From "THE LIBERTARIANS’ SECRET WEAPON/The third-party candidacy of Gary Johnson might make the most unpredictable election in modern times even weirder," by Ryan Lizza (in The New Yorker).
The New Yorker really forefronted the stuff about marijuana. In the "history" tab in my browser, the article shows up as having the title "Flying High," and it begins: "Not long ago, Gary Johnson..., put a halt to his considerable consumption of marijuana. 'The last time I indulged is about two months ago, with some edibles,' Johnson..." The edibles, we're told, were "Cheeba Chews, a Colorado brand that High Times has called 'America’s favorite edible.'" And while we're on the subject of edible marijuana, Johnson, until recently, was C.E.O. of Cannabis Sativa, Inc., "a marijuana-branding company that hopes to benefit as legalization spreads":
At the company, Johnson told me, he hired the person who developed the branding for a product line called hi. “Small ‘H,’ small ‘I’—really cool logo,” he said. He also contributed to the development of a strain-specific edible lozenge that he said “is as good a marijuana high that exists on the planet.” How did he know? “As C.E.O., I did some testing,” he said. “Nothing was better.”Seems like good branding. Why not a lozenge? It seems to suggest an anti-smoking message, soothing rather than irritating.
“So, if someone wanted to try that strain, how would they acquire it?” I asked.
“Legally, they couldn’t,” Johnson said.
“What about illegally?”
“Well, I’d probably be able to connect you up illegally.”
पोस्ट्स
७६ टिप्पण्या:
Well, Bernie and Gary Johnson would indeed go well together - they are both kooks.
So we'll end up with the federal government paying for Johnson to attract more Sanders voters
My result said I was matched with Gary Johnson. Trump was next by just one percentage point. Do you think it's rigged to always come up Gary Johnson?
I matched up with Johnson (and all of the other Libertarians before they were omitted.) Bernie was at 70% for me, then Jill Stein (53%), then Trump (50%), and finally Clinton (45%)
Do you think it's rigged to always come up Gary Johnson?
Maybe you're a libertarian?
Sydney - no; to my great surprise I came back just about the inverse of you - for Trump with Jonhnson a very close 2nd. The shame!
My ideology is mapped as "right wing libertarian" which sounds about right.
I took the quiz and matched up with Trump 98%.
Donald Trump 88%
Gary Johnson 88%
Hillary Clinton 24%
Just sayin'.
"Your political beliefs would be considered strongly Libertarian and moderately Right-Wing on an ideological scale, meaning you tend to support policies that promote free market capitalism and smaller government."
Can't argue with that.
Ohh, and Bernie Sanders 24%.
Not sure how Sanders supporters are going to come up as close to Johnson.
Somehow, after that article, my take-away isn't "Gary Johnson! The missing voice of rationality in the 2016 election!".
My take-away is what it's always been for the Libertarian Party proper (as opposed to the broader libertarian movement), which is, "Why do people who want to tell me how much they dislike government always come across as such lefties?".
I ended up with over 50% for all 5 of them. I guess they agree with each other.
I got 92% for Johnson, but I think the system is rigged (to get you to think you agree with Johnson).
Somehow mine came out in this order: Johnson, Trump, Clinton, Sanders, Stein.
92% Donald Trump
68% Gary Johnson
27% Hillary Clinton
17% Bernie Sanders
13% Jill Stein
Sorry.
Young Hegelian: "Why do people who want to tell me how much they dislike government always come across as such lefties?"
Why do they always come across as weirdos?
Trump 94%
Hillary 5%
And everyone else in between.
I have no clue how the Hildabeast received 5%.
" 'Well, I’d probably be able to connect you up illegally.' "
Sounds like just another Democrat to me.
A three-way race to the bottom; woo hoo.
> Somehow mine came out in this order: Johnson, Trump, Clinton, Sanders, Stein.
