The Joe Rogan Experience - #801 - Gary Johnson

Episode Date: May 17, 2016

Gary Johnson is the Honorary Chairman of the Our America Initiative, two-term Governor of New Mexico, and 2016 Libertarian candidate for President.

Johnson, what's happening, buddy? Joe Rogan. Thanks for coming aboard. I appreciate it, man. Oh, man, all the way around. You're on the short list of people that folks consider a rational person that's running for president.

We're in a very strange time. Would you agree? I think we're in the strangest time ever, maybe in the history of politics, certainly in my lifetime. Yeah, it doesn't seem to make a lot of, it almost seems like this is the last gasp of the idea of running for president. You know, when you just do the mathematics of the fact that Hillary and Donald Trump are arguably the two most polarizing figures in American

politics today, that Trump has to go out and get 30% of the far right to get the nomination. Hillary has to go out and get 30% of the far left. When 50% of Americans right now who are registering to vote are independent, at the end of the day, don't the two major parties represent about 30% of the electorate? And so where are the interests? Where is the representation for the majority of interest in America? I think it's the Libertarian Party. I think it's libertarian. People just don't know it. And speaking with a broad breaststroke, libertarian, fiscally conservative, socially liberal. That seems to be where most people hang their hat, but it's not something that most people identify with when they talk about their actual political persuasion. They usually say, you know, they're on the left or they're on the right. When someone says they're a libertarian, that's that dude at the office that has guns. You know what I mean?

Yeah. I'm sorry. That what? The dude at the office, the crazy dude at the office, you know? Well, so we hit the streets the other day in New York, a film crew, and asked 40 people what a libertarian was, and it was zero. No one knew. No one knew. So, you know, I'm with you. I understand the crazy guy with the guns, but for the most part, libertarian is just undefined. Nobody knows.

I'm not saying there's anything wrong with being a libertarian. I'm just saying when you think about libertarian, it's the guy who is fed up and is like sort of on the fringes. That seems to be what a lot of people associate with being a libertarian. And I'd carry that a little bit further and say that the baggage that the libertarians carry is survival of the fittest. You know, the notion that you're about no government whatsoever. People are going to die in the streets. Anarchists. Yeah.

No government. Well, that's the rap. Yeah, that is the rap. And it's almost like everyone knows that the two-party system is kind of stupid. that the two-party system is kind of stupid. But everyone seems to think that any other party other than the two-party system is unrealistic or any other party, like a libertarian, green party, anything independent is unrealistic.

Well, back to right now, 50% of all people that are registering to vote are registering as independent. Statistically, right now, 43% of America is independent, but new registration is 50%. So I don't know, as people do identify with the two parties, the rig game of the system is that we're only presented with two choices. And that really starts with just being in the polls. Look, right now, if Mickey Mouse were the third name in any poll, Mickey would be polling at 30%. But Mickey's not on the ballot in all 50 states. And if I'm the

Libertarian nominee, and I hope to be the Libertarian nominee, that happens next weekend, I'm going to be the only other candidate on the ballot in all 50 states. So polling, I just want to be in the polls. There is no way a third party wins without being in the presidential debates. That's just not going to happen. A Super Bowl of politics. To get in the presidential debates, you have to be at 15 percent in the polls. Joe, the rig game is that if you're not in the polls, there's no way that you can poll at 15%. But it has to be a consistent polling. Starting now, I was in the first national poll that I've been in a month ago, I haven't been in a national poll since but in a month, a month ago, I was at 11% against Hillary and Trump.

And was this all established back when Ross Perot sort of shook up the political establishment? Because there was a lower percentage required to get involved in debates before that. Wasn't it 5%? Well, actually, there was no percentage points prior to Ross Perot. That was something that got established after Ross Perot. And what is that got established after Ross Perot. And what is amazing to me is Ross Perot, after having gotten 19% of the general election vote the first time, the second time he ran, they did not allow him in the presidential debates, which is just, I mean, that's the rigged nature of the game. The rigged nature of the game is,

come this fall, if my name does not appear in another single poll, the Presidential Debate Commission will say, Gary Johnson, he just didn't poll high enough. What they won't say is that he wasn't in the polls. And the Commission for Presidential Debates is a privately funded institution. Private. Democrats and Republicans were suing the Presidential Debate Commission also. We think that it's antitrust. We think that, not think, it's Democrats and Republicans, and they collude with one another to exclude everyone else. Bruce Fine is suing the Presidential Debate Commission.

Bruce Fine's claim to fame is that he brought Nixon down in Watergate. Bruce Fine's claim to fame is that he brought Nixon down in Watergate. But in the next sentence, he will tell you that the biggest thing he's ever done in his life is suing the Presidential Debate Commission because this has the opportunity of changing politics in America. I mean, this is really at the heart of this rigged game. You can't win the presidency if you're not in the Super Bowl of politics. We figure the dollar value alone of being in the presidential debates is several hundred million dollars. Just think of the Super Bowl and the ads that sell during the Super Bowl and imagine having second biggest audience, you know, like 75 million people for, you know, 90 minutes, two hours. That's a couple hundred million dollars worth of advertising.

Yeah, that is the show. And if you're not in the show, people don't consider your vote. Like they think of even if you have 50 percent of these people that are registering and saying they're independent. What they're really saying is they're not committing to a left or a right. They're not committing to a Democratic or Republican. But are they going to vote independent? That's a lot of people. They have this idea that if you vote independent, you're throwing away your vote. That's that vote as independent, they end up at the polls.

I mean, for the most part, most people don't even go to the polls. Most people don't even vote. Yeah. Is there a way to fix it? Do you think that there's a way to maybe somehow or another allow people to vote online and change the way it's set up now where you don't have to physically go to a location, you don't have to sign up physically in a place, you can actually just do it from your computer the same way we bank? That has to be the future. That does not exist now. But that has to be the future. And from a legislative standpoint, meaning, okay, you're President of the United States, or Governor of New Mexico, you could sign legislation that, and these are the things that are going to happen, It's going to be easier and easier to vote. And that's what should

be the case. Which should be the case if the system isn't totally rigged. Because the problem is people like Hillary, the people that are the longtime establishment people that have been a part of politics forever, the last thing they want to do is turn over the reins to the internet. people that have been a part of politics forever, the last thing they want to do is turn over the reins to the Internet. Because she's had, how much did they say they were spending? Spending over a million dollars just to combat online trolls? Just to go on Reddit and forums and correct people? Yes, and I would be surprised if the number was that low.

Yeah, I would be surprised too. I think they're probably being pretty conservative about that. But the idea is that the internet doesn't like the establishment they know that there's a real problem with the system in place as is and the internet when i say the internet the the broad stroke that you're painting is obviously young people who are a little bit more aware of how screwy this whole system that they're sort of born into is and that the people that are in charge don't want to change it they want to keep it a two-party system they want to keep this silly white hat black hat goofy game

going on forever and keep control of the power right on and this but this cycle for the first time in my lifetime this might change I mean, because of just how polarizing the two of them are. Yeah, and I think Bernie Sanders is what a lot of people think of as the alternative right now, mainstream alternative. And he stands pretty far out there from the other guys. So have you seen the website isidewith.com? No, I haven't. You've got to write it down.

You've got to take this political quiz. And everybody listening, take this political quiz, isidewith.com. It's about 60 questions. It's really easy. You don't have to sign up on the website. But you take this quiz, and at the end of the quiz, you get paired up with the presidential candidate most in line with your views. It just makes real sense. I think everybody should take the quiz, and whoever you line up with, I think you should knock yourself out supporting that person. Well, for me, taking the I side with quiz, amazingly, the next politician that I align with outside of the libertarians that are running for president is Bernie Sanders.

I align with Bernie Sanders 73 percent of what he says. Now, when it comes to economics, we come to a T in the road. When it comes to socialism versus, you know, being an entrepreneur, when it comes to big to choose. Hey, let's stop with these military interventions. This is just crazy. We're in line. So I push this website because it should work the other way around. Okay, I side with Bernie most of the time, but oh my gosh, the libertarian candidate, Gary Johnson, I side with next in line. And I do believe that Bernie is not going to get the nomination. I don't think that's going to happen. And where do all those voters go?

Where does 50 percent of Republicans go that really are, at the end of the day, you know, socially tolerant and fiscally conservative. And I think that is the majority of Republican voters, but they've been co-opted by the social conservatives that have an agenda that I think is really a turnoff to most of America. And it's okay to be a social conservative. There's nothing wrong with being a social conservative. But if you make that public policy, if you pass laws regarding social conservatism, you end up putting people in jail for personal choices. And we do have the highest incarceration rate of any country in the world. And I think that starts with the drug war. The word conservative is interesting, too, when you apply it to socialists, just like social conservatism. Because conservatives really want – the original conservatives were stay out of my business i'll stay out of yours so social conservative really

wouldn't apply to like things along the lines of gay marriage or same-sex unions or anything along those you would you would say we'll leave those people alone that would be the conservative approach the government should stay out of those people's lives, right? Well, it started out as classical liberal. Classical liberal is being fiscally conservative and socially liberal, which got co-opted. I mean, that used to be what a conservative was, and that got co-opted. And like I say, I think we're a little bit of both. You've heard the old adage that if in college you weren't a Democrat, you didn't have a heart. And if as an adult, you weren't a Republican, you didn't have a brain. Well, I think we've got both. All of us have got both of those things. Yeah. It's just real polarizing to have only two choices.

Well, and it's so polarizing because those issues at the end of the day, polarizing because those issues at the end of the day, why can't Democrats and Republicans come together on some very common sense issues that would move the country forward? Well, decades ago, the term libertarian was very, very rarely used. When was it invented? And I think we would all agree that it's at least something discussed today. I think we would all agree that it's at least something discussed today. So 71 is when the Libertarian Party was established. And I remember in 71, I graduated from high school in 71, and I remember getting a book that said, here's what it is to be a libertarian. And it was a very short read. I read the book, and clearly I was a libertarian. I've identified myself as a libertarian since. Now, have I registered as a libertarian? No. But back to the book. I read the book. It said, pass the book on as I had had it passed on to me. And for me, I've identified myself as such since.

