PDA

View Full Version : Johnson Says He is “Skeptical” of the TPP




ronpaulhawaii
08-24-2016, 08:49 AM
As many of us have been saying all along...



Johnson Says He is “Skeptical” of the TPP, calls it “Laden” with Cronyism
August 23, 2016

...

It has been a persistent claim for awhile now from all of Johnson’s critics, including conservative libertarians and even TYT themselves, that Johnson is pro-TPP. Even if he were, of course, this doesn’t mean he is anti-free trade (after all, nobody actually knows fully what is in the TPP; only leaks), but upon being asked about it by Uyger in this interview, Johnson gave an unexpectedly candid answer:

“I have a sense that [the TPP] is laden with crony capitalism,” the former Governor of New Mexico explained. He further went on to clarify why his position might not have been as clearly relayed previously: “I have heard from people that I respect that it actually advances the ball, so I would keep an open mind, but the devil is in the details.”

Based on this clarification, it would seem that Johnson himself doesn’t have much love for the TPP, but isn’t completely ruling it out until he reads it for himself. Which is as reasonable a position as a libertarian politician can possibly take when discussing a document that, while shady, hasn’t been available to read for oneself yet.

Johnson further clarified on how he would approach the TPP if he were get is hands on it: “I would be a skeptic looking at that to begin with, because I think … those who have money are buying favoritism, and [the TPP] is for sale.”

...

https://beinglibertarian.com/gary-johnson-im-skeptical-tpp/

Brian4Liberty
08-24-2016, 11:53 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-vgnBWjRGm0

juleswin
08-24-2016, 12:36 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-vgnBWjRGm0

Relevant part at 8:55

Occam's Banana
08-24-2016, 01:04 PM
Seems to me the only proper stance towards any piece of legislation with as-yet-unknown content ought to be "NO" by default.


Based on this clarification, it would seem that Johnson himself doesn’t have much love for the TPP, but isn’t completely ruling it out until he reads it for himself. Which is as reasonable a position as a libertarian politician can possibly take when discussing a document that, while shady, hasn’t been available to read for oneself yet.

The TPP is 5000+ pages long. Johnson is never going to read it "for himself" - and neither is anyone else.

As a potpourri authored by special interests, it was never intended to be read, only passed and enforced ...

dannno
08-24-2016, 01:19 PM
Seems to me the only proper stance towards any piece of legislation with as-yet-unknown content ought to be "NO" by default.



The TPP is 5000+ pages long. Johnson is never going to read it "for himself" - and neither is anyone else.

As a potpourri authored by special interests, it was never intended to be read, only passed and enforced ...

I have a bill that is going to get rid of all current trade regulations and replace them with a total free market - but you haven't read the content yet. Is the proper stance to take "NO" until you read it?

I have a bill that is going to get rid of all current trade regulations and replace them with a relatively free market trade agreement - but you haven't read the content yet. Is the proper stance to take "NO" until you read it?

Occam's Banana
08-24-2016, 01:26 PM
I have a bill that is going to get rid of all current trade regulations and replace them with a total free market - but you haven't read the content yet.

No you don't. You claim to have a bill that you say is going to do those things.

The Affordable Care Act said it was going to make care affordable ...


Is the proper stance to take "NO" until you read it?

Yes.


I have a bill that is going to get rid of all current trade regulations and replace them with a relatively free market trade agreement - but you haven't read the content yet.

No you don't. You claim to have a bill that you say is going to do those things.

The Affordable Care Act said it was going to make care affordable ...


Is the proper stance to take "NO" until you read it?

Yes.

dannno
08-24-2016, 01:31 PM
No you don't. You claim to have a bill that you say is going to do those things.

The Affordable Care Act said it was going to make care affordable ...



Yes.



No you don't. You claim to have a bill that you say is going to do those things.

The Affordable Care Act said it was going to make care affordable ...



Yes.

Ok, so then you will be portrayed as being anti-free trade. Media soundbyte over, you don't get to explain your position, you lose the race. You're not good at politics.

We need somebody who is good at politics and understands free markets to obtain power in the political establishment.

Occam's Banana
08-24-2016, 02:19 PM
Ok, so then you will be portrayed as being anti-free trade. Media soundbyte over, you don't get to explain your position, you lose the race. You're not good at politics.

We need somebody who is good at politics and understands free markets to obtain power in the political establishment.

