Gary Johnson Loses It! Goes Full PC Over Term ‘Illegal Immigrant’ [VIDEO]


#1

All the NeverTrumpers who are always attacking Trump for not having the ‘right’ temperament for the presidency.

All Gary Johnson for President supporters … any comments?

This guy is a nut!

Libertarian presidential nominee Gary Johnson went off the rails over the term “illegal immigrants” in an interview with Townhall‘s Guy Benson.
Sounding like a leftist loon drowning in a sea of political correctness, Johnson was triggered into progressive outrage after Benson used the term “illegal immigrants,” and urged him to never use the term again. Instead, like a Democrat, Johnson almost begged Benson to instead use the term approved by the false god of political correctness, “undocumented immigrant.”
“‘Undocumented’ by the way,” Johnson rudely interrupted Benson in the middle of a question Benson was asking about Obama’s illegal amnesty executive order. “If you use the term ‘illegal immigrants,’ that is very incendiary to our Hispanic population here in this country,” Johnson argued.
“Why is that?” Benson asked.

“It just is,” Johnson quickly shot back. “It just is,” he repeated, unable to explain why.
“Just so that you know,” Johnson continued on his soapbox. “Just so that you know and you don’t have to use that term.”
“But isn’t the term accurate in the sense that they immigrated to the country illegally, so they are…” Benson asked when BOOM, Johnson almost shot out of his chair like a cannon, showing venom rarely, if ever, seen on the campaign trail.

Gary Johnson Loses It! Goes Full PC Over Term ‘Illegal Immigrant’ [video]


#2

He doesn’t want to win - or even persuade others.

The Loosertarian Party’s purpose is to show everyone how much more CLEVER they are to everyone else.


#3

He wants to split the vote. I’m betting that Hillary has promised him something. Possibly a small state like N.J. you know, after she becomes ruler of this land.


#4

There’s that, too.

But if he were serious in being a spoiler, he’d PRETEND to be appealing to serious Republicans.

The way Perot, who was a stealth Friend of Bill, pretended to be a conservative alternative.


#5

He NOT a libertarian he is just a far left loon posing as a Libertarian, he is a liberal. The key is his denial of reality and facts then lying to cover it up. True Far Left thinking.


#6

And I thought Sanders was wacky…


#7

This should provide ample evidence that the “Never Trump” people who have been pushing Gary Johnson that they need to find another candidate. Illegal immigration is major problem, and Johnson’s Politically Correct language shows where he is on the issue.

Johnson doesn’t really want to win or change the direction of two party debate. He’s there stir the pot and cause trouble the way Ross Perot did in 1992 and '96. Perot had it in for the Bush family. I don’t what Johnson’s motives are.

I wish the Bill Weld were at the head of Libertarian Party ticket. At least then you would be voting for a decent candidate, who could actually be an effective, moderate president. The head of this “kangaroo ticket” (strong back legs, little itty bitty front legs) is a bozo.


#8

Libertarianism prioritizes individual liberty. A correct following up of libertarian principles means strongly opposing the current conservative obsession with nationalism and protectionism. Johnson is right, from a libertarian point of view.


#9

But a true libertarian would also cut off their welfare benefits, which would make it less attractive for them to come here. It would be like it was in the 19th and early 20th centuries where the immigrants would have make their own way. That’s why the classical economists welcomed immigrants and additional people in general.

As for an “obsession with nationalism,” I only want the immigration process to be orderly with some control over who gets to come in and stay here. I’m not against immigration. Do you think that we have an obligation to take in criminals and terrorists?


#10

First of all, this sentiment is crypto-racism.

Second, there’s a lot of dispute about wealth redistribution within academic libertarianism. There’s an entire movement of libertarians (sometimes called “Bleeding Heart Libertarians”) who argue that various levels of social safety net programs are morally necessary on libertarian grounds. Outside of that, Hayek actually argued for a guaranteed minimum income. Even Nozick conceded that his Lockean argument for property rights is almost certainly a historical fiction, and that actual historical acquisition of property is based on injustice and violence. Nozick actually went so far as to say that, given this history of violence and injustice, Rawls’s difference principle might be the only fair way to handle distribution.

If that just sounds like mumbo jumbo to you, here’s the more simple version: Nozick, perhaps the greatest libertarian philosopher of the 20th century, basically conceded that a potentially large amount of wealth redistribution is probably morally necessary according to libertarian principles. I could go on.


#11

Gary Johnson is a supreme idiot, and the perfect picture of what’s wrong with the Libertarian Party.

There are some great libertarians, Johnson is not one.


#12

Agreed. Johnson is so worried about catering to left-leaning voters that he is undermining his own platform. Is it small government to censor words? Last I checked, no. Illegal immigrants are just that, here illegally and immigrants. Anyone who things the term is racist is making a mountain out of a mole hill. Were it so simple I would round up every illegal alien in the US and send them back to whatever country they came from. We are a nation of laws and no one gets to choose which ones to follow.


#13

I absolutely have no issue with rounding up all illegal aliens and shipping them home.

As it stands, the far more economically sound choice is to secure the freakin border and kick them out as they are found (without having to bother with sweeping the streets to net them.

Look, right now we have at least 50 in St Tammany Parish prison being housed for immigration. Hey, that’s great. House them, then ship them home.

If we just continue to arrest, and house them until they get shipped home, the problem ones will be taken care of eventually.

Namby pamby lefty leaning softies like Johnson are the reason they are here to begin with. No punishment, no penalty, and loads of free caca! Who wouldn’t want to jump the border?


#14

In some ways I’m not a conservative but the opposite is true in that in some ways I’m not a liberal. One would think that I would then be more of a Libertarian but I’m probably further from that party than the other two parties. (I should say here that I’ve never checked them out so I really don’t know where they stand on anything). Why? For a couple of reasons. The first is that I want my vote to count & where I live it wouldn’t if I voted libertarian. They don’t have a chance of winning here & if I just wanted to let it be known that I’m unhappy I can do that with an email. The 2nd reason is to me far more important. I believe that our 2 main parties represent the choice between 2 different forms of government that CAN NOT coexist. Capitalism will not work (well) if you take all the money from the consumers so that they can’t afford to consume. While it will work for a while sooner or later debt & a down economy will build up so much debt that the system will crumble. I think that is happening now in our country but it can be avoided by cutting government spending while the economy improves. I believe that won’t happen for sure if dems keep going the way they have.


#15

Once you start pussyfooting around a term even if true and accurate simply because carries a negative connotation then you are in a bad place. Your credibility is shot.

In the time I have followed politics it is clear there is an illegal immigration problem in the U.S. The remedy and viable way forward is up for debate, the problem in and of itself really isn’t.

When I first heard Johnson and Weld I wasn’t too impressed. Johnson came off as an ex-hippy, he sounded too idealistic and even a bit unrealistic. His running mate seemed a little too calculating and “political” in the traditional sense. He seems more hell-bent on stopping Trump than conveying the vital virtues of Libertarianism.

I would think there must be a route to the Whitehouse via the traditional Republican Party while expressing with clarity how much in common traditional Conservatism has with the now aptly labelled “Libertarian movement”. The biggest hurdle is that too many on every side see spending and big debt as a pastime and too many voters want to get drunk at the same party.


#16

Except we do, see IP Laws, Gun Laws, and Obamacare.

People break all three, indeed, most Americans break IP laws daily, with no consequence. Yet, I’ve yet to see you bat an eye at this, as there, you’ve utilized instincts as to what the legitimate role of Government is, and what the factual, real-world limits of its power are. Typically if the Government sets out to punish people for breaking these laws, you are firmly on the side of the “lawbreaker”.

You and most others here lose all of those instincts however, the moment we turn to illegal immigration, simply because you disfavor the people at the center. Even though it’s clear to see that Government has no more capability to control people than it does an inanimate object like a gun, you’ve insisted that it can somehow make the border secure through shear force of will. As if there’s nothing in the real world that constrains what it can do.

Government however does not control immigration by itself; it shares that power with socio-economic trends that criss-cross borders. So long as the Government pretends that it can pass any immigration policy it wants without regard to supply & demand, we as a nation will continue to have dysfunctional immigration policy that fails to work for anyone… save perhaps lawyers.


#17

Actually, we should dispense with using the term “illegal immigrants.” These people aren’t “illegal immigrants”, but ILLEGAL INVADERS of our country–as often as not for nefarious reasons and purposes.


#18

By your “reasoning” then, we can solve the murder problem by simply making murder LEGAL, solve the robbery problem by making it legal and solve the rape problem by making rape legal, as well. That’s the LOGICAL extension of your sort of “thinking.” Since we can’t control people, we shouldn’t even try!


#19

Nope. Murder breaks with natural law, and was always wrong.

As I’ve said before, the immigrants we get today, would mostly be legal if they were coming here in 1955.

The law changed and made unremarkable, non-violent economic action, illegal. Not to better reflect socio-economic trends, but simply to try an co-opt the labor market for political ends.

Which is fallacy from start to finish.

> solve the robbery problem by making it legal and solve the rape problem by making rape legal, as well. That’s the LOGICAL extension of your sort of “thinking.” Since we can’t control people, we shouldn’t even try!

Except everything you listed has a victim. There is no victim if I invite an immigrant to my farm to milk a cow.

That the Government tries to block people from doing just what I said, means the Government, if anyone, is the bad actor. The people, the Farmer and the immigrant, are the ones being victimized, as all they’re doing is exercising their God-given right to economic arrangements.


#20

Sure there is. The “victim” is the American citizen or LEGAL immigrant that you DIDN’T hire in favor of the cheaper, illegal who you can pay under the table without remitting taxes on. The other “victims” are those of us who pay taxes to provide your illegal with “safe passage” through the country, medical care when that cow kicks him in the head, or for the education of the children he either fathers here or brings up from his home to join him.