Gary Johnson is a Complete Idiot

[in the]

He supports the TPP? Just when you thought he couldn't be more unattractive. SJW ideology with a republican's economic policy lol

Excellent summation.

 

[Deleted member 53472]

“If you use the term ‘illegal immigrants,’ that is very incendiary to the Hispanic population here in this country,” Johnson insisted. Asked for an explanation, Johnson said “illegal immigrant” is offensive because “It just is. It just is.”

Because all Hispanics are illegal? That makes no sense



In response, Johnson pointed his finger, yelling, “They came into this country because they couldn’t get in legally.

So they ARE illegal??? So, if I walk into someone's house uninvited, would I be an undocumented trespasser?



"And the jobs existed. And you or I would have done the same thing.”

OUR jobs are not for outsiders who come here illegally


"“When you go back decades ago, this was not considered illegal. When you go back decades, which involve a lot of these 11 million, it wasn’t the same issue as it is today,” Johnson said."

No, they were ALWAYS considered illegal, we just choose to turn a blind eye for decades





Gary Johnson may have shot himself in the foot with conservatives who don't want to vote for Trump

he's a libertarian and libertarians view all immigration as favorable since it benefits the economy.

 

[forum poster]

They don't? Are they the only party where you forfeit membership if you prove yourself to be pragmatic?

Basically, yes. The more pragmatic a libertarian candidate is the less libertarian he is. Watch the libertarian party debate. Any response that isn't "Hell NO, the gubberment has no right to say what I can do" gets boo'd. Should the government have laws that prevent the sale of heroin to children? HELL NO. Should the government have laws that prevent blind people from driving? HELL NO. WOOOOOO LIBERTY.
What's the best and only solution to any and every problem ever? The free market of course.

 

[AliBagaooteenov]

Anyone who trusts any of the presidential candidates is an idiot. The whole shit is corrupt

 

[Deleted member 53472]

Saying it on your part doesn't make it so.
The guy was continually reelected on the basis of his successful pork barrelling and was nonetheless vocal in his deriding of pork. It was ridiculous despite all the silly justifications I've heard from him and his supporters. It also is hilarious that so many think he gave a fuck about personal liberty, he was fine with restricting liberty as long as it was done at the state level. For such an avowed supporter of the founding fathers you'd think he might have, at least once, read the federalist papers.

Paul's support was simply a cult of personality.


Oh yeah, and lol GOLD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

He was more of a Constitutionalist, even ran under Constitution Party once or twice, which makes sense, since the U.S. Constitution is close, but not an entirely "libertarian" document in its nature

 

[GhostZ06]

oh because the other 2 are better? Get the fuck off TS

 

[Senkoy]

Terrible candidates all round.

 

[CableandThanos]

Well derpy do to you too.
You seem to have a problem understanding the basic concepts involved. Explain how immigrants illegal or legal, have a vote. Show me where in the Dem. platform it says this. Show me how reducing protections for workers is a left position at all.

You seem angry and uninformed. I assume you are voting Trump, correct?

A true open border is a libertarian position. Dems do not support an open border.

lol

Let them in, then they say oh well we have so many that we need to make them legal or give them a path to citizenship. They become legal and vote democrat/

Why am I having to explain something so basic to you?

 

[TheGreatA]

Gary Johnson sounds like he will only be taking voters away from Hillary. Trump's voters probably aren't overly concerned about economic policies, and they will certainly not be in favour of Gary Johnson's immigration policies.

Perhaps he will give Trump a much needed edge over Hillary?

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Because if liberty is rightly infringed for so attenuated reason like the money that the government steals from you anyway might go to a particular type of person, then it can be infringed for just about anything. Libertarianism is meaningless if that's the case. The money the government steals from me might go to subsidize Exxon/Pedro, therefore Exxon/Pedro can't do business? And I can't do business with Exxon/Pedro?

Yep. That's dyed in the wool social conservatism. Definitely not libertarianism.


Don't be dense. Immigration regulations are not per se racist. They can be racist, but they are not necessarily so. I think regulations that strike a balance between protection for labor and the rights and liberties of those seeking to better their lives here can create the most good.

If you want to compare government handouts via redistribution of wealth to the natural right of self defense you're not doing a good job. What have you other than it involves potential harm and is addressed somewhere in the Constitution?

What does dyed in the wool mean? I hope it doesn't mean (in this instance) something as stupid as that one position defining my political views. Good thing we're about to find out what liberals of high standing believe to be quality rules for exclusion.

Oh wait...nevermind. You chose to avoid answering.

Basically, yes.

Why?

 

[Deleted member 159002]

You've just made a case for market regulation. Despite the government's monopoly in that space they still couldn't do anything could they?

Moreover, what regulatory company worth its salt would bank its reputation on supporting them? That's a signal to the consumer in and of itself if a large company can't even get the backing of a third party evaluator.