I've identified myself as such since. I think it's very typical that, well, in New Mexico, I remember in the 80s, early 80s, there was a congressional debate, Republican, Democrat, and the Libertarian. And the discussion in the bar afterwards went something like this. Who won the debate? Well, there's just this overall consensus. Well, the Libertarian won the debate, but who are we going to vote for? Because the libertarian never wins. Right. Yeah. Yeah. That's the real rub, right? The throwing your vote away. Throwing your vote away. And how can you, I mean, throwing your vote away is voting for somebody that you don't believe in. That's throwing your vote away. You vote for somebody you believe in, and that's how you change the system. Yeah, it's really become a stigma that has to somehow or another be removed publicly. And I just keep thinking that with each one of these fiasco elections, that this idea of

a third party will slowly but surely emerge. And it seems to be gaining ground. And it could be this cycle, but so far, no. I mean, it hasn't happened. Yeah. Well, it's the TV thing, man. Those debates, they're so bizarre. It's such a strange show where one person says something and the other person's standing there shaking their head and not agreeing, and then they interject or they go over their time,

and the other person jumps in. It's one of the worst ways ever to get your point across. And but it I agree. But if you're not in those debates, you are a non-entity. You have no chance. I mean, that's a that's a, you know, a seal of approval, if you will. It's a seal of credibility that you're on the stage in the first place. And if you're not on the stage, you don't have a chance. So a lot is riding on this Bruce Fine lawsuit,

you believe? No, actually, what everything is riding on for me is being in the polls. If I am in the national polls, I'm back to the Mickey analogy, but Mickey's not on the ballot in all 50 states. So the justification of having me in the polls is that I not on the ballot in all 50 states. So the justification of having me in the polls is that I am on the ballot in all 50 states, and I really do think that I represent the majority of Americans. I'm offering up proof of that with this iSide website. People say to me, why should I vote for you? Well, how about getting online and seeing where you are at philosophically with those people running for president? I mean, don't you owe it to yourself to find out who lines up with what it is that you believe in? Well, that's a rational approach. It's a very rational approach and people owe it to

themselves. It's just fascinating that we look, nobody really knew who Bernie Sanders was until this election. It wasn't something that was in the public eye. I mean, if you knew about him, you knew of him as a senator. But no one knew a lot about him until this cycle. Yep. And then when you go down the litany of his issues, like I say, I agree with the guy three-quarters of what he has to say. But what I'm saying is— To the point of economics.

That's the real proof that this is a locked up system. Because if you were in those debates with all those people and during the same time, most likely a lot of people would be looking at you and go, you know, this Gary Johnson guy makes a lot of sense. And what you point out is absolutely correct in that every single Republican on stage was a social conservative. And when it comes to the Democrats, look, well, both parties are well-intentioned. But when it

comes to Democrats, look, they do grow government. And I really believe that bigger government, although it's well-intentioned, at the end of the day, it takes tax money out of my pocket that I could be spending on my life as opposed to the government spending that money. Ideally, you'd take your money and you'd be able to donate it to just exactly where you wanted that money to be spent, ideally. And I realize that that's not practical at all. But that's a really good point, the fact that the larger the government gets, the more money it costs to keep that going. So the idea that it's going to do better, it's going to do more because there's more government, there's more people, there's more programs, but they cost more money. And then it just becomes a point of diminishing returns. And at the end of the day,

statistically, it doesn't help. And that isn't to say, you know, I'm in the camp that believes that there are those people that are truly in need. But I think we've gone way over the line when it comes to people in need. And at the end of the day, if we continue the growth of government and taxation and printing money, at the end of the day, we're going to suffer from horrible inflation at some point. This is my belief. Do we have a fighting chance against what is the worst, most insidious tax of all, which is inflation, which erodes your buying capacity for the money that you earn? There's nothing worse than inflation. But that's what we're looking at if we don't actually just get some common sense at the helm.

Now, when you say those in need, like particularly or specifically, what programs or what's in place right now that you don't agree with? Don't agree with? Yes. I don't know if there's anything that I really don't agree with. It's just within the context of those programs, you have lines drawn for eligibility. Should there be cell phones? And I just use this as an example. Should those people on welfare have cell phones? Well, the argument is is that without a cell phone, you can't be connected to a job. Well, does it really mean a

job? And I point that out just as this was a line drawn that this is now a benefit of being on welfare. A benefit of being on welfare is that you get a cell phone. A benefit of welfare is that, yeah, you get a cell phone. So there's an allotment or an allowance for cell phone usage or something like that? The federal government spends multi-billions of dollars a year on cell phones for those on welfare. Now, I just point that out as, gee, is that really a function of government? And wouldn't people be connected otherwise? The notion that if you can work, you should work, the notion that if,

let's say the government is giving you $100 a month. These are very theoretical figures. But let's just say the government's giving you $100 a month and you can't work. If you work, you're going to lose the $100 a month. What about the notion of if you work, the government will give you $75 and you can make $100. So at the end of the day, you're working and you make $175. Doesn't that make sense? A little less money from the government incentivizing you to actually go out and get a job. It is as simple as what I'm talking about.

Having done the exact same thing in New Mexico, the Supreme Court ruled that what I did administratively was unconstitutional. What was the exact ruling? What did you do? Well, what we did is just exactly what I just now said is, OK, so the government is giving you $100 a month. How about the notion that there's a requirement that if you can work, you will work. So now you can go out and make $100 without getting penalized. But without getting penalized, you make $100, and instead of the government paying you $100 a month, the government pays you $75 a month. At the end of the day, you've got a job and now you're getting $175. Am I making sense here? Yes. Yeah. So that's what we implemented. All the help wanted signs in the state went down

because everybody had to go out and get a job. Now the legislature sued me immediately on the basis that what I was doing was unconstitutional, that what I was doing needed to be passed by the legislature, that it couldn't be an executive order. And after six weeks of implementing this program, the Supreme Court in New Mexico ruled that what I had done was unconstitutional. I'm not here to debate that. But, you know, we kind of proved that what I was saying was correct. They never did back it up with legislation. They could have overridden the courts by just codifying what

we did in legislation, but they never did that. So what you're saying is what you did was effective, but they just ruled it unconstitutional and they never changed any of the rules. Exactly. Exactly. Is that frustrating for you? No. I mean, it's the three branches of government. I'm very reality-based. You know, this is the power that the executive has. The power of the executive is the executive gets to run government. Now, within the bounds of legislation, you know, it is three branches of government, and I respect that, and I understand it.

It's just, it is the nature of the beast. But you should, that shouldn't, that should never dissuade you as an executive from doing what you think is right. And in many cases, like I say, that's where the courts step in. That's where the legislature will step in. It should have been legislated. So if it was effective, and it was proven to be effective? Yeah, well, all the help-wanted signs in the state went down for six weeks, and then immediately on this ruling, all the help-wanted signs went back up. Realistically, though, were there actual numbers of, like, unemployment being down and you could show it and bring it to them?

And if you did, what was the argument against what you did? And you could show it and bring it to them. Well, if you did, what was the argument against what you did? Well, that that they did not that what I did needed to be legislated as opposed to executive action. But once it was proven to be effective, you would you would think that that would be. So I was a Republican governor in New Mexico, state's two-to-one Democrat. One of the big surprises I've had having served as governor is I really naively thought at the end of the day Democrats and Republicans would come together over issues that were right, meaning do the right thing as opposed to lining up politically. So in this case, they lined up politically and never passed the legislation that, and six weeks was not, I mean, I say anecdotally, all the help wanted signs went down. They did go down, but really not enough time to garner the statistics that could have

made that, in fact, a national program emulated by other states because we would have shown success doing it. Here's one for you, Joe. So welfare in New Mexico, I had a health insurance policy as governor of New Mexico. OK, I mean, this is given to me. This is a this is a perk being governor. I have a health insurance policy covers me and my family as governor of New Mexico. people and did the math. Gee, what if we gave all of them my health insurance policy, as opposed to just paying the bills when it came to welfare? Get it? I mean, everybody on welfare would receive my insurance policy as governor of New Mexico. Would we really save 20%? Yes, we did that. We did that. And that's what happened. And it's common sense. And you saved 20%. Yes, we did that. We did that. And that's what happened. And it's common.

And you saved 20%. A bill was sent to the state, Medicaid, and the state paid that bill. Three-quarters of that bill got picked up by the federal government. One-quarter of it gets picked up by the state, but that's Medicaid. And by switching to an insurance model or a managed care model, we saved 20% on the whole bill. I mean, it's just common sense to the max. I mean, just really flabbergasting. Now, when you look at things like Obamacare and the criticism of Obamacare, and you look at what you were trying to implement in your own state, what do you think could have been done differently? Well, I think that welfare and Medicare,

so health care for those over 65, I think the federal government needs to devolve both of these services to the states. Now, currently, of course, health care for those over 65 is completely federal. But in my heart of hearts, if the federal government would have block granted New Mexico a fixed amount of money, just capped, by the way, this is just runaway expenditure. This is the worst runaway expenditures in federal government today is Medicaid and Medicare. But if they would have just capped it, or the historical increase being 7%, if they'd have just given a couple percent increase to the state of New Mexico, as opposed to, let's say, 7%, and said, New Mexico, Governor Johnson,

you are in charge of health care delivery to those that are poor, welfare, and health care to those that are over 65. In my heart of hearts, I believe that I could have delivered that or seen over the administration of the delivery of that health care. So if you did, if the federal government did that, and that's the only way to reform Medicaid and Medicare, is devolve it to the states. 50 laboratories of innovation, best practice. There would be some fabulous success that would get emulated. There'd be horrible failure that would get avoided. success that would get emulated. There'd be horrible failure that would get avoided. But as opposed to one size fits all, the federal government, we'd actually come up with solutions on how to cap and how to contain the costs within the system. Talking about Obamacare,

what we really need when it comes to health care is just free market solutions to health care. And health care is as far removed from free market right now as it possibly can be. In a free market system for health care, we would not have health insurance to cover ourselves for ongoing medical need. We would have health insurance to cover for thousands of dollars as opposed to tens of thousands of dollars. We'd have stitches are us. We'd have x-rays are us. We'd have the radiologist next to x-rays are us to read those x-rays. And at the end of the day, we would pay out of pocket for those services and they would be a fifth of what they currently are. So in a sense, what you're saying is that right now, medical health care is kind of being subsidized by the government. Well, right now, it's almost like an unrealistic amount

of money is being spent on it. Is that what you're saying? Well, right now, health insurance would be like having grocery insurance. Hey, you got grocery insurance. Gee, I go to the supermarket. There's no prices on any of the shelves because I got grocery insurance. It doesn't matter what anything costs. Am I going to buy a hamburger? Well, why should I buy a hamburger when I have grocery insurance and I can buy fillets? Right, but under that logic, what is anyone doing differently because they have health insurance?

It's not like they're getting extra treatments. Well, right now, Chief Justice Roberts, when he said that Obamacare was a tax on people, my personal insurance premiums have quadrupled, and I have not been to see a doctor in three years. I mean, so it's a tax for me. I'm subsidizing those that aren't healthy. I wish I didn't have to have insurance to cover myself for ongoing medical need.

