r/trees • u/kckid2599 • May 12 '12
More ents need to know about this candidate...
http://imgur.com/Z8UsA77
u/beazia May 13 '12
Native New Mexican here, and Gary Johnson is probably the best governor we've ever had. He came into office with zero political experience, just a wealth of private sector business experience. He turned our state's budget around 180 degrees, bringing us from deep in the red (roughly $500 million) to far in the black (roughly $1 billion surplus). And oh yeah...a major platform issue is legalizing trees!
27
u/kckid2599 May 13 '12
That's why I like him over Paul, he has experience as being the one in charge of a government and managed to hold onto his core beliefs while still navigating the political process and compromising only when necessary.
18
u/beazia May 13 '12
Definitely. He's such a reasonable man, too, and I just can't see him being beholden to special interests like so many politicians are today. Not to say he couldn't be, but he's not going to bend over backwards to cater to one industry and thus sacrifice his duty to his constituents.
1
u/Mynameisaw May 14 '12
If his time as Governor of New Mexico says anything he'll do America the world of good.
If he can turn New Mexico from being about 500 million in the red to 1 billion in the black, then think what he'll be able to do to your 3 trillion deficit.
18
u/oflo1992 May 13 '12
Would moving to New Mexico after graduating from college in the North East be a good idea? Hate to seem naive / uniformed etc., but this one comment kinda made it seem like a good idea.
19
u/beazia May 13 '12
New Mexico is an absolutely beautiful state. If you're an outdoorsy person like me, you will LOVE living there. Between hiking, camping, whitewater rafting (the Taos box and Racecourse are fantastic day trips), visiting hot springs, and skiing/snowboarding, you really never lack things to do. If you're more of an "inside" person, the art scene is wonderful, especially in Santa Fe. The music scene in Albuquerque (where I was born and raised through the age of 18) is growing more and more, as is the film scene. There are a few quality music festivals (Sun Fest in Taos comes to mind), and of course the Albuquerque Balloon Fiesta is awesome! The food is incredible, the mountains are gorgeous...yeah, I love New Mexico and would encourage anyone who is thinking of moving there to do so. PM me if you have anymore questions/want to continue this conversation!
11
May 13 '12
Completely agree and upboats all around. My better half is from ABQ and every time I visit, I have a hard time saying good-bye, especially when I have to come back to Michigan, which is running like an old car on its last legs.
Albuquerque is large, the terrain is beautiful, the women are pleasant to look at, the food is great (green chiles, ftw), lots of streets are bike-friendly, there's more money and opportunity and hell, I'd better just stop here or I'll start crying about my fate that keeps me from living there at the moment.
EDIT: And since it's r/trees, I once found a quarter ounce just laying in the parking lot of a 7-11 as we were headed back north. It was like a good-bye gift!
→ More replies (3)1
u/Gengar11 May 13 '12
BUT HOW IS THE INTERNET AND CABLE? Crosses fingers for Comcast Business class
→ More replies (1)13
u/ar0cketman May 13 '12
Also a native New Mexican here, beazia speaks the truth. I've met Johnson several times and he's the most energetic, genuine government official I've ever encountered.
5
u/Orbitrix May 13 '12 edited May 13 '12
The one thing that concerns me about Gary Johnson is that he fully supports Private (for profit) Prisons... The concept of a for profit prison system terrifies me. And private prisons lobby against Marijuana legalization for obvious reasons. He claims to support legalizing marijuana, but the very business practices that helped him turn around New Mexico make sure marijuana will never be legalized, in the form off massive cash flows for private prison lobby groups. I think his stance on Marijuana is kinda BS because he's in the pockets of too many people who lobby against it in the end.
He speaks eloquently about marijuana, and seems genuinely for legalization himself, but he's the last politician in the world I would think could actually enact that sort of change, if he were in office. Bless him for talking about this issue on the national stage though. Even though he's not an electable candidate, its nice to have him there helping to steer the conversation.
(I am also a native new mexican :D, green for me please)
2
103
u/kckid2599 May 13 '12
Other fun facts about Johnson:
Has experience in the executive branch of government (two term governor of New Mexico)
Smoked medical marijuana for three years following a nearly fatal paragliding accident
Climbed Mt. Everest, multiple time participant in Iron Man
Nominated a pro-marijuana former judge as his VP
No longer affiliates himself with the disgusting Republican Party
Is an overall nice guy
54
May 13 '12
You could have just said "The republican party".
50
u/kckid2599 May 13 '12
I could of, but I didn't. I'm not a journalist, I don't need to attempt to appear non-bias, and IMO the GOP is disgusting.
13
u/NewRebel May 13 '12
I like Ron Paul though.... :3
25
u/kckid2599 May 13 '12
I would advise people to keep pushing for Paul to win the GOP primary and to switch to Johnson if (or when) Paul loses, as he's been clear he won't run third party. I think the libertarian attempt to take over the GOP is likely to fail but it's worth the try, I suppose.
19
u/kckid2599 May 13 '12
I think even Ron Paul will be slamming the GOP after this election.
3
u/LDL2 May 13 '12
Nah he is hoping Rand will run, which is the major reason he won't run 3rd party, but the recent Paul comments have just put him in a meh place.
8
u/NewRebel May 13 '12
He has the most votes with delegates right now.. you know this right?
→ More replies (4)7
u/kckid2599 May 13 '12
He's still sadly last in total delegates and the GOP establishment would literally want anyone but him to be their nomination. While not mathematically eliminated, his chances are not very good at all, pending a massive malfunction by RomneyBot3000.
→ More replies (2)13
u/Mysteryman64 May 13 '12
It's actually a bit of a civil war right now and the lawyers are coming out.