Go tell it to Nancy Pelosi ... :rolleyes:

There is NOTHING about saying "NO" by default to as-yet-unread 5000+ page monstrosities of legislation that prevents you from "explain your position" on whatever the relevant topic is.

First, you simply point out just how colossally stupid and grossly irresponsible it would be to vote in favor of any special-interest-authored legislation that you have [I]not even read (no matter how big or small it is). Then you "explain" what standards any legislation that you do read would have meet in order get your support (regardless of whether that legislation concerns "free trade" or "health care" or whatever else).

Otherwise, you are just peddling and further empowering the nonsense that a so-called "free trade" bill must actually be "for" free trade merely because that's how its authors and backers opportunistically and self-servingly name or describe* it ... or that a so-called "affordable care" act must actually be "for" affordable care merely because that's how its authors and backers opportunistically and self-servingly name or describe it ... (or any of myriad other examples of the same bullshit ...)



* Just as you did with the hypotheticals you presented in post #5.

Natural Citizen
08-25-2016, 02:35 AM
Did Johnson happen to acknowledge the fact that the TPP is patently, and more importantly, an illegal transfer of power from The People to a King? Or naw?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KYF7aRGtNcg

ronpaulhawaii
08-25-2016, 02:57 PM
He said he would approach it with skepticism, and has a record of using his veto power when he finds things he doesn't like. He, also, hasn't read it so would be kinda hard for him to comment on its contents...

ISTM - The worst people can say at this point is that he is keeping an open mind on the issue. It'll be a strange world where reserving final judgment til all the evidence is in can be considered a bad thing...

69360
08-25-2016, 07:41 PM
Does this mean we won't see a post bashing Johnson over TPP in every single thread with his name on it now?

jmdrake
08-25-2016, 09:40 PM
Ok, so then you will be portrayed as being anti-free trade. Media soundbyte over, you don't get to explain your position, you lose the race. You're not good at politics.

We need somebody who is good at politics and understands free markets to obtain power in the political establishment.

Who gives a crap about the media portraying you as "anti free trade" for being against the TPP when Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton have already come out against the TPP? Being less libertarian than non libertarians isn't going to win you anything.

And as for your original premise, here's how you should have stated it.

"I wrote the last free trade bill, NAFTA, which included all sorts of crap that undermined U.S. sovereignty like Mexico having internal ports hundreds of miles inside the U.S. and big corporations being allowed to enter into the U.S. without being inspected and thus becoming smuggling tools for drug lords and human smugglers, but he I'm going to label my new bill free trade and you'd better not question it."

Natural Citizen
08-25-2016, 10:08 PM
He, also, hasn't read it so would be kinda hard for him to comment on its contents...

Regardless of whether he read it or not, The TPP is a patently illegal transfer of power. Seems rather easy to acknowledge this fundamental fact regardless of its contents. The contents are irrelvant to the more critical issue with it.


The worst people can say at this point is that he is keeping an open mind on the issue.

Hardly. He doesn't even acknowledge the more critical issue. And that's a problem. A big one.

jmdrake
08-25-2016, 10:14 PM
He said he would approach it with skepticism, and has a record of using his veto power when he finds things he doesn't like. He, also, hasn't read it so would be kinda hard for him to comment on its contents...

ISTM - The worst people can say at this point is that he is keeping an open mind on the issue. It'll be a strange world where reserving final judgment til all the evidence is in can be considered a bad thing...

Well here's hoping he becomes "skeptical" of man made global warming and carbon "fees".

ronpaulhawaii
08-26-2016, 07:37 AM
Well here's hoping he becomes "skeptical" of man made global warming and carbon "fees".


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HIJMQSfOW_0

jmdrake
08-26-2016, 07:55 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HIJMQSfOW_0

Well that's a step in the right direction. But it sounds like he still thinks that CO2 is a "problem" that needs to be "solved." Nature's "free market" has already solved it. The more CO2 the more plants grow to absorb it and the more food there is for everybody. "Problem" solved.

ronpaulhawaii
08-26-2016, 08:26 AM
Well that's a step in the right direction. But it sounds like he still thinks that CO2 is a "problem" that needs to be "solved." Nature's "free market" has already solved it. The more CO2 the more plants grow to absorb it and the more food there is for everybody. "Problem" solved.