Look, we go into the hospital right now. There's no advertised pricing. You have no idea what you're going to pay. There is no statistics on the wall that say, hey, if you're here for gallbladder surgery, you can expect a 99% outcome. There's none of that. If you had a free market approach to health care, you would have all of that. You'd have advertised pricing and you would have outcomes based on prior patients that had gone in. But there is an issue with people that do have injuries, whether it's a catastrophic injury, whether it's some sort of a disease that comes up where the amount of money that

they're going to have to spend for health care can be catastrophic. And it can be astronomical. And that's, I started out by saying we would not have insurance to cover ourselves for ongoing need, but we would have insurance to cover ourselves for catastrophic injury and illness. Right. But how do you define what's catastrophic and what's not? Like if you get cancer. A certain dollar amount. Right.

A certain dollar amount. Yeah. Okay. But what about the health consequences of avoiding or not avoiding treatment? Because there's going to be a lot of people that don't have the money and are going to just deal with certain issues like a surgery perhaps that, that you need, and you're just going to avoid it. Knee surgery, things along those lines. No, no. Would that be considered catastrophic? Well, yes, absolutely. Beyond a certain dollar amount. I mean, these are the things that you could choose in a genuine free market approach to healthcare. What about like a meniscus scope? Like a meniscus scope, meniscus tears can be

incredibly painful if you get it scoped a few thousand dollars. Would that be considered catastrophic? It's not really a catastrophic injury. Well, today it's a few thousand dollars because it's one of those no advertised pricing for meniscus tear. And having had several meniscus tears myself, if you had a free market approach to health care, you would have meniscus tears are us. We specialize in meniscus tears. Here are our outcomes. And you can come in and get a meniscus tear surgery for what would end up to be hundreds of dollars as opposed to thousands of dollars.

So sort of like the way they do like Lasix eye surgery today? Great example. Advertised pricing, cosmetic surgery, you know, dentistry now. I mean, you're starting to see advertised pricing. And as opposed to the $100 aspirin that when you go into the hospital, when you read the fine print, but of course, you're not paying for it, so you don't care. So in that sense, you would essentially go to a hospital, they would diagnose you, they would tell you, here's the issue, you have to get a gallbladder, and then you'd go to Gallbladders R Us. Well, or just from the, yeah, very beginning, right. What's wrong with me? I mean, man, with the internet today, and there could be so much innovation. Why do we even, and I'm talking about a utopia, if you will, and I don't want to say utopia. This is very doable. This is something that government could really lay the groundwork for. But it's, like I say, it's far removed from what I'm talking about. Fiscally conservative. When you say fiscally conservative, when you talk about issues like welfare and things along those lines, people get a sense, a lot of people do,

that you are perhaps callous or uncaring about poor people. That's the, I'm not saying that you are. No, no, no. Right, right, right. But in our own lives, look, it's best, in our own lives, it's best product, it's best service at the lowest price. That's how we analyze things. We don't give away our own money. Why should government be giving, why shouldn't government have the same credo? Well, what I was going to get at was what you're saying as far as like the 50 states. That is probably one of the most interesting thing about having 50 states is that you can have 50 different experiments. And you have 50 different... And we're seeing that, of course,

with legalized marijuana in Colorado bringing in more tax revenue than alcohol for the first time ever. I mean, this is a huge thing that's happening right now in Colorado, an experiment in government. And the federal government tried to block it at one point, and they were very concerned with it, but now they're letting it go. And it's proving to be incredibly financially beneficial to that state. Now they're letting it go, and it's proving to be incredibly financially beneficial to that state. Now you're seeing Seattle or Washington State, Washington, D.C., other states are starting to join in, and it's going to probably go nationwide within the next decade or so. Yeah, perfect example. This is a perfect example, right, of states coming up with an experiment, the experiment proving to be fiscally effective, and then moving forward with it. And Colorado probably has done the best job when it comes to the recreational states.

Washington state has done the worst job, meaning that the taxes are so high in Washington state that the black market is alive and well. How high is the taxes in Washington state? Because Colorado is 39%. Yeah. And Washington state, well, Washington state, they'll have an – whatever the rate is, though, it applies four times. It applies to growing. It applies to processing.

It applies to every single – They got greedy. Right after Washington State implemented it and that pot went on sale, at one point, marijuana in Washington State was selling for $26,000 a pound. Whoa. $65 a gram. That's insane. That's insane. Well, for what you had, you had people lined up around the block, people who'd never used marijuana before. up around the block, people who'd never used marijuana before, well, everybody that had been using marijuana continued to get it on the black market because that was and is insane.

Well, and are there regulations as far as personal growing? Yeah, in some states. But to me, that's also a common sense caveat to this legislation is they need to allow for home grow. Well, the same way you get your groceries. I mean, it really should be no different. If you want to grow your own tomatoes, you can grow your own tomatoes. And I've always said that this, you know, we always talk about or everybody is talking about the tax revenue, which is correct. It's significant.

But more significant than the tax revenue is the savings in law enforcement, the courts and the prisons. We have the highest incarceration rate of any country in the world. And the reason behind that is the war on drugs. We've got tens of millions of convicted felons in this country that but for for our drug laws, would otherwise be taxpaying, law-abiding citizens. And the drug war. Yeah, that's a huge factor. It's a huge factor in distrust in law enforcement. It's a huge factor in frustration with the system, feeling disenfranchised with the very system that's supposed to be governing us. You just feel like it's your enemy. Black Lives Matter, at the heart of that is the drug war. At the heart of that,

at the heart of the militarization of our police forces is breaking down doors in the name of confiscating drugs. And a lot of that has been recently revealed, was started off during the Nixon administration as just trying to control the civil rights movement and trying to control the anti-war movement. The way they did it, they recognized that these people were using marijuana. Let's go after them. Let's make it a big deal. Well, one of those political boogeymen that, as a politician, elect me and I will save you from the ills of marijuana right now. Another one of those political boogeymen is immigration. And it's a political boogeyman.

Look, immigration is really a good thing. They're not taking jobs that US citizens want. And it's not an issue of lower pay unless it's an issue of language. And they're the first ones that recognize that and building a wall across the border is just crazy. What can be done at this point? Like if someone became a president, what could be done to stop this influx of private prisons, this prison industrial complex that we're finding ourselves in this horrible quagmire with? Well, so don't mistake – look, it's not just private prisons. It's public prisons. The number one opposition to legalizing pot in California was the public prison union. So, you know, it's just... The guards union, correct?

Yes. They want to keep jobs. They want to keep jobs. We got 2.3 million people behind bars. That's terrifying. That's terrifying that guards would want to keep jobs so that they would want more people locked up for things that no one agrees with. That's really scary. I'll just say it's a bad rap for private prisons as opposed to just prisons, period. I said as governor of New Mexico, and I privatized half the state prisons in New Mexico,

apples to apples, oranges to oranges, the private prisons offered up the same goods and services for two-thirds the price. Why is that? Because they're not the government. Because they can do it for less money. Just like every aspect of life, private can do it better than public. Every aspect of life. Isn't the issue, though, with something like a private prison? So this is a private corporation that profits from incarcerating people.

Amazing that they can even profit and offer. So in New Mexico, if I may, when I took office, there were 800 prisoners housed out of state. There had been massive prison riots in New Mexico so that the federal courts were in charge of the prisons in New Mexico. It's federal courts were in charge of the prisons in New Mexico. It was called the Duran Consent Decree. The legislature refused to appropriate money to build new prisons. It was a huge problem that we had. So the private prisons, Wackenhut in particular, came in and said, and the federal courts were running the prisons in New Mexico. So what I'm about to tell you, if you think that we were going to get away with any less goods or services being delivered

to the prison industry, guess again. Federal courts are running the prisons in New Mexico. On an apples to apples, oranges to orangesanges basis. Instead of $100 a day, they offered it up for $66 a day, two-thirds the cost. If that isn't good government, I don't know what is. And in New Mexico, I constantly said if we would adopt rational drug laws, if we could let people out of prison, it'll be a lot easier to empty the private prisons than it will be the public prisons. Well, excuse my ignorance on this. I'm not sure if I'm right, but I would imagine that something like a private prison, which is a company, and it's a company that companies tend to aspire

towards growth. And when you have a private prison that profits off of people being in jail, you would tend to think that they would try to maximize their potential for growth or versus the government, right? It's logical, but maybe the component in here that you're missing is, as opposed to growth, just think of it as stepping in and taking over the services that are currently being provided for a lot less money. Meaning taking over all the prisons and that would be their growth. So all prisons would become exactly and and assuming and this is this is my experience now and don't get me wrong i mean there's it's

there's just a logic behind gee if you're a private prison then you're in it for the money right that's logical but it's in my, it's completely removed from the reality. But in your experience in New Mexico, which is a fairly small state, well, not small, but doesn't have a large population. Right. And, excuse me, have there been, you know, private prisons that lobby for more prisoners. I'm not going to say that that hasn't happened. Didn't happen, did not happen in New Mexico, but just don't discount that that's not happening on the public side also. Of course.

Right. Exactly what you're talking about with the unions, the guard unions, that they are trying to somehow or another maximize their potential, maximize their growth. And this mandatory sentencing, which really starts with the drug laws that we have. I mean, this is the reason why we have this high incarceration rate that we have. How is it legal that these prison unions actually do that? What's that squeak? Is that you? Yes, it is.

I'm fidgeting around. I was trying to figure out what it was. Yeah, no. How is that legal, though? It shouldn't be. Guard unions can try to change laws where it's so transparent. It's not like they're trying to lock bad people up because they're really concerned about the safety of the public. They're worried about their jobs, so they want to incarcerate people that may or may not be incarcerated

without their input. Joe, you nailed it. Just extend that to other things that we see also. For example, you see ads on television that say, increase the expenditures for education that's being paid for from tax dollars from teachers that will advertise for that. We see advertisements all the time from public institutions that in essence we're paying for, for increased funding all the time, every time we turn around. How is that fair? How is that legal? Isn't that a manipulation of our brains, you know, in a way that many times just belies the underlying logic that, no, they shouldn't get more money, they should get more efficient. Well, the issue, though, is this is very different, because you're talking about people lobbying to try to lock up other human beings for their own profit.

Well, like I say, you're logical. What you're saying is logical. It's got a perfect logic. But it's evil, kind of. It's evil. Right. I mean, if you really think about it, if there's a group of people, the massive amount of the general public doesn't believe that people should be in jail for a lot of the drug crimes they're in jail for, especially marijuana.