There have been claims that the RNC rules state that delegates cannot be bound by state convention rules, which if the case, would swing the delegate count WAY over in Ron Paul's favor, as he's managed to get his people placed as delegates in a lot of states.
If that fails, they're also looking into whether delegates are able to abstain from voting so that Romney doesn't clinch it in the first round and all formerly bound delegates are free in the second rounds onward to switch to Ron Paul.
If RNC leadership and rules uphold that delegates can be bound for the first round and that they cannot abstain from voting, then Romney will likely clinch it, but there is still gonna be a bloodbath because the Paul people are not gonna be happy about it at all, and it'll be highly embarrassing for the Romney campaign to win, but not have the support of the audience at the convention.
There's also been some wild speculation (and that's most likely what it is, just wild speculation), that they may actually GIVE Ron Paul the nomination on the condition that he accepts Romney as the VP candidate. Ron Paul's an old dude, and there is a not insignificant chance that he might die in office if he would win, and it still sets up Romney to be able to take the nomination the next time around.
The convention is going to be mighty interesting.
→ More replies (5)7
u/kckid2599 May 13 '12
I hope it is interesting, but I still feel Paul fans are getting their hopes up a little too much. I just don't see Gingrich/Santorum supporters picking Paul over Romney. It's just so easy for the GOP to stack the odds against him when they're the ones in control of the rules.
→ More replies (5)6
u/TroutM4n May 13 '12
That's precisely my intent - push Paul for the republican nomination and when he most probably doesn't get it (despite bringing the issues he's concerned about to prominent discussion) I will support Johnson over an Obama V. Romney option.
I honestly don't think Obama will make a second term - he's alienated his base too hard. Sure he has made some serious improvements, like healthcare/DODT... but he also has some handled some issues in ways that terribly upset the people who got him elected:
military action in a half dozen countries, a few murdered american citizens, indefinite detention without trial signed law, and gitmo still open
Declaring the "War on Drugs" terminology to not be used any more while instituting drastic increases in raids against medical marijuana caregivers in compliance with state laws - more in the past year than in the entire eight years of Bush....
That's enough to push a lot of former supporters in Johnson's direction, because they sure as hell aren't going for Romney.
2
u/Perkstoph May 13 '12
The delegate process is still early, but Paul supporters are winning allot of Party chair positions in the state conventions.. While that doesn't mean much in the current election cycle, those positions will translate to "super delegates" in the next which would be likely to vote on a Rand Paul 2016 ticket. I would say that they are certainly shaking up the party and getting rid of some of the Republican Old Guard.
3
u/kckid2599 May 13 '12
I'm sorry but if Rand Paul is the future for libertarians, then the libertarians are fucked.
→ More replies (2)2
May 13 '12
I think it's working just because of how many Paul people are getting slotted into power positions within the GOP. The GOP chair in Iowa is now a Paul guy. This is happening throughout the country.
→ More replies (1)2
May 13 '12
This is exactly what I'm doing. Paul's my number one but I like Gary Johnson a lot. So I'll likely be voting for him come november.
11
u/401klaser May 13 '12
Ron Paul is a libertarian running "undercover" as a Republican candidate. The bipartisan system forces this nonsense as people refuse to accept the idea of a viable 3rd party candidate.
3
24
1
1
0
May 13 '12
[deleted]
6
u/kckid2599 May 13 '12
Ah, if that's the case, I apologize, as that's pretty funny and It went right over my head.
0
May 13 '12
[deleted]
1
u/kckid2599 May 13 '12
If people are too stupid to determine that those last two are my opinions, then I feel little need to further explain it to them. But please continue to nitpick.
1
3
u/neat_love May 13 '12
How do we really know about this nice guy business? Hmmm?
3
u/kckid2599 May 13 '12
I've meet a guy who went on a hike with him in New Hampshire, said he was extremely nice and surprisingly quiet for a politician. He also keeps his politics clean in comparison to every other candidate, which is probably one of the main reasons for his lack of success so far, unfortunately.
1
u/plasticTron May 13 '12
I think he might be a bit too nice to win an election... hopefully he gets at least 10% this november, so he can run again with more funding. (I forget the exact rules but if a party gets something like 10% in an election, they get money to run in the next one)
→ More replies (1)1
u/kckid2599 May 13 '12
I'm pretty sure the government doesn't hand out money to candidates if they reach a certain percent....You may be thinking of the percent you need in the polls (18%?) to get into the debates...
→ More replies (1)2
3
u/mikebuds May 13 '12
From NM-ish myself. Always a champ of champs.
6
May 13 '12
Where is New Mexico-ish?
9
2
u/mikebuds May 13 '12
I spent up to my preteen years in NJ. I don't much fancy it. I've lived in NM longer and lived more.
0
May 13 '12
[deleted]
3
u/kckid2599 May 13 '12
I agree with your last point, I don't think I'll ever find one, but Johnson is close enough for me. Plus, he seems sensible enough to realize government involvement is sometimes necessary. He tried raising the amount of spent on education funding before switching to a voucher system as governor and started a program to help prevent drought, instead of giving some b.s about how it's the free market's job to prevent drought or something.
However, we are straying from the intent of this subreddit, so I'm going to smoke some trees now to celebrate my first very successful link submission. :)
2
u/MC_Cuff_Lnx May 13 '12
Thinks we should eliminate corporate income tax to "create jobs."
There's a New Economist (that is, a leftist economist) who also takes this position. I think it was Robert Reich.
From his perspective, the idea is not just that we eliminate corporate income tax. It would require raising the individual rates on the wealthiest Americans as well.
