1864
1865

Request[AMA Request] Libertarian Presidential nominee Gary Johnson (self.IAmA)

jauntygoat が 投稿

My 5 Questions:

  1. How can you be included in the polls to get included in the debates?
  2. Polls suggest you would siphon more votes from Hillary than Trump - do you agree?
  3. Is this the perfect storm to bring the Libertarian party in as a legitimate third party going forward?
  4. Do you think your marijuana views would harm you in a national race?
  5. What do you think of Rand Paul? Could he be a viable running mate?

Public Contact Information: If Applicable https://www.facebook.com/govgaryjohnson/

上位 200 件のコメント全て表示する 306
並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A

[–]redd4972 166ポイント167ポイント  (33子コメント)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but technically he hasn't gotten the nomination yet right? It's him Austin Peteresen and John Mcafee (yes that Mcafee)

[–]hitbyacar1 37ポイント38ポイント  (0子コメント)

Yeah the conventions may 27th

[–]NovelTeaDickJoke 22ポイント23ポイント  (15子コメント)

John has like 10 votes or something. There are plenty of candidates ahead of him.

[–]cheshirez 38ポイント39ポイント  (14子コメント)

McAfee was on point in the Libertarian debate though.

[–]Areanndee 43ポイント44ポイント  (8子コメント)

I agree. And one debate doesn't wipe away 20 years of crazy, nor his "nominate me or I quit" attitude.

[–]cheshirez -5ポイント-4ポイント  (7子コメント)

Yeah, which kinda sucks though. The 20yrs of crazy was probably him being eccentric and learning the folly of government overreach.

He's just not a fan of Johnson but I hear the same from many Libertarians.

[–]oaklandr8dr 10ポイント11ポイント  (2子コメント)

Gary Johnson, love him but a lot of active party Libertarians would criticize that he put his activism on stall between elections. For those who criticize McAfee what's better - a guy who only shows up during election season or a "crazy" guy who is showing up 24/7?

I've met McAfee in person and I assure you he's got it together and I believe he would be the best candidate at this point.

McAfee has been in the news cycle constantly before Gary took a mountain climbing break to say "Hey, I'm running guys!"

I believe McAfee would exceed the popular vote won by Gary Johnson. I love Gary J, but I actually want him to lose the nomination to motivate him to be a year round libertarian!

[–]cheshirez 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

I know you're just a random internet person but it's nice to hear that about McAfee. I believe he'd be great but it probably wouldn't happen.

Something like he's the hero we need but not the one we deserve.

[–]thisguy1111 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

It really is sad to see McAfee dismissed the way he is because he's "crazy". Like, outside of suspect shit abroad, there's not much about his views that are crazy. If anything, he's the kind of crazy the system needs. Not the puerile shitflinging and chronic lying kind, but the kind that is intense, highly distrustful of government, and an actual outsider.

Then there's also the fact that libertarianism still has a haze of misinformation about it in the general public's eye.

[–]Patius 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

The 20yrs of crazy was probably him being eccentric and learning the folly of government overreach.

I'm not sure how that has anything to do with the insane shit he did in Belize.

[–]rguy84 3ポイント4ポイント  (4子コメント)

I looked this up, I was shocked to see Fox Business covered it, even though you can see it barely had a budget.

[–]cheshirez 5ポイント6ポイント  (1子コメント)

Best presidential debate I've ever watched. They even poked fun at the typical Fox conservatives asking them questions.

[–]NicCage420 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Stossel throwing shade at Bill O'Reilley was amazing.

[–]ChewieGoingApe 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

It is news to me that here was even a Libertarian Debate on Fox Business and I am usually up to date with political events. When did this happen and is there anywhere I can view it now online? It sound like it was interesting event from what I have read about it in this thread. Always open to a different perspective.

[–]ElkossCombine 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

John Stossel hosted it, I absolutely recommend a watch. Can't link it cause I'm on mobile at the moment but just Google libertarian debate its all on YouTube.

[–]benmarvin 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

There's actually 17 candidates running for the Libertarian nomination according to their website https://www.lp.org/candidates/presidential-candidates-2016/ and the nominee will be decided at their convention at the end of May.

[–]cscottaxp 3ポイント4ポイント  (13子コメント)

Austin is running for "pure" libertarianism, which isn't really highly supported. (He's pushing really hard on the issue with businesses being forced to bake cakes for LGBT couples, saying they shouldn't have to do it.)

John Mcafee is seen, generally, as being insane. He's a suspect for murder in Brazil. And he hasn't done much to quell any of the crazy.

Johnson probably has a super-high chance of getting the nomination if these are the only 3 for that party.

[–]ijustwantanfingname 11ポイント12ポイント  (0子コメント)

(He's pushing really hard on the issue with businesses being forced to bake cakes for LGBT couples, saying they shouldn't have to do it.)

That's not an extreme or unpopular belief for libertarians....voluntary association is, like, one of the basic fundamentals.

Extreme libertarianism is stuff like "the government shouldn't be building roads" type stuff.

[–]rhllor 3ポイント4ポイント  (11子コメント)

Here's a crazy idea: why not just compel businesses (in the same way businesses are compelled to pay taxes and follow zoning laws and fire codes) to display a highly visible notice on their storefronts (and websites) on who they would NOT serve, so both businesses and customers can make informed decisions about where to take their money? It also saves time and effort. Right now, you can go someplace, ready to transact, only to find out at the last minute that the place doesn't want your money because you're gay/Mormon/libertarian/slut. It's a hassle. If you already knew that beforehand, there is no need to go where you know you will not be entertained. All for the cost of a printout and a site banner.

I'm aware that this sounds like a Poe, but it's still logical with a negligible cost and would save a lot of people time, effort and grief.

[–]cscottaxp 6ポイント7ポイント  (9子コメント)

I was going to make the segregation argument, but you literally linked a sign that was used during the segregation era.

Nonetheless, segregation is unconstitutional. And it will continue to be. Which is why this whole debate is silly. You can't discriminate against the LGBT community for the same reason you can't discriminate against any other minority.

