gonna loooooose
    You're gonna loooooose
    Youuu stiink
    You're gonna loooooose

    /Stillwell

  • Aloysious||

    Johnson also espoused eliminating all individual income, corporate, and payroll taxes, and getting rid of the IRS.

    How can any sane individual not vote for this man?

  • R C Dean||

    Because I gather that no sane individual would vote for him, when you balance the abolition of the IRs and elimination of taxes against banning burqas in public.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Incidentally, there are Muslim women who cover over the objections of their husbands and fathers. There are westernized fathers who would rather people didn't think they were patriarchal ogres making their wife or daughter cover. I'm not saying there aren't any ogres out there, but for many wives and daughters who cover, it's simply an outward sign of their devotion.

    Sometimes listening to people talk about women who cover comes across like the costume designers for the original Star Trek. The assumption was then that in the future women would be liberated sexually, and if they could wear whatever they wanted, they would all be happy wearing miniskirts. That's what the miniskirt was in the '60s--a flapper-like expression of sexual liberation.

    But women look at the women's uniforms of the original Star Trek now and smirk. The fact is that women just don't want to be told what to wear--one way or the other. Prohibit them from covering, and millions of them who never wanted to cover before will suddenly start to do so. Tell them to cover, and they'll resist that, too. It's the way they're put together--it's not all sugar and spice and all things nice.

    Tell them what to wear or what they can't wear, and they can be a real pain in the ass.

  • CatoTheChipper||

    That's why the mutawa in Saudi Arabia always have a switch at the ready to punish any women with exposed flesh.

    Let Wahhabis become a majority in any locality in the US, and there will be a similar committee to promote virtue and deter vice.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Again, the vicious dictatorship in Saudi Arabia isn't necessarily representative of what Muslims in Saudi Arabia or around the world think about anything. I'm not sure the Wahabi or Salifist morality police are necessarily indicative of what anybody but the Wahabis or Salifsists think either.

    It may be that people in, say, Iran are both devout and hate the government and the morality police, too.

    George Orwell was a committed socialist who hated totalitarianism. Go figure.

  • Hank Phillips||

    There are female televangelist brainwashees aiding and abetting Republican National Socialist birth forcers who want men with guns to enforce their notion that life begins at erection. Then again, Goebbels, the Propaganda Minister, aided and abetted a movement no less obnoxious...

  • Ken Shultz||

    The idea that women willingly accept the moral responsibility for carrying a fetus when they willingly engage in an act that might create a fetus isn't an apples to apples comparison to the final solution.

    It just isn't.

  • Suicidy||

    Ken, Hank is a total ranting nut job. I'm pretty sure he's off his meds when he posts here. Either that or he is failing miserably at imitating Agile Cyborg.

  • Suicidy||

    Womans' need to quit their bitchin' and get back to the kitchen. Then they can bake the menfolk a pie!

  • Butler||

    Personally, I think a liberty-minded candidate would have a better shot running as an independent than as part of any third party. A large portion of the country is sick of both parties, and they'd jump at the chance to vote for an unaffiliated candidate. Gary should run independent, focusing on the debt problem. Almost worked for Ross Perot.

  • kbolino||

    The only person this election cycle who could pull off an independent run is Trump, and right now he has no reason to do so.

  • ||

    I just hope all of his campaign commercials are like this. Because if so, he'll lock up the over 70 shitty beer drinking crowd.

  • Glide||

    Well, shit. I'm an economic libertarian first and foremost so I could definitely vote for crazy religious persecution as the lesser of three evils if the other options were Democrat and WAR. But I was definitely not expecting Gary Johnson to be the source of such lunacy.

    That's such a wild trampling of religious liberty that I would be legitimately shocked to hear it out of the mouth of any non-Trump Republican, even Huckabee or Carson. To hear it from a libertarian, um...won't help our cause much in the quest to stop being the party of Those Crazy Guys. Although to be fair, there isn't much chance of winning over the present-day Democrats that would dislike this anyways, given how far left they've gone on fiscal policy.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    It's too bad about Gay Jay's confusion about what can be banned. Political activity, despite the vocal stylings of our progressive friends, is off-limits from Congress making laws.

    There's nothing magical about political speech which leaves it on the table for regulation.

  • Cap'n Krunch||

    Take note folks, in many states it's actually a felony to wear a mask in public. That means in American you can be stripped of your constitutionally guaranteed and protected second amendment rights for wearing a mask in the wrong state. That's how serious our government and our citizenry is about protecting our precious rights and freedoms.

  • EscherEnigma||

    I actually voted for Gary Johnson in 2012. Not because I thought he had a chance at winning, not because he had the best platform, but because as a California resident and the National Popular Vote still not in effect, my vote wasn't going to change the election.

