FreedomWorks Interview w/ Gary Johnson

[T.hill]

He's kind of arrogant and even said he think's he would be a better senator than Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, Or Mike Lee. Yet, he doesn't want to run, because he'd have to "bring home the bacon and he would be really bad at that and would only last 1 term."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1SGphqFn0NI

 

[supermario21]

Gary is a prick, I'm sorry. He wants the liberty movement to be about him rather than ideas. I know people criticize us a lot for being Paulbots but it's the ideas that bring us here more than the men themselves (or man himself in the case of Ron). Humanitarian wars, embracing the liberal meme on marriage and abortion. Gary is a beltway libertarian at best.

 

[supermario21]

Serious point though, being more liberal than any Democrat on issues like abortion and gay marriage is a disgrace and not a winning strategy.

 

[compromise]

Moron. Run for Senate already...Rand, Lee and Cruz aren't bringing home the bacon, so why would you need to? Also, 1 term is better than nothing.

 

[T.hill]

Serious point though, being more liberal than any Democrat on issues like abortion and gay marriage is a disgrace and not a winning strategy.

Contrary to what some people think, being pro-choice and a libertarian is possible. You might disagree with it, but it doesn't make them a 'disgrace' or whatever else. I know Ron believe's being pro-life is essential to being a libertarian, but I don't think he would denounce those who are anyway.

 

[FSP-Rebel]

GJ is irrelevant to me unless he runs for Senate as a republican.

 

[T.hill]

It all comes down to what you conclude to be life and human and because the question itself has a subjective premise, then it's completely dependent on philosophical musings. There is no science to holistically determine what characterizes a human or even life generally for that matter.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Contrary to what some people think, being pro-choice and a libertarian is possible. You might disagree with it, but it doesn't make them a 'disgrace' or whatever else. I know Ron believe's being pro-life is essential to being a libertarian, but I don't think he would denounce those who are anyway.

I'll admit to abortion being controversial, and I'll admit that the "Short term" solution to gay marriage is controversial. But legalizing all drugs and ending all foreign wars are not controversial for libertarians and GJ is wishy-washy on both of them.

I would have voted for him in 2012 since everyone else sucked (Well, maybe Virgil Goode didn't totally suck, but he was still inferior to Johnson) if I had been able to vote but he still isn't great.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Gary is much better when it comes to his actual politicians than when he's talking.

"Fiscally resposible and socially tolerant" is not what libertarianism is. "More left than any democrat on social issues" is not what libertarianism is.

He's disappointing me. He's still WAY better than trigger-happy Cruz though.

 

[T.hill]

I'll admit to abortion being controversial, and I'll admit that the "Short term" solution to gay marriage is controversial. But legalizing all drugs and ending all foreign wars are not controversial for libertarians and GJ is wishy-washy on both of them.

I would have voted for him in 2012 since everyone else sucked (Well, maybe Virgil Goode didn't totally suck, but he was still inferior to Johnson) if I had been able to vote but he still isn't great.

Well, he's actually as good as Ron and Rand on foreign policy, he's a complete non-interventionist- he said that he opposed all foreign wars and military intervention during the LP's national convention. Although, unlike Ron and Rand, who are supportive of Israel, Gary actually would not support Israel if it attacked Iran and has actually said he would use his presidential powers to stop Israel from attacking Iran. Whatever that means.

I didn't realize he wasn't for legalization of all drugs, though. So much for "more socially liberal than any Democrat."

 

[Christian Liberty]

Well, he's actually as good as Ron and Rand on foreign policy, he's a complete non-interventionist- he said that he opposed all foreign wars and military intervention during the LP's national convention. Although, unlike Ron and Rand, who are supportive of Israel, Gary actually would not support Israel if it attacked Iran and has actually said he would use his presidential powers to stop Israel from attacking Iran. Whatever that means.

I didn't realize he wasn't for legalization of all drugs, though. So much for "more socially liberal than any Democrat."

Gary Johnson isn't a complete non-interventionist. He's way better than the political mainstream on that issue, but he doesn't hold a candle to Ron Paul on it. Rand isn't an open non-interventionist either, I think the foreign policy of the two is pretty comparable.

Read this on Gary Johnson:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Gary_Johnson#Military_and_foreign_policy

He clearly supports some humanitarian wars.

As for drugs, he supports legalizing marijuana and "Treating other drugs as a health issue, not a criminal justice issue" but he does not support making them legal. This makes him clearly worse than Ron Paul on that issue as well.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Oh, and Gary is on record for supporting the US-Israel alliance as well. I don't think he'd bomb Iran, but he's definitely "Pro-Israel" although not ridiculously so. I don't think Ron Paul likes Israel very much based on what he's said on LRC but his primary focus is (As it should be) getting the US disengaged from the situation.