If you look at the statistics, you look at the amount of money that's being spent on it, most people would say this is fucking crazy. We've got to stop this, right? I've been more vocal about this than anybody in an elected office. So when prison unions lobby, contrary to public opinion. Prison unions. Yeah. Prison unions. Now, public or private.

That either side of it lobbies for more lockup. Contrary to public opinion, there should be an investigation and it should be criminal. I mean, what you're doing is you're lobbying to try to go against the wishes of the general public to put people in jail. And there's only one reason. It's to maximize profit. You're not talking about any threat to the public. You're not talking about any health care threat. You're not talking about any tax burden from people out there smoking marijuana or selling marijuana.

What you're talking about is maximizing your profit as a guard. That should be illegal. Spot on. I would just ask everybody listening to just apply that same argument to a whole lot of other things that we're exposed to when it comes to government. So let's talk about if you're applying that same argument to education, what's your take on that? Well, back to 50 laboratories of innovation and best practice, the federal government should not be involved in education at all. And very quickly, is the federal government should not be involved in education at all. And very quickly, federal government gives each state 11 cents out of every school dollar that every state spends. But it

comes with 15 cents worth of strings attached. The federal government says, here, we're going to give you 11 cents and you have to do A, B, C, and D to get the 11 cents. And what are those steps they have to do? Well, one of those steps is now providing transgender bathrooms, as the Obama administration has now stated. If you don't, if you, if you, well, this is reality now. If you don't provide these bathrooms, you're not going to get your 11 cents. So do they have to have a third bathroom? Is that the, is that the? Yes.

Well, make accommodation. Now, this perfect example is they say that you have to do A, B, C, and D, use the transgender bathroom as the latest and greatest front page. Here's what the federal government is requiring. But it costs you as a state 15 cents to deliver on getting the 11 cents. It actually is a negative to take federal money. So abolishing the Federal Department of Education, which I think people think was established under George Washington when it was established under Jimmy Carter, tell me what really has been value added when it comes to the Federal Department of Education since the 80s, since when it was

implemented. Well, let's talk about that one step, because is there any benefit at all to being open-minded and trying to get people to discriminate against transgender people less? Or is this some sort of a political hot topic that the government has latched onto to try to get people to think that they're progressive and they're moving towards the right direction. Because, I mean, how many people are we even talking about? Well, it's the latter. It's been a non-issue. It's not been an issue our entire lives.

It's an issue for certain individuals in certain environments. And they've been accommodating themselves this whole time throughout our lifetimes. There should be, I think there's absolute heightened awareness, but look, this is overkill. This should be an issue that Los Angeles deals with, that the state of California deals with. Correct me if I'm wrong, because we were actually discussing this yesterday. I believe what North Carolina has said was that you have to use the bathroom

that corresponds to the gender on your birth certificate. However, if Gary Johnson, you decide at 50, how old are you, sir? 63. 63. If you decide at 63 years old, you want to be a woman. That's what Bruce Jenner did, right? Yeah. If you decide you want to be a woman, you could change your birth certificate. Your birth certificate literally can be changed to say that you're a woman, then you can use the women's room. So that's all they're requiring. And so this up in arms is really like they want a commitment, I think, before you decide to go and use the women's room.

Like you literally have to just go and get your paperwork changed. Is that correct? No, no, no disagreement. But I'm correct. Am I correct technically? Yeah. Yes. That is what they're requiring.

Right. Yeah. That is what they're requiring. But when I think of that bullshit, if you will, over an issue that has never been an issue before, as governor of New Mexico, Joe, I may have vetoed more legislation than the other 49 governors in the country combined. Where's this coming from? So where's it coming from? So if I well, it's it's it's discrimination against the LBGT community. That's the heart of all of it. As governor of North Carolina, if I had been governor of North Carolina, I'd have vetoed that legislation. This is much to do about nothing.

This is not an issue. Certainly, the federal government shouldn't be stepping in and doing this because North Carolina right now is suffering the wrath, if you will, of the whole country that says we're going to boycott North Carolina. We're going to have nothing to do with North Carolina as a result of them having passed this legislation. But again, what they're saying in passing this legislation is not that complicated. No, it's not. They're just saying that you have to change your gender and your birth certificate, right? I mean, it may be discriminatory at heart, but when you look at the actual paperwork, like what's required in order to use the women's room, like it's not saying that you have to have an X, Y chromosome to use the men's room. They're saying you have to identify as a male on your birth certificate. So if a woman decides to become a man or transition

to a man, she decides she's a man at heart and she changes that under birth certificate. So if a woman decides to become a man or transition to a man, she decides she's a man at heart, and she changes that on her birth certificate, they don't do a chromosomal test on her. So it's just a matter of a paperwork change. I'm not really sure how much less you could require of someone to use a different bathroom that corresponds to the gender of their birth. Well, I would just disagree that the government has taken a role here that never had to be established in the first place. I agree with that. But if you do want to discourage discrimination against transgender people, how would you go about encouraging that? Or is that just a social issue that needs to be worked out with people. Well, it's an issue that needs to be worked out municipality statewide. But at the end of the day, this issue has existed our entire lifetimes.

And have there been any reported incidents of anything anywhere? I'm not aware of any incidents anywhere. Well, I'm sure there's been something and I'm sure some people feel maligned. But I just don't know if necessarily there's enough demand to require a law change and what all this hullabaloo is about, about this law change. When I discuss it with people and I try to be as open minded as humanly possible when it comes to people's choices and what they want to do, whether it's regarding gender or sex or whatever you want to do. Me too. I'm just, I'm fine with it. But my issue with this is I feel like it's a chance for people to jump up and say that

they're outraged. I think it's almost like a recreational outrage thing. Like when I heard that Bruce Springsteen was boycotting North Carolina and all these people jumping up, I'm like, is that really the way to go about this? Yeah, I think so. I mean, that is the way to go about this? Yeah, I think so. I mean, that is the way to go about it. To stop. So you're saying it in terms of like government's gotten too big.

You want to stop this law. The way to go about it is to boycott the state. The way to go about it is boycott the state. Just like happened in Arizona when Jan Brewer started to talk about vilifying Mexican immigration and conventions and the whole country was boycotting Arizona when it came to traveling there. I mean, it happened. And because of that, the change took place. North Carolina, same thing. So really what's unnecessary in your eyes, you're a small government guy. What's unnecessary is the government getting involved at all. At all. In this case, and don't get me wrong, government has a fundamental role to protect us against individuals, groups, corporations, foreign

governments that would do us harm. And I'm running for president of the United States. I'd like to think that at the end of the day, I'm going to sign on to anything that makes things better. A transgender law in front of me as governor of the state of North Carolina or president of the United States? You know, you make that analysis. Is this going to make things better? Or at the end of the day, is it just going to add time and money to our lives and not really do anything? To play devil's advocate, is there any benefit in having it in the news? Is there any benefit in it being debated?

Right, so people become more and more aware of it. I mean, I think whether or not you look at Caitlyn Jenner as a real issue in this country, I think what the issue is is that people are becoming more aware that there are folks out there that don't necessarily fit with our standard idea of what gender is they're they're they're all over the place there's there's people on the far right and the far left just like politically yep yep and uh

at the end of the day aren't most of us absolutely tolerant of that most of us yeah and the people that aren't they're the real issue right yeah the people that are intolerant of other people's choices that don't affect you at all. And the intolerant folks are the ones that are passing this legislation. Okay. So the intolerant ones are the ones who are saying enough is enough with all this transgender nonsense. You can't use the women's room if you're a man. Much to do about nothing.

But see, there's some men. It's so confusing in some ways because there are outliers on both sides. Like I have met transgender women who without a doubt I would consider them a woman. I mean it looks like a woman. She talks like a woman. Her sensibility is like a woman. Dresses like a woman. Whatever the fuck that means, right?

But then on the other side, I've seen – I mean there's this guy that identifies – we were talking about this guy recently – identifies as a woman, has a beard, has a penis, doesn't want to have a sex change, doesn't take hormones, identifies as a woman has a beard uh has a penis doesn't want to have a sex change doesn't take hormones identifies as a woman wants to use the women's room and he's been doing it uh probably no no he hasn't but he wants now he wants now it's this issue and it was one of it's an outlier but you know you're dealing with there's all sorts of people when any issue like this comes up right and you're gonna have rational logical obvious

choices and then you have like what do you do with that guy choices? Well, and where does that decision making best lie? That decision making best lies in the municipality where that person lives. And if it's an issue, let's say in Albuquerque and I'm the mayor of Albuquerque. Welcome to come into the boys room if you're I mean, welcome to come into the boys room if you're i mean welcome to come into the boys room boys room can be labeled transgender and boys room as far as i'm concerned so the only worry there would be if they went into the boys room they were discriminated against but then sure how many people would look well but if you if you're in the males the boys room

though see i think it'd be less of an issue. This is knee-jerk, of course. And it's based on let's have – instead of having a one-size-fits-all, how about let's work this out at the absolute lowest level we can work it out. And maybe we'll come to some real monumental epiphanies on how to do this. What would possibly be the epiphany? I think that's one of the problems with this issue. Yeah, okay. But that's you and I thinking about this.

And if you had municipalities thinking about it all across the country, I bet there'd be some best practices that would emerge from this that would make sense for everybody. Well, the only suggestion that I've ever heard that makes any sense at all is a three-bathroom rule. Like male, female, whatever. Male, female, and go for it. Well, and imagine all schools in this country having to be retrofitted with that third bathroom. That's the issue. We're talking about a hundred billion dollars.

I'm just guessing. Well, yeah, it's a lot of money. A lot of money. And the federal government's going to give you 11 cents for you to accomplish their 15 cents worth of mandate. Yeah. I like the issue. You know why I like the issue? Because it's so bizarre and there's no answer. I love when something has no answer, when you just sit around going, man, I don't know. Because people will take sides and they'll run with their side and make sure that you think that their side is the only solution whatsoever. When there really isn't an only solution. Profound. Yeah. It's a weird one, right? You're back to squeaking. I'm back to fiddling. Well, it's something to fiddle with. I mean, this is a fiddling sort of a conversation because it's polarizing. It's confusing.

And again, I'm not right. You're not right. There's no right on this. This is a weird thing. Like the whole transgender thing is weird. It's very rare. I mean, you're talking about, is it even 1% of people that become transgender? I doubt it.

It's probably far less than that. It's 0. 1% of people that become transgender? I doubt it. It's probably far less than that. It's 0.03% of – so it's – Yeah. It's a very small amount of people. 3% of 1%. Yeah. It's a very, very small amount of people. Yeah.