And you can claim that it will sort itself out with the free market, but it really won't, as we saw with segregation. (Whites only vs straights only) It's all the same.

So it doesn't really matter what any of us think of it. Segregation will never be legal. It's just a matter of clearing that up with the supreme court so the discussion goes away.

[–]codeByNumber 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

Wait...his comment wasn't satirical?

[–]charonpdx 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

And segregation most definitely doesn't end up with "separate but equal" - you end up with just plain separate, and in some cases, "nonexistent for part of the population." There were parts of the South where black simply could not get certain services. This breeds income inequality, which turns the oppressed minority in to a fully second-class citizen, which breeds crime, which furthers the cycle.

No, if you choose to open a business delivering products or services to "the public," then you must serve the public. Full stop. You don't get to discriminate, because you are the one choosing to open a business to the public. The person you are discriminating against didn't get to choose to be the way they are.

Note that I have no problem with setting reasonable rules that aren't based on "-isms". "No Shirt, No Shoes, No Service"? That's fine, that's not discriminatory against an innate part of someone. Kicking someone out of your restaurant for being disruptive, yelling at your wait-staff? That's fine. Banning pets in your bakery? Perfectly acceptable. (Of course, properly-trained service animals aren't "pets," and are protected.) But "no yarmulkes"? Disallowed. "No blacks"? Disallowed. "No gays"? Disallowed.

[–]absurdparadox 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

Segregation was done by law, not by the market.

[–]cscottaxp 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

It was both. Watch the movie "The Help". It gives a pretty good view of it, in many ways.

And right now, states like North Carolina and Kentucky are pushing legislation that segregates. So, again, it's both that are happening right now.

[–]rhllor 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

I'm actually LGBT but I'm not from the USA. I am aware of your segregationist history though, which is why the idea came to mind. I guess I'm expecting a reply from people who agree with your recent state legislature laws. This is as free market as free market can get, with a sensible regulation so that everyone can make informed decisions.

[–]cscottaxp 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Unfortunately, for something like that to work, you would need a completely libertarian government. So not just a libertarian president, but also governors, state congress, etc. Because otherwise, the laws are quickly taken advantage of in one way or another. It's very likely that, in very conservative areas, we would see entire towns where there's nowhere for a gay couple to eat. You can get in to a hivemind mentality very quickly when you live in a backwoods-y redneck town.

[–]cheshirez 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

Keep in mind that the segregation era had government backed Jim Crow laws which highly influenced any repercussions a business would feel from the free market working itself out. It's a lot different these days.

Private business should be held to constitutional standards when they go out of their way to affect and restrict the rights of others. Walking into a building I own and receiving my services is not a right.

[–]cscottaxp 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

Private business should be held to constitutional standards when they go out of their way to affect and restrict the rights of others.

Correct. The constitution says segregation is illegal. Choosing to not serve someone because of their sexual or gender identity is segregation. So it's illegal.

Walking into a building I own and receiving my services is not a right.

See above.

[–]cheshirez 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

I don't think so. The constitution doesn't really mention segregation, especially in regards to private business. The supreme court has ruled in favor of anti discrimination cases that would prohibit unfair treatment to individuals but that's a different story.

My point still stands.

[–]dusters 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Because of that whole 14th amendment thing.

[–]rafaellvandervaart 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

Austin's campaign is pretty funny. He is a cool guy.

[–]Manyhigh 373ポイント374ポイント  (80子コメント)

You felt the Bern, now feel our Johnson!

[–]Biblical-Widows 77ポイント78ポイント  (5子コメント)

Usually people feel the Bern AFTER feeling my Johnson. Weird.

[–]Vericatov 11ポイント12ポイント  (2子コメント)

You can get a shot for that to clear it up.

[–]Groo_Grux_King 8ポイント9ポイント  (1子コメント)

Yeah, let's shoot all the people feeling the Bern!

[–]Wdwdash 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Vermont does have pretty lax gun laws.

[–]yumyumgivemesome 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

Hillarious. You guys' puns trump all that I've seen on Reddit.

[–]Noy2222 83ポイント84ポイント  (3子コメント)

#feelmyjohnson

[–]Randolpho 19ポイント20ポイント  (0子コメント)

I sincerely hope that trends

[–]TheReelStig 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Better than fealing his Teddy. Cruise right by to r/libertarian!

[–]Big_Ol_Johnson 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

FeelMyCliton

[–]rChewbacca 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

Penn Sunday School has an interview with Johnson, they use that same line. Cracked me up!

[–]Manyhigh 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Oh, I'm in the congregation, I just stole it shamelessly....:)

[–]lossyvibrations 9ポイント10ポイント  (0子コメント)

Nothing says not a party of rich 20 year old kids like this.

[–]EdgarAllenPanda 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

However if you are feeling the Bern after our Johnson, you may need to seek medical assistance.

コメントをもっと表示する (30 返事)

    [–]MrFluffykinz 25ポイント26ポイント  (3子コメント)

    He answers re: his thoughts on Rand Paul in this interview with Dave Rubin. I can't remember when, it was sometime in the middle of the interview (the whole thing is worth watching though)

    [–]sephstorm 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Well?

    [–]446172656E 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

    It starts around the 4 minute mark.

    [–]applefrank 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

    If he gets on a debate stage with Trump and Clinton he'll do well. He's a good speaker.

    [–]krakah293 59ポイント60ポイント  (9子コメント)

    Ill be voting for him in 2016. That said his last couple AMAs weren't all that exciting.

    [–]jake_fly 27ポイント28ポイント  (0子コメント)

    We need to ask him more about his time as a weed CEO and climbing the highest mountains on every continent if you want exciting.

    [–]Cylinsier 12ポイント13ポイント  (4子コメント)

    More than not exciting, I would call them dismal. His replies were short and lacked substance. He paid lip service to people that already bought into the ideology but probably drove more fence sitters away than he attracted. The Libertarian party will probably get more votes if he doesn't do another AMA and instead hopes people just forget the two or three he did do.

    [–]curryisforGs 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

    It was years ago, but IIRC his first AMA (before Barack's) drew a lot of attention and was well received.