Most money taken in by corporations is paid out in the same fiscal year. There are exceptions. The supply-sider argument isn't completely horseshit, though, and lower taxes do translate into more GDP growth. It's just that it's GDP growth at the expense of public works.
1
May 13 '12
lower taxes do translate into more GDP growth
So why aren't we rolling in jobs right now?
→ More replies (5)
15
u/mrcookieface May 13 '12
He did an AMA here awhile ago.
I lived in NM when he was governor and he's a sharp cookie. He's the most practical candidate the GOP should have pushed for the presidential nomination, but in my opinion, practical is not in the GOP's vocabulary.
5
u/kckid2599 May 13 '12
Thanks for posting the AMA, how many other candidates have done an AMA? Huh reddit? That's what I thought..
10
u/NuttyBrown May 13 '12
Take this with a grain of salt but I've personally known Gary for over 20 years. He is one of the most down to earth, no-nonsense, determined, hard-working and honest people I know. I would put my life on the line to say that he is what America needs right now. It's too bad the media did not allow him to gain traction and become known. The goal for him now is to gain the minimum of 18% pole rating to be included and heard in the general debates with Obama and Romney. If America understood what he stands for, we would hopefully consider a third party as a viable option. He almost needs a viral 'Kony 2012' type initiative to get him momentum and promote voting amongst the younger crowd.
5
u/kckid2599 May 13 '12
As long as he doesn't end up jacking it in San Diego...
1
u/NuttyBrown May 13 '12
Definitely not backing kony 2012 or anything it stands for here... We just need a similar action to get him famous.
9
u/kckid2599 May 13 '12
This post has finally passed the "Obama 2012" one, and peace has been returned to the galaxy.
107
u/opn420 May 12 '12 edited May 12 '12
Theres a fucking picture of Obama smoking a joint with the caption Obama 2012 on the frontpage right now, so odds are most people just don't want to hear it. That's why I'm upvoteing this.
78
u/Chasincows May 12 '12
I agree. It's kinda stupid how people think Obama is the savior of this country. Not hating on Obama, I just think a lot of people are uninformed and just like him because he's black
61
u/opn420 May 13 '12 edited May 13 '12
Your absolutely right He's done more to crack down on mmj then Bush and Clinton combined. Also he said legalization is not the answer to the world drug problem. Yet some how people still think he's a "stoner president"
3
May 13 '12
Doesn't he mean legalization of all drugs though?
→ More replies (3)9
u/kckid2599 May 13 '12
They were discussing all drugs being legalized, but I think it's reasonable for Latin American countries to be looking into it when you consider all the damage caused by prohibition and the drug demand coming from the U.S that these countries have no control over. No one is saying hard drugs don't create harm, but prohibition has failed to reduce drug use and people are just getting more hurt due to shootings and robberies that are caused by drug market being a black market.
4
May 13 '12
Sure. Me too. Maybe decriminalization rather than legalization, but yeah I see the point of both.
5
u/WonLife May 13 '12 edited May 13 '12
Decriminalization won't work either. Alaska Decriminalization marijuana in the 70s and it didn't help at all. Use increased among adults and teens, and the reason why is because the consequences were gone but all the negative effects of prohibition were still there. Although anyone who got caught never was in a lot of trouble, The government never saw any of that money, children could easily obtain it which is why teenage use increased, and they were still conronted with more dangerous drugs. Decriminilaztion is a half ass slap on the wrist. We need to be given freedom and education (legalization) not be turned into criminals and punishments (prohibition).
→ More replies (1)2
u/kckid2599 May 13 '12
Decrim doesn't have to mean a system like Alaska's. For instance, decriminalizing all drugs would mean you're not seeing Heroin sold in walmart but it's available in drug centers to those who need it to survive and the system encourages treatment of addiction rather than locking people up. In terms of trees, decrim on a federal level could mean the govt still tries to control how much is brought into the country and that it's safe but doesn't prosecute personal users, only people who are selling it in a unregulated manner, sort of like how the FDA handles legal drugs now.
2
u/WonLife May 13 '12
But those who are in favor of prohibition have a main argument of the children. Decriminalizing is the worst thing you can do for the children. it's like saying we know you still do drugs even though we don't want you to but were not gonna punish you as hard as we did. I do understand how legalization can be seem as the wrong message but it is not. If you legalize it, teens will have a harder time to get the drugs, and they will be able to use it when they are at an age when they can make more rational and smart decisions.
→ More replies (8)1
u/kckid2599 May 13 '12
Yea, that's where I disagree with the libertarian philosophy too, but I see legalization as better than the status-quo and think eventually people would figure out the government has some role in regulating drugs. I'm by no means a full-out libertarian, I just think that Gary is the best person for the job and would be willing to work with those who differ from him more than Paul.
→ More replies (1)32
May 13 '12
Not to mention that he ordered drone strikes that have killed children, including American teenagers.
→ More replies (15)2
1
May 13 '12
He needs to get re-elected you fool. Political strategy is very rarely about doing what you know in your heart to be true. President Obama already learned his lesson about speaking his mind when he spoke out about having mosques near Ground Zero. It was a P.R. nightmare and the conservative Media/tea baggers had a fucking FIELD DAY!!!
If Obama were to take a stance on legalizing marijuana the conservative spin machine would launch a campaign decrying Obama as "Anti-Children" and "Pro-Crime." The ignorant masses would flood the polls with votes for Mitt Romney. There goes the re-election, all because Obama had to cater to some impatient young adults that don't understand the delicate tango that is bipartisan politics.