Very – So to mandate laws – A couple of kids out of thousands of students. That's kind of an easy way to look at it. thousands of students. That's kind of a easy way to look at it. And wouldn't it be better for everyone if we just became more open-minded and more friendly and loving and let people do whatever the fuck they want to do? Let the man who identifies as a woman, let him use the woman's room if he actually looks like a woman. But if you have a beard, maybe we should pull you aside and go, dude, you can use the men's room. You're freaking people

out. You've probably spent as much time or more time than I have in Europe. But you know what? The showers are showers are men and women. It's men and women. It's bathrooms. I don't shower in Europe in some gigantic prison. What kind of prison showers you go into, sir? Men and women showers? Yes. Open showers? Yes. Where? These recreational facilities in virtually every single mountain community in the Alps, for example. Oh, like skiing communities? Like they have open showers? Well, in this case, they've got these marvelous recreational facilities, it seems like, in every town. And in those towns, you've got a swimming pool and you've got the showers.

And the showers are men and women, both. Now, as a person who has governed the state— There's no choice. There's no choice. I'm back to Europe now. I mean, this is a really different—it's just—this kind of a thing is not an issue in Europe, I'm going to imagine. Well, that would require a gigantic cultural shift, though. We're very used to segregating male and female when it comes to showers and people being naked. I got it, I got it, but, you know, awareness. Here it is.

We're spreading awareness that, oh, shoot, Europe, they shower together? Yeah, but that means your wife has to shower with some dude. Like, trust me, that's not going to fly. We'll let that go. It flies in Europe? Yeah, a lot of stuff flies in Europe that doesn't fly over here.

That might not necessarily be a good thing. You can't trust American men with American women in a shower together. Well, but in Europe where you've grown up with that your whole life, there aren't any incidents. Right. We're not going to grow up with that, though, right? Well, we haven't grown up with it. It's not going to change. That would be even more ridiculous to adjust the way children growing up and say listen kids everyone's gonna shower together parents would freak out they'd be like

what kind of government is this well gary johnson's a psychopath just awareness you know as you were talking about earlier just that people be aware that there are all sorts of different ways of doing things yes there's also drinking drinking i mean we can go down several cul-de-sacs here, but in Europe, you know, you can, kids start drinking at the earliest of age.

I mean, like as in four or five years old. And so, and so they know what alcohol is from a very young age. And so they don't have near the issues

with alcohol abuse. They end up getting their driver's licenses at 21, but they can drink, you know, with the consent of their parents, you know, at four years old. And so they understand the impact of alcohol and now they drive at 21.

Well, here in this country, you can drive at 14. 14? In this country? I think it's 15. It's 15, you get a learner's permit, 16 driver's's license is that what it is whatever it's close in new mexico i mean it was 14 in new mexico well 13 i had that motorcycle license at 13 whoa you could drive a motorcycle in new mexico at 13 now as a person who's governed a state um and you look at the what happens when someone gets in office, when Obama gets in office, he promises all these things, gets in office, changes almost everything. What are the hurdles?

I mean, what are the differences between the hurdles of someone who governs a state versus someone who governs the United States? And how much more difficult is it to change things? It seems like the United States is like a gigantic ship that takes so much effort to shift even slightly that these presidents get out of office eight years later, exhausted, looking like they've aged 50 years, and very little gets done. Well, I think there is a silver bullet to the system, and I hope I'm tying into what you're saying. But I do think there's a silver bullet to the system, and that would be term limits. I think that for the most part, politicians, once they get in office, the main concern is to stay in office. And if you had term limits, I think that people would do the right thing as opposed to whatever it takes to get to stay in office. You mean for Congress and for the Senate? Congress, Senate, anywhere.

Supreme Court even? Anywhere. Right. Well, Supreme Court's another topic, but certainly elected office. Right. Agreed. Yeah, I mean, we have it for the president. Why not have it for all elected offices?

I think I'm the best example of term limits. I really enjoyed the job. I had the opportunity to serve for two terms. So in my estimation, I pressed the limits, term one, but not to the point war in this country. I started off by saying that marijuana should be legalized, taking on what I thought at the time was, and it still remains so, as one of those really fixable things in our lives that would make the world a better place. But because of term limits, I was emboldened because I, man, I was getting out of office and there was no return. Right. What are your thoughts on all the other recreational drugs, not just marijuana, but the more controversial ones like maybe cocaine or psilocybin, LSD, things along those lines? Well, so when I was governor of New Mexico, I had a, I went to Portland, Oregon and judges in Portland, Oregon, there were judges that wanted to meet with me in Portland.

And so I went to meet with these judges, and I didn't know what it was going to be about, but it was six judges, Portland, Oregon, state district judges. I'm sure I'm getting the wrong label, but what they said was, hey, Governor Johnson, we just – we're here to tell you we completely agree with everything it is that you're saying. But we would like to share with you some stories here that maybe you can pass on to others that will allow others to better understand the drug issue. They said that the really horrible drug out there is methamphetamine, that people that use methamphetamine really have their behavior altered and not in a good way. So it's really the boogeyman drug out there. They said methamphetamine is the best example that we can think of of a prohibition drug. It exists because it's cheap and it's easy to make. And what they said was, was that, hey, we're not suggesting the following,

but if cocaine were legal, these people would be using cocaine instead of methamphetamine without the negative behavioral consequence. And that's true. But if the government were to tell the truth when it comes to cocaine, cocaine puts holes in your heart. People that use cocaine their entire lives are stereotypically Whitney Houston that die before they're 50 because they die of a heart attack from using cocaine. Now, will there still be people that will use cocaine knowing that they might die of a heart attack? I think there'd be less cocaine use if people actually knew the truth and could trust government when it comes to the truth. I just maintain that 90% of the drug problem is prohibition-related, not use-related,000, which is staggeringly low due to cocaine and heroin overdose, and people will immediately say, well, yeah, the number is so low because it's illegal.

No. You can argue that if it were legal, if quality quantity was known, it's arguable that those deaths would significantly decrease, although there will always be people that will commit suicide, always be people that will push the limits. Yes. You're always going to have people that abuse everything. Everything. Everything. Everything. I mean, we're living in a culture that has alcohol available at every block all over the world. I mean, everywhere you go, there's a restaurant or a bar or somewhere that you can buy enough alcohol to drink yourself to death. It's readily available. Yet, when you consider the amount of people that actually drink alcohol, the low number of deaths is pretty

incredible. And it's because we're aware of the effects of alcohol. And it's pretty, when you get a bottle of Jack Daniels, it is pretty consistent. Well, but there are 100,000 deaths a year that are contributed – that get contributed to alcohol consumption. And I'm not talking about drinking and driving or violence committed under the – Just alcohol abuse. Alcohol abuse. Statistically, no one dies from marijuana. Statistically. No one dies from marijuana, statistically. What I was going to get to was that when you look at what's happening in Colorado, one of the more interesting things is the lessing of violent crime and drunk driving.

Those are two effects that have dropped pretty drastically, noticeably, statistically, because of the legalization of marijuana. You would reduce, because of the legalization of a less harmful, more peaceful drug, you'd reduce the effects of what's right now a readily available and incredibly prevalent drug. products directly compete with legal prescription drugs, painkillers, antidepressants that statistically kill 100,000 people a year. No documented death due to marijuana. On the recreational side, I've always maintained that legalizing marijuana will lead to less overall substance abuse because people are going to find it as such a safer alternative than everything else that's out there, starting with alcohol. The campaign to legalize marijuana in Colorado was a campaign based on marijuana is safer than alcohol. And, Joe, as you were pointing out, all the statistics that all the naysayers were going to go south have gone better. There are less traffic incidents. There's less overall crime in the state of Colorado. Colorado is

vibrant. And does it have to do with marijuana? I think that that's an ingredient comprised in why Colorado is so vibrant right now. Unquestionably, unquestionably. And I think a prime example of how screwy the system gets when people lobby against the legalization of things that don't harm anyone is the fact that hemp is illegal federally and that we're trying to make it legal and trying to make it legal statewide and in various states and start production of hemp. But hemp is not psychoactive. It's crazy. We can sell hemp products in this country, but they come from China. It's crazy. Well, we buy it. My company on it, we buy it from Canada.

We buy hemp protein from Canada. And we can't grow it in America. We can import it, but we can't grow it. CBD oil. Yes. Same thing. Not psychoactive. Helps pain.

Very effective for people. It's not getting people high. It's not ruining lives. It's not doing anything. But there's a lot of people that are concerned that are making money off of the alternatives, especially with hemp. I mean, that was the reason why marijuana was made illegal in the first place. That's the reason. Yes.

It was about hemp. The conspiracy of DuPont to promote nylon as opposed to, and of course they- William Randolph Hearst with his paper factories. They made marijuana illegal, but because the marijuana plant and the hemp plant look the same, then hence hemp was also made illegal. Yeah, that was the conspiracy. Yeah, well, that's, I mean, that's all been proven.

So we're in a strange time that it's 2016. It's still illegal and slowly starting to become legal. And people are starting to, I believe in Kentucky and a few other states, they're allowing farmers to profit off of this incredibly vibrant plant that's easy to grow doesn't require pesticides has a variety of uses as a textile as a commodity for food uh full amino acid profile it makes amazing clothes and this jacket this is made out of hemp i mean if this if if the marijuana plant were discovered today in the Amazon, it would be hailed as the greatest discovery of humankind. In 1999, good news, bad news here.

In 1999, I was the highest elected official in the United States to call for the legalization of marijuana. In 2016, bad news. I'm still the highest elected official in the United States to call for the legalization of marijuana, although Bernie Sanders apparently rolled out of bed, hit his head, and now he's come to that same epiphany. Wonderful. I'm glad. But in 1999— Why did you say he rolled out of bed and hit his head? Well, that he came to this epiphany at this point in his life. He's never said it before? Uh-uh. No. Not until he's been running for Senate. So you think it's like one of those lick your finger, put it up in the air, check where the breeze is going?

I'm glad that he's joined the big crowd. But in 1999, 30% of Americans now are supporting the legalization of marijuana and not one politician outside of Bernie Sanders in office is – and when I say elected official at the congressional, senatorial or gubernatorial level, not one politician in that group outside of Bernie Sanders myself have espoused legalizing marijuana. What a disconnect. What an incredible disconnect between what people think and our elected officials. It's also because when people take a stand on something that's controversial, it's risky. And politics are about minimizing risk. It's about getting people to like you as much as possible, going down the middle as much as possible. Term limits. Term limits. I want to stay in office more than I want to do the right thing.