    However, if Johnson got enough of the popular vote, that meant that in 2016 (now) that the Libertarian candidate would get more publicity and have a chance at the presidential debates in the fall. He didn't get enough of the vote.

    But barring some major life upsets, I'll be in the same boat this November. And I'll probably vote for the Libertarian candidate again. Not because it'll change anything this year, but the vague wistful hope that it'll change the next one.

    That said... the comment about burqas seems very... ill-conceived.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    That said... the comment about burqas seems very... ill-conceived.

    He's just flat wrong. He's bought into the trope that political speech is in a special, bannable category. He's wrong with a capital 'W'.

  • Hank Phillips||

    I voted for the Libertarian Party in 2012, and lame-ass Johnson the Republican jumped out in front of the parade. For the nomination I would sooner vote for a yellow dog or Donald Trump than Johnson. The guy is possibly well-intentioned but dumb as a post, and got a way worse share of the vote than Ed Clark did running against Reagan and a sitting Dem. Prez. Gary was running against a hated Kenyan socialist and a bank-rights fanatic from a religious cult whose candidates voters used to storm the jailhouse to kill.
    Enough! Tar and feather his delegates!

  • SIV||

    Why do you Libertarians hate freedom? And why do you want new federal taxes to fund monthly payments to every household in America?

  • sofi||

    Start working at home with Google! It's by-far the best job I've had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this - 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link, go to tech tab for work detail.
    _+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+ www.Homesalary10.com

  • Scalro Humillimus||

    Burqas are already illegal in Virginia if the intent is to conceal your identity. They are legal if you just find them sexy.

  • CatoTheYounger||

    So apparently Donald Trump is now more libertarian than Gary Johnson.

    Say what you want about the Trump, but he has yet to advocate banning the burka!

    http://www.jihadwatch.org/2015.....and-niqabs

  • Hank Phillips||

    I was at first tickled to see Gary Johnson of Austin finally taken seriously... but NOOOOOOOOO! Instead, we get another lame crybaby Republican impostor out to permanently ruin the Libertarian Party's chances of ever being taken seriously. Dig out ANY of GJ's moronic literature from the last dismal showing. I defy you to point to a single reference to the libertarian party platform and why we seek to get things done without letting berserker thugs kill everyone. If the idea is to let antichoice impostors ruin our chances, then let's nominate young Rand Paul. No way could he do a worse job than the New Mexican (no offense).

  • Suicidy||

    What?

  • eddielaidler||

    A step backward for me as a libertarian.........errr I think I am a libertarian what ever that means?

  • Anastasia Beaverhausen||

    Day 1 of his candidacy: He's already interested in banning an article of clothing, and proposing a new tax.

    This is what happens when we let former Republican office-holders hijack the LP. Did we learn nothing from the Bob Barr debacle?

  • SIV||

    Draft Mike Huckabee, Libertarians!

    lol!

  • mr simple||

    Is there any record of what he actually said? The only thing I could find is Politico saying he would sign a bill to ban the burqa and then his quote about Sharia being political and not religious. I would like to know his words and the context and not just take Politico's word for it.

  • Suell||

    As much as I hate seeing the increasing number of burqas around SF, I would not ever be in favor of a law against wearing them in public. Wearing them into a government building is a different matter and a private business should be able, of course, to tell the burqa wearer to take a fucking hike. I no longer have a storefront, but no way would I serve someone wearing one of those.

  • freeewill||

    if the puppet media would give just half the airtime to the Libertarians as they do the war party Repubs and the redistribution of wealth party Dems, it would be a no contest land slide victory and government would get put back on its chain

  • Dan S.||

    I came very close to voting for Gary Johnson in 2012, but decided in the end not to vote at all. Low turnout numbers do get media attention, Libertarian vote totals generally don't. I was thinking that I would vote for him this time if he runs again. But that comment about banning burquas doesn't at all befit a libertarian. Surely he knows that the federal government has no power to tell people what to wear. Wage a cultural campaign against Sharia, yes, but not a legal one against clothing or food choices. Although if what he meant is banning burquas in Federal buildings, that might make sense.

  • Chacho||

    as a former new mexican let me advise that he got the Hispanic vote TWICE as a republican governor in a BLUE state. sorry gop you are not going to get the Hispanic vote.

  • Danny Sprinkle||

    Here's an affordable source. Also available in white. Orlando can be pretty hot in late May...

    http://www.ebay.com/itm/New-1-.....SwZd1Vdb8g

  • Bluwater||

    Well by the comments here, it seems as though Gary's groundswell voter base is up to 62. Woo-hooooopy ding! Prolly make 8-10K by November. White House, here we come!

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online