Hi Mr Johnson

Your Wikipedia page describes you as a Christian.

- How much of an effect does God have on your politics?
- How do you view atheists?
- Are Muslims wrong?

Tom

Meh.

That is a weak and two faced response. The govt has ALREADY defined marriage. It has already happened. So not defining marriage isn't an option. To make it worse the government has then used marriage to affect everything from from health care, to taxes, to custody rights, to social security benefits, to inheritance, to criminal defense rights.

So the govt has already
a) defined marriage
b) created a system of laws that provides benefits for being married.

In theory I agree the govt shouldn't have defined marriage and certainly shouldn't have decided to provide benefits to a subset of the population. Married couples or unmarried couples should be equal under the law (same sex or opposite sex). However the reality is the past 200+ years of legislation EXISTS.

You and Gov Johnson can pretend the problem away but the reality is the government isn't going to repeal and rewrite every law that provides benefits for married couples. For the govt to provide benefits to a married persons and then at the same time deny people the right to get married to gain those benefits is blatantly separate but equal.

You or the governor can oppose gay marriage but at least be honest and say "I believe pandering to people dubious moral distinctions is more important than equal protection under the law for all citizens of these United States". It is intellectually bankrupt to argue otherwise.

Eventually we will have marriage equality but cop outs like the one you espoused will simply make it take longer. 50 years ago likely someone exactly like you made the same claim about blacks. I am happily married for 10 years now so this doesn't affect me personally. Hell I enjoy all those unequal protections however as a Libertarian it irks me for so called conservatives put pandering to peoples moral beliefs above the responsibility for a government to protect ALL of its citizens.

Mr. Johnson, only one question here

1. You say that TSA should not be allowed to have a monopoly on security, that private sector companies should be allowed equal access and only high risk individuals should be submitted to "highly invasive pat-downs"

What would constitute a "high risk individual"? Your a big advocate of civil liberties (which I back you 100% on) but obviously you can forsee the problems that can arise from this "high risk individual" statement.

Thanks in advance for answering and you have my support in the upcoming election. Finally someone putting "people before politics"

You have my vote sir! Kill our debt n make
online poker legal please. Gl Gary

Your thread title is misleading. You're not actively answering questions. You chose what information you wanted to get across in this thread, by hand picking your own questions. An audience of poker players is not the best place for your standard political rhetoric, most of us have brains.

My vote will go to the republican with the best chance of winning the election.

Why does the government act like the deficit is unbearably big when it is proportionately smaller than the post WWII rate?

As a follow up, it is pretty standard knowledge that government deficit spending makes the economy better in the short term. Trying to lower the deficit now is like trying to pay your credit card bills off when you are unemployed. So why would you try to correct a deficit problem during the second biggest recession in american history?

Also, I saw that you seem to not care much one way or the other about the gay marriage issue. Would you be willing to use your vote in hot button social issues like gay marriage and abortion as trade bait to trade for votes to fix the online poker issue?

What if that person is Sarah Palin or Michele Bachmann?

I'm sorry you think so. FWIW, I supported the gay marriage bill that passed in New Hampshire.

On the other hand, I don't see anything in the Constitution authorizing the federal government to define marriage one way or another, so I think Gov. Johnson's position makes good sense.

Did you see Johnson's reaction when they asked him to sign the "Family Leader Pledge"?

Gary Johnson Calls Family Leader Pledge “Offensive and Unrepublican”

July 9, 2011, Las Vegas, Nevada – Presidential candidate and former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson charged today in a formal statement through his campaign that the Family Leader “pledge” Republican candidates for President are being asked to sign is “offensive to the principles of liberty and freedom on which this country was founded”. Governor Johnson also plans to further state his position against the Family Leader pledge this afternoon in Las Vegas, NV at a speech he will deliver at the Conservative Leadership Conference.

Johnson went on to state that “the so-called ‘Marriage Vow” pledge that FAMILY LEADER is asking Republican candidates for President to sign attacks minority segments of our population and attempts to prevent and eliminate personal freedom. This type of rhetoric is what gives Republicans a bad name.

