Gary Johnson on Abortion Restrictions, Religious Liberty and SCOTUS

[Krugminator2]

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guyben...ictions-religious-liberty-and-scotus-n2212659

On recent Supreme Court decisions, the Libertarian standard-bearer appeared to be unfamiliar with the specifics of the Hobby Lobby case, eventually concluding that the Court's 5-4 majority got it wrong; religious small businesses shouldn't be able to "discriminate" against employees by declining to pay for certain forms of birth control and abortifacients, he said.

What a stupid fuck. I am pro-choice but the idea of forcing someone to pay for what they believe is murder is deranged.

He isn't pandering. This is what he genuinely believes because he has done none of the homework to understand the issues or philosophy. This isn't a pet issue or being a purist. Forcing someone to pay murder is sociopathic.

Here is a throwback Gary quote, “My fear is that people associate Rand Paul's social conservatism with libertarianism, when it's not.”

 

[Lovecraftian4Paul]

Two Dems running on a Libertarian ticket. Wow.

All I can say is he's probably hurting Hillary at this point, which is good for America, by making himself a slightly more successful Ralph Nader. I don't know why he is wasting money advertising vague "vote third party" ads on conservative talk radio networks. I've heard them this week and they are pretty shrug-worthy. There's nothing in them that would specifically appeal to conservatives or even libertarians. They are really generic. He should just go all in and target liberals/Bernie supporters since his positions align perfectly with them at this point.

 

[Tywysog Cymru]

We have three candidates who love abortion in this cycle. Planned Parenthood should do a triple endorsement of Johnson, Trump, and Clinton.

 

[JohnM]

Two Dems running on a Libertarian ticket. Wow.

It's worse than that.

 

[specsaregood]

LOL @

the Libertarian standard-bearer

I'm sure glad I don't refer to myself as a libertarian, that would suck.

 

[JohnM]

Here is a throwback Gary quote, “My fear is that people associate Rand Paul's social conservatism with libertarianism, when it's not.”

Yup, because THE definition of libertarianism, (y'know, the OFFICIAL definition, the one used by THE OFFICIAL Libertarian candidate) is 'Fiscally conservative, and socially liberal'.

So, if Rand Paul isn't socially liberal - he can't be a libertarian, can he?

Interestingly enough, Johnson never elaborated on which of Rand Paul's positions was so socially conservative to disqualify him from libertarianism.

 

[adissa]

We have three candidates who love abortion in this cycle. Planned Parenthood should do a triple endorsement of Johnson, Trump, and Clinton.

Trump is not pro-abortion. But you forgot to include Jill Stein, who is.

 

[Tywysog Cymru]

Trump is not pro-abortion. But you forgot to include Jill Stein, who is.

He thinks planned parenthood is great. I forgot Jill Stein, that makes it 4!

 

[adissa]

He thinks planned parenthood is great. I forgot Jill Stein, that makes it 4!

"Look, Planned Parenthood has done very good work for many, many -- for millions of women," Trump said in a news conference Tuesday night. "And I’ll say it, and I know a lot of the so-called conservatives, they say that’s really ... cause I’m a conservative, but I’m a common-sense conservative."


Speaking from Palm Beach, Fla., the real-estate mogul reiterated he would not fund the organization "as long as you have the abortion going on," but noted the "millions of people -- and I’ve had thousands of letters from women -- that have been helped."

[...]

“Tonight, Donald Trump claimed he’d be great for women while in the same breath pledging to block them from accessing care at Planned Parenthood," said Dawn Laguens, executive vice president of Planned Parenthood Action Fund. "Tonight, Trump was introduced by Chris Christie, who decimated women’s health care across New Jersey. Trump would ban abortion, and eliminate women’s ability to have birth control covered by health insurance."





Read more: http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-...parenthood-super-tuesday-220090#ixzz4JDvIwE6Z
Follow us: [MENTION=557]politico[/MENTION] on Twitter | Politico on Facebook

 

[MattRay]

This is disappointing, but at least he did say abortion was an issue for the states and opposed tax funding for it. I knew that was his position in New Mexico, but I was relieved he didn't drop it to pander to the left. In this case, I think the problem stems from his stupid position on "discrimination." It's probably the issue he's worst on it. He's so paranoid people might discriminate, he forgets about the principles of freedom altogether. Liberty is about letting people make their own choices, and letting them enjoy the success of their good decisions and live with the consequences of the bad ones. Johnson seems to understand this for the most part on drugs. People might drink and drive, but Johnson doesn't want to outlaw alcohol because of it. And that will happen A LOT more frequently than discrimination and hurt people A LOT more. Hurt people in the literal sense and kill them. Discrimination will not. In fact, false discrimination suits hurt people far more than actual discrimination does. Part of the bad decisions people should have to live with is the business owner who discriminates and loses business because of it. Not only does he cut out a significant minority of potential customers, but more who are offended by the practice and refuse to support it, as is their right as much as it is the business owner's right to serve or not serve whoever he pleases. Compulsory work is by definition, slavery. This isn't even purely theory, we saw a man refuse to serve gay people in Michigan a year or 2 back and he made the national news, his business was hurt severely etc. He forgets that not believing "discrimination" is a government issue is not the same as him personally condoning it. Barry Goldwater got slammed for taking the constitutional position on discrimination, but did the right thing and spoke out against discrimination at the same time he was saying people had a right to do it. That's what a free, voluntary society is all about. If something is wrong, speak out against, but don't ask government to solve it. It's frustrating, Johnson is like a brick wall on discrimination.

 

[bunklocoempire]

It's worse than that.

This is how "we" "win"!!

 

[Murray N Rothbard]

Gary's just not operating on a set of stable libertarian principles. Period. I'm done with this election cycle. Wake me up when it's over.

 

[LibertyExtremist]

I've pretty much resigned myself to the fact that Gary Johnson is nothing more than a social justice warrior with a handful of slightly libertarian positions. That Gary comment on Rand is especially hilarious, as Rand Paul runs circles around Gary Johnson when it comes to libertarianism an actually understanding it. During Rand's run for president, many of the LP members on social media would be complaining about how Rand wasn't pure enough....funny how things ended up working out on that one!

Also, it seems to me that Gary originally supported the Supreme Court decision on Hobby Lobby, after it first happened. Maybe on wrong on that, but it sure does seem that 2012 Gary is quite a bit different than 2016 Gary. What's interesting is that Gary's potential successes in 2016 for the LP could actually set libertarians back quite a bit. If he makes it to the debates and looks like a complete moron (highly likely that he'd look stupid, he is a terrible communicator), the establishment will triumphantly claim that third parties are a joke and have no place with the established parties. If I was an establishment crony, I'd be pleading to let Gary in the debates to make an ass of himself and libertarianism. If he somehow won the election, his presidency would likely be such an abomination for libertarianism that the word itself could no longer be used.

I guess you could say I'm pretty disappointed by Gary lol.