Right. As far as climate change, Governor Johnson has said repeatedly that he believes that man is contributing to it (as recently as last week in a Google+ Hangout). He has admitted that he doesn't know what the right solution is, he doubts that it's cap & trade, but he's willing to discuss it.

As far as the environment in general, his solutions would be primarily domestic solutions as he doesn't believe that it's appropriate for the United States to impose standards on other nations. That wouldn't mean that he wouldn't seek international standards and practices by common agreement, but those standards would have to be by consent of all nations involved.

As Governor of New Mexico, he sought increased control by the states to handle environmental affairs. However, this did not remove federal involvement.

That's the extent of Governor Johnson's policy development on that front, but I believe that it's as developed as any of the other candidates, or even the incumbent.

Personally (not speaking for Governor Johnson), I think that its much more practical for free markets to regulate environmental concerns than it ever was in the past. If revolutions in North Africa can coordinate themselves using Twitter and Facebook, then boycotting a corporation is trivial by comparison. GoodGuide is a part of that empowerment. However, it seems like the government still has a role to play for the time being, and I believe that Governor Johnson agrees with that, as the health of the environment is related to our ongoing security and well-being.

Sorry, I wasn't very clear in that statement. What I meant by "The Fair Tax has the potential to fix much of what ails our economy" is that if enacted, it would remove the disincentives for proper financial behavior, and install incentives for good financial behavior, as those are things that weaken the economy. However, you're correct in assuming that it's my feeling that by doing this, it will actually improve the actual health of the economy.

The Fair Tax tax rate was actually chosen to replace, and likely exceed the current tax revenue.

Here are some research papers. Keep in mind that having been posted on the Fair Tax website, that they're generally papers by sympathetic free-market economists. There are plenty of opposing view points on the Internet at large. In my review, the only substantive argument that they present is, "we have no idea what will actually happen." I agree with this statement. We can't know what will actually happen. However, the economic principles are so sensible, especially when compared with our existing tax system, that I believe that it will actually work.

I'm not Governor Johnson, but if enacting the Fair Tax boiled down to the "unknown = scary" argument, then I would suggest enacting it on a trial basis. If some area (preferably a state, and preferably Hawai'i since there wouldn't be nearby states to truck in untaxed / black-market items, but any willing area) were willing, then the federal government could grant that area a waiver from all existing taxes, and impose the Fair Tax. If it works for long enough for people to gain confidence in it, then enact it on a national basis. Again, that's me proposing that, not Governor Johnson. But, it makes sense to me.

\m

Yeah, we apologize for that. Governor Johnson was very familiar with campaigning on the state scale. He had plenty of time to interact with anyone who wanted to meet and get to know him. He knew that it would be different, but it evolved a lot more quickly than he anticipated.

Governor Johnson has had to adapt a lot of his previous practices. As Governor, he had a policy that he describes as follows: "'I had an open door after four policy. I saw anybody in the state once a month starting at 4 o'clock in the afternoon,' he told me. 'It went to 10 pm, and I would see anybody in the state in 5 minute increments.'" He has stated that he would have the same policy as President, but that at least initially he would have it only apply to federal government employees with an idea on how to trim waste and balance the budget.

It will be interesting to see if that bears out. I'm hopeful that it will.

I know that I'm no Governor Johnson, but I hope that you feel that I'm able to answer at least some of your questions!

By the way, if you'd like to actually converse with Governor Johnson, then we encourage you to sign up and host a Google+ Hangout. You host a group of people who would like to get to know Governor Johnson, and as a group you have a chance to video chat with him and pose questions similar to a presidential debate! Only nine computers at a time can connect to the Hangout, so you have to organize a Hangout party that's bigger than the other ones connected.

\m

Haha! That's not a very prevalent meaning, but it is fairly known meaning. Hopefully, it's semi-ironic, no?

\m

Asked this on page 4. Guess got overlooked.

Thank you Mr. Johnson for doing this.

Couple of questions:

1. What would you do to stop sending american jobs overseas ?

2. Would you be willing to cut all tax breaks to large companies that have more than 50% of employees overseas ?

3. What would you do to cut our dependance on oil imports ?

4. Do you feel Obama overstepped his legal power, when we got involved in Libia, and he did not seek approval ?

5. Simply put, by cutting 80% of foreign aid, and investing it into our own economy, we could rejuvinate our country. But would you be willing to do such a political suicide move ?

6. Would you be willing to oppose the war machine, and reduce military spending ?

Thank you.

As I am not an American I have no vested interest in your political campaign.

However as a Poker player,


If elected, Do you intend to make online Poker legal for everyday Americans?

My second question is, since you say you enjoy chess and backgammon, I guess you understand that entering a chess tournament is no different to entering a Poker tournament. Is it logically rational that people can play online chess in America but not online Poker? Given that the consumer has to pay a subscription to play on the better global chess sites like, ICC etc.

My last question is how should online poker be regulated in the USA?

Thank you for taking the time to answer questions in this thread.

That is how democracy works.

I just skimmed through the links and I didn't see a single research paper published since Jan 2008. Almost all of them were written in 2006/2007 - a very different economic situation than you're in now.

There are actually lots of other good reasons against the "Fair" Tax System - but I'll leave that for another thread.

Could you point me to any public statements Gov. Johnson has made about poker at any point during his political career please.

Or to put it another way, can you explain to me why on the poker section of a poker forum is Johnson being touting as a friend of poker and the only choice for U.S. poker players in the election when he has done nothing for poker in the past, is doing nothing for poker right now and will be in no position to do anything for poker in the future?

Wrong. Marriage is a Church thing. The monetary benefits from employment and divorce laws are governed by the state.

Ron Paul 2012. Gary would be a great VP.

I apologize for not being able to get to your question earlier. I just started responding to questions for Governor Johnson here, so I decided to start with the most recent questions and work backwards. Now your question is among the most recent!

1 & 2. To stop jobs from going overseas, Governor Johnson will provide the best corporate environment in the world by enacting the Fair Tax.

Passing the FairTax will make America, arguably, the best place to locate and build a business in the world. This would be a huge boost to companies large, small, and everything in between. In addition, Governor Johnson will reduce to a minimum the regulations businesses, especially small businesses, have to comply with. Regulation compliance is a huge drag on the growth and productivity of businesses, and encourages businesses to locate overseas where compliance requirements are more reasonable.

Governor Johnson will provide further certainty for businesses by at the very least halting recent actions and activity by the NLRB (National Labor Relations Board), such as suing Boeing for planning to build a plant in South Carolina (which is in the United States!) where the new workers wouldn't be members of unions. Actions like this encourage businesses to locate overseas.

Tax breaks would be a moot point, because all American business would be on equal footing with ZERO corporate taxes. Large corporations would no longer have loopholes unavailable to small businesses. Learn more here.

3. Governor Johnson believes that the free market is the most efficient method of eliminating energy dependence. Government interference has severely disrupted energy innovation. For example, we continue to provide oil subsidies that discourage innovations in alternative energy. Perhaps the most unfortunate example is with regards to nuclear energy.

At the advent of research into harnessing nuclear energy, scientists recognized that there were two fuel routes: uranium/plutonium, and thorium. Thorium is inherently safer (runs at normal pressure, and naturally shuts down when power is removed rather than melting down), produces far fewer byproducts which also have half lives orders of magnitude shorter (500 years instead of 10,000+), is far more economic (orders of magnitude cheaper), and far, far more plentiful (thorium could power us for thousands of years instead of one hundred). So, why aren't we using thorium reactors? The government couldn't make weapons out of thorium, so they blocked research. So, who's researching it? China and India. Governor Johnson will remove current and future obstacles to this and other innovations, and stop subsidies that give preferential treatment to certain lines of research so that innovations stand on their own. The free-market will naturally self-direct to the most sensible solutions.

