David Koch Pledges Millions To Gary Johnson’s Presidential Bid

Daily Caller ^ | May 19, 2016 | Drew Johnson

[ThePatriotsFlag]

What an amazing waste of money. Why doesn’t he give it to Hillart?

[Aevery_Freeman]

From the Burnies.

Oops, I meant Bernies!

[StormEye]

Gary Johnson?
Who????

[SWAMP-C1PHER]

True. Our system IS a toilet.

[kempster]

I agree. They can be as damaging as Soros in their own way.

[ebshumidors]

Unless Trump gets Rand Paul on board in some fashion.

[TontoKowalski]

Apparently, this reporter went off half-cocked.

The Kock brothers have issued a statement denying this, and flatly saying they are NOT funding a Libertarian presidential campaign.

What is with this epidemic of reporters going with stories that the subjects of the article immediately deny?

[crusher]

Johnson’s aggressive advocacy for debauchery and hedonism is indistinguishable from the most virulently libertine leftist.

[ozzymandus]

And libs still call the Koch brothers “conservative”.

[sarge83]

No the Koch’s so-called conservative bent was a nice cover for open borders and cheap labor. As soon as Trump threatened to end the party the Koch’s conservatism evaporated quicker than a beer fart in a wind tunnel. They don’t care about the country they care about their $$$ just like the rest of the Chamber of Crony Commerce globalist scum, the people be damned!

[goldstategop]

David Koch is throwing away his money.

Gary Johnson, who? He has zero chance of winning and he won’t win a single state.

Some spoiler role.

Koch is an idiot.

[zeugma]

Libertarians cover a pretty broad spectrum of folks. More so than the caricatures you often see described here. I’m very libertarian in a lot of my outlook. To me, I don’t see how the non-aggression principle cannot be extended to babies in the womb, but somehow, others do. On the other hand, I can’t see abortion being made outright illegal, as I have serious reservations on how the law would deal with miscarriages. Do we really want parents to have to prove a negative in those cases?

I don’t go for the idea of open borders either, because I figure a nation without borders isn’t a nation.

I’m with them on the drug war thing mainly because of the damage I see it doing to our constitution and rule of law, not to mention the corruption of all levels of government it encourages. I believe in a more Randian economic model, because in general, more freedom is better than less freedom, though I probably wouldn’t go quite as far as she would. I figure crony capitalism is a blight on the nation, and is only possible because the government has vastly overstepped its bounds (at all governmental levels).

John Locke described the reason we need at least some government quite well in his second treatise. I think is ideas about the need to restrain it are apt as well.

I can’t say that I understand the blanket antipathy some on this forum feel for libertarianism. It seems to me they often get it confused with libertinism, as if you can’t seek liberty without being a libertine.

[Bookwoman]

Johnson should ask Bernie to be his running mate.

[Objective Scrutator]

I think one of the reasons people rail against libertarianism is because it is seen as necessarily opposed to conservatism in many areas, and this is a conservative forum. After all, why call yourself a libertarian if you aren't opposed to comservatism? It also doesn't help that many of the more prominent Libertarian organizations (the Libertarian Party, Reason.com, CATO) are of the libertine variety. While I think that The Fountainhead was an excellent book which had wonderful messages as a standalone piece of work, many people are turned off by Rand's love for abortion and animosity towards Christianity.

How do you think the non-aggression principle applies to the Muslims and liberals who want to kill or steal from us? Even if certain Muslims and liberals do not themselves plan to harm us, they support institutions which do, and thus preemptively taking them out is justifiable; thus, in my conception of the NAP, it is flawed in this scenario.

I think we are largely in agreement on the general role of government. The only legitimate function of the federal government is to protect us against foreign interests, and resolve interstate disputes only in circumstances where both states agree to use it as a mediator. Everything should be privatized (with the possible exception of the military, the police, and court systems), all welfare must end immediately (including Socialist Security and Medicare), and all regulations must be removed.

[Plummz]

This story was debunked esterday afternoon.

[doug from upland]