    [–]chris-bro-chill 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

    That was when reddit was very libertarian a la Ron Paul. Now that reddit is pretty populist, Johnson's answers would not appeal to them.

    [–]---Eagle--- 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Nowhere near charismatic enough to win in this media environment.

    [–]ArcherofArchet 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

    I literally wanted to say the same thing. His responses were just regurgitating tangentially responsive talking points, but barely even addressed the questions; his lengthier responses were pretty much just soapboxing the same in more words.

    I genuinely thought he was an interesting candidate... until he started feeling like a cardboard cutout of a politician in his AMAs.

    [–]WhyLisaWhy 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Yea I stopped reading them a while ago. He's done like ten now I think? It's pretty much the same every time now.

    コメントをもっと表示する (2 返事)

      [–]Hybrazil 20ポイント21ポイント  (13子コメント)

      What do you believe is something that people misunderstand/mistaken about Libertarians or libertarianism?

      [–]Buffalo__Buffalo 12ポイント13ポイント  (5子コメント)

      That it is a political orientation which has tradtionally referred to radical left-wing anti-capitalism rather than, well, the exact opposite of that.

      ‘One gratifying aspect of our rise to some prominence is that, for the first time in my memory, we, “our side,” had captured a crucial word from the enemy . . . “Libertari­ans” . . . had long been simply a polite word for left-wing anarchists, that is for anti-private property anarchists, either of the communist or syndicalist variety. But now we had taken it over. . .’

      — Murray Rothbard, The Betrayal of the American Right

      [–]everydayIProgram 3ポイント4ポイント  (4子コメント)

      This has always been a pet peeve of mine. American libertarians aren't really actual libertarians historically.

      [–]Buffalo__Buffalo 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

      I mean by now it's well established in the US that libertarian means something completely different so there's not a lot of purpose in getting caught up in trying to "rescue" the original definition (which in itself underwent changes, although less significant than this current one) from its current usage in the US. That being said it's still very relevant to distinguish US right wing libertarianism from the continental, historical libertarianism so that they don't get blurred. I guess it's a lot like the big switch over in the political position of the Democratic and Republican parties - if you were to confuse the current political orientation of the modern Republican party with the historical, pre-switch one then you're headed for all sorts of confusion and misunderstanding.

      But language is fluid and ever-changing. I don't think anyone is going to be able to stop that from being the case. Still, it's fun to point out where the word came from and how it still gets used in parts of Europe - and even more fun to quote Rothbard saying "we stole the term 'libertarian' and we aren't 'anarchists'" if only for the sport of it.

      コメントをもっと表示する (3 返事)

        [–]rafaellvandervaart 9ポイント10ポイント  (1子コメント)

        That there are a lot of variations of it. Sort of the answer that Bernie fans give for socialism. Libertarianism is not about making the rich richer. There is even a school of it which is based on welfare but a different approach (bleeding heart libertarianism, which I sort of align with)

        [–]decimated_napkin 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

        I consider myself to be a liberterian socialist, which is awesome because everybody gets to hate me equally!

        [–]Januses-Anuses 18ポイント19ポイント  (0子コメント)

        Everything.

        [–]Lava513 5ポイント6ポイント  (0子コメント)

        Weirdly enough, most libertarians aren't rich, don't wear monocles, don't own orphan slaves, and don't desire massive corporate ownership of all possible property.

        [–]reuterrat 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

        The vast majority of libertarians aren't anarchists. Even Johnson believes in strong government in a few areas, especially regarding environmental protection.

        [–]broff 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

        I can't even verbalize how frustrating that double standard is.

        コメントをもっと表示する (1 返事)

          [–]xampl9 13ポイント14ポイント  (3子コメント)

          The age-old comment: "But I'd be wasting my vote!"

          How would you address this for people dissatisfied with their other candidate choices and are on the verge of voting LP?

          [–]Codroy 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

          The lesser of two evils is still evil. Stand by your convictions and vote for what you believe in.

          [–]Xanny 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

          If we get a third party to 5% it forces the presidential election board to publically amend the requirements to enter the presidential debates again to keep them out, which is another blatant show of how undemocratic America actually is.

          That is much more likely to start waking people up to the ruse than either not voting (nobody cares) or voting for one of the two provided candidates (which only legitimizes the system as it exists).

          [–]glandible 75ポイント76ポイント  (24子コメント)

          Which popular federal program would you like to Freedomdoze first?

          [–]krakah293 23ポイント24ポイント  (0子コメント)

          Freedomdoze. I like this.

          [–]teefour 15ポイント16ポイント  (18子コメント)

          Well the FDA is a pawn of the big pharma companies, and have insane layers of bureaucracy that don't do much to improve safety, but do a lot to make healthcare less competitive and more expensive. I've dealt with them from both the chemistry and healthcare side of things, and they're one of the worst agencies we have. But they always insist on their own importance because WONT SOMEBODY THINK OF THE CHILDREN, WHAT IF AN EVIL CORPORATION PUTS RAT POISON IN CHILDRENS CANDY AND WE'RE NOT HERE TO STOP THEIR EVIL PLAN?!?!

          So we can start with them.

          [–]Ubek 29ポイント30ポイント  (0子コメント)

          My grandfather worked for the FDA for most of his adult life. He would agree with you.

          It used to serve a lot of good, and still does. But that good is largely overshadowed by the bad. Being big pharma's bottom bitch is the biggest tumor of the bunch.

          [–]ElectricFleshlight 12ポイント13ポイント  (3子コメント)

          I don't really see how extensive testing and safety requirements are a bad thing.

          [–]DogfaceDino 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

          I don't think the issue is so much what the FDA does as I feel it is an important job. I think the problem is how it does its job. /u/teefour is specifically talking about medical companies but everything the FDA touches ends up skyrocketing in price because they attach exorbitant and arguably punitive fees to applying for FDA approval. I like premium cigars and there has been a fight against the FDA's proposed regulations of the premium cigar industry. The fees they were attaching to every new cigar to hit the market (brand, line, or size) would put virtually every boutique/craft producer of cigars out of business while leaving the two major producers largely unaffected. The FDA creates an artificial barrier to entry and subsequent reduction in competition in industries it regulates and imposes enormous pre-market costs that consumers have to eventually pay for.