Have you never seen the surgeon general warning on a pack of cigarettes? Lol at the idea of tobacco companies paying a scrutinous third party to evaluate the risks of their product and then putting a big warning on the packaging warning of their dangers.

 

[ucunc156]

He believes in climate change but his actually policy positions would reverse the progress made. Remember, he's a libertarian and any type of regulation is blasphemy. Also have a look at his tax plan where he makes it clear that he is living in fantasy land.

I just don't see what the guy offers that other candidates don't do 1000X better and without the batshit crazy.

Would you rather people vote for Trump or him?

 

[UpaLoompa]

Nope he was consistent. Some of his ideas might not be popular by today's standards n seem to heartless, however he argues greater good is achieved when govt doesn't get involved n citizens are free to live their lives as they choose

You're absolutely incorrect.

Paul was not opposed to the government getting involved in the private lives of citizens. He was opposed to the federal government preventing state and local governments from impinging on the private lives of citizens.
Here's what he said about Texas making homosexual behavior illegal:

(T)he State of Texas has the right to decide for itself how to regulate social matters like sex, using its own local standards. But rather than applying the real Constitution and declining jurisdiction over a properly state matter, the Court decided to apply the imaginary Constitution and impose its vision on the people of Texas.

This same sentiment also forms the basis of his opposition to any sort of worker protections or protections against discrimination based on sex, race, or religion.

Paul was no proponent of freedom, he was a proponent for local tyranny. Like I said, the supposed admirer of the founding fathers apparently never read Federalist 10 despite it having been written by one of the chief authors of the Constitution and BoR.

When you seek to strip the federal government of its most important constitutionally granted duty, you're not a proponent of either "freedom" or the constitution. Instead you're just an old shit head.

Oh yeah, and his economic position was fucking retarded.

 

[MiniCraque]

Please stop man, he's already dead (sort of).

His son is way worse of a shit bird anyway.

 

[kpt018]

Would you rather people vote for Trump or him?

Depends on the end goal (I'll explain).

I think in this race Hillary is the best candidate by a large margin. Trump is much more likely (being an understatement) than GJ to defeat her despite being an underdog, so from one stand point I'd be perfectly happy to see those who typically vote R to vote for GJ and make the election that more winnable for Hillary. So that is my "real world" wish.

If we were to pretend (for fun and discussion purposes) that one of these scandals was real and the race really came down to GJ vs Trump it would be a much more difficult decision. First, I'd puke, and probably write-in O'Malley or someone as a protest vote, but gun to head between the two I would probably begrudgingly vote for GJ. If they both got what they wanted they would both be a disaster but at least GJ is much less likely to drop a nuke or start a world war. He wouldn't reverse progress on social issues, but I am very curious as to who he would appoint as SCJ (which could reverse progress here). I would be sick over it because I think he would approve some crazy tax cuts for the wealthy given the opportunity and would reverse progress on climate change and would deregulate in key areas, like in banking.

I'm curious what your thoughts are.

 

[UpaLoompa]

Please stop man, he's already dead (sort of).

His son is way worse of a shit bird anyway.

Is he sick or something? That's unfortunate for him and his family.
Regardless, why should that stop one from critiquing his policy positions, particularly when they're being portrayed as something to emulate? Paul's positions were garbage, regardless of his current health.

 

[ucunc156]

I'm curious what your thoughts are.

Quite similar to yours. I encourage basically every R I know to vote GJ and challenge them on why they would vote trump. Depending on what kind of republican they are, I'll use a GJ standpoint (I don't know any R's that vote based solely on gay marriage) to bolster him. So I find myself almost rooting for GJ (plus I think a 3rd party doing significantly well would be a good shakeup).

Policy wise if I have to pick between Trump and GJ, I'll pick GJ every day of the week. I vote mainly based off economical impact and what can best help the poor. Neither do in this scenario, so then I go to the fact that GJ has actual policies, knows basic facts, and at least wouldn't be a step backwards as far as social issues go. Plus you get some good with him like legalization of weed.

Also, a lot of the more detrimental policies of GJ wouldn't have congressional backing imo. There aren't enough propertists for a true libertarian agenda. Plus the extreme ideology of libertarianism of "government regulation limits freedoms" basically manages yourself out a job. Theres only so long that you can run and hold a government office by having an anti government stance.

 

[Deleted member 502383]

I have been an advocate for freedom and liberty since the eighties and I must ask you guy's across the Atlantic... How the fuck is Gary Johnson a libertarian?

 

[gatchaman]

I have been an advocate for freedom and liberty since the eighties and I must ask you guy's across the Atlantic... How the fuck is Gary Johnson a libertarian?

Could a true libertarian even run for office?

I think that libertarian is used to describe Gary Johnson, not in an absolute sense, but in a relative sense to the other candidates. If you had to rank people from statist to libertarian, it might look like this:
Kim Jong-il, Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump, Gary Johnson, Ron Paul, Lysander Spooner.

 

[Goatenstein]

All politicians are evil retards.