6
u/Swan_Writes May 13 '12
I really did muster up some hope for candidate Obama..not so much for president Obama. Now, an Obama that has to come up with cogent arguments (we all know he is eloquent and has lots of smart people working for him) in a debate/electoral season with Gary Johnson and just possibly Ron Paul...that's going to elevate the conversation in the U.S.of A. from (0) to (10) within the next year.
3
u/plasticTron May 13 '12
agree 100%. I'm not sure how the national debates work but it wouldn't suprise me if Johnson was shut out of those like he was the Republican debates. :(
→ More replies (7)0
u/enterharry May 13 '12
No. I like him because I hate mittens and I see eye to eye with Obama on many issues. Don't generalize
1
u/Chasincows May 13 '12
I didn't say all people, I said a lot, and I know a lot of people who voted for him just because he is black so I'm not generalizing I'm saying there are people like that out there not giving a shit about his stances.
68
u/Rabidkitsch May 12 '12
I've been following this guy for a while now, it's sad that he hasn't gotten much publicity. He was running as a republican, but wasn't invited to one of the debates that was on tv so we switched to the libertarian party. But he made video and answered all the questions from the debat and put it on youtube. His policies are pretty good imo. :3
19
u/NeededANewName May 13 '12
He's just too similar in stance to Paul, who already had more momentum. I really doubt Paul will run in 2016 as he'll be 81, so Johnson has a real chance then. With Paul out of the picture most of his supporters will shift and he is both more personable and 'electable'. I think he really has a good shot then.
8
u/Rabidkitsch May 13 '12
I was honestly on the Ron Paul band wagon during the last election. But I still didn't agree with his stances on a lot of issues/topics. Paul is awesome, but he also extremely conservative in some aspects which I think will not help this country progress and somewhat not liberal enough for what this country needs. For example Paul is pro-rights and is also against gay marriage.
32
u/mrwhirly2000 May 13 '12
Against gay marriage? He wants the federal government to stay out of marriage completely. He's expressed on many occasions that he is against a constitutional ban on gay marriage. Personally he believes that it is between a man and a woman (one of his personal beliefs I disagree with), but he's against anybody forcing their definition on anybody else.
→ More replies (8)5
u/renadi May 13 '12
Considering myself a conservative I find most things Paul says either encouraging or at the worst not very threatening, but it's good to have more options too.
4
u/plasticTron May 13 '12
c'mon man, this is America. We only get two options, and you better like it!
5
u/nofreedom4theUS May 13 '12
By not liberal enough do you mean that he won't want to tax the daylights out of me to give to the unwilling to work?
6
u/Rabidkitsch May 13 '12
haha that made me laugh so hard. {3} I mean in the sense of him not liberal enough on civil issues.
→ More replies (1)6
u/JayRaow May 13 '12
It's called empathy frient ;)
5
u/DisregardMyPants May 13 '12
Charity is empathy. Taxes are giving because the government will throw you in a cage if you don't.
→ More replies (2)-1
u/blart_history May 13 '12
Agreed. I actually give a shit about women's reproductive rights, so I wouldn't vote for him if you paid me.
7
u/just_news May 13 '12
You should actually check your facts before you say that. Just because he's pro-life doesn't mean he wants to make it the law of the land.
→ More replies (4)9
May 13 '12
not just one... MOST.
5
u/jamesmac42 May 13 '12
I think by "one" he meant "all".
4
May 13 '12
5
u/jamesmac42 May 13 '12
"one", as in a hyperbole. BAM.
And imo Gary easily one all the debates he was in.
2
u/hatofballsandtits May 13 '12
http://www.reddit.com/r/trees/comments/tkjfc/new_york_ents_write_your_state_senator_why_you/ Please help, rather then discussing politics, do something about it.
21
u/SethBullockDead May 13 '12
If Ron Paul doesn't win the nomination, Gary Johnson is the one I'm voting for.
0
17
u/jamesmac42 May 13 '12
I've been championing Gary Johnson for the past year, but none of my friends listen to me :(
13
u/kriegler May 13 '12
This is a problem in most countries, not just the US. For example, a friend of mine was kicked out of his dorm, made to go drug counseling, and had to do weeks of community service just to stay in school after he got caught with a joint. On the other hand, another friend was raped by another student; the university said it wasn't their problem and the police said that it wouldn't be cost effective to try prosecuting the guy who did it.
Ironically, the first friend now smokes out the second one to help her with her PTSD.
5
u/renadi May 13 '12
That is all so much bullshit, trees whatever their legal status are just not that disruptive to any community anywhere, unless that community is decidedly anti-trees I suppose, but when there's a clear threat to community, and even direct threat to individuals and it's treated as LESS serious?
it makes me quite sad.
14
u/lumpypotatoes May 13 '12
Gary Johnson is a great man who would really do this country well. Hope he gets headway in the next couple of months.
7
May 13 '12
I ate dinner with this guy and like 10 other people. He is awesome.
2
u/plasticTron May 13 '12
what's he like?
3
May 13 '12
Awesome, he gave a speech to a room full of about 100 college kids, and he was really honest. Did not give a fuck about telling you an unpopular opinion.
6
u/KG8Peace May 13 '12
Gary Johnson would be my second choice after Ron Paul. I agree with him on a lot of issues, and I feel he would have a better chance at the Republican nomination if he were in Ron Pauls shoes, he comes off as less "insane".
3
u/wiozan May 13 '12
The insane label came from thw MSM, if Gary got the attention that paul got they would have labeled him too.