Same here. I took a look at Johnson a while back and wasn't that impressed, but I didn't judge on issues, but rather on perceived personality. As to rigged, I don't see how he expects to be a good match for both me and Sanders' voters, yet the quiz puts him at the top of my list.
0. As in Zero. That's the number of electoral votes that Gary Johnson is going to get. That's also the number of electoral votes that Jill Stein is going to get, as well as any other fringe candidate not named Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton. It's a binary choice, people, because the Democrats and Republicans have set it up to be one. Any other vote is pissing your vote away as a protest vote. Basically, if you can't decide which of the major party candidates you like the best, then decide which one you like the least and vote for the opponent. Any other vote risks having your least-preferred choice sworn in on January 20th.
"I have no clue how the Hildabeast received 5%."
If you do some clicking, you can find out where you agree. She and I agree on funding space travel, legalizing marijuana, required vaccination and holding military spending constant, and a few other things.
Edibles in the form of gummy bears have been really popular. While trying some, I found that the high was better if I kept it in my mouth and let it dissolve instead of just eating it. They're probably on to something with the lozenge.
88% Johnson
78% Trump
37% Bernie
36% Hillary!
31% Stein
I'm in favor of marijuana legalization, but I loathe, completely and utterly loathe, marijuana culture.
Libertarianism is a good match with liberalism except for one insurmountable point: libertarianism is liberalism without "benefits". Puff the hallucinating dragon will not alone win their favor. Throw in some redistributive change, female chauvinism, class diversity, minority regimes, and a baby on the barbie... Well, they already have their mortal gods and judges.
Took the quiz:
Trump 91%
Johnson 77%
Clinton 44%
Sanders 30%
Stein 19%
Ideology: Right-Wing
Your political beliefs would be considered moderately Right-Wing on an ideological scale, meaning you tend to support policies that promote economic freedom and a society based on morals and values.
62 Assimilation (vs. Multiculturalism)
50 Tough (vs. Tender)
44 Militarism (vs. Pacifism)
86 Small Gov't (vs. Big Gov't)
64 Anthropocentrism (vs. Environmentalism)
72 Individualism (vs. Collectivism)
40 Traditional (vs. Progressive)
I think it pretty much nailed me.
"Somehow mine came out in this order: Johnson, Trump, Clinton, Sanders, Stein."
Same here. 84%, 77%, 42%, 41%, 24%. I obviously didn't emphasize Citizens United enough.
I am also a Centrist Assimilationist Elitist Globalist Deregulatory Capitalistic Individualistic Tough Guy.
"I'm in favor of marijuana legalization, but I loathe, completely and utterly loathe, marijuana culture."
Seconded.
I didn't take the test. I favor banning presidential signing statements, mandating single-issue bills, simplifying the tax structure, and imposing tax surcharges on bureaucrats joining lobbying firms, and none of that is on the quiz.
When he was governor of New Mexico, I was warned not to hike too far from my house because the biggest drug dealer in Mexico had a compound half a mile away from my small cabin. That says a lot about his position on law and order.
And marijuana has cognitive effects, and a long halflife. And we are supposed to vote for a guy who claims he is "rational" who openly admits taking drugs that affect his ability to think?
Libertarianism probably doesn't work for the same reason that state socialism basically doesn't work: it's assumptions about human nature are at odds with reality. Anarchism is the logical endpoint of each, and anarchism usually quickly gives way to might-makes-right warlordism.
Good point, J. Farmer. Both suppose utopian views of humankind.
Interesting quiz.
87% Trump
73% Johnson
33% Clinton
30% Sanders
10% Stein
Makes sense considering it more or less pegged my political philosophy well. The bit points of congruity for Sanders/Clinton were with vaccination and Space travel funding, both of which I support.
"Anarchism is the logical endpoint of each,"
Sure, if you go all the way.
@mockturtle:
"Good point, J. Farmer. Both suppose utopian views of humankind."
@Original Mike:
"Sure, if you go all the way."