Do you think that ultimately the idea of having one individual that's the figurehead of an entire nation is archaic? No, no. You know, I'm certainly, is our system perfect? No. But is it perhaps the best system? So if we woke up today and there was no government at all, would you think that we would possibly create one guy that runs the whole thing? We would agree that that would be the best way to run things?

I have a theory that the best way to run things would be that every 16 years, we would have a benevolent dictator take over for two years. So what would happen in those other days, the other 14 years? Well, the other 16 years, you'd have elected officials. And then for two years, you'd have a benevolent dictator step in and right all the wrongs that, but of course, the problem is- Finding a benevolent dictator. Well, and how do you... How do you decide?

Someone could fake being benevolent. Trying to be funny here, but trying to bring out a point that actually, if you could have that benevolent dictator step in and right the wrongs that elect... We don't live in a democracy in this country. It's not a democracy. We live in a constitutional republic. We are a republic. We're governed by laws. The laws are the constitution. We democratically elect our representatives. at some point in a democracy, people vote themselves a race, and it becomes unaffordable. Nazi Germany was a democracy before Hitler took power. So what would be the, I mean, besides your 16-year, two-year benevolent dictator thing, what would be the way to fix the current system? Like, say, if Gary Johnson gets an office, what would you do?

What would be one of the first things you did? Well, I do think the government is too big, that it tries to accomplish too much. If at a minimum, Gary Johnson were able to just put a cap on spending, the impact of that, when you consider the ultimate impact of inflation and how that's going to kick in and how that's going to so adversely affect our lives, that would right a lot of wrongs because you do have economic growth. You tie that with the fact that you just put a, just, I'm trying to put the most minimal bars out there possible that would really have a positive impact going forward from a financial standpoint. And it isn't just financial.

It is about liberty and freedom. It's about your liberty. It's about your freedom. It's about you making decisions in your own lives. in your own lives. It's about the fact that the government, that crony capitalism is alive and well, that there are favors granted to those that have money, as opposed to a level playing field that everybody would actually have an equal shot at the opportunity that currently is unavailable because of government and the actual protections that exist for those that do have money as opposed to those that don't. So once you get into office, how would you go

about minimizing government? Well, without any legislation whatsoever, and I am speaking now, having been governor of New Mexico for eight years, I ran all of state government. I appointed the heads of all the agencies. And from that standpoint, the idea was just to make things better. And what's the definition of better? Well, that the average person on the street would have to spend less time and less money dealing with government. And by spending less time and less money on government, that means that you would actually be able to pursue the things that were important in your life. And that is not to minimize government's role, which fundamentally is to protect us against individuals, groups, corporations, foreign governments that would do us harm.

So going back to what we had discussed earlier, that when government gets too big, you reach a point of diminishing returns when it becomes so swollen that it requires so much money to stay up that it doesn't support itself. It gets too large. So what do you cut? So say you get into office and you look at the current system we have right now, you look at all the bureaucracy and the red tape, what do you start to chop away at? Well, what I did in New Mexico, and I said I would do this when I went in New Mexico, is that, you know, I wasn't going to fire anybody, but let's just manage attrition. Let's just have some common sense here. Let's not grow it anymore. Let's just, at a minimum, it's not going to grow anymore. And it will shrink because there will be attrition. So how about the notion

of as people leave, as people retire, you know, quit, retire, that you just not backfill those positions. And so when I left office, there were 1,200 fewer state employees than when I got there. I think it was a testament to better government because people were doing more with less resource. And I think everybody saw that. New Mexico is a state that's two to one Democrat. I made a name for myself pinching pennies, being frugal, just like we're frugal in our lives. At least I certainly am. Difference between cheap and frugal, but I'm a pretty frugal cat.

So what do you do with something that's very controversial and often criticized like Homeland Security? Like there was an article that came out yesterday about Homeland Security going after they're using Homeland Security to go after massage parlors for giving sex to people for, you know, hand jobs or whatever. I would have never in the in the first place, I would have never established the Department of Homeland Security. Now, as president,

I either get to sign or veto legislation. I would sign legislation that would abolish the Department of Homeland Security, or I would merge it with the FBI. I just think we do have too many agencies. And when you hear about a story like Homeland Security

going into a massage parlor, I just get outraged. What causes that? This is what I wanted to get to. How does that happen? How does Homeland Security, something that's set up to prevent terrorist attacks, how does it eventually get bastardized and distorted to the point where they're utilizing the legislation that was put in place to protect people from terrorist attacks to stop guys getting handjobs. It's human nature. It's the Peter principle.

It's when you're assigned to a job in government, the more important you are is the more work that you have. So you literally create the work that you have. So you literally create the work that you have. You try and grow. Well, that's the private sector, not the public sector. Public sector people that get involved in the public sector, they think that success is growing their mandate. I mean, it's just that simple. But someone has to approve that.

Like someone has to say, good idea, go after the massage parlors. Exactly. In this case, where's the president of the United States? The president of the United States could step into this in a nanosecond and say, whoa, stop. But is it possible that he's not aware of it? Because you're looking at- It is possible. There's so many things to be aware of. Well, as governor of New Mexico, here's something I did as governor of New Mexico, and it's something I would do as president of the United States. As governor of New Mexico, I set up this open door after four policy, where the third Thursday of every month, I saw anyone in the state of New Mexico starting at four o'clock in the afternoon until 10 o'clock in the evening on five minute increments. And it was amazing, Joe, the stories of people

that came in and what they had to say. Now, they could come in for anything. They come in for a picture with me. They come in to visit me with me for five minutes. They could come in and talk about here is a government atrocity that's happening to me. And I'd like you to fix it. And I always viewed it from the standpoint of, well, this is one person that's come in. But you know what? Everybody that's dealing with the same situation is having the same outcomes as this person. It was an incredibly valuable tool. As president of the United States, I would set up an open door after four policy for atrocities in government, for waste, fraud and abuse atrocities. Open door after four.

But I mean, you're talking about 300 million people. Right. So you have an open door for five minutes available for 300 million people in six-hour increments? Well, this would be a criteria for it, and I'm certain I could make this happen. Really? Yes, I'm certain that I could. But I mean, I think this is a great idea for a governor, maybe a better idea for a mayor. But when you get to a president, is that as a result of having this mechanism, I'm going to find out in a very short amount of time that the Department of Homeland Security is busting massage parlors.

I'm going to put that out there. Well, you could find that out just as easily through Twitter. Yes. And so I'm going to be connected that way, too. But waste, fraud and abuse, the Marine One helicopter. I was more thinking in terms of the Marine One helicopter. What is that? on a committee that determined that they wanted this helicopter to be steel instead of aluminum. And this was Augusta Westland. And in a nutshell, they come up with a completely redesigned helicopter as opposed to the original bid,

which was off the shelf, that would have been $4 billion. Now it's $16 billion, and they haven't flown a helicopter. Well, if you had a waste, fraud, and abuse open door after four, I'd have known about it, and I would have stepped right in the middle of it. But is that waste, fraud, or abuse, or is it just innovation and the expenses involved in changing a design? But the bid originally was for off-the-shelf helicopters that they were building, and that there was going to be bolt-on avionics. And the first thing that this military procurement committee said was, we don't want an aluminum

frame. We want a steel frame. Well, steel frame. That meant that- Everything had to be redesigned. The engines had to be bigger, the fuel, the- So is that waste? You would go into waste.

It wouldn't be fraud or abuse necessarily? Yeah just total right you know what where's the logic behind that but is it an engineering decision based on like knowledge that we have about the rigidity of steel versus aluminum or what what is the gosh you would think that augusta west, a helicopter manufacturing business with an off-the-shelf helicopter, a helicopter that exists, that existed, that's what the government bought. And it transformed into a completely new helicopter that is yet to fly. But that sounds insane. It's insane. It is insane.

Well, what's insane is that it was originally agreed upon without, I mean, if they had like an order, an initial order. They had an initial order. What was the reasoning for making the steel frame? What was the reasoning for changing it? That the order then had to go to this procurement committee for any tweaks. And you'd have to think that there are tweaks. Right. But this wasn't a tweak.

Not a design tweak. That's redesigning an incredibly new... It's about as nutty as it gets. Flint water, you know, the Flint water crisis. Why didn't... I'll tell you what, that just sounds about as atrocious as it gets when it comes to government turning its back on an obvious situation. I think about, so I'm reading about it. And as governor of New Mexico, I guarantee you that residents from Flint would have been at my open door after four saying, look, I got dirty water. And I would have got into the middle of, I'd like to think, Joe, that I would have gotten into the middle of it. I'd like to think, Joe, that I would have gotten into the middle of it immediately. But you know what? If I didn't get into it immediately, I'm guessing my second open door after 4, instead of having 4 people show up from Flint, would have 80 people showing up from Flint.

Point is, it would not have gone unnoticed by me as governor, and I'd have gotten right into the middle of it. And I had a mechanism for doing it. And there needs to be a mechanism for the President of the United States to stay in touch. The imperial presidency, the notion that the President, you know, whenever the President travels, it's tens of millions of dollars every time he travels. Well, that's, if I'm elected President of the United States, that's going to change dramatically. Does Air Force One really need to fly everywhere? Gosh, you wouldn't think so. Why can't the president of the United States come into Los Angeles in a very stealth way and travel without having to block all of traffic in Los Angeles, which you have to have experienced many times.

Yeah, that's pretty gross. Well, also, why do they have to fly in Air Force One? How come they can't just get on American Airlines? How come? Well, or how about one of those corporate aircraft that are in the military that would cost a tenth of what Air Force One costs? What are the benefits of Air Force One? that would cost a tenth of what Air Force One costs. What are the benefits of Air Force One? Does Air Force One have some sort of a pod where the president can parachute to safety

if they try to shoot it down or something crazy like that? You wonder about that one, but what about an ejection seat? I mean, it goes on and on and on. I mean, I can handle the ejection. You can handle being ejected? I can handle being ejected. I'm certain of it. I mean, we could go on and on about things along those lines.

It seems a little silly. But it's a little silly. The whole thing has become not just a little silly. It's become pretty crazy. the president and you make them this person, they have to shut down all the city streets and bring in a gigantic parade of storm troopers that have to stand by his side. It's just. And you know what? It would be it'd be great to as president of the United States to just shuttle around in an F-16 and let them shoot me down in an F-16.