1
u/KG8Peace May 13 '12
I agree that is partially came from the MSM, but not everybody is a sheep like most of the Ron Paul cult likes to claim. Gary Johnson differs from Paul because he is more interested in reform when it comes to the economy, rather than abolishing everything (income tax, social security, etc.). Gary Johnson would most likely gain many more votes because of this. Gary Johnson is a Libertarian, Ron Paul is arguably an anarcho-capitalist.
6
u/KG8Peace May 13 '12
My choices for president: Ron Paul > Gary Johnson > Kent Mesplay Nobody else is even worth my time. Ralph Nader and Dennis Kucinich would be good choices as well if they were running. Anyone but Obama or Romney though, please D:
6
5
u/RalphyDanger4 May 13 '12
not just ents need to know about this guy. This strategy would make the country better for everyone. Inform the masses!!
5
May 13 '12
We hosted Governor Johnson at the U of Arkansas when I was the president of the SSDP Chapter there, he's an incredibly intelligent and passionate individual.
8
8
8
u/MikiLove May 13 '12
He breaks the social stereotype that smokers are lazy and idiotic. He successfully ran a state, leaving it with a $1 billion budget surplus, and after leaving office, participated in seven Ironman triathlons and climbed Mount Everest. He he may be the best national spokesperson for us ents.
4
u/saracuda May 13 '12
Just found out about this guy on Thursday. After reading up in him i went online and re registered to vote, as i havent registered in like a year. This is the first time ive seen someone run and ive agreed on all his topics, and im so excited.
Sorry for punctuation, my phone doesnt feel like auto correcting.
4
4
4
u/cgiall420 May 13 '12
I voted for Obama both for Senate in 04 and President in 08, but I've decided not to vote for him again. I voted for Ralph Nader in 2000, so I have no problem "wasting" my vote on someone who I think stands for something good. If the last 4 years have taught us anything, it should be that it doesn't really matter if it's Obama or a Republican, it's pretty much all the same shit. So I say don't listen to the people who tell you that you're wasting your vote--vote for the people you think are good.
7
6
u/donutmanZ May 13 '12
Gary Johnson's the mother fuckin' man. Wants to legalize trees and gay marriage, nationwide.
3
3
3
u/hatofballsandtits May 13 '12
Politically active ents! We need your help. Please upvote this and get the word out. http://www.reddit.com/r/trees/comments/tkjfc/new_york_ents_write_your_state_senator_why_you/
3
May 13 '12
I agree with Mr. Johnson but I can't simply believe that this is an issue for marijuana alone. This is based off of the simple fact that is reality under prohibition.
Under prohibition:
Any claims cannot be settled under courts or with police assistance. What this means is that if you are ripped off for any illegal drug, your only recourse is: to steal to compensate for lost goods, to assault to reclaim goods taken under false pretenses, or to simply result to out and out violence and assault those who committed wrongs against you.
Extrapolate the above and how far into the "drug problem" does this cover? Gang battles for territory? Assassination of individuals who comrpromise the trade? Assassination for rivals who interfere in your "territory"? Crime because a trade wasn't exchanged at market value and you have no recourse other than violence or theft or vandalism against those who were in the wrong?
The prohibition of any and all substances that are currently illegal in the "war on drugs" causes the above problems and causes the instability and violence in our poorest neighborhoods. I make sure to clarify all substances because there's substances that I believe are destructive to an individual's psyche and social comprehension but I still believe that the laws currently in place encourage a much worse reality and close numerous windows for help and for basic guidance and help in these people's confusion.
The war on drugs, as a whole, is a destructive enterprise that only feeds on blood regardless of what side of "the law" that you reside. It's a leech on society that bleeds at a much higher rate than the worst addiction does.
What Mr. Johnson is saying is something that I support but I think it's naive to believe it's simply only marijuana that is the problem. It's all substance prohibition that is the problem.
Let's be honest: the war on drugs only inspires more violence and crime and destruction than it prevents. Even with the worst, most addictive substances. And in a lot of those cases, it encourages more secrecy about such use and abuse.
1
May 13 '12
Except for that whole outrageously bad economic ideas. Seriously, I get it, pot is cool. But to crash our economy to get it legalized? No thanks.
3
u/kckid2599 May 13 '12
So is everything that disagrees with your opinion "outrageously bad"? Is the government that is 15 trillion in debt not crashing our economy?
→ More replies (2)4
u/LennyPalmer May 13 '12
Which "outrageously bad" economic ideas, specifically.
Which of his economic policies do you disagree with and why?
1
May 13 '12
All of Austrian economics and the fantasy of "free markets."
2
u/LennyPalmer May 13 '12 edited May 13 '12
Fantasy? I think there is quite a bit of legitimacy to free market philosophy. I'm not personally well informed enough to empirically demonstrate how ever sector of society the government is involved in was better before government involvement, and would be better without.
If you're at all interested, 'The Machinery of Freedom' by David Friedman is an interesting and largely empirical look at the matter. You can get a free ebook of it here.
2
May 13 '12
I am very happy for you that you were drawn to reading into something recommended to you by someone you already kind of agreed with. I too know the feeling of confirmation bias. A market without rules never regulates itself. There are basic fundamental flaws with this view, and you wouldn't have to look past an basic Econ class to find material to read up on them.