 

[T.hill]

Oh, and Gary is on record for supporting the US-Israel alliance as well. I don't think he'd bomb Iran, but he's definitely "Pro-Israel" although not ridiculously so. I don't think Ron Paul likes Israel very much based on what he's said on LRC but his primary focus is (As it should be) getting the US disengaged from the situation.

I suppose. Ron Paul is supportive of Israel, which is fine. He and Rand may present themselves differently, but just as Ron supports Israel he doesn't agree with giving them foreign aid or getting involved with their military operations. Rand said something questionable relating to the military relationship between the US and Israel a couple months ago, but he wouldn't involve the US in an Israeli war. At least he wouldn't be the guy beating the war drums, but if congress were to declare war or authorize military force there's not much he could do as president to cool down the situation. I'm sure he would try.

Gary may be supportive of Israel, but both Ron and Rand would allow Israel to attack Iran and respect their right to defend themselves if they believed they are being threatened. As I understand it, a President Johnson would not just disagree with Israel attacking Iran, but he would actually attempt to stop them somehow.

 

[Bastiat's The Law]

Gary needs to come down from the clouds surrounding Everest and dial back his ego. I also don't think he truly comprehends the liberty movement. If he really wanted to help this country he would've ran for Senate, but instead he wants to pat himself on the back and talk a big game.

 

[Bastiat's The Law]

Well, he's actually as good as Ron and Rand on foreign policy, he's a complete non-interventionist- he said that he opposed all foreign wars and military intervention during the LP's national convention. Although, unlike Ron and Rand, who are supportive of Israel, Gary actually would not support Israel if it attacked Iran and has actually said he would use his presidential powers to stop Israel from attacking Iran. Whatever that means.

I didn't realize he wasn't for legalization of all drugs, though. So much for "more socially liberal than any Democrat."

Gary was on a get Kony kick for a while there. I couldn't help but chuckle and facepalm. I think he means well, but his internal compass is about as reliable as a Trabant.

 

[Christian Liberty]

I suppose. Ron Paul is supportive of Israel, which is fine. He and Rand may present themselves differently, but just as Ron supports Israel he doesn't agree with giving them foreign aid or getting involved with their military operations. Rand said something questionable relating to the military relationship between the US and Israel a couple months ago, but he wouldn't involve the US in an Israeli war. At least he wouldn't be the guy beating the war drums, but if congress were to declare war or authorize military force there's not much he could do as president to cool down the situation. I'm sure he would try.

Gary may be supportive of Israel, but both Ron and Rand would allow Israel to attack Iran and respect their right to defend themselves if they believed they are being threatened. As I understand it, a President Johnson would not just disagree with Israel attacking Iran, but he would actually attempt to stop them somehow.

Yeah, I have to fimrly agree with Ron/Rand over Gary if that is indeed the disagreement. Not our job to police Israel anymore than it was our job to police a man like Saddam who kills his own people. In each and every case, its not our job unless the US is threatened.

Granted, I'd be rooting for Iran if Israel did indeed bomb them but its still not the USA's business.

Gary needs to come down from the clouds surrounding Everest and dial back his ego. I also don't think he truly comprehends the liberty movement. If he really wanted to help this country he would've ran for Senate, but instead he wants to pat himself on the back and talk a big game.

To be fair to Gary, he did climb Everest. Guess his mind stayed at the top?

I don't think its so much pride on his part as it is a failed understanding of what libertarianism is. "Fiscally conservative, socially liberal" just doesn't cut it.

 

[Bastiat's The Law]

I don't think its so much pride on his part as it is a failed understanding of what libertarianism is. "Fiscally conservative, socially liberal" just doesn't cut it.

That is the absolute worst way to describe libertarian philosophy. Absolutely atrocious.

 

[VIDEODROME]

I thought that was how he was trying to describe and market himself.

Mostly, I figure Gary is still trying to get a better feel for national politics. He did well getting elected as Governor but I think he a way he's still reeling from the exclusion he encountered in the Presidential debates. Now he's doing this "Live Free" campus tour. I have a vague feeling he wants to aim for the White House even if it's only as a cabinet member and not President.

Or try to push and promote Jim Gray for Supreme Court.

 

[compromise]

Gary is much better when it comes to his actual politicians than when he's talking.

"Fiscally resposible and socially tolerant" is not what libertarianism is. "More left than any democrat on social issues" is not what libertarianism is.

He's disappointing me. He's still WAY better than trigger-happy Cruz though.

You're calling Cruz trigger happy, but wasn't GJ the one who wanted to invade...Uganda? This guy seems to have no clue when it comes to foreign policy...the only thing he's worse on is monetary policy. Cruz crushes him on knowledge of Austrian economics.

 

[PaleoPaul]

That is the absolute worst way to describe libertarian philosophy. Absolutely atrocious.

Why?