Gary Johnson Gary Johnson supports NAFTA

[sailingaway]

I was looking into this because of my feeling that he supported globalism/internationalism and my desire to pin it down a bit. I personally think the most local representation is the only way to have representative government because individuals have less voice in policy the more centralized and distant it is, so it is a point I care about. This isn't about free trade, but in my view NAFTA is managed trade that reserves through cronyism the benefits of trade only to the well connected, and that the international forums to work out disputes further removes trade from the realm of the individual to the benefit of the corporatist.

According to Gary Johnson's interview in Playboy as reprinted in this cannabis newsletter that came up in a google search, GJ does favor NAFTA, and was asked about his support of it. http://cannabisnews.com/news/7/thread7965.shtml

and there was this:

Johnson also said he differs from Ron Paul on how to promote free trade, and that he generally supports NAFTA and other free-trade agreements.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2010/02/11/f...rts-ron-pauls-libertarian-base/#ixzz1KSNRLo8y

 

[UtahApocalypse]

Glad some people here are not fooled. Or that "one issue" supporter

 

[specsaregood]

I'm particularly fond of the dispute settlement section. Which is decided by up to 15 unelected panelists from with the financial services sector.

http://www.nafta-sec-alena.org/en/view.aspx?x=343&mtpiID=145#A1414

Article 1414: Dispute Settlement

1. Section B of Chapter Twenty (Institutional Arrangements and Dispute Settlement Procedures) applies as modified by this Article to the settlement of disputes arising under this Chapter.

2. The Parties shall establish by January 1, 1994 and maintain a roster of up to 15 individuals who are willing and able to serve as financial services panelists. Financial services roster members shall be appointed by consensus for terms of three years, and may be reappointed.

3. Financial services roster members shall:
(a) have expertise or experience in financial services law or practice, which may include the regulation of financial institutions;
(b) be chosen strictly on the basis of objectivity, reliability and sound judgment; and
(c) meet the qualifications set out in Article 2009(2)(b) and (c) (Roster).

4. Where a Party claims that a dispute arises under this Chapter, Article 2011 (Panel Selection) shall apply, except that:


(a) where the disputing Parties so agree, the panel shall be composed entirely of panelists meeting the qualifications in paragraph 3; and

(b) in any other case,

(i) each disputing Party may select panelists meeting the qualifications set out in paragraph 3 or in Article 2010(1) (Qualifications of Panelists), and

(ii) if the Party complained against invokes Article 1410, the chair of the panel shall meet the qualifications set out in paragraph 3.

5. In any dispute where a panel finds a measure to be inconsistent with the obligations of this Agreement and the measure affects:


(a) only the financial services sector, the complaining Party may suspend benefits only in the financial services sector;

(b) the financial services sector and any other sector, the complaining Party may suspend benefits in the financial services sector that have an effect equivalent to the effect of the measure in the Party's financial services sector; or

(c) only a sector other than the financial services sector, the complaining Party may not suspend benefits in the financial services sector.

Also, one would hope the members of the panel would be known. But i can't seem to find out who they are. Does anybody else here know?
http://www.nafta-sec-alena.org/en/view.aspx?x=283#Who are panel members

Who are panel members?

Panelists are chosen from rosters of experts established by the Parties in each NAFTA country. Panelists must be of high standing, good character, objective, reliable, and have sound judgement and general familiarity with international trade law. The majority of members of a panel, including the Chair, must be lawyers.

But no names or current list from what I can see.
The wouldn't be settling these disputes with anonymous people in a smoke filled room would they?

 

[Sola_Fide]

But come on! He supports weed man!

 

[Travlyr]

Good info, thanks. Why do we need laws for free-trade? It is kind of like ... why do we need to bomb them to achieve peace? It doesn't make any sense.

When Gary Johnson used the word 'kooky' in this video, I lost even more respect for him. Gary would be better off if he kept his mouth shut.

 

[Qdog]

Ross Perot was right when he spoke of NAFTA and the "Giant sucking sound" of jobs leaving the USA.

 

[ronpaulhawaii]

Not surprising. It will be interesting to see people try to defend that.

Of note is that Johnson's former State Director and Campaign Manager, Doug Turner, is listed on the CFR site. I asked him about this during his campaign for governor, he kinda laughed it off...

And now Dondero is pushing Turner for Bingaman's seat...

http://www.fontcraft.com/liberty/?p=34817

Hmmmm...

 

[erowe1]

Ross Perot was right when he spoke of NAFTA and the "Giant sucking sound" of jobs leaving the USA.

No he wasn't.

Jobs aren't physical objects that can get "sucked" somewhere or "shipped" somewhere. They're just what you call the arrangement where people agree with other people to exchange labor for money. If people aren't doing that, it's not because there's some scarcity in jobs.

 

[S.Shorland]

I don't think Johnson is a Libertarian at all.Probably another shill in the Mike Gravel mode.

 

[emazur]

He probably supports free trade (which is fine) but doesn't understand that NAFTA isn't free trade, thought it was billed as such. He's not gonna understand things to the depth that Ron Paul does, don't throw him under the bus for that. He does talk radio interviews fairly often - why not gather the facts on NAFTA, bullet point the negatives, and call in a show to debate him about it?

I suppose nobody here has ever taken a position based on incomplete or false information that they later changed?

 

[BamaFanNKy]

So, in an an interview 11 years ago he said that. Wonder what he thinks now. OH WAIT! He's changed on the issue and all I had to do was google:
Ending NAFTA and other free trade agreements (as he believes they only promote support of corporate interests and do not promote free trade):


http://www.jeremyryan.org/news/blog02.asp?ProdCode=27115242011


LOTS of people supported NAFTA in the late 1990's that don't now. I'm probably not going on a limb when I say, some of you probably didn't always belong to this movement.

 

[sailingaway]

So, in an an interview 11 years ago he said that. Wonder what he thinks now. OH WAIT! He's changed on the issue and all I had to do was google:
Ending NAFTA and other free trade agreements (as he believes they only promote support of corporate interests and do not promote free trade):


http://www.jeremyryan.org/news/blog02.asp?ProdCode=27115242011


LOTS of people supported NAFTA in the late 1990's that don't now. I'm probably not going on a limb when I say, some of you probably didn't always belong to this movement.

BamaFan, this guy is REALLY hard for me to listen to. He is speaking to a Ron Paul supporter video interviewer, and dodging question after question to my mind. When does this point come up? Because I am at 6:26 and they haven't gotten near it and I don't want to watch 24 more minutes of this. I would look at that one thing. Meanwhile, the daily caller citation I gave was not from the 1990s, obviously, and Tucker Carlson, who runs it, is libertarian enough to be in the loop, fairly well, I would think.

 

[BamaFanNKy]

BamaFan, this guy is REALLY hard for me to listen to. He is speaking to a Ron Paul supporter video interviewer, and dodging question after question to my mind. When does this point come up? Because I am at 6:26 and they haven't gotten near it and I don't want to watch 24 more minutes of this. I would look at that one thing. Meanwhile, the daily caller citation I gave was not from the 1990s, obviously, and Tucker Carlson, who runs it, is libertarian enough to be in the loop, fairly well, I would think.

Why do you care then. Move on. The thing I find funny are the posters who say "People come on here telling us we should support Johnson and it ticks me of....." then they turn around and post about Johnson. Inviting for people to defend him. If you don't like him, ignore him. Rule #1 of politics, don't talk about your opponent. Moffett in our state hasn't learned that and neither did Jack Conway.

 

[specsaregood]

//

 

[libertybrewcity]

No he wasn't.

Jobs aren't physical objects that can get "sucked" somewhere or "shipped" somewhere. They're just what you call the arrangement where people agree with other people to exchange labor for money. If people aren't doing that, it's not because there's some scarcity in jobs.

What do you call the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs from the United States elsewhere? They were likely due to failed policies like NAFTA. That seems like a giant sucking sound to me, no?

 

[low preference guy]

Bama, I'll be posting about Johnson just to see you dance a jig in righteous defense of him.

The funny thing is that he isn't defending Johnson, but just changed the topic. Sailing asked at which point exactly Johnson says he opposes Nafta. Not responding to that question doesn't seem like defending Johnson to me.

 

[Billay]

Why do you care then. Move on. The thing I find funny are the posters who say "People come on here telling us we should support Johnson and it ticks me of....." then they turn around and post about Johnson. Inviting for people to defend him. If you don't like him, ignore him. Rule #1 of politics, don't talk about your opponent. Moffett in our state hasn't learned that and neither did Jack Conway.

Most the people here don't have a clue about politics. Thats why you see these people showing up to various rallies with investigate 9-11 signs and other silly shit.

 

[erowe1]

What do you call the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs from the United States elsewhere? They were likely due to failed policies like NAFTA. That seems like a giant sucking sound to me, no?

Again, jobs aren't objects extended in space that can be "lost." They're just what you call the arrangement when people exchange labor for money.

If that's not happening, it's not because some number of "jobs" was "lost." It's not a giant sucking sound. It may be due to failed policies, some of which may be in NAFTA, but not in the way of anything being "sucked" anywhere. If more such arrangements are happening in Mexico, and fewer are happening in the U.S., then it's those two facts are not two parts of one shift of "jobs" from one place to another, they're two separate changes of condition in the two countries, one of which results from changes in policy for the better (such as a lowering of tariffs), and the other from changes in policy for the worse (such as an increasing of regulations).

 

[BamaFanNKy]

Bama, I'll be posting about Johnson just to see you dance a jig in righteous defense of him. I find it rather entertaining.

p.s.. so he did leave his wife while she was on her cancer-death bed or not? It is unclear to me.

"Defend" also means correcting people? I honestly, don't care anymore. The more I read from people here the more I lose faith that this is about the movement but, more like their cult following of a man. I gave most the benefit that it wasn't cult like. Too bad it seems to be. If you want to lie..... go ahead. As for the wife thing, if you want.... search my answer on the issue. To spread that lie just makes people come off as desperate and not worth arguing and talking with.

I don't bring up Cong. Paul's denial of scientific evolution, not giving racist money back after he's known to have received the money or his being one of a handful of GOP congressmen to continue the practice earmarks. There are issues I have with Congressman Paul as Governor Johnson. Not everyone is 100% true to their principle, even the great Ron Paul.

 

[low preference guy]

I wonder when some of the Johnson supporters will stop name-calling with the cult stuff. Somebody asks why GJ said he supported NAFTA, and BamaFan accuses Ron Paul supporters of being a cult. What a joke.