Let's be very simplistic here. Using examples from very small scale economics. Two similar businesses start in the same small town. Obviously there is a limited demand. Everything we know tells us that all things being fair, these two businesses have to compete, and the consumers will choose the best business based on the fundamentals, who offers the best price and service. Cool beans, sounds good. Both businesses have to deal with the same challenges, overhead. Everything from paying employees, taxes, inventory, ect. All the costs of doing business. But then one business finds a "better" way. They ally themselves with an outside company to supply cheaper products. The consumer naturally gravitates towards the cheaper product, cool. Naturally the "weaker" business is going to fail. Ok, makes sense. But then something strange happens. The stronger business now has no competition. Well anyone can make competition if they abuse their position right? Well, no. See they now are able to do things new competition cannot do. They're allied with outside forces invested in their future. They can always sell a cheaper product. So now they have no incentive to base their wages or prices on local needs. They can now suppress workers from demanding a piece of their sucess. Business's all over town are doing the same thing, so they don't lose their workforce, because no where else is better. But the profits keep rolling in for the owner and his friends. Now it's a situation where the owner can artificially decrease and stagnate wages, because why not? Did the consumer end up benefiting? No, because now they and their neighbor are getting an increasingly smaller piece of the pie. And they're losing it to someone not even in their community!
This is simplistic, but it's the common scenario. Without an outside influence regulating the ability, you've simply created indentured servants to corporate masters. All in the name of "free market" competition.
There are a million examples of the fundamental flaw on display here.
→ More replies (1)1
May 13 '12
Except that he's not an Austrian? Say what you will about free markets but if you crack down on them too hard your country tends to go into shit.
Just look at Sweden the socialist paradise, that has a freer market than America right now.
There are also multiple schools of free market studies, not just the Austrian school.
1
May 13 '12
He is trees-friendly, but many of his positions are quite troubling. He opposes net neutrality. He opposes government funding for stem cell research. He opposes gun control. He wants to abolish the Department of Education. He thinks that Roe v. Wade should be overturned. He does not support public funding of alternative energy research. He doesn't believe in universal healthcare. I greatly admire his positions on many issues, but he is way off the mark on many other issues. Just offering a different perspective.
2
u/kckid2599 May 13 '12
He opposes government intervention in the internet.
He thinks Roe vs. Wade should be reexamined, not necessarily overturned. He acknowledges abortion for what it is, a complicated issue that is used to further divide our nation.
The other things are polarizing topics in America and one half of the debate is going to consider him "way off the mark" no matter which side he chooses. There's no such thing as a perfect candidate for everyone, and he's the best we have IMO.
1
May 13 '12 edited May 13 '12
I of course realize that there is no such thing as a perfect candidate. You are correct that he opposes government intervention in the internet, but that makes it sound like he advocates a free internet. His position means that he opposes content regulations from the FCC, but that he also opposes government intervention in the internet business in order to regulate service providers and ensure that everyone has free and equal access to the internet. It is no different than government intervention in other businesses to ensure that the concentration of power in the hands of a few firms cannot be used to take advantage of the public.
On Roe, his actual quote is
Judges should be appointed who will interpret the Constitution according to its original meaning. Any court decision that does not follow this original meaning of the Constitution should be revisited. That is particularly true of decisions such as Roe vs. Wade, which have expanded the reach of the Federal government into areas of society never envisioned in the Constitution. With the overturning of Roe vs Wade, laws regarding abortion would be decided by the individual states.
He wants to advocate judges who will stick to the original meaning of the Constitution. Presumably this means that laws that do not follow the original meaning will be struck down. He says that the reach of government in Roe was never originally envisioned by the Constitution, therefore he would support it being overturned.
As far as abortion being used to divide the nation, the fact that it is a wedge issue does not mean that it is unimportant. Women have the right to self-ownership just as men do, and conservative attempts to deny them that right should be taken seriously and opposed. Marijuana legalization is also a wedge issue, and it is even far less important of an issue than women's rights, but you do not trivialize it. You take it seriously, as you should.
Finally, I concede that many of the other issues that I listed are very polarizing, but I will not concede on stem cell research. To the informed, stem cell research is not controversial at all. Pluripotent stem cells are now obtainable from human skin cells, thus completely eliminating the fetus issue. Anyone who now opposes stem cell research does not have all the facts on the matter.
2
u/Eristaz May 13 '12
Oh my goodness thank you for having some sense! Constitutional originalists/textualists are absolutely ridiculous in the sense that it's impossible to actually put the "founders' meaning" as a priority all the time! Antonin Scalia is probably the most hard-line of the textualist camp, but at the end of the day, he'll pick and choose whatever case precedent helps him achieve his goals. You can see this for yourself in his majority opinion in Employment Division v. Smith.
4
u/djm19 May 13 '12
My problem is I don't support his positions on taxes, or spending. His "one strike and your out" policy for illegal immigrants is also pretty harsh for people who are in abject poverty. Other than that I think hes ok...I was suprised to see how non-libertarian he is on gay marriage, rejecting the notion that its the state's right to decide...instead claiming the federal government should allow gays to marry. That is something I support.
But the economy is important to me, and I find his views disastrous.
5
May 13 '12
I think his views are libertarian views on marijuana, Ron Pauls are constitutional views. Those are sometimes similar views but often not.
4
2
2
May 13 '12
I already voted for him in my state primary on the 8th. I sat around for half an hour while they got more Libertarian ballots in.
2
u/Mriswith88 May 13 '12
Dude I've been a HUGE fan of Gary Johnson for a long time - talk about him to anyone who wants to talk politics... too bad he isn't getting any press and people just laugh at me b/c they think he's 'the pot candidate'. BUT HE'S SO MUCH MORE!! He fucking climbed Mt. EVEREST
2
u/4114din May 13 '12
Ron Paul has been saying this for 20+ years. P.s. Paul actually has a shot at winning. You want legal bud? Support Ron Paul.
2
2
2
2
u/derpledooDLEDOO May 13 '12
Liberty is the idea, and there is already a candidate who most people call the founder of this seemingly new idea in American Politics. His name is Ron Paul.