“Government should not be involved in the bedrooms of consenting adults. I have always been a strong advocate of liberty and freedom from unnecessary government intervention into our lives. The freedoms that our forefathers fought for in this country are sacred and must be preserved. The Republican Party cannot be sidetracked into discussing these morally judgmental issues — such a discussion is simply wrongheaded. We need to maintain our position as the party of efficient government management and the watchdogs of the “public’s pocket book”.

“This ‘pledge’ is nothing short of a promise to discriminate against everyone who makes a personal choice that doesn’t fit into a particular definition of ‘virtue’.

While the Family Leader pledge covers just about every other so-called virtue they can think of, the one that is conspicuously missing is tolerance. In one concise document, they manage to condemn gays, single parents, single individuals, divorcees, Muslims, gays in the military, unmarried couples, women who choose to have abortions, and everyone else who doesn’t fit in a Norman Rockwell painting.

The Republican Party cannot afford to have a Presidential candidate who condones intolerance, bigotry and the denial of liberty to the citizens of this country. If we nominate such a candidate, we will never capture the White House in 2012. If candidates who sign this pledge somehow think they are scoring some points with some core constituency of the Republican Party, they are doing so at the peril of writing off the vast majority of Americans who want no part of this ‘pledge’ and its offensive language.


Typical Republican BS, is it???

This article came out yesterday:

http://thinkprogress.org/security/20...point-muslims/


Does that answer your question?

Mod note: Removed copyrighted content.

Governor Johnson,

Thank you so much for your attention to this issue, and your sincere effort to actually make something happen with it.

It is very hard, because if there were only more intelligent people out there who would vote for off the cuff candidates who actually inspire for real action, this would be easy. However, with the full expectation that this country will vote for one of the same ol' boys, who would you endorse for us to vote for?

Again, I really appreciate your passion for our game, and your angst for our freedoms being clearly demolished. In light of how much you clearly care about our cause, I will eagerly anticipate your knowledgeable response in regard to which direction will be the smartest for our gang to really go.

Thank You,

Kevin

well, technically you are correct about the debt to GDP. A few things to note. One is that the current debt does not include the guaranteed debt of Fannie and Freddy, which adds another $6 trillion. Same with the unfunded liabilities of medicare, medicaid, and social security. That adds another gigantic amount. WW2 spending was high, yes, but it was also temporary. We had a great period of economic growth when the war was over and govt spending dropped dramatically. It's almost impossible now for govt spending to drop as significantly as it did after WW2. It's almost guaranteed that govt spending can only go up due to unfunded liabilities and other contingent liabilities.

Also, GDP is somewhat meaningless as it doesn't know the difference between real wealth expansion and capital consumption.

This is not standard knowledge. Libertarian minded people like Gary Johnson believe the reason the great depression lasted so long was because the government kept trying to spend more. You say yourself we have a deficit problem. You can't cure a deficit problem with higher deficits. Sure, there will be bankruptcies and economic pain for a couple years, but it is necessary for the economy to liquidate bad debt and restart from a sound footing. The US gov't is repeating the mistakes of Japan in the 1990s. "Overall during the 1990s, Japan tried 10 fiscal stimulus packages totaling more than 100 trillion yen, and each failed to cure the recession."

A second of time spent developing an effective LOBBY is worth hours trying to get a pro poker president into the white house. If you have the time and inclination to do something politically you should focus on grass roots coalition building and organizing a lobby.

I mean say by some miracle the republican party elects a libertarian (more chance that I win the ME this year and I didn't buy in). Then let's say by another miracle this libertarian single handedly reverses the situation. What happens in 4-8 years after hitting two powerball's in a row? Could be right back to square one. It's a stupid approach.

If you get elected, do you have any idea who is going to take over your role on NCIS?

Governor Johnson


What do you make of the discrepancy between the PPA's support of you and their support of bills like Barton's or Frank's? Those bills would add more regulations, and strengthen the UIGEA, along with licensing certain sites. The PPA supports those bills, but they also support you, and you are for less regulation (as am I), not more.

What gives? What are your thoughts on the PPA in general? What are your thoughts on proposed bills like that in general? What route would you recommend other than the proposed bills?

In the above interview, Gov. Johnson says, "when Norway happened and everybody jumped to the conclusion that this had to be some act of terrorism as opposed to what appears to be a real bigotry toward immigration....."