Milton Friedman used to tell a funny anecdote about Ludwig von Mises at a meeting of the Mont Pelerin Society, a bastion of Austrian economic thinking. During a discussion of progressive taxation, von Mises became flustered with his interlocutors and blurted out, "You're all a bunch of socialists." It gives you a sense of the ideological litmus tests organized political parties often start subjecting members to when their ideological assertions begin to become too vigorously challenged.
The American system is, itself, caught in a kind of paradox. How do you reconcile principles of democracy with principles of individual liberty and natural rights. I think an effort to resolve this conflict was a principle aim of the Constitutions' drafters. I think the founders were ultimately pretty elitist men who feared democratic rule of the unwashed mashes. The House of Representatives was meant to be the primary conduit for the expression of democratic will while being relatively insignificant in power compared to the Senate, which was much more shielded from direct democracy. It's really only natural that over the course of the 20th century, as we became more democratic and more diverse, our politics have become more "divisive." This is probably while representative democracy in multicultural states (e.g. Iraq) don't work out too well.
I see Althouse going all Libertarian at this point. Now that her view of Trump as "pro-gay and being cagey about it" has been exploded by the selection of Mike Pence VP candidate on the Trump ticket.
Discuss.
This is probably while representative democracy in multicultural states (e.g. Iraq) don't work out too well.
When T.E. Lawrence & Gertrude Bell were trying to forge a nation in Iraq, they saw their efforts foiled again and again by the tribal nature of the people. Let us pray we don't become a tribal culture. Identity politics are paving the way.
Discuss.
You don't know that libertarians made her cry?
Candidates you side with...
87% Gary Johnson
80% Donald Trump
62% Jill Stein
56% Bernie Sanders
34% Hillary Clinton - (only) on criminal issues.
That last one stumps me - I don't recall answering that she should run free.
@mockturtle:
"Let us pray we don't become a tribal culture. Identity politics are paving the way."
In my opinion, we're probably passed a point of no return demographically. Look at all the insane white liberals who churn out articles gleefully predicting the demise of the majority white male around 2050 or so. "White men" has become synonymous with "conservative reactionary." Once white men are a minority, there will be nothing standing in the way of that glorious Scandinavian progressive state. Any who thinks the federal government is corrupt and inefficient now, wait until the US has the demographics of Southern California. America is doomed. My long-term plan is emigration to Southeast Asia.
J. Farmer said...
@mockturtle: "Good point, J. Farmer. Both suppose utopian views of humankind."
Not necessarily for libertarians if accept just letting some people fail, moderated by voluntary charity. Nothing utopian about failing.
It's really only natural that over the course of the 20th century, as we became more democratic and more diverse, our politics have become more "divisive."
I think most of the 1800's were worse (re. for divisive politics). Even had a civil war over political boundaries.
87% Johnson
84% Trump
32% Hillary
24% Bernie
19% Stein
About right. I'm a bit more libertarian and a bit less law and order than Trump, which made the difference. But the survey couldn't really capture just how strongly guarding our culture and our country trumps everything else this time. We really need the pendulum to swing too far the other way if we're actually going to move past the Obama years.
@Chuk:
I think "gay rights," as it pertains to presidential candidates anyway, is pretty much kabuki. Supreme Court candidates seem the only potentially relevant area, and I get the feeling that "gay marriage" is one of those issues everyone's pretty much sick of hearing about and are just fine with letting nation-wide legality continue. It's always been a ridiculously infinitesimal issue affecting a tiny fraction of the population. Today there are perhaps 400,000 legally married same-sex couples. That's a little more than 0.5% of the 60 million married couples in the US.
@Fernandinande:
I think most of the 1800's were worse (re. for divisive politics). Even had a civil war over political boundaries.
Perhaps for the US alone but not nearly for the world as a whole. The 20th century was catastrophically violent between the two world wars, and the new political realities that arose in their aftermath. Centuries-old dynastic empires were swept away by enormous violence and replaced with nation-states premised on national self-determination. Most of these new political borders were drawn from deep wells of blood.