4
u/plasticTron May 13 '12
is he going to be on the ballot in November? Unlikely.
Johnson will.
1
u/derpledooDLEDOO May 13 '12
Johnson doesn't have the popularity that Paul has. He isn't even as big as Ron Paul was in 08 and we all saw how the media shut him out then. Not going to be any different for Johnson this election if it is indeed Obama vs Romney.
Besides, third parties just have too much going against them to win. It's the biggest problem with first past the post voting. People are afraid of throwing their votes away for a person "who can't win", and it inevitably ends up taking votes from one party, usually republicans, giving democrats the victory. I don't think Ron Paul would win as a 3rd party vs Obama and Romney, and he's a hell of a lot more popular than Johnson.
1
u/plasticTron May 13 '12
oh yeah, I don't think a third party will ever win until we change the way we decide the winner.
but I'd like to see Paul throw his support behind Johnson, maybe even as VP candidate, that would be huge for him.
1
1
u/Arrow156 May 13 '12
It's stuff like this that makes me somethimes thing I'm completely nuts. It makes soo much sense and soo many people are ignoring it that maybe, just maybe, it's not them but me.
1
1
1
1
1
1
u/jlentz17 May 13 '12
I logged into r/trees to see what was new. 5 hours later, and I haven't even seen the second post on the homepage. Wow
1
u/ProudHeretic666 May 13 '12
If all us ents would come out and vote for the libertarian party, names like Gary Johnson would become common household names.
1
1
u/petsounds94 May 13 '12
I've supported this guy from the start, glad that you got some awareness going, kckid2599! :)
1
u/dawgz525 May 13 '12
Originally his pro legalization stance led me to Gary Johnson, but I'm not a big fan of his anymore, not for the legalization bit, I don't like a several of his policies
1
0
May 13 '12
More ents need to vote, maybe. But keep voting libertarian, you won't change any laws, but you'll feel better.
4
u/lwjinypsi May 13 '12
Yes, I will feel better & I won't feel dirty. You should always vote as your morals & ethics dictate and not just for the lesser of two evils or 'against' the candidate you hate more.
-4
u/Eristaz May 13 '12 edited May 13 '12
I'm sorry, but Gary Johnson is a raving lunatic. He's power hungry and is proud of it. Just look at State ex. Rel. v. Johnson for all the proof you need! Just because he supports decriminalization/possibly legalization, doesn't mean he can court a "socially liberal" demographic efficiently (but, that's my opinion, mind you). It's the same thing with Ron Paul, plenty of people support him for his stance on marijuana and other pop-liberal issues, but when you get down to the meat of his ideals, he's just an anarcho-capitalist who would destroy everything America has worked for in the past 100+ years with the rise of the administrative state championed by Wilson, both Roosevelts, and other turn of the century presidents. I like to think that those men are much, much greater leaders and idealists than Johnson or Paul could ever hope to possibly achieve parity. But, let me say again, that's just my opinion.
Edit: Just for beans, I want to add you CANNOT be both socially liberal AND fiscally conservative: if you are actually capable of comprehending the devastating effects of capitalism on the global South and, hell, even more developed nations, and still support laissez faire economics, then you can never be able to be included fully in the category of "socially liberal." This is not a pro-socialist post, just extremely anti-capitalist :)
3
u/renadi May 13 '12
I'm very much a conservative, so nearly everything people mention as reasons to dislike either candidate isn't so bad to me, fact of the matter is I think if we keep electing dems and reps just like we have been we're going to be in much worse shape, and it'll have been institutionalized so deep changing it would require revolution, than if we took a chance and lived to regret a presidency that ended up not working out.
As it is no matter what we do the 2 parties are already destroying this country, but at a deep fundamental level nobody is willing to challenge, at least a new guy would be more likely to have somebody say "what the fuck dude, that's illegal" instead of just rolling with it.
1
u/Eristaz May 13 '12
Well, you've definitely got a point. However, when it comes to the two-party system, I love it. People conveniently forget the basic fact that the doctrines of both parties over the course of American history have changed drastically (with the only thing staying constant, kind of, is that Reps tend to be pro-states' rights, while dems will tend to be pro-fed gov.). Every few generations the parties get a nearly full overhaul; it wasn't too long ago where the democratic party harbored racists of the worst caliber, but now it's more expected for closet racists to be found within the republican party. We're seeing the transformation of party doctrine today, enjoy it while you can, it'll be set in stone for the next fifty years or so here soon.
Edit, sorry: just to cover my ass, yes, the party names change. Don't worry, I know.
1
u/renadi May 13 '12
True, but they're both always devoted to one thing, and that's staying in power or in the worst case scenario keeping their opposite in power so people are more likely to swing wide back to them.
→ More replies (1)0
May 13 '12
Thank you! I saw this quote and went: Cool, I'll look up all his other positions and see what he's all about. Then immediately: free market capitalism. Nope. Also: opposes gun control and internet neutrality (something Redditors would be concerned about).
Most importantly for me, he is anti choice and fuck if I'm going to vote for anybody that is going to strip away my basic human right to bodily autonomy.
He's still a step up from the GOP candidates and there are other issues I agree with basically the big ones are a nope.
Plus, I'm not throwing away my vote on a third party candidate, not unless the entire voting system and entire fucking infrastructure is changed so they actually have a chance.
1
u/kckid2599 May 13 '12
Yea, I'm sure the two parties will work out whole "voting system" thing any day now, just keep voting for them... /s
Also, I don't think redditors are in favor of government control on the internet, but I may be wrong. Johnson supports letting the free market decide which internet providers suck and not giving them the favorable treatment they receive from the federal government now. He also opposes the internet kill switch.
