Vaccines: "In my opinion, this is a local issue. If it ends up to be a federal issue, I would come down on the side of science, and I would probably require that vaccine.” Wow, coming down on the side of Science, what an asshole. While it isn't the anarco-libertarian position, it is a point of discussion among big-L Libertarians. The same people who point to this and say he is not libertarian are the same people who say that libertarians are isolationists. You can't have it both ways. The NAP is a guiding principal like "Thou Shalt Not Kill", yet millions of Christian conservatives support the death penalty.
Carbon Tax: "As it was presented to me, this was the way to reduce carbon and actually reduce costs to reduce carbon. Under that premise—lower costs, better outcomes—you can always count on me to support that [sort of] notion. In theory it sounds good, but the reality is that it's really complex and it won't really accomplish that. So, no support for a carbon fee. I never raised one penny of tax as governor of New Mexico, not one cent in any area. Taxes to me are like a death plague." He is in fact the only candidate running who has never voted for or approved a tax increase of any sort. Fees, as he describes them are indeed a more libertarian way of government being paid for a service as opposed to a tax. For instance road tolls are preferred to a tax because only those using the road pay for the road. The tragedy of the commons has been a problem ever since man realized he could use public property for private profit. I agree that carbon taxes won't work to protect the environment.
Baking the Cake: "Whether all like it or not, U.S. law has recognized the principle of public accommodation for more than 100 years: The principle that, when a business opens its doors to the public, that business enters into an implied contract to serve ALL of the public. Further, when that business voluntarily opens its doors, the owners voluntarily agree to adhere to applicable laws and regulations -- whether they like those laws or not.
To be clear, anti-discrimination laws do not, and cannot, abridge fundamental First Amendment rights. I know of no one who reasonably disagrees. In the highly unlikely event that a Nazi would demand that a Jewish baker decorate a cake with a Nazi symbol, the courts, common sense, and common decency -- not to mention the First Amendment -- all combine to protect that baker from having to do so. It’s not an issue, except when distorted for purposes of gotcha politics.
Does a public bakery have to sell a cake to a Nazi? Probably so. Does that bakery have to draw a swastika on it? Absolutely not. And that’s the way it should be." I disagree with him here. I default to the principle of least harm, an adjunct to the NAP. I believe that the least harm will occur if the transaction does not happen. I also believe that we should look at the definition of public accommodation and limit it's scope to protect small family owned and operated businesses.
BLM: "What we have here is the opportunity to say that black lives DO matter. All lives matter but whites are not being shot at six times the rate of blacks". He also clarified later that his "endorsement" was of the phrase, not the organization. he went on to say in numerous interviews afterward that we need to look at our laws and our penalties to see if we can reduce the disparity in incarnation rates with respect to the same crime, and if we can improve community policing in predominantly minority neighborhoods. He never called cops murders, never accused them of racism, and never called for support of killing cops, all lies which you will find on the internet. I agree with him to a certain extent and have gone into this here ad nauseum. There is a sentencing disparity when it comes to drug crimes.
TPP: "I would sign the TPP". He has also said that it is laden with crony capitalism, but he believes that it would on balance advance the cause of free trade so he would sign it. I disagree with him. I believe it is mostly crony capitalism. BTW, it is not global government, it's a freaking trade agreement. It's just a bad trade agreement.
Muslim Immigration: Wow, quite a tirade your little British buddy has going there, but what Johnson said was "Banning immigrants based on their religion is unconstitutional". It is. Period. But maybe your Libertarian "expert" simply forgot this Johnson statement: “It is time that we have an open, honest dialogue about the politics of Sharia law. It is time that we face the reality that, while Islam is a faith that must be granted the same freedoms of religion as all others, Sharia is a political ideology that cannot coexist with the constitutional and basic human rights on which the United States is founded. We must face the fact that ISIS is a murderous, violent movement driven by Sharia ideology, not by the religion of Islam. We need not and should not be Islamophobic, but all who are free and wish to be free should be Shariaphobic." I don't believe that it can be stated any better.
Budget: While Johnson was Governor, New Mexico's budget grew 4.67% annually and the population increased by 20%. In his first year alone, he vetoed 200 spending bills, vetoing over 700 during his eight years. Additionally, New Mexico's population was rapidly growing older meaning increased Federally mandated expenses over which neither he nor the legislature had control. I agree that such a debt increase isn't very libertarian, but neither was the legislature.
Illegal immigrants: Wait a minute... your continental Libertarian "expert" rails against Johnson's non-libertarian stances, and when he gets ultra Libertarian, he rails against that too? I'm sure there is no ulterior motive here. So what Trump was saying at the time was incendiary, and he has even changed his tune to more match what Johnson proposes, including dropping the physical wall for whatever works, and no mass deportations. There are certainly still differences however.
Johnson on illegals: "Solving immigration problems is not as easy as building a wall or simply offering amnesty. We should focus on creating a more efficient system of providing work visas, conducting background checks, and incentivizing non-citizens to pay their taxes, obtain proof of employment, and otherwise assimilate with our diverse society. Making it simpler and more efficient to enter the United States legally will provide greater security than a wall by allowing law enforcement to focus on those who threaten our country, not those who want to be a part of it." I believe we should enforce our borders with "whatever works" first, and then deal with illegals here as they contact LE. I don't agree with a path to citizenship or a green card that doesn't involve a strict penalty. I do agree that we have a horrible system of deciding who gets in and who doesn't, and I don't know of one immigration expert who doesn't agree with that statement. Immigration reform has to include a look at who gets in and for what reason.
Concluding here and playing along with this little video charade point by point, there is no reason to get into how he or any candidate physically looks or who is a friend of Hillary Clinton for obvious reasons now is there? Hmm? ... and of course nobody would take offense to being called a deplorable, oh, sorry, idiot, for whom they choose to support in an election now would they?
So yeah, there are "crazy" people who would vote for him.