And marijuana has cognitive effects, and a long halflife. And we are supposed to vote for a guy who claims he is "rational" who openly admits taking drugs that affect his ability to think?
Agreed.
Only teetotalers are Presidential material?
I like the fact that it's possible to have Johnson and Trump as one's top two, because I got Sanders and Johnson and Trump last.
J. Farmer said...
Perhaps for the US alone but not nearly for the world as a whole.
Well that another issue - when you said "we became more democratic" I assumed the US, although "Centuries-old dynastic empires were swept away by enormous violence" happened in the US in the 1800s, if you're not strict about dynastic.
Did the rest of the world become more democratic?
And just saw this but haven't read it yet
"Despite The Headlines, Steven Pinker Says The World Is Becoming Less Violent" (NPR) though he's usually ("Angels of Our...") referring to all violence, most of which is more personal than political. And violence != political division.
@Nancy Reyes:
"And marijuana has cognitive effects, and a long halflife. And we are supposed to vote for a guy who claims he is "rational" who openly admits taking drugs that affect his ability to think?"
What is the reason for assuming that "cognitive effects" must be bad? Contrary to the popular Spicoli stoner stereotype, people can have profound experiences of insight while under the influence. And if one is going to insult in a mind-altering substance on a regular basis, it's difficult to find a better one than THC.
Potheads should all voter Libertarian. Coke heads should vote for Hillary.
Normal people should vote for Trump.
Johnson, Trump, Hillary, Stein, Sanders
Two of them have a chance.
Another biased poll. Or maybe not. Maybe its a reflection of the stupidity of the American voter.
if you think "gay marriage" is as important as international trade, balancing the budget or amnesty, then God help the United States of America.
"Potheads should all voter Libertarian."
snicker
In "Dreams From My Father", Prez Zero mentioned smoking a reefer in a dorm room of some brother and talked about getting high. Before Occidental, he indulged in marijuana, alcohol and sometimes cocaine as a high school student in Hawaii. Coke-head Barry will vote for Hillary, who likely indulges as well.
And the Donald - he grew up in New York and went to school in Philly during the time of the Hippies, SDS and the Weathermen.
91% Johnson
89% Trump
16% Clinton
16% Sanders
8% Stein
I guess that makes me a laissez-faire fascist open-borders nativist pothead who hates liars and deadbeats. I can live with that, except I find the pothead part a little insulting. I'm more of a drunk and a pervert.
I look a lot like BagH2O only Trump and Johnson are reversed. I got over 50 on Science for Clinton and Sanders but I'd say we are off by 180 degrees. I think it's the vaccination thing. Children are like my pets they need their shots. Mainly because I do t want your crumb snatchers infecting mine
J. Farmer wrote if one is going to insult in a mind-altering substance on a regular basis, it's difficult to find a better one than THC.
There's strong evidence that marijuana use can aggravate schizophrenia, but that's more of a predisposition and probabilistic thing than a guaranteed decline.
Suppose that legendary 3 am call comes and President Johnson is found giggling inanely, while shoving Cheetos into his face at a world record rate.
General Manly: Mr. President, the North Koreans have launched a missile with a live nuclear warhead onboard. Early tracking data indicates the warhead will impact somewhere in or near Hawaii; the center of probability is Oahu!
President Johnson: Dude! The new Domino's uniform is cool. Where's my pie?