          Don't think politicians were unaware that the regulations would work out that way, either. In the premium cigar example, the industry has been lobbying hard against the FDA's proposed regulations... except for those two major producers.

          Oh, yea. I almost forgot. Apparently that FDA regulation shakeup in the premium cigar industry got put on hold indefinitely because President Obama needed to show a sign of good will to the Cuban government in easing relations. It's all politics.

          tl;dr

          The FDA has an important job but the way they carry it out presently reduces competition and increases cost. I personally don't feel that is unintentional.

          [–]teefour 10ポイント11ポイント  (1子コメント)

          It's not really about that. Currently I'm working as a sales rep for surgical spinal implants. I sell screws for $2500 each. Because when a company comes out with a new system, they're looking at a $10 million application process, then the cost of trials. So in order to recoup their investment, they have to sell a couple dollars worth of titanium for thousands of dollars. And even then, surgeons go "off label" with equipment all the time. Meaning they use implants or equipment in ways not approved by the FDA, mainly because the company can't afford another multi million dollar round of trials when the surgeons just use their best judgement and do whatever the fuck they want to do anyway.

          [–]ElectricFleshlight 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

          And who cares if some unscrupulous businessman decides to sell lead or tin screws to undercut your business, with no testing or regulations he'll be long gone with his profits before people realize what he's been selling. It's no big deal because the patients only have to pay the price with their lives instead of their wallets, and we all know money is the most important thing!

          [–]glandible 6ポイント7ポイント  (4子コメント)

          So you're saying that when the FDA recalls poisoned food, that's an action you'd be happy to live without?

          [–]teefour 2ポイント3ポイント  (3子コメント)

          Well the overwhelming majority of recalls seem to be voluntary on the part of the company because they don't want to ruin their brand image and get sued. So you're just inflating a small problem in front of a whole slew of agency failures to make the FDA seem more important than it is.

          [–]glandible 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

          Until recently, the FDA didn't even have the authority to force a recall, hence your perception that most were voluntary:

          http://www.hopesandfears.com/hopes/now/question/216757-why-are-most-fda-food-recalls-voluntary

          [–]teefour 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

          Doesn't that fact help my argument that they're unnecessary then?

          [–]broff 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

          Staying strong with the free market argument huh?

          [–]gburgwardt 10ポイント11ポイント  (7子コメント)

          I don't understand the downvotes. The FDA definitely impedes new drugs

          [–]nope_nic_tesla 24ポイント25ポイント  (6子コメント)

          It's kind of hard to have any sort of quality control without acting in some form as an impediment

          [–]teefour 8ポイント9ポイント  (2子コメント)

          It's not the time, a lot of it is the money. The FDA's fee schedule is ridiculous.

          And they really don't do quality control. They just make sure companies pay their fees, and then dot all the Is and cross all the Ts.

          [–]nope_nic_tesla 12ポイント13ポイント  (1子コメント)

          They have pretty stringent regulations for how clinical trials have to be conducted in order to receive approval

          [–]rightoftexas 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

          But how much do they oversee these trials versus how much do they make sure the forms are filled out properly and the process appears to have been followed?

          [–]Speartron 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

          Free market certification/QC isn't already a thing?

          [–]nope_nic_tesla 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

          When it comes to medicine? No. Look at how much bullshit is out there on the market even with FDA regulation.

          [–]gburgwardt 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

          Yes of course, but the FDA goes above and beyond, largely because they don't process applications fast enough, last I looked into it.

          コメントをもっと表示する (4 返事)

            [–]hbdgas 16ポイント17ポイント  (0子コメント)

            /u/GovGaryJohnson

            [–]JosephFinn 15ポイント16ポイント  (0子コメント)

            1. How's the fishing?

            2. Read any good books lately?

            3. They went kind of weird with Felicity on Arrow this season, right?

            4. Who are you supporting for President?

            [–]PPP_Your_Boat 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

            Marijuana views aren't as important as tax reform or ISIS.

            [–]Codroy 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

            Exactly, that is why it should be a non factor at this point. Legalize it and move on. As for tax reform, the libertarians defiantly want to "reform" (abolish) the irs or at least heavily audit it. The libertarins also acknowledge that the rise of isis was paritally our fault (blowback) and had warned against military conflict in the middle east

            [–]PlinkoChamp 14ポイント15ポイント  (3子コメント)

            Libertarian

            Governor Johnson: 16,000 people work at the department of education in DC. They are not educators. They are not in classrooms. They do not teach. What do they do? And couldn't that $4billion be better spent on...oh, say, education?

            Governor Johnson: We have troops in Italy, Germany, Japan... is World War 2 over yet?

            Governor Johnson: I paid 45% of my paycheck in taxes. Where did my money go?

            Governor Johnson: How can we resurrect the 10th Amendment? If Texas wants to outlaw abortion and Vermont wants to legalize drugs and Missouri wants to make helmets mandatory and California wants to ban smoking... why does Washington, DC get involved?

            Governor Johnson: 15,000 people work at the Department of Transportation. They don't drive buses or trains, they don't fill potholes or build bridges. What do they do? And when we talk about "crumbling infrastructure" couldn't we just send them out with shovels to do some damn work?

            Governor Johnson: Boeing and Northrum Grumman have plants in virtually every voting district in the nation so that the local congressman always votes for increased military spending to keep jobs in their hometown. Will you use the military as a jobs program?

            Governor Johnson: The government has no right to my meta data. They have no right to record my phone calls or search my emails in the name of "national security". How do we shut down the NSA for good?

            Governor Johnson: The tax code is structured to keep small businesses out and the allow big businesses to write off all expenses so that companies like AT&T pay $0 in federal taxes. Can we simplify the tax code and end corporate welfare?

            Governor Johnson: Let me drink raw milk. Like me marry my boyfriend. Let me smoke and snort whatever I want so long as it doesn't interfere with the well-being of a third party. Get the government out of my life, get congress out of my bedroom, get the courts out of my behavior, get the FBI out of my modem.

            Libertarian

            [–]sephstorm 7ポイント8ポイント  (0子コメント)

            Governor Johnson: 16,000 people work at the department of education in DC. They are not educators. They are not in classrooms. They do not teach. What do they do? And couldn't that $4billion be better spent on...oh, say, education?

            If he did a quick search and he would have his answer. (He probably knows but is "breaking it down so we understand")

            The primary functions of the Department of Education are to "establish policy for, administer and coordinate most federal assistance to education, collect data on US schools, and to enforce federal educational laws regarding privacy and civil rights."

            Without such an organization, we would have no centralized and independent data on how schools perform, Students would likely have even more problems understanding access to federal education assistance programs.

            Now if there are issues with how the department works, or if it can work better, fine. Fix the issues. Or fix the states so the federal program is not needed.

            But the concept of let the states do what they want can be enormously foolish and harmful to the nation.

            My .02.

            [–]GaslightProphet 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

            16,000 people work at the department of education in DC. They are not educators. They are not in classrooms. They do not teach. What do they do? And couldn't that $4billion be better spent on...oh, say, education?

            The Department of Education has 5,000 employees. There are a number of different functions those employees preform, including processing and allocating Federal Student Aide, tracking and analyzing national education statistics, providing accountability for local school boards both in terms of school preformance and school facilities/student wellness, assisting migrant farmworkers and their children in getting high school equivalencies and college education, researching best practices for special education, running Galludet, Howard, and National Technical Institute for the Deaf, and ensuring basic civil rights for students.

            Governor Johnson: 15,000 people work at the Department of Transportation. They don't drive buses or trains, they don't fill potholes or build bridges. What do they do? And when we talk about "crumbling infrastructure" couldn't we just send them out with shovels to do some damn work?

            Johnson actually underestimates the size of DoT. There are around 60k employees, fulfilling a variety of roles. They include pipeline inspectors, every employee of the FAA and the FHA. The Federal Highway Administration I believe includes employees who shovel roads and whatnot. Other employees figure out what roads need to get shoveled, how much that's going to cost, how many people we need to do that, and which ones need it the most in case of limited resources.

            [–]Scrubbing_Bubbles_ 11ポイント12ポイント  (71子コメント)

            What would you do about the high cost of a college education?

            [–]therealjims 67ポイント68ポイント  (35子コメント)

            Tuition subsidies increase the cost of tuition

            From the article:

            The federal government has boosted aid to families in recent decades to make college more affordable. A new study from the New York Federal Reserve faults these policies for enabling college institutions to aggressively raise tuitions.

            The implication is the federal government is fueling a vicious cycle of higher prices and government aid that ultimately could cost taxpayers and price some Americans out of higher education, similar to what some economists contend happened with the housing bubble.

            [–]GoSaMa 17ポイント18ポイント  (4子コメント)

            It's like market localized inflation. The government steps in and tells students they'll loan them money for tuition so suddenly all those students have more money to spend and so the market adjusts and raises tuition.

            [–]lossyvibrations 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

            which makes sense if your baseline is private universities, but doesn't explain the increase in expenditures on public university tuition.

            What is left out of the article is that at the same time federal subsidies (loans, grants) went up, state support was falling dramatically - from typically 70% the cost of education to usually 20-30% today at best.

            [–]wastelander 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

            This argument is utter crap. It might make sense for a corporation but for an institution who's goal is (theoretically) to educate it should not matter. The fact that this DOES seem to be the case shows they real reason our education system (and so many other public institutions in our society) are fucked up is precisely because they are being run like businesses. If you want to know where all that money is going, you can at studies like this:

            Even more strikingly, an analysis by a professor at California Polytechnic University, Pomona, found that, while the total number of full-time faculty members in the C.S.U. system grew from 11,614 to 12,019 between 1975 and 2008, the total number of administrators grew from 3,800 to 12,183 — a 221 percent increase.

            On top of that, top university administrators routinely collect 7 figure salaries while faculty salaries are marginal at best.

            The same is true for research expenditures. If you want to do basic researchers that are all sorts of absurd and unjustifiable costs involved. Healthcare spending? Take a look at salaries of insurance executives and top hospital administrators.

            The ironic thing is by "incentivising" these positions with bloated salaries you attract exactly the wrong kind of people; people motivated by money not the benefit of students or society in general. Pass laws that limit use of public funds for administrative overhead and cap salaries. Drive these snakes back into the private sector where they can prey on their own kind.

            [–]Troy_And_Abed_In_The 3ポイント4ポイント  (1子コメント)

            Administrators routinely collect 7 figure salaries while faculty salaries are marginal at best

            Totally false. Janet Napolotino, the UC president (aka the top paid administrator in the nation) makes 570,000 per year. Yes, that's still ridiculous, but that job is basically a political position equivalent to being the governor of a small state. Meanwhile, the average adjunct professor at my college is bringing in over $70/hr.

            This is is all public information. Don't make shit up.

            [–]Vihzel 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

            Meanwhile, the average adjunct professor at my college is bringing in over $70/hr.

            What college is that?

            [–]Scrubbing_Bubbles_ 22ポイント23ポイント  (1子コメント)

            This is indeed the answer Governor Johnson would give. Good call.

            [–]Ameisen 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

            I'm pretty sure he would just tell you to start a business.

            [–]DPiddy76 8ポイント9ポイント  (0子コメント)

            When I went back to school for a masters degree my semester tuition was almost exactly the maximum amount the federal government would allow a loan for education. The school had an office that assisted us with processing our loan. Proof in my mind that schools will charge whatever it takes to get all of the subsidies.

            [–]slimrichard 6ポイント7ポイント  (15子コメント)

            Then why not regulate what colleges can charge?

            Source: Australian

            [–]devMartel 15ポイント16ポイント  (1子コメント)

            The money that's currently going to some things will no longer be going to those things because there will be less money. Administrators have seen a big benefit to their paychecks as a result of this, so ideally they would be going back to sustainable levels, but that's a tough road to hoe. More likely, degree programs would get cut. MA and PhD programs would get cut. That kind of thing.

            [–]rguy84 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

            Also some non-degree programs may be cut as well. There are some programs in universities that serve a larger audience, for example DO-IT Program at U of WA and Trace R & D Center at the U of WI. Most of their funding is from Dept of Ed, and NSF, so a chop to them, would cut these two quite important programs

            [–]timmy12688 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

            We tried that with gasoline in the 70s. Didn't work out too well.

            But if you want an economics answer you are asking why not impose a price ceiling on the price of tuition. This causes a shortage in supply and increased demand. I'll leave that to an exercise for the reader to figure out what happens because of that.

            [–]Januses-Anuses 3ポイント4ポイント  (1子コメント)

            There is an underlying cause for high tuition thats going to take a lot of political will to fix. Putting a cap on it doesn't really fix it in the long run.

            [–]DT777 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

            Not to mention that just putting a price cap means you end up causing other problems.

            I'd be willing to bet that the already outrageous book prices would double if there was a tuition cap.

            [–]xampl9 2ポイント3ポイント  (4子コメント)

            If you put a cap of $60k on a college education, they will all change their tuition to that. And then you can't tell the difference between a degree that is worth $60k, and one that just charges $60k.

            [–]FriendlyDespot 1ポイント2ポイント  (2子コメント)

            How would you not be able to tell? Colleges can and do already charge more than their programs are worth today. If you're comparing colleges today then you go through them and try to figure out which one provides the best value to you. Those methods will still be available to you even if government sets an upper limit for tuition.

            [–]xampl9 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

            Yes, there are ratings, like the US News & World Report ones.

            But price typically is a good indication of value. Think about buying a box of Cap'n Crunch at $2.73 vs. the store-brand Colossal Berry Crunch at $1.90.

            [–]FriendlyDespot 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

            Then turn around and think about all the instances where you can buy product X from the generic brand, or product Y from the established brand for a 100% markup, even though they're manufactured on the same production line to the same standards.

            Price can be an indication of value, it can also not be an indication of value. To really know, you need to understand what you're actually buying. That goes regardless of whether or not pricing is regulated.

            [–]slimrichard 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

            Australia disagrees. It's a bit more complicated than having a single $ cap but it has worked very well for us. Shame the current dickhead govt is trying to dereg fees to be more like the US but that didn't go down so well.

            [–]Areanndee 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

            That's telling private institutions what they can do, which is wrong. And is anti-competitive. There should be a difference between Harvard and Larry Storch's School of Lawyering and Barbering. And they should be able to charge appropriately. Price fixing isn't the answer.

            [–]NewYorkerinGeorgia -4ポイント-3ポイント  (0子コメント)

            Because America.

            [–]Decalance -4ポイント-3ポイント  (0子コメント)

            because america duh

            コメントをもっと表示する (2 返事)

              [–]Lambchops_Legion 3ポイント4ポイント  (2子コメント)

              http://www.unc.edu/~joubertc/Draft0913.pdf

              I believe there is a problem with overeducation (as seen in that study I linked), and a lot of that has to do with too much access to credit. However, I have issue with what you said here:

              similar to what some economists contend happened with the housing bubble.

              Can you point me to those economists who've said that? How student loans work are fundamentally different from mortgages, that I can't really see how student loans can cause something similar to the housing bubble.

              A) A bubble forms when there's a fundamental difference between an asset's price and the asset's fundamental value because current owners believe they can resell the asset at an even higher price. There is no mechanism that exists for this in the education market like it can in the housing market - you can't sell your diploma like you can sell your mortgage.

              http://www.dictionaryofeconomics.com/article?id=pde2008_S000278

              B) Virtually no one pays market price for a college education like they pay for a mortgage. The financial aid process (going back to too much credit access) allows universities to practice almost-perfect price discrimination. They can effectively charge a different price for every student, so that the market just follows the demand curve up until their maximum tuition level.

              C) Unlike the housing market, there is definitely a signalling effect ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signalling_(economics) ) going on in the job market that still makes a college degree a worthwhile investment even if direct skills learned aren't translatable to career.

              To me, these reasons ensure that the education market fundamentally cannot collapse like the housing market unless everyone just like, immediately stopped paying their loans and ignored all court judgments against them (wage garnishments generally come directly of out paychecks anyway.) For that to happen though, would require a level of coordination greater than anyone has ever seen. If that level of coordination was even possible, we'd be able to solve problems greater than this easily and immediately like climate change for example.

              [–]Groo_Grux_King 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

              You're only looking at one side of the issue. The similarity between the housing bubble and the skyrocketing costs of education boils down to artificially easy credit.

              People "receive" (but not really) money now that they won't have to pay back for a long time. Very few people understand TVM and they overweight the value of that money (loan) now and discount the pain of the future repayments. Add to this that they have no idea how to calculate what they can "afford" (qualification does not mean financially affordable/justifiable). Add to this that there is a whole system that springs up that is incentivized to keep the money machine operating - banks, investors of MBS, builders with housing, universities and administrative staff in education - and you get a very perverse conflict of incentives going on.

              To your point B, you really think that the "market" price on housing was accurate? It was the same thing, uninformed borrowers getting told they could afford $X00,000 on an absurdly over-valued house. Artificial credit.

              To your final point, I don't think OP was suggesting we're going to see an instantaneous "bubble burst" in education like we did in housing, because in that regard they are indeed two different things. It is going to be a slow crippling of an entire generation with a massive debt burden, and will likely result in A) a shift towards free public education (which will lead to increased income inequality), B) a long, painful recession because so few people will have discretionary income, or C) a dramatic disruption of the way education is delivered and paid for due to innovation. Or some combination of the three.

              [–]lossyvibrations 2ポイント3ポイント  (6子コメント)

              This analysis is grossly flawed.

              State universities had their budgets cut - per pupil funding levels have fallen significantly int he last 30 years. Federal aid was meant to fill that hole. And it has. It's not like public universities have gotten excessively more expensive to run.

              This allowed private schools to raise tuition, which they use to cover lower income students.

              There's no evidence the cost of education has gone up even close to the cost of tuition.

              [–]Lambchops_Legion 14ポイント15ポイント  (1子コメント)

              It's not like public universities have gotten excessively more expensive to run.

              That's exactly the point - too much access to credit has allowed schools to practice near-perfect price discrimination. No one in the education market pays market price - schools charge up the demand curve.

              [–]jofwu 0ポイント1ポイント  (3子コメント)

              It's not like public universities have gotten excessively more expensive to run.

              Is this true? I have a hard time believing that the steep increase in college costs is just going to cover low income students.

              I specifically recall reading somewhere that university administration bloat has been a major problem. That the size (and cost) of administrations have gone up significantly.

              I'm also curious what the conversation looks like when we back up from tuition alone. Housing, books, and other costs have also gone up and they make up a significant chunk of the bill.

              [–]lossyvibrations 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

              Is this true? I have a hard time believing that the steep increase in college costs is just going to cover low income students.

              That's primarily true only at private schools.

              I specifically recall reading somewhere that university administration bloat has been a major problem. That the size (and cost) of administrations have gone up significantly.

              Yes, they have gone up signficantly. Universities do a lot more now (research, ADA access, recruting of under-represented groups, fundraising) than they used to. But even in a worst case scenario, this is adding 25-50% to the cost of not having them. And keep in mind many of these administrators are being paid by other revenue sources (grant administrators get paid out of grant overhead, for instance.)

              Tuition has gone up many times the cost of inflation. At the same time, state funding of public univerities per pupil has gone down by factors of 2-3 in most states.

              [–]jofwu 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

              That's primarily true only at private schools.

              Wait, so if it's not going to low income students then where is the money going?

              Tuition has gone up many times the cost of inflation. At the same time, state funding of public universities per pupil has gone down by factors of 2-3 in most states.

              What percentage of a public university's income comes from state funding though? Seems like an important piece of the puzzle.

              Seems to me like the biggest part of the problem is probably the accessibility of loans. That paired with the notion that everyone needs a degree.

              [–]lossyvibrations 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

              Wait, so if it's not going to low income students then where is the money going?

              Cost of education. Tuition = Cost of Education - State Subsidy

              What percentage of a public university's income comes from state funding though? Seems like an important piece of the puzzle.

              In the 1960s through the late 70s, it was typically ~ 70-80%, sometimes higher, depending on the state. t's now ~ 20-30%. So in the above equation the cost of tuition has increased mostly to cover this. While the cost of education has gone up somewhat faster than inflation (~ 2x from what I've seen) the real multiplier is the loss of the state support. If you multiply roughly the increase in cost of education by the shift in state support, you get about a factor of 6-8 above inflation, which is on par with what we've seen.

              [–]broff 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

              That's why pretty much every other first world country subsidizes the schools not the students.

              [–]hookonsonic2 21ポイント22ポイント  (4子コメント)

              I think the answer he'd give is to end government-subsidized college loans. I think you'll find a direct correlation between the introduction of government loans and the aggresive increase in college prices.

              Think of it this way. If you were guaranteed to get paid in full immediately from the majority of your customers (students using government loans) regardless of price, wouldn't YOU increase your prices?

              [–]PlinkoChamp 17ポイント18ポイント  (1子コメント)

              If that were true, then it would be true in other sectors. For example, take housing. If government gave out tons of free money to incentive people to buy homes, then the price of homes would artificially inflate like a bubble.

              Oh wait...

              [–]Januses-Anuses 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

              But thats exactly whats, oh... ok.

              [–]baller_chemist -2ポイント-1ポイント  (1子コメント)

              Alternatively federal student loan at close to 0% interest and nationwide cap the maximum amount for student tutuion fees.

              [–]kak09k 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

              Not sure why you're getting downvoted. This would be more likely to get passed in Congress than eliminating the student loan program altogether.

              [–]lolboogers 14ポイント15ポイント  (5子コメント)

              I'm going to guess (as a Libertarian) that his answer would be something along the lines of "imagine how much more school you could afford if we gave you the other half of your paycheck back"

              [–]Bum_Bacon 26ポイント27ポイント  (0子コメント)

              Also imagine how much lower the prices would be if tuition wasn't subsidized.

              [–]ushmel 10ポイント11ポイント  (3子コメント)

              What students do you know that pay an effective 50% tax rate?

              [–]Quinthy 12ポイント13ポイント  (20子コメント)

              Is it more expensive than a new car and is it's value greater? Perhaps it's worth the investment.

              [–]Kinglink 12ポイント13ポイント  (9子コメント)

              Economists have proven it's worth the investment over long term. But people demand instant results.

              [–]Bossman1086 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

              It also depends on what you major in (i.e. what kind of investment you make).

              [–]robo23 14ポイント15ポイント  (7子コメント)

              People also demand free stuff without the work.

              [–]capensc 5ポイント6ポイント  (3子コメント)

              People are buying honda civics just fine, what do you do if your job requires an enzo

              [–]MonsterRayn[🍰] 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

              How you doin.

              [–]gotenks86 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

              Bada boom, realest reply in the room.

              [–]Massticles 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

              Well I do have some little caesars boxes, duct tape, and a box cutter...

              [–]AlmostTheNewestDad 3ポイント4ポイント  (2子コメント)

              It's no longer an investment. It has become more of a game of chance, where the odds may still be on your favor. Either way, it's now a gamble.

              [–]robo23 3ポイント4ポイント  (1子コメント)

              It's not a gamble. Students today just have this mentality that "oh, if I get a degree I'll have a great job." and don't understand that a degree in some bullshit field isn't going to cut it. They don't understand you need to network, volunteer, and intern in college. They just expect a job to be handed to them without the work, and complain when that isn't the case. And now they're bitching that they have to pay for the education in the first place. Give me a break.

              [–]Laxninja8766 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

              You are a good man with a brain, sir.

              [–]Mylon 7ポイント8ポイント  (2子コメント)

              And simple antibiotics can save your life and thus they have great value. That means they should cost $100k per pill, right?

              Except that value doesn't determine cost. Education used to be affordable and now it isn't. Costs should not rise until they're just barely a worthwhile expense. They should go down as our technology improves to create room for even newer goods.

              [–]cubemstr 10ポイント11ポイント  (0子コメント)

              Except that value doesn't determine cost.

              No, value determines demand, which determines cost. We've raised a generation of people who have been told that they need to go to college, AND made student loans way too easy to get. The combination of which has made the demand damn near inelastic.

              It would be political suicide to say so, but the best course of action would be to stop subsidizing student loans, maybe even stop giving them all together. Individual universities would have to lower their cost in order to keep their enrollment rates at an acceptable level.

              [–]itouchboobs 5ポイント6ポイント  (0子コメント)

              I just had a full year of school for free. If you apply for scholarships and other opportunities, college can be pretty cheap.

              [–]Xanny 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

              One thing nobody is mentioning is he would almost certainly want to make student loan debt defaultable in bankruptcy.

              That would instantly fix the overloaning to people who cannot reasonably repay it, and would pave the way to start introducing free college and degree options in state schools to the impoverished when the cost is actually realistic rather than this insane farce of permanent perpetual debt.

              Here is his page ontheissues, and his campaign website.

              コメントをもっと表示する (2 返事)

                [–]jordansideas 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

                He did like 10 AMAs last election cycle. By the last few, redditors were getting pissed at him for abusing the system. No one needs more Gary Johnson AMAs

                [–]lurgi 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

                Hasn't he done half a dozen AMAs already?

                [–]Gini555 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

                I met him in Portland, Really nice guy. I would really like to meet Austin Petersen as well. He had some good points during the debate I saw.

                [–]Lasser 1ポイント2ポイント  (2子コメント)

                I spoke to someone that knows him that says he might do it after the convention. She is sending the info on this thread to his guy.

                [–]Lasser 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

                The request has been sent to his scheduler.

                [–]ledbuddha 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

                Wow. As a registered libertarian, I would love to hear him speak directly to us and answer our deepest, most coquetish questions ;)

                [–]Randolpho 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

                Here's a couple from me:

                1. It's been argued many times that market forces for education and medicine simply do not work well enough to give the poor the opportunities and quality of life that they deserve.
                  .
                  Explain how you would ensure access to a quality kindergarten through PHD education and quality no-cost healthcare for all people across the country without simply forcing individual education and healthcare systems to compete on cost.
                  .
                  Followup: Explain how you would ensure that pseudoscience and religious indoctrination such as creationism and prayer-leading will be removed from our education system under your current no-federal-oversight plan.

                2. It's been argued that taxing the very rich and distributing those taxes to all citizens via a basic income, when coupled with low-regulation capitalism (i.e. true capitalism rather than corporatism) is good for the economy even as it deals with the very real issue of poverty. Please explain why you support this very excellent, libertarian approach to solving the problem of poverty.

                [–]ShankedPanda 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

                What's this discussion for? Practice questions? Ahem... test... test....

                Hi Gary. What are your thoughts on the libertarian political movement being largely defined to the public by a Paul family member raising millions of dollars every 4 years to almost run for president but then not.

                Do you feel like you've attached your wagon to a long con operation unwillingly or are you also a participant in this grift?

                [–]escapefromelba 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

                While we're at it how about Marc Allan Feldman as well

                [–]bigbear1992 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

                1. How would you handle foreign policy differently than Obama, Clinton, or Trump?

                2. Do you believe in non-interventionism?

                [–]Yossi25 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

                Omegle endorsed him.

                [–]riderer 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

                Gaaaryyyy......

                [–]Codroy 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

                Here is a the preamble of the libertarian party's platform. I recommend that people read it before casting their judgement. https://www.lp.org/platform

                As Libertarians, we seek a world of liberty; a world in which all individuals are sovereign over their own lives and no one is forced to sacrifice his or her values for the benefit of others.

                We believe that respect for individual rights is the essential precondition for a free and prosperous world, that force and fraud must be banished from human relationships, and that only through freedom can peace and prosperity be realized.

                Consequently, we defend each person's right to engage in any activity that is peaceful and honest, and welcome the diversity that freedom brings. The world we seek to build is one where individuals are free to follow their own dreams in their own ways, without interference from government or any authoritarian power

                [–]angrynewyawka 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

                Lol, why am I not surprised that this AMA is happening today, the day after Trump pretty much gets the GOP nom and Berners finally realize Sanders has no chance?

                [–]KevBa 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

                (Not sure why the font is so huge, sorry.)

                NeverTrump guy here. Joined the Libertarian Party last night, after much research in the last few weeks. I like almost all of what you've had to say. My main question is this:

                How do you square your support of abortion up to viability with the core Libertarian Non-Aggression Principle?

                [–]mrpopenfresh 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

                Just read his 50 other AMA threads where he shoots the shit and snwers nothing interesting.

                [–]jdlg1983 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

                Poor guy would be cleaning up right now, he was ahead of his time

                [–]Shtsword 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

                I'm voting for Gary Johnson

                [–]Rather_Unique1994 -1ポイント0ポイント  (4子コメント)

                So torn on Gary Johnson and the Libertarians

                For the past view years I had decided I would vote for him/them no matter what, in 2016. My political views fall right into the Libertarian scope.

                But I can't help but enjoy the fucking character that is Donald Trump. Part of me wants to vote for him just because.....but the responsible side of me says that this is the perfect year to push the Libertarian party forward. I could be an early voter to what eventually becomes a mainstream party.

                Unsure, unsure. Reddit will just direct me to a Democrat anyway

                [–]Plasmatica 11ポイント12ポイント  (1子コメント)

                Gary Johnson and the Libertarians

                Dibs on the band name

                [–]Rather_Unique1994 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

                Sounds like one of those bands that never made it big, but rubbed elbows with all the big names, and influenced people.

                Like the meat puppets! Or butthole surfers.

                [–]Youngwhippersnapper6 3ポイント4ポイント  (1子コメント)

                Just look at what Donald Trump stand for and what Gary Johnson stands for. They're pretty different. Don't fall into the trump cause of media.

                This should help you realize.

                https://www.isidewith.com/political-quiz

                [–]DJMattB241 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

                Just took that quiz. 91% Gary Johnson. I guess that decides November for me.

                コメントをもっと表示する (33 返事)