Also, if free market capitalism scares you so much, you probably chose the wrong country to live in, and his views on abortion can't be summed up by simply calling them "anti choice."
→ More replies (1)1
May 13 '12 edited May 13 '12
The voting system is certainly a complex problem that isn't going to simply be solved by voting Rep/Dem and hoping things go ok. But it's going to be helped even less by voting for a third party that won't get into power at all.
I seem to recall a huge hubbub on Reddit quite recently about attacks on net neutrality...
And yes, I definintely chose to be born here. Just like everyone chooses their parents and the time and place they are born. Right. Also the idea of "if you don't like the country, get out" is a ridiculous argument that ignores the fact that hey, not everybody physically, mentally, or financially CAN move out of the country.
His site basically tells me that he supports banning late term abortions. Any limitation on abortion is an infringement on human rights and that is not something I will stand for. Wiki also tells me that he wants Roe v Wade overturned, even though I should think that the one thing even a libertarian would want the federal government involved in is the protection of human rights.
As I said, he's a step up from the GOP but I will still take Obama over him any day.
(I hope whoever is downvoting my posts feels bad for breaking Reddiquette ಠ_ಠ)
-3
u/VeteranKamikaze May 13 '12
Sorry but the fact of the matter is Obama is the democratic candidate so if he isn't the Republican candidate he isn't in the race. Not saying that's how it should be but that's how it is.
15
u/kckid2599 May 13 '12
That's only the way it is because people allow it to be that way. It's fucking backwards logic and will never change unless people stop voting for the same two parties all the time.
6
u/lexoanvil May 13 '12
It would change very easily; if we switch to an alternate vote system. the reason we don't is because its not in the best interest of those in power :/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_vote
2
u/renadi May 13 '12
I so love this idea, from an objective point of view it would hurt outside parties to a degree, there would have to be a limit to the number of candidates shown, but it'd also make it more likely to get the more well known 3rd party guys in.
→ More replies (4)2
May 13 '12
While your argument is courageous and certainly admirable (I feel the same way), this will most likely never happen because there won't be enough of a push for a new party until some serious money is thrown behind it. I mean... I'd be down to start a new political party right now if I had the funding. I shall call it the Love Party. The little letter thing next to the representatives names would be " <3 ". Our animal would be a dog because (domestic) dogs actually love everyone when provided a loving home. I could keep going...but I need money.
-3
u/darksun24 May 13 '12
If you support a candidate because you agree with only one of his positions, you're gonna have a bad time.
6
u/kckid2599 May 13 '12
If you take a post of reddit as me saying "you should vote for this guy due to this one position," you're gonna have a bad time. I feel like a lot of ents would agree with his other positions too, and the lack of media attention for him warrants me making people aware of him.
2
u/neat_love May 13 '12
Maybe post some info about him (link?)
2
u/kckid2599 May 13 '12 edited May 13 '12
Sure, here's a pretty good op-ed on his candidacy. http://www.opednews.com/articles/A-Look-at-Libertarian-Part-by-Alan-Pyeatt-120509-855.html
Google News is a good place to look, a lot of media outlets are picking up his story with the major discontent of the lack of choices this election year.
0
May 13 '12
Cool bro you let thousands of people know about a candidate who literally can't do anything at least for another 4 years. When there is a pro legalization candidate trying to win right now.
0
May 13 '12
ITT: Teenagers that don't understand bipartisan politics. Gary Johnson was a longshot Democratic nominee in 2007, he was no secret. He has switched parties to take the Libertarian nomination.
I know you guys feel like you are doing something great by trying to campaign and raise awareness for this guy, but what you don't realize is that any votes you are gaining would have been votes for Obama.
Imagine if a large % of the disenfranchised liberal voters went with this guy instead of Obama? Election day will Be Johnson-9% Obama 41% ROMNEY 50%. Pat yourself on the back people, all that campaigning and complaining has just elected the only person that could possibly be WORSE for medical marijuana patients than an enraged Nancy Reagan.
I'm sorry, but as a medical marijuana patient and caregiver, you are pretty fucking ignorant to do anything other than re-elect Obama so that he can hopefully get a Democratic majority in 2014 and do what he knows is right without immediate fear of reprisal from the right.
-1
0
u/DuckSmash May 13 '12
or you can retain your dignity and not vote
2
u/plasticTron May 13 '12
really?
voting influences how this place is run... don't you want to have a say?
1
u/DuckSmash May 13 '12
I'm having a say by not participating a corrupt and broken system.
think of it as voting for a change in the vehicle instead of replacing the hood ornament
1
u/DuckSmash May 16 '12
how the place is run fundamentally doesn't change a bit. And I would like to actually have a say in how I operate instead of this illusion of "bro, you're free cause you can vote" meanwhile the police state expands under the demo and rep parties...how do you get more freedom??? vote for obama or romney???
0
u/tulsadune May 13 '12
We don't need law enforcement resources to be shifted to other efforts. We just need less law enforcement in general.
2
u/plasticTron May 13 '12
there are places in Detroit, Chicago, LA that could definitely use more law enforcement
1
u/tulsadune May 13 '12
I don't think the issues in those areas are caused by a lack of law enforcement. Why not use those resources to lift folks out of poverty rather than hiring more pigs to keep them down?
0
0
0
u/taxikab817 May 13 '12
This is the same guy who wants to cut Medicare and the like and impose regressive taxation which disproportionately affects people like us. Just cuz someone is pro-smoke doesn't mean they're chill.
50
u/PeopleAreSoFickle May 12 '12
He has a good interview on The Colbert Report.