I have two sets of friends, one group likes to watch the Golf Channel 24/7 and smoke weed. The other group is composed of people I find more agreeable. They, like me, are total abstainers regarding marijuana. Their alcohol intake amounts to a glass or two with some fine cheese, or a well-prepped glass of ice-cold $100 a bottle absinthe — just one. My pot-smoking friends pass the pipe (they always offer and I always refuse) until the herb is consumed. Their conversation becomes increasingly inane and thoughtless as the evening progresses, which leaves me fixated on Mickelson's putting grip, anything to avoid hearing for the nth time how far Petey can hit a 3 wood. Every pot user I know is like this when they smoke — they get stupid and tedious very quickly. Being in the same room with a pot user rapidly becomes a test of my patience. I want to yell out "SHUT UP, YOU INSIPID BASTARD!" but I'm too polite and too world weary to give in to my frustration. I know my criticism will do no good. A pot user would rather be high than respected, would rather be high than admired, would rather be high than loved. Assholes say pot isn't addictive. I'm sure that's merely a comforting myth. Pot users can't stop using.
Given a choice between a pothead presidential candidate and an alcoholic presidential candidate, I'd choose the taller one.
Back in my weed smoking days, I would sometimes write down something we all found hilariously funny so I'd remember it. Next day, I would look at it and just scratch my head in wonderment.
"Suppose that legendary 3 am call comes and President Johnson is found giggling inanely, while shoving Cheetos into his face at a world record rate."
He says if elected he will not partake.
Why is it that Gary Johnson always looks like he is stoned?
89 Johnson
85 Trump
15 Hillary
13 Bernie
5 Jill
Odd that I'm thinking about voting for Hillary given that, isn't it?
It is indeed a puzzlement. :-)
He says if elected he will not partake.
I say pull the other one.
It'd be nice to see one of the two major parties actually champion individual responsibility--and let people get high if that's their bag, baby--but since they both seem intent on telling us how to run our lives we have the libertarians.
On another note, the RCP polling averages show Hillary doing better in the 4 way race (with Jill Stein in there) than the three way race (with just Johnson) which is weird because you'd think Stein would only take more Democratic votes. Either the polls are off or there's something we're not picking up.
Ultimately, though, the third parties are picking up a lot of pissed off voters who are disgusted with their choices, so rather than blame Johnson or Stein for Hillary (or Trump) losing, blame the primary electorates for picking the most unpopular options in modern history. If Republicans and Democrats took a step back, ignored the opposing party's nominee for a minute, and looked at what they nominated, they'd be amazed at how low they've sunk. But in the end, one of those crooks is getting into the Oval Office.
A Libertarian bragging about how much he agrees with a Socialist seems like a shit-poor Libertarian. I don't get how a self-professed support of a free market and generally agreeing with a Socialist has any rational standing.
I'm in favor of marijuana legalization, but I loathe, completely and utterly loathe, marijuana culture.
Agreed. I don't oppose legalization, but damn do I hate pot heads.
"If Republicans and Democrats took a step back, ignored the opposing party's nominee for a minute, and looked at what they nominated, they'd be amazed at how low they've sunk."
And they got to that point following different paths. The Dems decided a long time ago to shove Hillary down our throats, and did. The Reps were sure they could put one over on their own constituency one more time, and failed spectacularly.
J. Farmer said...
@Nancy Reyes:
"And marijuana has cognitive effects, and a long halflife. And we are supposed to vote for a guy who claims he is "rational" who openly admits taking drugs that affect his ability to think?"
What is the reason for assuming that "cognitive effects" must be bad? Contrary to the popular Spicoli stoner stereotype, people can have profound experiences of insight while under the influence. And if one is going to insult in a mind-altering substance on a regular basis, it's difficult to find a better one than THC.
Said the guy who never had to deal with chronic "chronic" users. The daily use of the shit makes you stupid. I quit one place because I got tired of reminding the stoners of what their jobs were everyday.
BTW The Iran deal? A total scam.
"A Libertarian bragging about how much he agrees with a Socialist seems like a shit-poor Libertarian."
Depends on what they are agreeing on. I'm sure I agree with Hillary that her husband is a cad, and I agree with Trump that stepping on a nail is no fun, but that doesn't tell us much. If Sanders supports (say) pot legalization, then it's perfectly libertarian to agree with that. If on the other hand Johnson is agreeing with Sanders on redistributing people's income and expanding entitlements, then obviously that's a sham.