I think one big problem that needs to be solved first is the difficulty of reaching 15% and 5% among the uniformed general population. I've said it before, and I'll say it again, attempting to run as a libertarian is like walking a razor thin slackrope, with alligators and pterodactyls nipping at you from all sides.

jmdrake
08-26-2016, 08:37 AM
I think one big problem that needs to be solved first is the difficulty of reaching 15% and 5% among the uniformed general population. I've said it before, and I'll say it again, attempting to run as a libertarian is like walking a razor thin slackrope, with alligators and pterodactyls nipping at you from all sides.

Reaching 5 to 15% of the "uninformed population" isn't a problem if you have a consistent message which Gary Johnson, unfortunately, does not. Case in point the global warming evangelists. I remember years ago when I was visiting another city (I forget which one) seeing young people on the sidewalks walking up to whoever they could find and talking to that person about global warming. And yes, they got help from the media. But this year Gary Johnson is getting help from the media. I've never seen libertarians interviewed on CNN as much as Gary Johnson is. But what does Gary Johnson stand for? I honestly don't know. If Gary Johnson can't convince someone who wanted to vote libertarian this election cycle that he could be trusted, what chance does he have with the "uninformed population?" What I heard over and over again from people I knew who did not support Ron Paul was "I don't agree with him on everything, but I respect him because at least I know where he stands."

Natural Citizen
08-26-2016, 08:37 AM
I've said it before, and I'll say it again, attempting to run as a libertarian is like walking a razor thin slackrope, with alligators and pterodactyls nipping at you from all sides.

Mm hm. Yep. You're right.

Speaking only for myself, if he wasn't running under the banner of Liberty, I wouldn't give him an ounce of crap about anything.

undergroundrr
08-26-2016, 09:33 AM
But what does Gary Johnson stand for?

Go and listen to/watch some interviews (in their entirety, not soundbites) and read his official positions. If those rub you wrong, then there, you've made up your own mind. Threads started by the RPF #NeverJohnson collective are about the worst way to get an accurate picture of who Gary Johnson is and what he represents.

ronpaulhawaii
08-26-2016, 09:56 AM
Reaching 5 to 15% of the "uninformed population" isn't a problem if you have a consistent message which Gary Johnson, unfortunately, does not. Case in point the global warming evangelists. I remember years ago when I was visiting another city (I forget which one) seeing young people on the sidewalks walking up to whoever they could find and talking to that person about global warming. And yes, they got help from the media. But this year Gary Johnson is getting help from the media. I've never seen libertarians interviewed on CNN as much as Gary Johnson is. But what does Gary Johnson stand for? I honestly don't know. If Gary Johnson can't convince someone who wanted to vote libertarian this election cycle that he could be trusted, what chance does he have with the "uninformed population?" What I heard over and over again from people I knew who did not support Ron Paul was "I don't agree with him on everything, but I respect him because at least I know where he stands."

Ron's presidential campaigns were educational first and foremost. He had no mandate to reach certain percentages, nor expectations of winning. These factors allowed him to say things one would never say if he were in Gary's position. More pointedly, IINM Ron's stump speeches on the congressional trail were not as "pure" as his speeches on the presidential trail. Why do you think that would be? Perhaps because all politicians "pander" if they actually want to reach certain percentages.

And how has running the Browns, Badnariks, and Pauls worked out for us in the end? What I see is the authoritarian flip-flopper Trump taking the lions share of the uninformed.

IMO purist libertarianism is highly nuanced and difficult to sell in the soundbite nature of modern politics.

NotAnIllegalImmigrant
08-26-2016, 10:06 AM
Ron's presidential campaigns were educational first and foremost.
I'm pretty sure that's code for running a campaign you know you could never win but at the same time duping people into giving you money by pretending you can win.

undergroundrr
08-26-2016, 10:13 AM
Ron's presidential campaigns were educational first and foremost. He had no mandate to reach certain percentages, nor expectations of winning. These factors allowed him to say things one would never say if he were in Gary's position.

Yep. You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to ronpaulhawaii again.

jmdrake
08-29-2016, 12:29 PM
Ron's presidential campaigns were educational first and foremost. He had no mandate to reach certain percentages, nor expectations of winning. These factors allowed him to say things one would never say if he were in Gary's position. More pointedly, IINM Ron's stump speeches on the congressional trail were not as "pure" as his speeches on the presidential trail. Why do you think that would be? Perhaps because all politicians "pander" if they actually want to reach certain percentages.

And how has running the Browns, Badnariks, and Pauls worked out for us in the end? What I see is the authoritarian flip-flopper Trump taking the lions share of the uninformed.

IMO purist libertarianism is highly nuanced and difficult to sell in the soundbite nature of modern politics.

Gary Johnson has gone beyond not being "purist" to being just plain stupid. Not being purist is saying "Based on the circumstances of the day I believe we should have had the 1964 Civil Rights Act." Being stupid is saying "Well of course a Jew should have to bake a Nazi wedding cake because....religious freedom!" I don't mind Johnson taking nuanced positions that make sense. The gay/Nazi cake and carbon "fee" positions are not positions that make sense. FTR I'm not as rabid over the TPP as some here are. Free trade in general is a good thing. Rand said he could support the TPP if it were amended.

undergroundrr
08-29-2016, 01:18 PM
Not being purist is saying "Based on the circumstances of the day I believe we should have had the 1964 Civil Rights Act."

There is no politically viable statement other than "I http://findicons.com/files/icons/2015/24x24_free_application/24/heart.png the 1964 Civil Rights Act." Full stop.

Consider the following topics:
-The CRA
-Israel
-Restrictions on meth/crack/heroin
-Cops
-Regulation of automatic weapons.
-Social Security
-Abraham Lincoln
-American involvement in WWII

Libertarians' massive failing is that they will try everything in their power to corner their best candidates into dissing those in public. Interestingly, the best tactic of the MSM/establishment is to get a libertarian to diss something off that list in public. Wow, they're on the same team.

It doesn't matter how much you or I hate any of those. You should be hoping and praying that a liberty candidate doesn't go there with any of these topics. The goal of a politician is to compel the broadest possible mass of voters to find agreement with him through exposure to sound bites. No sound bite pertaining to the topics above is going to help a dog catcher to get elected, let alone Pres.

If you want to effectively hash out the above topics in a truly public forum involving 10's of millions of people, something major has to happen. I would suggest the complete abandonment of the Free State Project and adoption of a new program - a goal to get 2 libertarian 7th grade teachers teaching civics/social studies/history on every public school campus in America. That would begin to change the mindset.

notsure
08-29-2016, 01:19 PM
As many of us have been saying all along...



It has been a persistent claim for awhile now from all of Johnson’s critics, including conservative libertarians and even TYT themselves, that Johnson is pro-TPP.
https://beinglibertarian.com/gary-johnson-im-skeptical-tpp/

Maybe because that's exactly what Gary Johnson has said.
It doesn't really matter what Gary says; it's obvious this is actually a Weld/Johnson campaign.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MhByuDET9U


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQF_G13syyQ

euphemia
08-29-2016, 01:44 PM
Unfortunately, Johnson tends to come down on the side of big government when there is one of those murky gray areas. Some of the things he has commented on have not been murky gray, but clear black and white.

The fact is, a governor can't just say he vetoed a lot of stuff and let that be his success record. He needs to have accomplished more than just not signing bills. A federal government should be limited, but the Constitution calls for the several states to conduct their own business. New Mexico had a lot of problems when Johnson took office. They only have around 2 million people in the whole state. It seems like the governor could have accomplished something on behalf of the people he took an oath to serve. Instead, New Mexico has the second highest percentage of population on food stamps and has the highest child poverty rate in the nation. The fact is, Johnson seems not to have understood his job description very well and was unable to bring about positive change for the people in his state.

euphemia
08-29-2016, 02:04 PM
Understanding the job description before running for office is very important. Back when Ron Paul was in office, he was noted for voting within the framework of the Constitution. But he was careful to explain that the job of the House of Representative is to spend money, and it was his job as a representative of his district to make sure his district and his state received its share of what the whole Congress was inclined to spend. He would not have been doing his job if he did not put for legislation to include Texas and his own district in the spending bills.

This is my problem with Johnson. He was governor of New Mexico, and it was his job to carry out the law of the state. But he really didn't do that. He was not able to control spending, or even redirect it, and his state is worse off now, than it was when he took office. Unfortunately, his record is going to come into question because there are some horrific things going on in NM from a law and order point of view.

undergroundrr
08-29-2016, 03:05 PM
The fact is, Johnson seems not to have understood his job description very well and was unable to bring about positive change for the people in his state.

You mean now, 13 years after he left office? I understand 4 or 5 years out, when some of the results of his governing were still playing out.

Do you expect me to just take your word for it that he was so awful? There are many takes on this out there:

Here's Tea Party pinup Karl Denninger:
https://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=210816


Nobody should vote for this man believing he will cut their debt load or actually shrink one single line item in the Federal Budget, as his history shows that over eight years as Governor of a small state he saddled every single resident with more than $1,500 worth of additional debt, sanctioned municipal and local governments adding roughly $1,000 more, and in fact added to State Spending in all of the categories he claims he will "control" or "cut" including pensions, health care and education.

Not one of those areas was cut in size during his time in office.

Here's the GOP establishment takedown of Gary Johnson, which pretty much agrees with your assessment:
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/435704/gary-johnson-libertarian-party-2016-conservatives


Of the eleven governors who filed to run for president this year (two Democrats, Johnson, and eight Republicans), only one had a worse record on spending growth.

Here's a dissenting view that the GOP establishment deigned to allow in their hallowed publication:
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/435804/gary-johnson-donald-trump-hillary-clinton-election-2016


Richardson succeeded where Johnson failed in cutting taxes in large part because during Johnson’s tenure the New Mexico legislature was controlled entirely by Democrats. These were no razor-thin margins either: Democrats held approximately 60 percent of all legislative seats.

Here's the Cato Institute's 2002 governors report, written right towards the end of his last term as governor. They gave him a B. http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/pa454.pdf


Johnson has successfully sponsored other government reform initiatives such as an electricity deregulation bill, a 10 percent reduction in state payrolls, and a Medicaid cost-cutting plan. What is most surprising about his fiscally conservative governance is that New Mexico is a state that has one of the highest percentages of employment in federal and state governments. But he has done much to create private-sector jobs and to erode the culture of dependence on government in New Mexico. The Speaker of the House in New Mexico, Ben Lujan, recently noted after an override of a Johnson veto: “There is no executive fiat in this state. The governor must have the consent of the legislature for fiscal action.” That explains why Gary Johnson’s grade is not even higher in this report card.

Ballotpedia, however, exposes him as a bald-faced liar about his 750 vetoes: https://ballotpedia.org/Verbatim_fact_check:_Did_Gary_Johnson_issue_750_ve toes_as_governor_of_New_Mexico%3F


In total, Johnson issued 739 full vetoes.

Tell me what I should think, euphemia.

NotAnIllegalImmigrant
08-29-2016, 04:32 PM
What's wrong with TPP?

Krugminator2
08-29-2016, 05:00 PM
What's wrong with TPP?

Something about globalists or one world government I think.

Not looking forward to when Rand votes for it and everyone acts like voting for expanded trade is a sellout.

NotAnIllegalImmigrant
08-29-2016, 07:55 PM
Something about globalists or one world government I think.

Not looking forward to when Rand votes for it and everyone acts like voting for expanded trade is a sellout.
I don't get why people are against free trade deals. Even if they aren't perfect, reducing trade barriers is always a good thing.

The Rebel Poet
08-29-2016, 08:35 PM
I'm pretty sure that's code for running a campaign you know you could never win but at the same time duping people into giving you money by pretending you can win.
-rep.

If you don't like Ron Paul, why are you on Ron Paul Forums?

NotAnIllegalImmigrant
08-29-2016, 08:37 PM
-rep.

If you don't like Ron Paul, why are you on Ron Paul Forums?
Where did I say I don't like Ron Paul?

The Rebel Poet
08-29-2016, 08:39 PM
Where did I say I don't like Ron Paul?
Well, you said Ron Paul was "duping people into giving [him] money." If you don't mind that sort of behavior, then I apologize.

NotAnIllegalImmigrant
08-29-2016, 08:40 PM
Well, you said Ron Paul was "duping people into giving [him] money." If you don't mind that sort of behavior, then I apologize.
Where did I say Ron Paul did that?

oyarde
08-29-2016, 09:47 PM
Free Trade is when I do it .When Congress does it , it is not "free" .

MattRay
09-05-2016, 11:28 PM
This doesn't surprise me. I think Johnson is a decent, honest man with pretty good instincts, but not an intellectual force, nor a truly principled libertarian. Unfortunately, most aren't like Dr. Paul or Larry McDonald. They generally don't read bills and agreements, and when so-called "free trade" agreements are thousands of pages, it's not difficult to see why. Johnson probably did initially back it because he was told it would advance free trade(it will further destroy free trade of course) and simply found out more about it so he's changed his mind. I don't think Johnson's flaws come from any bad intent.