My question. If this was carried out by a muslim. You call it "terrorism". But instead it was a Christian fundamentalist so you call it, "bigotry". Can you explain why its a different definition depending on the religious background of the perpetrator.

Isn't this sort of like saying "The laws against marijuana use would work just fine if people would just obey the law and not use marijuana"?

Anyway, one huge benefit of the Fair Tax is that everybody would have to pay it, even drug dealers and other criminals who currently do not pay U.S. income taxes. When gangsters spent their ill-gotten money, they'd have to pay the Fair Tax just like everybody else. Estimated compliance costs associated with the Fair Tax are much, much smaller when compared with with the current federal tax system.

Marijauna needs to be legalized and regulated
nation wide, for the following reasons
1. Fed and state tax which will
generate revenue and create jobs.
2. cripple the mexican cartel trafficking
marijuana, which would also slow them down
from traffickin other drugs.

@ Gov, can u please make it tougher for illegals
to rec goverment assistance. I live in Colorado and
i am American/mexican and my family waited in line
long ago for citizenship however a big part of our debt
is because of the illegals. Thanks Gov in advance

Governor Johnson,

As a Libertarian I do support you and in my perfect world you or Ron Paul would be in the White House. Unfortunately we don't live in a perfect world and the chances of either you or Paul winning the nomination are not realistic as the moderates (independents) elect presidents in this country and we have to get Obama out. After the last few days I am beginning to get concerned about this country. Though I am not happy about it I have to support Perry or Romney because it's getting pretty clear they are our only chances since Christie seems to be serious about not running and the total dark horse Scott Brown isn't stepping up or may last minute it's so hard to tell.

You can imagine my disgust as I live part time in Nevada and the rest in NY where in one state I can walk to a casino a play cards and in another that has just passed gay marrriage, I have to either risk an underground room or drive 170 miles and pay 20 dollars in tolls. I have let Gov Cuomo know my disdain in being able to watch my father and uncles gamble on horses running around a track yet I can't play poker.

You can imagine how having a close friend who is a member of the RNC and who works and is rising in the GOP reacts to me when I tell him all drugs should be legal, prostitution and gaming should be legal as well. I don't care if a woman gets an abortion in the first 14 weeks or if gays marry. Like Rudy said we need to get out of people's bedrooms. Well we should get out of their lives too.


I wish you all the best and hope that you do seek some sort of higher office somewhere and are successful. I think you were a great Governor for NM and have much to give to this great land.

I also feel that legal online poker is just around the corner. I think we should all keep up the fight. Don't let my username fool you. I was against online poker offshore since it was not regulated and well, we saw where that got us. I support the US hosting it, taxing it and regulating it.

Good luck with everything you do. Maybe with Martinez's win we can assume maybe NM is ready for a new Senator. Bingaman I hear is not seeking re-election in 2012 and Udall is up in 2014. I would love to see you on C-Span bringing some sanity to congress.

Entitlement and defense spending make up an overwhelming portion of our debt. Yet when talks about making deep spending cuts entitlement programs are the only ones that get any attention. We out spend the entire rest of the world combined on our military even though we have had no provoked wars in 60 years and haven't been invaded in 200 years.

Given these facts do you think there should be deep cuts made to defense spending at the same rate as entitlement spending?

2 other questions
Also are you in favor of campaign finance reform?
Do you feel there is a need for separation of "corporation and state" just as there is a separation of "church and state"?

thank you

No libertarian would support Perry, Romney, or Christie. They aren't libertarians at all. If they were, they would have governed like Johnson did. The differences are huge. There's a reason Paul says that the other candidates (other than Johnson) represent the status quo. You must understand this. The 'anybody but Obama' philosophy is doomed for failure.

What exactly has obama did to get all this hate. From ireland and i thought he was pretty cool when he came over here. And did he not bring in some medical bill. I have no knowledge on the situation so just asking and by no way am i stating anything with fact (other than he was cool when he came over here)

Drug dealers and other criminals already do have to pay taxes. They usually don't, but they are legally obligated to do so even without the Fair Tax.

I voted for Obama. I lost all respect I had for him after he supported extending the Patriot Act.

There are other things, but I don't want to politard this thread up.

Are you really naive enough to think you can win a war on drugs?
lol