"And they got to that point following different paths. The Dems decided a long time ago to shove Hillary down our throats, and did. The Reps were sure they could put one over on their own constituency one more time, and failed spectacularly."
It goes to show that neither having the Dems change their process to be more like the GOP or vice versa would prevent such problems in the future. The stars just aligned this way.
I took the quiz. Apparently, I really like Trump. And Gary Johnson is my second pick and he's almost as good a choice as Trump (91% to 79%). I'm not sure how Gary Johnson could be so similar to Bernie Sanders and to Donald Trump, given the quiz seems to think they are nothing alike (my Sanders score was in single digits). Makes you wonder if this quiz might be rigged. I guess the world revolves around Gary Johnson, our star of American politics.
When Johnson tells Sanders voters how much they align up, it doesn't really make conservatives want to vote for Gary Johnson. Isnt' he supposedly the third party replacement for Trump that the Never Trumpers are going for? He seems pretty liberal for a libertarian, and a lot of libertarians have made the case that he's no libertarian.
That being said, There are a lot of ways in which Trump might appeal to Sanders fans.They both have the same view on Trade deals for example.
Strange election.
Make America hi Again
Well... I went to the site and took the instrument and here are my scores:
Trump 90%
Johnson 80%
Stein 15%
Clinton 13%
Sanders 9%
(Who even knew Trump had a policy on Education, let alone that I agree with it?)
I agreed with Johnson on more categories than I did with Trump, but the ones where I matched Trump I held more strongly, so I suppose that is heavily weighted in the algorithms.
Maybe I am a terrible outlier, but my results suggest Johnson is closer to Trump and a long way from Sanders. But, maybe the whole instrument is unstable or just not very accurate? To the user it's just a black box and you have no idea what goes on under the hood, and it does not speak well of Johnson if he thinks it is actually anything more than mildly interesting fooling around.
@Rusty:
Said the guy who never had to deal with chronic "chronic" users. The daily use of the shit makes you stupid. I quit one place because I got tired of reminding the stoners of what their jobs were everyday.
First, you have no idea who I have or have not "had to deal with." That's just more baseless speculation on your part being spouted as fact.
Ah, the unimpeachable evidence of you know some dumb stoners once. Well I know people who use regularly and who are also well adjusted, well functioning, professional people. Is that evidence for anything?
"BTW The Iran deal? A total scam."
Let me guess. You knew this Iranian guy once?
@Henry:
"There's strong evidence that marijuana use can aggravate schizophrenia, but that's more of a predisposition and probabilistic thing than a guaranteed decline."
Aggravating a preexisting medical condition is a completely different issue. Schizophrenia itself is a pretty rare condition affecting perhaps 1% of the US adult population.
Take it easy J.
I'm just holding you to the sme standard you hold for everyone else. If you did know any habitul drug users you wouldn't have mde that statement.
"Let me guess. You knew this Iranian guy once?"
No. But somebody here once devoted an awful lot of bandwidth attempting to convince everyone here what a great deal the Iran agreement was for the United States.
@Rusty:
"If you did know any habitul drug users you wouldn't have mde that statement."
Except I do know habitual drug users, and I still made that statement. The fact that there exists in the world people who have unhealthy, self-destructive relationships with substances does not mean that everyone who uses that substance faces similar outcomes.
"But somebody here once devoted an awful lot of bandwidth attempting to convince everyone here what a great deal the Iran agreement was for the United States."
I still hold that point of view and am still ready to defend against challenge. If you have an argument to make or some evidence to consider, I'd be happy to look at it and give a response.
I've been around a bit (I'm 58 and did 7 years enlisted in the Army) and I've known quite a few marijuana users. Some were losers and some were not. It always seemed to me that the ones who were losers would have been losers whether they toked up or not. If it they weren't getting high on that, they'd just be getting drunk or wasting their time some other way.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा