Gary Johnson: The Presidential Candidate the Powers That Be Don't Want You to Know About

a reply to: Boadicea

What do you think it would do to repeal the income tax amendment and replace it with a flat or fair tax rate? Then you hear the same cries of but, but they won't pay their fair share ...

Then you more or less have to gut the current regulatory structure because it also plays a huge role in picking and maintaining the current crony environment. But as soon as you talk about that, you get screams about how it would mean people don't care about the air or water ...

But in order to truly do away with the current crony structure that advantages the very big and picks winners and loser and hampers the free market by undercutting the growth at the bottom, that's what you have to do.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Boadicea

What do you think it would do to repeal the income tax amendment and replace it with a flat or fair tax rate? Then you hear the same cries of but, but they won't pay their fair share ...

First and foremost, there will always be someone crying about something. There will always be cheaters and thiefs and lazy bums and whatever. And at this point, too many people have been taught and conditioned and forced into the nanny government mindset, in various ways and for various reasons, increasing those "screaming." In other words, they have good reason to scream and whine and cry. And since the government did it to them, they figure the government can -- and should -- do it for them. They're right to the extent that government broke and government can and should fix it.

Second, no one should be paying any income tax on their labor. Period. Nor should we be taxed on our free trade with others. The USA got along without taxing her citizens for a long long time via other taxes and tariffs and whatnot. Income taxes -- especially the progressive income tax -- keep us fighting an endless battle over who should pay how much -- i.e., who is and isn't paying their "fair" share. Divide-and-conquer -- we fight and they keep taxing us more and more in more and more ways and squandering the fruits of our labor... and all for the enrichment of the privately owned government created entity the Federal Reserve Banksters. Nothing is fair or right about that. We should all be screaming about that.

Then you more or less have to gut the current regulatory structure because it also plays a huge role in picking and maintaining the current crony environment. But as soon as you talk about that, you get screams about how it would mean people don't care about the air or water ...

Well, yeah. Because the government has done a crappy job of regulating pretty much everything because of the crony capitalism and it needs serious reform -- top to bottom. But it's exactly that regulatory abuse that has caused many of our problems. One example: If hemp/cannabis hadn't been criminalized for crony capitalist reasons, and hemp/cannabis had been cultivated and developed and been ALLOWED to replace many high chemical and high pollution processes, or been ALLOWED to supplement (if not replace) the use of lumber for paper, much of our environmental issues wouldn't be issues at all.

New Billion Dollar Crop (Popular Mechanics, 1938)

This could have been the new Industrial Revolution, and would have been if not for the crony capitalism. Hemp produces a superior paper product to wood fiber with far less chemicals (and pollution) for processing and production... that could have saved a whole lot of screaming. Hemp also produces finer fabric than cotton -- from burlap to satin -- with far less chemicals (and therefore pollution). That too could have saved a whole lot of screaming. Hemp can produce a combustible fuel that burns far cleaner than any other oil -- especially petroleum. Would we be hearing screaming about global warming and carbon credits if hemp hadn't been criminalized?

The Hemp Revolution (video -- 1995)

But in order to truly do away with the current crony structure that advantages the very big and picks winners and loser and hampers the free market by undercutting the growth at the bottom, that's what you have to do.

Yup. That's exactly what we have to do. And then do it right.

a reply to: Vector99

He sold it years ago.
The construction co. that is.
Voted for him in "12 hoping the Libertarian party could make it to 5%.
Gary has had THE most votes of any libertarian candidate in history ("12 election).
Honestly, IMHO (and looking at his record as a Republican Gov in a blue state, with 70% of the vote in his 2nd term), He's still my first choice.
Although if I had to admit, if it meant keeping the Cankler out of the house she pilfered around 26 years ago...
Surreal.
Go Gary!

EDIT:
I am a 5th gen New Mexican, and did vote for him as Governor, and thought he did a very good job.
Didn't agree 100%, but realize that NO Politician will represent "your" opinions 100% either.
...
I guess I'm just asking ATS to do some math..
?
FNORD

he had grown that business into one of the largest construction companies in New Mexico, with more than 1,000 employees.

So, what's his stance on illegals since they are so hot right now? I bet he has a few.

a reply to: TheToastmanCometh

Here's the gist of his position on immigration from his issues page:

Governor Johnson has long advocated a simplified and secure system of work visas by which willing workers and willing employers can meet in a robust labor marketplace efficiently and economically. Aspiring immigrants would undergo a background check, pay taxes and provide proof of employment.

Here's what he said about those illegals already here in an interview with I Side With back in 2012:

Q: If elected President would you grant amnesty to all illegal immigrants currently in the U.S.?

A: I wouldn't call it amnesty I would call it a grace period. I think one of the real misconceptions about amnesty is that its citizenship. I am advocating comprehensive immigration reform. I think we should make it as easy as possible to get a work visa. Would immigrants stand in line to get a work visa if the line was moving? I think that they would.

I'm not sure how/if his position has changed since then, especially given the many many really crappy actions Obama has taken -- both in letting in illegals (especially the "unaccompanied minors" flooding our southern border), and the criminal illegals he's allowed to stay (and release from jail). I think Obama has compounded that problem over the last years.

Thanks for reminding me about this, he does seem rather reasonable compared to the other two candidates.

a reply to: Boadicea

I will be voting for Gary again. The vote for the Libertarian Party is extremely important. If they get 5% of the vote in the general election, it will put them on the main stage during the national debates. If you want to actually do something that can actually affect change, then vote Libertarian and tell everyone else you know to do the same. Getting the message of liberty into the public domain should be everyone's top priority. Voting for any of the R or D's is a vote for evil.

I personally met Gary, and had a chance to actually speak to him for several minutes. He is the real deal. He is genuine. He actually cares about people and this country.

I don't understand why there aren't more Libertarians out there. History shows us time and again that the consolidation of power ends badly every time. Why do we keep allowing them to expand control over us? Why is the answer to corrupt government solved by giving the corrupt government more power to be corrupt? Think about it, please. Take 5 seconds and just think about what I said.

If you guys still believe that voting for Trump, Bernie, Hillary, or any other puppet they shove in our faces will do anything other than more of the same, you are mistaken.

originally posted by: Winstonian
a reply to: Boadicea

I will be voting for Gary again. The vote for the Libertarian Party is extremely important. If they get 5% of the vote in the general election, it will put them on the main stage during the national debates. If you want to actually do something that can actually affect change, then vote Libertarian and tell everyone else you know to do the same. Getting the message of liberty into the public domain should be everyone's top priority. Voting for any of the R or D's is a vote for evil.

This is such an important point -- thank you for making it! (I shoulda made it myself.) Voting for Gary Johnson can have far greater benefits in terms of breaking the stranglehold of the left/right establishment on our election process.

I don't understand why there aren't more Libertarians out there. History shows us time and again that the consolidation of power ends badly every time. Why do we keep allowing them to expand control over us? Why is the answer to corrupt government solved by giving the corrupt government more power to be corrupt?

Another excellent point that deserves repeating -- and BOLDING!

a reply to: Boadicea

Well thank you for the kind words! I should send my posts to you for proofreading prior to hitting submit!

Gary Johnson was governor of New Mexico when I worked in law enforcement. He endangered public safety through trying to privatize a number of law enforcement functions.

As far as I'm concerned he is nothing but a dope-smoking rich kid who thinks he knows something, when in reality he's got about the same intellect as a brain-dead hippy. I literally would not vote the man in as dog-catcher (because I'd feel sorry for the dogs).

No, that's not strong enough.

I wouldn't urinate on him if his guts were on fire.

a reply to: DrogoTheNorman

Gary Johnson was governor of New Mexico when I worked in law enforcement. He endangered public safety through trying to privatize a number of law enforcement functions.

