Thursday, August 04, 2016

Libertarian Candidate 4 potus Gary Johnson Is A Despicable Colossal Liar

If he does not choose to live, nature will take its course ~ Ayn Rand (1/20/1905 to 3/6/1982) creator of the Objectivist theology and the inspiration for Libertarianism; commenting on the poor man.

The man futily running for potus for potus as a Libertarian, Gary Johnson, appeared on the 7/29/2016 airing of Comedy Central's The Nightly Show with Larry Wilmore. The following is an excerpt from Wilmore's interview of the 29th Republican Governor of NM (1995-2003).

Larry Wilmore: What is Libertarianism, and is Libertarianism as kooky as Libertarians?

Gary Johnson: Libertarianism does reflect most people in this country. Keep government out of my pocketbook, out of my bedroom. Let's stop with these military interventions. Let's bring the world together with free trade and diplomacy. Non aggression principle. Look, don't use force unless force has been applied to you.

Larry Wilmore: So it's... get out of the bedroom, get out of the wars, get out of my pocket. What do you get into?

Gary Johnson: Liberty and freedom. Always come down on the side of choice. That we as individuals should always be able to make choices in our lives. As long as those choices don't adversely affect others.

Larry Wilmore: What do you think about the three biggest issues that we're facing right now, and as a Libertarian candidate, how do you propose we address those issues?

Gary Johnson: Well, government is too big. It takes too much money out of our pocket books. So, lower taxes, balancing...

Larry Wilmore: Does lowering taxes itself reduce the size of government? I mean, that just reduces the ability of government to do the shit it's ineffectively doing right now, right?

Gary Johnson: I think you hit on it. Do any of us believe government is running on all 8 cylinders? No. So, we're headed to a fiscal cliff if we don't address some really big issues. And that's going to be the entitlements. Look, we can do this effectively. We can still create a safety net. Nobody goes without. That's issue number 1.

Issue number 2... just liberty. Personal freedom. A woman's right to choose. Marriage equality. Let's legalize marijuana. [discussion from this point concerns legalization of marijuana. Then Gary calls both Trump and Clinton polarizing, Gary thinks he's going to get voters both from the Republican and Democratic side and get in the debates, shrink government, get out of Afghanistan].

The number one issue is slashing entitlements (his platform calls for a 43% reduction of all federal government spending) and he says "nobody goes without"? Clearly that's a lie. First of all, "slashing government spending, including Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security" involves stealing from people. What they already paid in? You're not getting that back under a Johnson administration.

Fact is, Libertarians want to completely do away with the safety net according to their own platform.

Healthcare: We favor a free-market health care system. We recognize the freedom of individuals to determine the level of health insurance they want (if any), the level of health care they want, the care providers they want, the medicines and treatments they will use and all other aspects of their medical care, including end-of-life decisions. People should be free to purchase health insurance across state lines.

Retirement and Income Security: Libertarians would phase out the current government-sponsored Social Security system and transition to a private voluntary system. The proper and most effective source of help for the poor is the voluntary efforts of private groups and individuals. We believe members of society will become even more charitable and civil society will be strengthened as government reduces its activity in this realm. (Libertarian Party Platform, As adopted in Convention, May 2016, Orlando FL).

Also, the following from the same website (official website of the Libertarian Party).

End Welfare ... It is time to recognize that welfare cannot be reformed: it should be ended. We should eliminate the entire social welfare system. This includes eliminating food stamps, subsidized housing, and all the rest. Individuals who are unable to fully support themselves and their families through the job market must, once again, learn to rely on supportive family, church, community, or private charity to bridge the gap. (Poverty and Welfare).

So, under a Libertarian government, we'd phase out Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid... and end (completely) the "entire social welfare system" and end result will be that "nobody goes without"? Revising my prior comment concerning Johnson lying... That nobody is going to go without is clearly a HUGE lie.

The primary reason that people would go without is that the Libertarian "belief" that "members of society will become even more charitable" is total bullplop.

[Some say that] Charity can fill in any holes that develop [if government spending on welfare programs are cut]... But charity experts say that's a mathematical impossibility. ... Overall, the US government spends $105 billion annually on food programs to help the hungry [while] Feeding America, the largest food charity in the US (and one of the largest charities), moves $5 billion of food and funding to hungry people each year. But even that is a drop in the bucket compared with SNAP.

"No charity in the history of the planet could come up with the $80 billion for SNAP", said Ross Fraser, director of media relations for Feeding America. "It doesn't make sense to talk about charity alone helping the hungry. It'd be like saying, why not let the military rely on charitable contributions".

The total of US philanthropy is currently $300 billion... The amount represents all the money that people give away, most of it to churches and other religious institutions - 32%, or nearly $96 billion. A good deal of the rest goes to hospitals, universities and cultural institutions such as museums, noted Daniel Borochoff, president of CharityWatch... Just a small portion of those dollars goes to help the poor, noted Borochoff. "You have to think of charities as icing on the cake", he said. "They do not do the heavy lifting".

Many activists say that if taxes are reduced, private giving will automatically increase. But history shows that's incorrect. For each of the last 40 years, Americans have given away the same proportion of money without change: roughly 2% of GDP. Even after the Bush tax cuts in the early part of the century, the rate of giving didn't rise, experts say... (Private charity no match for federal poverty aid, experts say by Alfred Lubrano. 5/20/2013 The Seattle Times).

I'll also point out that before Social Security, many people faced destitution in old age. The point is that Libertarians know private charity can't and won't meet the need that exists. Heck, even though we spend as much as we do on welfare (not enough even though it is significantly more than private sector charity) people STILL go without.

Feeding America reported the hunger and poverty facts and statistics in 2014; stastics that said that "46.7 million people were in poverty}, or 14.8% of US citizens. In addition, 10% of seniors (4.6 million people) live in poverty.

Yet this asshole Johnson said that if we SLASHED anti-poverty programs that NOBODY will go without. Because all the lazy Takers will get jobs and for those people who are genuinely needy, private charities will step up. That, or he's saying private charities will spend MORE than government is spending now.

Plus, we have to remember that Libertarians want to get rid of the minimum wage, which would affect the working poor, many of whom need these programs to survive (so Johnson wants to make their situations a LOT worse). Frankly I'm convinced that, when Libertarians like Gary Johnson say "nobody goes without", they mean NOBODY LEFT ALIVE goes without. That would be after millions starve to death.

This is a stated goal of the Libertarian heroine Ayn Rand, an evil woman who fantasized about the utopia that would emerge after the nation's poor died in great numbers (fantasies that took the form of a novel in which large numbers of moochers or "parasites" are exterminated when rich "Makers" go "on strike").

Although Libertarians would take no responsibility for the consequences of eliminating the safety net. They place the blame entirely on poor people. "Not choosing to live" (as per the Rand quote) being "choosing" to not work. And "nature taking it's course" being starving to death and dying. Meaning, in the twisted and immoral mind of the true-believing Ayn-Rand-worshiping Libertarian, poor people are basically committing suicide (something many more Poors would undoubtedly do under a Johnson administration).

Something (committing suicide by not working) I imagine Libertarians like Johnson believe people should have the freedom and liberty to do. If they choose. In any case, we are definitely not "in this together", nor are we "our brother's keeper". This explains why Libertarians are atheist, I suppose. Although their ideology has been adopted by Satanists (the article Satanism and Objectivism from the Church of Satan website, notes that "Objectivism... is an acknowledged source for some of the Satanic philosophy as outlined in The Satanic Bible by Anton LaVey").

Which is why I say I am NOT unfairly judging Gary Johnson (as one supporter recently claimed). Not given my view (based on the stated objective of Libertarians to "eliminate the entire social welfare system" so that parasites will die) that Objectivism and Libertarianism are evil ideologies.

It's a shame that Larry Wilmore didn't call Johnson on his HUGE whopper ("We can still still create a safety net. Nobody goes without"). And note that, while he said he's opposed to "military interventions" he also said "don't use force unless force has been applied to you". Which is his out for continuing the fight against ISIS in the highly improbable event he's elected president.

I mean, I think the "foreign interventions" are over (we aren't going to topple any more foreign governments by sending in occupying forces). At least for a few generations. After Afghanistan and Iraq the American people are DONE with them. So he'd end the war in Afghanistan (which I'm strongly in favor of). But he'd continue the fight (boots on the ground) against ISIS. My point being him saying "let's stop with these military interventions" is meaningless. We already did them and aren't likely to do anymore (so he thinks he's taking a "stand" by saying he's not going to do something we aren't going to do anymore anyway).

Similar to how, when he ran for potus in 2008, he said that he was in favor of gay marriage. And that Barack Obama was chicken because he didn't come out in favor of it at that time. But the hypocrite Johnson, while governor of NM, didn't use his position to push for it. This guy seems to mostly take "principled stands" when taking the "stand" is meaningless. I mean, it wasn't like he had a chance of winning the presidency in 2008, so what the hell difference did it make that his position on gay marriage might have cost him votes?

"All politicians lie" is a criticism I hear often. Especially from Libertarians and the Right. But Johnson's lies concern the core principles of Libertarianism! He says "Nobody goes without", yet the fact that Libertarians want to "eliminate the entire social welfare system" is clearly stated on the official website of the Libertarian Party (this would be the party that Johnson is running as the potus candidate of)!

Oh, and Gary Johnson absolutely does share Ayn Rand's views when it comes to the "parasitical takers".

Gary Johnson: ...I view big government in the same way that the novelist and philosopher Ayn Rand did - that it really oppresses those that create, if you will, and tries to take away from those that produce and give to the non-producers. (Gary Johnson on Principles & Values. On The Issues) [1].

So, why isn't it "oppressive" to those who give to charity? If the money is going to "non-producers" (and surely it MUST, if NOBODY is going to go without). Apparently people will decide to voluntarily oppress themselves (via significantly more charitable giving).

Obviously Johnson's claim that "we can still still create a safety net" and that "nobody goes without" (under a Johnson administration) is a f*cking lie. Obviously the Takers who still refuse to work (at a job where they would earn a NON-Living wage, due to Johnson abolishing the minimum wage) would go without. And die, which is WHAT THEY WANT! (as stated by Ayn Rand).

The end result would be a huge increase in the working poor. We'd probably have to create a new term, as "working poor" won't come close to describing HOW POOR these people would be (slums and shanty towns would surely proliferate under a Johnson presidency). And death for those who "refuse to work".

Including many who can't find work (I seriously doubt Johnson believes he'd be able to magically bring about full employment. Or that he'd even want to, given the fact that a tight labor market causes wages to rise... and Libertarians want to keep wages LOW). And, many of the people who "refused" to work would be doing so due to health or disability reasons (don't forget that Social Security provides for many disabled people and Gary wants to "phase it out").

All of which leads me to conclude that, not only would would the safety net be significantly harmed (causing MANY more people to go without), but that we'd quickly deteriorate into a 3rd world hellhole with one of the greatest divides between rich and poor on the planet. Not that we're doing great in that regard anyway. But under an improbable Johnson presidency (one under which Congress worked with him, which, given the fact that Libertarians and Conservatives both hate Poors, they likely would), extreme poverty would assuredly increase astronomically.

[1] Wikipedia: On the Issues is an American non-partisan, non-profit organization providing information to voters about candidates, primarily via their web site. The organization was started in 1996, went non-profit in 2000, and is currently run primarily by volunteers.

Image: Gary Johnson wants a government that's big enough (and taxes enough) to pay for a "strong defense", which I would assume includes fighting ISIS. And he's also for a regressive consumption tax. According to Brookings "if you move the tax from income to consumption, you're raising the relative burden on low savers, which are low and moderate income households, so almost any revenue neutral shift from the income tax to a consumption tax will be regressive in that manner".

See Also: Gary Johnson, Libertarian Fraud (DSD #26).

8/17/2016 Update: In regards to Gary Johnson and his VP nominee William Weld, Thom Hartmann (on the 8/17/2016 airing of his program) said "They're not honest in the presentation of their positions. They use weasel words and slogans to lie about what they actually mean".

SWTD #343, ARHP #4.


  1. The War on ISIS
    As I write this, the president is about to give a press conference. The press conference is about the progress on the war on ISIS.
    Few people know, because the media is to busy covering every idiot thing Trump says, that we are pounding ISIS.
    You won't here about that on NBC, CBS, MSNBC, CNN, and certainly not FOX. If you seek out the information on the progress on the war, it is readily available. It's amazing the right hasn't said a word about it, especially since they are claiming Obama is doing nothing about ISIS, which of course, is just another lie about Obama from the Republicans.
    Obama is prosecuting the war exactly as he said he would and is having great success. ISIS is basically beaten on the field. Their tactics are changing because of their defeats on the field. It's the attacks around the world by small groups sometimes individuals that make the news and are killing people.
    We are at war. If you want to criticize the president on how he is prosecuting the war, then you have to know what is actually happening. While Trump was making headlines with his vitriol, our soldiers killed 250 of the enemy in one attack.
    And where are all those Republican pro military activists? No cheers for our victories? No cheers for our brave soldiers? How about it Sen. McCain?
    So back to the Republicans bitching about Obama doing nothing about ISIS, while he is winning the war against ISIS. Republicans prove their hypocrisy again.

    1. My post was about Gary Johnson.

    2. Guess you cannot read stupid fuck head. I only send you my posts so it's easy for you rather than stealing them. Anything else is just your dishonest bullshit. You missed me proving Shaw plagiarized my posts 3 times. To bad, your loss, but it doesn't mean you can claim she did not. Go fuck yourself asshole.

    3. Luke: ...but it doesn't mean you can claim she did not.

      I can and I am. I asked you for a link but you declined. I therefore logically conclude it never happened. Also, I have no interest in stealing your posts. But I've already told you this multiple times. Clearly Luke is quite dense.

    4. Sorry fuck head, just because you missed it doesn't mean I'm going all through it again. You lose fuck head for not paying attention. And since you were the one making the false allegation you had an obligation to pay attention. You lose lying asshole.

    5. You are a foul-mouthed moron. I "missed it" because it never happened. And I made ZERO allegations. I read Shaw's comment. The one I quoted above where she proves that you stole (at least one) post. I don't know about the others, but if you stole one, you probably did it more than once. Now go away. Your stupidity annoys me.

    6. See here for Shaw's comment. This is where she proves that, as opposed to Shaw plagiarizing, it's actually Luke who is the guilty party.

    7. I proved Shaw stole my post 3 times. You did miss it lying asshole and I'm not reproving it for a lying asshole like you. Again, check my blog for that Nader post lying asshole. Say what you want my blog proves alll of you lying assholes. By asshole.

    8. Now it does. I don't know if it did before or not. I checked, but the last time Google cached your blog was on 6/17/2016. So there is no way to know if the "by Ralph Nader" was there initially (unless someone had previously checked). In any case, why you're submitting your posts as comments to other blogs is still a mystery. BTW, me not seeing a specific webpage isn't proof I'm "not paying attention". If such a webpage where you presented proof exists... then link to it. And how about your accusations that I steal your stuff? No need to present any proof to me, because I know that claim is baloney. You can go ahead and post a link you THINK proves I've stolen from you. I'd be interested in seeing your "proof". You can stop spamming my blog, in any case. No more of your posts will get through.

      Also, I think you mean "bye, asshole" instead of "by asshole". Unless you're admitting you're an asshole. Interesting that someone else who used to spam by blog and then vanished JUST when Luke appeared ALSO used to incorrectly use "by" when he meant "bye". First he was Steve, then he was TOM. Is he now Luke?

    9. You may have hit on something, DS. They certainly have similar MOs.

    10. Both present themselves as foul-mouthed jackasses. And (I think) both believe it to be funny to see how long they can continue to get responses, even when they're swearing, making absurd accusations and (in general) NOT attempting to join the conversation, but just be assholes (as Luke admitted with his "by asshole" signoff).

  2. [SHORT VERSION] if you don't want to read my entire commentary, here is a short summary...

    Gary Johnson, appearing on the 7/29/2016 airing of The Nightly Show with Larry Wilmore: We can still create a safety net. Nobody goes without.

    However, the Libertarian Party Platform says: Libertarians would phase out the current government-sponsored Social Security system and transition to a private voluntary system. (Source).

    Also from the official Libertarian Party Website: It is time to recognize that welfare cannot be reformed: it should be ended. We should eliminate the entire social welfare system. (Source).

    So, CLEARLY what Johnson said on the Nightly Show doesn't jibe with the Official Libertarian Party positions. My conclusion is that Johnson lied (is lying). And he's lying about one of the core beliefs of the Libertarian Party, which is that the ENTIRE SOCIAL WELFARE SYSTEM should be eliminated. That's HUGE whopper, IMO.

  3. Here is a Libertarian ideal from the 1960s courtesy of Star Trek and other science fiction authors.

    Instead of wasting money taking care of people, we could just have voluntary suicide stations where pretty girls give you one last afternoon of entertainment before you take the cocktail.

    I think my favorite was a permanent war economy run as a computer simulation. When it was your turn to die according to the STRATEGO simulation, you simply had three days to report to the death station in your home town. No money wasted on supporting and transporting troops, munitions, FOBs & cetera.

    I think Hitler was a good example of a Libertarian, however, he only seemed to favor unbridalled liberty for the actual fascist and military ruling classes.

    You have to admit that his plan didn't waste any money caring for the weak or unproductive.

    1. Would a president Gary Johnson push for deregulation which would allow for the manufacture of Soylent Green? It would be a shame to let all those dead poors go to waste. Not when rich people could be profitting.

  4. FACT is Rand was not an advocate of libertarianism. She understood that libertarianism's natural end point is anarchy. And she stated exactly that.

    There is not much I haven't read that Rand authored. I suggest you actually read Rand rather than voicing anti Rand talking points.

    BTW, I've chosen not to become a Libertarian Party member for precisely the same reason Rand walked away from
    Libertarianism. Among other reasons. No political party or political ideology has it right in total. Not even yours Dervish.

    1. I have no interest in Rand's sociopathic mumbo jumbo. I am aware Rand never advocated Libertarianism. Perhaps because she realized her philosophy would not work on a governmental level?

      In any case, Gary Johnson is a Rand fan. That is in addition to being a liar.

    2. Your loss, certainly not mine.

  5. You and Jerry claimed my last post was cut and paste, in fact you inferred everything I write is cut and paste. Go fuck yourself lying asshole, and again, I don't post my posts to your blog so they will be posted, I do it so it's easy for you to steal them, steal away asshole.

    1. I have yet to steal a single sentence from you. The discussion on this topic (your totally bogus claims of thievery) is now closed. No further comments on this subject will be accepted from Luke. I'm not a moderate, I'm a Liberal and I DON'T AGREE with what you write. It doesn't reflect my point of view, in any case. So why in the hell would I steal from you? That was a rhetorical question, btw. If you reply your comment will be marked as spam.

  6. Luke is a Troll Extraordinaire as well as a liar.

  7. So where is your proof I'm cut and paste asshole??

    1. Luke: So where is your proof I'm cut and paste asshole??

      Where is YOUR proof that I've ever stole one of your posts? BTW, you absolutely do cut & paste. You've cut and pasted a number of commentaries from your blog and submitted them here (and on other blogs). Along with the excuse that you were doing it so I didn't have to steal them. And I noticed that Pamela of The Oracular Opinion banned you when you tried that gambit with her.

      As for the commentaries on your blog, I ran a few of them through an online plagiarism checker, and couldn't find anything. But you did not give credit to Ralph Nader when you cut & pasted his comment on RN's blog (here).

      THAT is what started this plagiarism thing. That, and your BULLSHIT about Shaw, me and Pamela stealing your posts. So I'll concede that you write your own stuff, but you're still a jackass, and you are banned. I submitted a (polite on-topic) comment to your blog... which you refused to publish. Proof you are only interested in making making your absurd accusations and not actual discussion.

    2. 3 Luke comments sent to Spam due to lying and profanity. And because he is banned.

    3. Luke, it DOES NOT MATTER what Nader's policy is, as when you post a comment to a blog, people assume what you submit are your words (unless you attribute them to someone else). Shaw was the one that pointed that out. All I said, was that if you steal one, you have probably stolen others. I made an assumption based on Shaw pointing out that your comment (which wasn't your comment) came from Nader's blog.

      Of greater significance are your claims against multiple bloggers of stealing what you write. This claim is 100 percent bogus. So, given that fact, your taking offense when people point out that you cut and paste it laughable. Now, that is ALL I have to say on the matter. I will NOT respond to any further comments from you on this topic.

  8. Luke has been banned from my weblog ad well. He is a pathetically unbalanced individual. Or should I say worm?

  9. "First he was Steve, then he was TOM. Is he now Luke?"

    He's a sick troll. The only way to deal with Steve/TOM/Luke is to delete, delete, delete.


Comment moderation has temporarily been suspended. Although I may be forced to reinstate it if the trolls take advantage.