4. Governor Johnson believes that military action in Libya was inappropriate. Foreign military action Constitutionally requires congressional approval, which hasn't been granted nor sought. He will bring home the troops in Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as evaluate the numerous bases overseas for closure.

5. To start, Governor Johnson will reduce foreign aid by 43%, the same cut that he will apply to all of government. "Given trillion-dollar deficits, America simply cannot afford to be engaged in foreign policy programs that are not clearly protecting U.S. interests. There is nation-building and rebuilding to be done right here at home" (foreign policy).

6. "Our military should remain the most potent force for good on Earth. To do this, we should resort to military action as the last option and only as provided in the Constitution." (foreign policy) "US military spending is more than that of every other country combined. There's a culture of waste, fraud, and abuse in defense budgeting we simply can no longer tolerate. Defense spending must be subject to the same scrutiny as other areas of the budget." (military)

Thank you!

\m

Support Governor Gary Johnson for President! https://donate.GaryJohnson2012.com

Yes! Governor Johnson's position is that consenting adults should be allowed to enter into whatever arrangement and relationship they want, including gambling whether it be poker or anything else, online or anywhere else. He will at the very least decriminalize these on a federal level. In other words, Governor Johnson doesn't believe that it should be regulated any differently than any other online business in the United States. (He also believes in minimal regulation for all businesses, where possible and feasible.)

I have to apologize because I'm not extremely familiar with all of the issues at hand, but my understanding is that why the law currently differentiates chess from poker is that poker involves gambling, while chess normally does not. I would guess that if chess wagers (say, after every move) became commonplace that they would likewise be regulated. Likewise, I believe that as the laws are currently that Americans can still play poker online as long as gambling isn't involved.

You're welcome! Thank you for your interest in Governor Johnson (even if you are abroad ; )!

\m

Support Governor Gary Johnson for President! https://donate.GaryJohnson2012.com

I would agree that ALL politicians just tell you what you want to hear to get your vote. However, I also feel that not everyone involved in politics is a politician.


Crap. I almost forgot a link. Here's one on Governor Johnson's "authenticity of awkwardness". It's not exactly flattering, but the point is that Governor Johnson doesn't care. He's not in this to look good. He's in this to FIX things.

\m

Support Governor Gary Johnson for President! https://donate.GaryJohnson2012.com

While the economy has entered a recession, many of those papers take recessions into account. The economy, while being in a recession, has not changed that much since those papers were written. The major sectors of the economy are all the same; trade, and currency all operate the same. Most importantly, the tax system has changed not changed significantly since then. Everything important to their assumptions has only changed in values, not their role in the research, and the conclusions are not dependent on specific numeric values, merely in their value relative to one another which has remained substantially the same.

I've spent quite a bit of time reading through the various arguments against the Fair Tax, and, honestly, they all seem to be alarmist arguments that rely on ignoring provisions in the Fair Tax, rely on unreasonable assumptions, or rely on ignoring the reality of the current system. To me, they really do all seem to boil down to "we don't know FOR SURE what will happen, only what the expected outcome is, so we shouldn't do it". I've never seen an argument against the Fair Tax that has held water, but I'd be interested in seeing them if you have them. Obviously, people disagree because entire sites are dedicated to opposing the Fair Tax, but I've read through their arguments and I've never had trouble finding serious holes in their arguments. Admittedly, I'm pretty biased, because I love the idea of the Fair Tax, but I try to be open-minded as I examine their arguments.

The Fair Tax is a major element in Governor Johnson's economic platform, so I think that it's worth discussing here if you'd be willing to. If the Fair Tax can't hold up, then people should be aware of that. Governor Johnson has chosen to identify himself with the Fair Tax, much as Governor Mike Huckabee did.

\m

Support Governor Gary Johnson for President! https://donate.GaryJohnson2012.com

Sure!

Governor Johnson has dedicated a page on his website to the issue.

There are a number of links in this forum thread. Of those, the two most favorable are the ones by Poker News, and Politico.

There was no need to do anything for online poker while Governor Johnson was in office, because it wasn't prohibited while he was in office. He has done everything that he can to raise the visibility of poker during this race (as that 2+2 thread shows), but he's being unfairly excluded from debates (he consistently outpolls other candidates that are invited) and other media opportunities. The media don't want him to be successful because of how much he would level the playing field for everyone (including poker players), and they benefit from the current system. If enough of us get behind him, though, the media won't be able to ignore him (as Ron Paul has demonstrated). We can take a stand, or we can let them roll us.

For the amount of visibility that he has and for the amount of money he's been able to spend, he has the strongest support of any of the candidates. Candidates who have spent 100x as much money only have 10x as much support. Among those who know who he is and his platform, he has the strongest support of any candidate. People who actually get to know Governor Johnson and what he stands for are not only impressed, they admire him. With enough visibility, he will have the support to win. It's just a question of visibility, and each of us can help with that — and even make a huge difference if we're willing.

\m

Support Governor Gary Johnson for President! https://donate.GaryJohnson2012.com

Your reply is a little ambiguous. "State" can refer either to the individual states of the United States, or "the state" can refer to "the government", so I'll try to clarify.

Per Wikipedia: "According to the United States Government Accountability Office (GAO), there are 1,138 statutory provisions in which marital status is a factor in determining benefits, rights, and privileges. These rights and responsibilities apply only to male-female couples, as the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) defines marriage as between a man and a woman."

However, states DO regulate who can be married, and what marriages are recognized. Technically, states can refuse to recognize marriages performed in other states. States may also offer additional rights and benefits to married couples (I'm pretty sure that they all do).

Governor Johnson's position is that civil unions should be available on a federal level to all adult couples, and that all rights, benefits, and privileges should be tied to civil unions. Marriages should be left to the states to regulate, and that the federal government should act as if marriage doesn't exist – neither benefitting it nor encumbering it.

\m

Support Governor Gary Johnson for President! https://donate.GaryJohnson2012.com

I have an immense amount of respect for Representative Paul. I was an all-in supporter in 2008. Governor Johnson also has a great deal of admiration for Representative Paul, responding during the Fox News / Google debate to the question "If you had to choose someone else on the stage to be your VP, who would it be and why?" that Representative Paul would be his preferred running mate. Representative Paul has also mentioned in the past that if he weren't running that he would support Governor Johnson for president.

Obviously, cases can be made for either of the two. However, I feel that Governor Johnson is the far more sensible choice this election.

First, Governor Johnson is the candidate with executive experience as former Governor of New Mexico. Representative Paul only has legislative experience. With many candidates, that wouldn't actually matter (You can debate about whether or not President Obama's lack of executive experience mattered, but I think that he has proven to be a competent executive. I just disagree with the fact that he's decide to make partisan issues like universal healthcare and union issues the focus of the administration, to the detriment of the economy and the fiscal state of the union). However, Representative Paul has proven to be combative, and unwilling to discuss pretty much any issue. He is, in many respects, an ideologue. He would likely prove to be as partisan as President Obama, in his own way. Governor Johnson, while highly principled, has proven to be much more open to discussion. He is even willing to hold off on contentious issues so that the public can be educated and consensus can be achieved, or to accept a more moderate approach. I fear that if Ron Paul became president, that the government would essentially shut down, because he'd be unwilling to work with anyone, unwilling to entertain opposing points of view, and unwilling to yield on any issue. I'm not entirely opposed to that happening (I would prefer the government to stop in its tracks rather than growing at an ever increasing rate.), but it would be steps away from anarchy (which I do oppose).

Second, Governor Johnson is 58. Representative Paul is 76. Back in 2008, I worried that he was too old to be considered a viable candidate. Now, he would be 80 at the end of his first term, and 84 at the end of his presidency if he were elected to a second term. Governor Johnson is an Iron Man triathlete, and has entertained the idea of hiking some of the world's tallest peaks during his presidency (but is willing to wait until after).

Third, Representative Paul does not support term limits for federal offices, which Governor Johnson does. I don't believe that we should have career politicians. I believe in civil servants being citizen statesmen.

There are some ancillary reasons (I'm a little more moderate on foreign policy, civil unions, and Israel; and am a little troubled by Representative Paul's extensive earmarks, though I can mostly understand them). I do agree more with Representative Paul's stance on abortion, and Guantanamo, but recognize that those are minor issues by comparison.

I believe that there's a strong argument that Governor Johnson is not only a better candidate, but that he would also make a better president. I think that Representative Paul would make a SUPERB vice president, though. The position has largely evolved into "President's bulldog", and who would but the bully pulpit to better use than Representative Paul? And, I would get a kick whenever he had the opportunity to use his deciding vote in the Senate, since it would inevitably lead to the bill failing.

Food for thought.

\m

Support Governor Gary Johnson for President! https://donate.GaryJohnson2012.com

The President was completely unaware of such a major seizure that affected tens of millions of US citizens? Was the president also unaware of the billions the investment banks stole? Is that why the DOJ didn't spend time and resources investigating the bulge bracket banks while instead focusing on online poker? Or perhaps it's just that BBs have a lot deeper pockets than poker sites and tens of millions of dollars in campaign contributions talk.

So there's 15 bland words on his website and a couple of articles written about Johnson on poker sites as a direct result of these threads on 2+2 and not due to anything Johnson has actually done.

He has done nothing for poker in the past during UIGEA, is doing nothing for poker now during the DOJ shut down & seizure and a $300m+ theft of player funds by FTP and I can see not a single proposal from Johnson about how he sees the future of online poker for US players.

If Gary Johnnson was being touted as a friend of the NBA, but didn't have any opinions on the lockout and never mentioned basketball publicly at all and when he was called out on this a memeber of his team said "Well, Gov. Johnson has legs, basketball players have legs, so Gov. Johnson is a friend of basketball" he would be laughed out of whatever basketball forum he was trying to court (no pun intended).

This is exactly how the Johnson campaign is treating poker, yet the result here is a sticky post on NVG.

ty for answering mong the answer isn't the best but at least you answered.

gl on the forums

I'd like to know what criteria the Gov would apply to choosing a U.S. Supreme Court justice. Would there be litmus tests? If so what? Would he look to general party affiliation, school of jurisprudence, or just someone he thinks is a good judge regardless of the above?

Yeah, sorry. Feel free to ask any follow up questions! I'm still not entirely sure that I understood your question. Sorry : (.

If it helps, I explained monetary policy and consequences a little more here:

That is a really good question! I honestly don't know.

I'm assuming that he would look for someone who believes in limited government, and in protecting and restoring civil rights. I would think that party affiliation would be very secondary. Beyond that it's very hard for me to say.

I will pass this up to our communications director to find out if he has anything on this. Thanks for the great question!

\m

Support Governor Gary Johnson for President! https://donate.GaryJohnson2012.com

I know that this won't satisfy you (and in some ways is supportive of your assertion), but my feeling is that Governor Johnson speaks about it as often as he can. The time that he's given with the media is extremely limited, so he has to stick to the questions that they're asking, which are generally the issues that people are most interested in, and that will garner the most support. When the media lets him have a little slack, then he has brought poker.

For instance, it has come up repeatedly in his Google+ Hangouts, where he has more control over how he spends his time answering questions. Get a big enough group of people together, join one of the Hangouts, and you can grill him via video chat about poker in a forum where you'll have equal footing with the other questions that people have for him.

As for his proposal, it's pretty straightforward. Decriminalize online poker, and regulate it no differently than any other online business. I'm not sure who much more detailed a proposal needs to be.

I'll also pass this up the communications chain to find out what else is going on poker-wise in the campaign, though. I know that we're actually trying to set up a poker specific online interview, but that's about all I know.

\m

Support Governor Gary Johnson for President! https://donate.GaryJohnson2012.com