Care to expand on that? I found references on Wikipedia that he supported opening private prisons after a riot at the state prison... is that what you're referring to? I'm not sure how that would endanger public safety though, so you'll have to draw me a picture!

originally posted by: Winstonian
a reply to: Boadicea

Well thank you for the kind words! I should send my posts to you for proofreading prior to hitting submit!

Hmmm... I don't know about that! Maybe the other way around... you improved on my post... I think I got the better end of that deal!

a reply to: DrogoTheNorman

I think that law enforcement is a danger to society. People are led to believe that they "protect" us but they really protect the state.

Handle your own problems and don't call the police unless you absolutely have to.

a reply to: Boadicea

You probably won't find anything on the internet. I would love to elaborate but I signed a "non-disclosure" agreement not to reveal any insider information not available to the general public.

I'll just leave it with this: government employees are required by law to do certain things that private contractors are not.

Gary is a great candidate.

Problem is, most "normal" people have NO idea who he is, or what he's about.

Until the Libertarian party can figure out some way to get their message to the people, they simply won't have any shot at such an office, no matter how capable the candidate is.

Likewise, even if elected, without ANY support in Congress, it would be difficult to actually DO anything.

originally posted by: DrogoTheNorman
a reply to: Boadicea

You probably won't find anything on the internet. I would love to elaborate but I signed a "non-disclosure" agreement not to reveal any insider information not available to the general public.

Gotcha.... grrrrr! I am very frustrated and critical of these nondisclosure agreements and confidentiality clauses that prevent folks from telling the rest of us the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. I am sure you are at least as frustrated as I am!

I'll just leave it with this: government employees are required by law to do certain things that private contractors are not.

I totally get that... and the massive potential for abuse.

Thanks for responding with what you can. I appreciate that.

originally posted by: Boadicea

Gotcha.... grrrrr! I am very frustrated and critical of these nondisclosure agreements and confidentiality clauses that prevent folks from telling the rest of us the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. I am sure you are at least as frustrated as I am!

Just ask yourself a question, theoretical of course: In the event of a prison uprising or mass escape, would you rather have trained, motivated, and indentured officers respond, or would you rather have a bunch of rent-a-cops respond?

originally posted by: Gazrok
Gary is a great candidate.

Problem is, most "normal" people have NO idea who he is, or what he's about.

So very true -- hence this post! -- but I do believe that is changing. I am encouraged by the reported increase in searches for Johnson and/or the Libertarian party.

Until the Libertarian party can figure out some way to get their message to the people, they simply won't have any shot at such an office, no matter how capable the candidate is.

This may be their first test of leadership... the mainstream media won't be helping them (I expect exactly the opposite!) But with the technology available today, they should be able get whatever message they want out to the masses. It may be a test of their leadership abilities.

Likewise, even if elected, without ANY support in Congress, it would be difficult to actually DO anything.

That's true. But while they may not be able to affect many actual changes, they can probably put a wrench in the current works and status quo. And even if he doesn't win, if Johnson can get just 5% of the popular vote (which I believe is not just possible, but probable), the Libertarian Party can at least be put on a level playing field with the Dems and Pubs in terms of public financing, etc. And even that would be a win for all of us!

a reply to: DrogoTheNorman

Just ask yourself a question, theoretical of course: In the event of a prison uprising or mass escape, would you rather have trained, motivated, and indentured officers respond, or would you rather have a bunch of rent-a-cops respond?

Excellent question for everyone. I have asked myself that... I hope others will as well.

The "rent a cop" solution is a bad one, but not just because of attitude, training, etc.

Simple thing is, I think you'd see a lot of turnover with a private security force, meaning mostly green guards. From a few friends who work in this area, it's the consistency of who's in charge that really does the trick, plus they know the quirks, who the troublemakers are, etc.

Not to mention, with the government oversight, you'll have a lot less risk of lawsuits based on ignorance of law, etc. in handling the inmates. All in all, private security in prisons is just a bad idea for everyone, including the ones running the prison.