I'll just take the back seat. And I'm speaking now. Well, they don't go very far. You know that. They don't go very far, but they go really fast. And when we're talking about money and dollars, as opposed to the F-16. It sounds like you just want to be in an F-16. No, no. I just want to spend less money. I want to be a frugal cat in the White House. want to be a frugal cat in the White House. What kind of odds do you think there are? I mean,

this election is very tricky, obviously. But what kind of odds do you believe there are for 2020? I think, first of all, I would not be doing this if there weren't the opportunity to win. But the only opportunity that there is of winning is to be in the presidential debates. That's the only chance. Now, what's the keys into the presidential debates? Kind of where we started off. I got to be in the polls. Doesn't that seem insane, though? Doesn't that seem insane? That what? That you have to get in this one thing, this presidential debates, this thing that is run by... It's the reality. Yeah, it is the reality. Does it not seem logical that anyone capable of being mathematically elected president of the United States, 270 electoral votes, should at a minimum be included in the polls? That there be a requirement? And you know that in 2016, there are like 1,600 people that registered to run for president.

Wasn't Roseanne Barr one of them? Well, that was 2012. That was 2012. But anybody can run for president. All you got to do is sign up with the Federal Elections Commission and you can run for president. But at the end of the day, in 2012, there were only four people that could have mathematically been elected president. Doesn't that seem fair? Well, it doesn't seem. And well, the two party system is the biggest hurdle right now for, I think, most people. When you think about the potential of running for president, the biggest hurdle is that you have to be accepted and you have to be

the nominee of one of these two parties. Right. Or that you be included in the polls. And right now, because of just how polarizing Hillary and Trump are, that just being in the polls, that that will register enough dissatisfaction with any third party name, in this case, me, that I'd like to think that all the things that we've talked about right now, you wouldn't hear out of the mouths of either Hillary or Trump. I don't believe you would. I don't believe you would even hear it from the mouth of Obama. I think everybody would be much more measured. Actually, you know what I've said about Obama from the very beginning, and I'll still say it today. Is there anything that he says that you can really disagree with? I've always said that everything that comes out of his mouth is like music. It's just the reality hasn't matched up with the words.

So, well, the real problem is a lot of the stuff that he said running versus what he's done in office, like the Hope and Change website that talked about whistleblowers. And then you look at his actual actions towards whistleblowers and actual actions towards the press. It's pretty disturbing. Well, back to my open door after four for whistleblowers. Look, come on in. Talk to me. Tell me about what's going on. Well, that was what I wanted to get to next. Maybe I can jump into the middle of this.

That's what I wanted to get to next. So, your president, how do you handle Julian Assange? How do you handle Edward Snowden? president, how do you handle Julian Assange? How do you handle Edward Snowden? What do you do about these two very high profile situations where most people believe that the information they released was very important to the American public, very important to understanding what the government's actually doing? Do you pardon Julian Assange? Well, Julian Assange has not been charged, I don't think, by the U.S. government. Well, we know what's really going on, though.

We know what's really going on. Well, Snowden, yes. Snowden, yes. You pardon Snowden, that he has brought to the forefront this mass surveillance. But to play devil's advocate. So, Joe. Okay, go ahead. Yeah.

The entire NSA is an executive order. 12-333 under Truman. You could repeal that executive order to simply turn the satellites away from you and I. If you did that. 110 million Verizon users, this metadata collection. It's my understanding that by executive order, you could actually turn the satellites on the bad guys as opposed to U.S. citizens. But don't you think that if someone actually did that, they'd probably put you in a convertible and roll you through Dallas? That's also a possibility. If you tried to say you're going to get rid of the NSA or diminish the NSA or the CIA or the FBI,

you would be in a bad place. So you'd have to kind of work with them, right? Isn't that the best way to handle it and still keep your head? Or how about the notion of really just doing the right thing? So the Edward Snowden situation. Did you see the Snowden movie? No. What was it called? Citizen Four. Citizen Four. Everybody listening, got to see it.

Edward Snowden, I mean, he laid it all out there. It wasn't about him. It was about the information. It wasn't about him. It was about the information. He gave all the information to media saying, I do not in any way have the resources that they will be able to disseminate this information and not put people... It was just an excellent, excellent documentary on what I will say is a real American patriot. It was a docudrama, right? It was a dramatization? No, it was... Which one was a dramatizationudrama, right? It was a dramatization? No, it was, it was. Which one was a dramatization? Wasn't there one that was a dramatization?

There's one coming out soon. That's a dramatization. Okay. Okay. So Citizen Four was the actual documentary. It was the actual documentary where, where when they showed up, it was Edward Snowden.

They showed up. They didn't know who Edward Snowden was. They didn't. It was amazing. You've got, you've got to see it. Okay. You've got to see it. You've got to see it. I'll definitely see it. To play devil's advocate, if you do pardon Snowden, that means that if there

was a crime being committed at all, that crime was being committed by the NSA. If you demonize Snowden, as soon as they arrest Snowden or they try to arrest Snowden, they say that Snowden's a bad guy. What he's done is terrible. If he comes to the United States, we're absolutely going to arrest him. What you're saying is, and they're putting the focus on him as a potential criminal, well, if somehow or another he is exonerated, well, what happened then? Well, is there a crime? Well, if he's exonerated, if he's done something that violates the whatever agreement that he had to sign in order to work for the NSA.

That means that the crime that he exposed was so significant that it was valid for him to violate whatever agreement he signed with the federal government that right now they're pursuing him as a criminal for, which means someone needs to go to jail for the crime. If they're not going to put him in jail, if they're not going to prosecute him. Yeah, interesting way of looking at it. I'd look at it from the standpoint of this is a mistake that we've made. Let's acknowledge the mistake and let's move forward. Let's correct it.

It's not just that simple, right? It may not be, but I'm not looking at this from the standpoint of prosecuting people as much as we've made a mistake. Let's correct it. Is this what this country is really about? They're still moving forward with this data collection thing in Utah. It's unabated. And when you have testimony before Congress that says, are you spying on the American people? It says, are you spying on the American people? And the response is, well, let's see. Is there mass surveillance of the American public going on? And when they said no, the question should have been total surveillance, mass surveillance. What does that mean? Thousands of people? Well, no, we're talking about 100. So he says no, the answer being hundreds of millions of people. Total surveillance, not mass surveillance.

Total surveillance as far as mass surveillance. So it's correct. It's actually honest to say no. We're parsing things here. But come on, we've been misled. This is not the country that we fought wars to preserve. Does this go back to what we were talking about before, where businesses tend to lean towards growth? So the NSA is involved in growth.

And they don't want to stop. I think so. It's the Peter Principle. I want to justify my life. And I'm talking about bureaucrats now. Justify my life. I need to grow what it is I'm doing. I need to prove that what I'm doing is so important that I need people working for me.

I need to expand what I'm doing because it's so important. So what would you be able to do, if anything, as a president? So you get into office and – With the NSA? Yes. It just came to my – this just came to my attention like 10 days ago that the NSA is an executive order under Truman that the president of the United States could repeal immediately. But, God, that would be ugly. Why would it be ugly? They wouldn't let you do that.

I mean it wouldn't be so simple. Well, nothing is simple. Nothing is simple. Nothing is simple. I do not want to downplay on the complexity of what this might entail. But at the end of the day, is it possible to turn the satellites away from you and I? Well, that wouldn't be that we would want to get rid of the NSA. What would it want to be is maybe redirect their efforts. Wow. Like as in protecting us again, you know, having an in having an impenetrable national defense is an impenetrable national defense. Does that I mean, this is Orwellian. This is this is 1984. They've got the satellites on us. Yeah, it is bizarre. It's bizarre that they've just randomly decided to get the entire country under surveillance when there's no evidence to point that, you know, you're stopping anything or eliminating anything. But you are putting people in a compromised position,

because if people know that the government has been paying attention to all their emails and voicemails and all that jazz, then people will adjust their behavior. They'll be a little bit more cautious. They're a little bit more cautious with their criticism. And if you are ever in a situation. Yes, exactly. 1984. And if you're ever in a situation where you are against the government in any way, they will have so much data on you.

Like if you're one of those people that decides to Edward Snowden it from here on out, boy, good luck with that. I mean, they will instantly be pulling up emails and voicemails and you've got a real problem on your hands. Because it's not just metadata, right? I mean, that's also been proven. What is it? We don't even know. We don't know.

We don't even know. Nobody knows. Do you remember the guy who initially was the whistleblower many, many years ago? There are many of them. There are many of them that are in prison for the same. Yeah. Well, there's a gentleman that was one of the original whistleblowers who was actually one of the coders who was working with the NSA when they first started designing this sort of program. And he resigned and went public with all this. And he was vilified. And when Edward Snowden came out with all of this information, this guy started doing interviews again.

And he started saying, like, listen, I was talking about this in the early 2000s. This is something they've been putting into play for a long time. During the Bush administration, they started us all off. The NSA? Yeah. Yeah, I think it goes back further than that. Yeah, I think it does too. It goes back to Truman.

Yeah, here's the guy, Bill Binney, the original NSA whistleblower on Snowden 9-11 and illegal surveillance. It's a very, very interesting story. There's several interviews with this guy. This one is from Computer Weekly, but there's several interviews with this guy this one is from computer weekly but there's several interviews with this this gentleman he was the original whistleblower what was the year of this jamie because i want to say 2007 but i might be wrong it doesn't say um but it doesn't matter bill binney is the guy and i've seen him interviewed several times and he realized while this was all going on, he's like, you're not looking for criminals. You're trying to spy on everyone. You can't do this. And I think we all agree that you shouldn't be able to do that. But right now that's happening. And very simply,

there is a process, the Fourth Amendment, there is due process. So if there's a bad guy out there that the federal government wants to spy on, got to get a warrant. That's how it should be. But this FISA court where the government goes before the FISA court and says, we want authority to collect metadata on 110 million Verizon users, I fail to see where that's due process in any way, shape or form. No one has made an argument against that. No one has made an argument against that. No one has made an argument that makes any sense whatsoever supporting that. So if that's the case, why does the president allow it? Good question. Good question. If he's the guy that has all this

music coming out of his mouth, what are his words that are so beautiful and melodic about this? Melodic? Melodic? What's the word? Well, that's the big Obama disappointment is I'm sure if we went into the archives, he would have been addressed. Well, maybe he wouldn't have because he wouldn't have even known about this metadata collection. But I do. Well, he was in the Hope and Change website when he was running for president. One of the things he was talking about was supporting whistleblowers that are revealing criminal activity. Well, he's directly contradicted that. I mean, everything he's done in regards to people blowing whistles and revealing government problems, they've prosecuted them. They've

been worse on freedom of the press than any other president. We look at Bush as being like this really terrible, like a draconian guy. But the Bush administration was easier on whistleblowers and easier on press and trying to get press to reveal their sources than the Obama administration. Back to the reality not matching up at all. Exactly. Yeah, the reality not matching up at all, not just with the words, but with the appearance. words but with the the appearance like it's the appearance of this this really educated like socially aware guy who gets into play like finally we've got this articulate intelligent well-read president this is a relief from the guy who you know stumbles through words and says a

bunch of stupid shit like this is our guy this is our guy. This is our guy, finally. But then, same practices. In fact, worse. Worse. More drone attacks. More, I mean, what do you do about that? What do you do about a program that the drone attacks have resulted in, I believe the numbers, like more than 80% accidental death

or more than 80% civilians being killed versus the intended target? Well, this is the unintended consequence of our military interventions, that they're making things worse, not better. And I am talking about boots on the ground. I'm talking about dropping bombs and the fact that drones do fly and kill thousands of innocent people. And when I had Mike Baker on, who was a former CIA operative, when he and I were discussing this, he was saying that, look, what you're seeing is lawyers make those decisions. These decisions of whether to bomb or not to bomb, they're being done by lawyers. They sit down, they go over the possibilities, they go over the risks versus reward, and

they make the call. What the fuck kind of world is that? That's the world that can be changed, I think. So here's the big battleship. It's the United States. How do you turn that? Supertanker. Yeah, supertanker, whatever you would call it.

Well, first you've got to— Lovejoy Cruiser. First, what is it? It takes six miles to turn the supertanker around, turn it around 180 degrees. Well, first you've got to stop the engines. First you've got to actually start the process. Yeah, and okay, so it's six miles before you can actually pull the U-turn. Well, we're full steam ahead.

We're still full steam ahead. Okay, so let's talk military. So you're in office. Obviously, you need to protect people. Obviously, there's threats out there, both abroad and locally. What do you do in terms of minimizing the amount of money that we spend on the military, minimizing the amount of invasion of privacy, the branches of the military, things like the NSA, which I guess you consider the military,

some sort of security apparatus for us, right? What would you consider the NSA? Is that military? What would you consider it? I don't know. National Security Administration. But, I mean, obviously, it's something to do with the military, right? It has to be oversight.

Yeah. Or it has to be some transparency. So when you're talking about the military, how do you go about minimizing the impact or minimizing the negative aspects of it? Well, make no bones. If we're attacked, we're going to attack back. That we should have an impenetrable national defense. But we're anything but defense. Where is Congress in all of this? They've abdicated their responsibility to declare war for the American people to have a discussion and

debate over how the military should proceed. They've abdicated that responsibility to the President of the United States, who's doing this on executive order along with the military. president of the United States who's doing this on executive order along with the military. That's where Iraq got really weird, right? Where it wasn't an actual act of war. That Congress had allowed, well, the Congress has allowed the president to carry on this, to do what the president sees fit. Well, that is, in my opinion, that's an abdication of constitutional responsibility by Congress. So let's reestablish that. I think the biggest threat in the world right now is North Korea and the fact that at some point, Kim is, at some point, these intercontinental ballistic missiles are going to work. Yeah. At some point, these intercontinental ballistic missiles are going to work. And this guy is a nut. So how about the notion of really getting together with China because this is in China's best interest to get rid of Kim, unify the Koreas, get American troops out of South Korea. South Korea. If Cuba, look, we didn't put up for a second that Russia was going to occupy or have missiles in Cuba. Do you think China likes the fact that we got 40,000 troops in Korea? No,

they don't like it a bit. Well, do we not make the world a lot more secure if we can't come to terms with China on how we can deal with what I will argue the biggest threat in the world right now? And China is an ally of North Korea, correct? They are, but they're an embarrassment to, from all that I can glean, they're an embarrassment. an embarrassment. 70% of South Korea's trade export goes to China. None of North Korea's export goes to China because there is no product to export. It's, well... But to turn that ship around, boy, you want to talk about turning a tough ship around, the North Korea ship, I mean, you're talking about an entire brainwashed country. It's a very sad, sad state. China is not blind to that. Let's take advantage of establishing a partnership, an alliance with China to deal with that.

But they're already so poor and so screwed over. What do you do outside of a military intervention? As opposed to us, as opposed to us dealing with it, it's in China's best interest to deal with this. And so that China has, what do they have, this island that they build 40 miles off their coast or whatever it is? What's the big deal?

The United States does this all the time. I mean, what's the big deal? What big deal in what way? Like, what are you saying? Well, this is somehow a threat to U.S. security that, you know, that they've built an island 40 miles off of their mainland. I don't get it. We're spending more on our—we're spending as much money on our military as all the other nations in the world combined. What does that say?

Does that say maybe we're spending more than our fair share? Talk about... Well, that's also we're the number one superpower in the world in order to maintain that position and be the benevolent dictators of the world. Well, to what end are we maintaining that position? What is the end game here? Well, the end game is to provide national impenetrable national defense for our country.

I mean, I don't want to put troops in harm's way. I don't want men and women dying in situations where that does not have to take place. You know, the fact they get injured, they come back here the rest of their lives. They're affected by— I agree with you, but to play devil's advocate and take their point of view, they would say that what they're doing overseas is saving things from happening here and keeping people safe by intervening in other countries, by blocking things from taking place. I mean, this would be. Like if they weren't doing this, that you would have these superpowers develop in these other countries and it would become a gigantic issue, whether it's Iran, whether it's Russiasein. That's all their concern was, was how do they deal with Saddam Hussein in Iraq? We go in, we take out Saddam Hussein. Well, now all of a sudden, we cut the head of that hydra off. Now all of a sudden, we have to deal with Iran,

something that we weren't having to deal with before. That's an unintended consequence. But do we need to deal with Iran? I mean, what is the reason why we have to deal with Iran? They're the biggest funder of terrorism in the world. They fund terrorism. It's undeniable. however much money it was, $160 billion. And by Secretary Kerry's own admission, question was, well, will there not be funds that will get directed at terrorism? And he said, yes, there will be funds that will be directed at terrorism. So how on earth could we have signed that agreement with Iran, given the fact that they are the biggest funder of terrorism in the world. What is their motivation to fund terrorism? Is their motivation to fund terrorism because

they're concerned with the United States continuing to develop power in the Middle East? Like, what is their... Well, it could be a combination of... Again, devil's advocate. Well, yeah, no, no, it could be a... I don't want to discount anything that's being said by anyone, but from our standpoint, we're contributing to what will be more terrorism because terrorism will get funded from some of this money that got freed out. Now, when you say that, when you say funding terrorism, specifically, what do you mean? Now, when you say that, when you say funding terrorism, specifically, what do you mean? Well, where were at some point these terrorist groups and I'm not and who's to say where the connection using Brussels as an example, who's to say where those guys were getting their funds from their support from? Well, it's not a stretch to say that it may have come from

Iran. But isn't that a big statement that should be qualified? Well, regardless of whether it's Brussels or wherever, at some point, the funding for terrorism has results. Right. And in this case, if you are allowing a contributor to terrorism to have funds to contribute as the United States, are we not making the situation worse? When we go in and militarily intervene and leave equipment, Afghanistan, we leave equipment, we end up arming the Taliban. Afghanistan, we leave equipment, we end up arming the Taliban. When the Russians leave, the Taliban is equipped. They're equipped with U.S. arms because we use the Taliban to fight the Russians. Right. But to bring it back to Iran, what, if any, evidence is available that shows that Iran funded terrorism? Unequivocal. I can't state for you the ABCs of it, but unequivocal. Secretary of State Kerry was asked the question, well, isn't some of this money, some of it, going to get directed at funding terrorism? And his response was, yeah, yes,

some of it unquestionably is going to get directed toward terrorism. I don't know how we could have okayed that given what has been acknowledged. What is the benefit of giving them money? You know, I'm all for the free trade. I think that free trade at the end of the day is a really powerful tool. I don't have the answer to this and I don't want to misstate anything, but this is a conversation that we're having. Could we have not opened up free trade with Iran and still kept their assets frozen? And by that, that assets that now they enter into the world community, that they can sell their oil, and on an ongoing basis, we'll have free trade with Iran, they can spend the

money as they see fit. But with regard to the money that's been frozen, if we believe that any of that's going to be redirected or directed at terrorism, why did we do that? I'm just saying. I don't get it. Well, what has been the response by the administration? I mean, has this question been brought up and how have they answered it? Well, that was the – this was, gosh, maybe, I don't know, six months ago when Kerry was asked this. And, you know, it was very matter-of-factly.

Yes, some of it's going to get redirected to – you know, you have to – I think it was – secondhand or firsthand. I mean I'm repeating what I thought I heard him say, which was, yeah, unquestionably some of this is going to go to terrorism. I don't get it. Okay. Well, we don't have specifics to discuss when it comes to that, like specific facts. So it gets a little murky. We got the internet going here. Yeah, we definitely do.

I wonder what, if anything, can be done to calm some of the areas down in the world done to calm some of the areas down in the world? And how much of what's going on in the world is about controlling resources? And how much of that would change if we had less reliance on fossil fuels? Well, we're not getting any of our oil right now from the Middle East. We're not getting any. We're fracking. Well, we are fracking, and that statement is not completely true. We are getting oil from all over the world. Canada. Well, our refineries here in the United States. So there's a tradeoff.

We're exporting really clean oil, oil that doesn't need as much refining, and we're importing oil that is dirty, so it's cheaper. So there's more of a profit margin to bring in dirty oil, refine it, and make more money by exporting cleaner oil that refineries overseas can handle as opposed to the United States. So there is that going on, but for the most part, we're energy sufficient at the moment because of fracking. But when we entered into Iraq, one of the more cynical concerns was that for what it was, too, that that was the case. So when you look at the world in terms of threats and imminent danger to the United States, like what could be done to try to lessen that? Well, first and foremost, and this is where the Obama administration has concentrated on, and I couldn't tell you the status of how effective it is, but it is to cut

off funding to terrorism. I mean, that's the goal. Saudi Arabia. The word terrorism, such a weird word, because it's such a blanket statement. You're not talking about an individual nation with an individual motive. You say terrorism. It's like we have a war on terror. What does that really mean? I mean you're talking about so many different groups. I'm extremely offended when you use the term Islamic terrorism or, you know, Islamic terrorism, which looking at it from the outside, it does appear as though there is that constant. But Muslims would say that, look, that's not inherent in the Muslim religion, which I more than agree with. So this is the political correctness about saying

terrorism as opposed to Islamic terrorism. Right. But the terrorists just happen to be Islamic. Does seem to be that common element. But is that something that's taught? Is that something that's taught? Is that something that most of Muslim religion believes in? No, no. But it does seem to be a common thread. But that's the political – I'm repeating myself here. Right. How do you calm that down? I mean, what do you – how do you – is there any way to appease people that are so upset at the United States? I mean, what is their major gripe? What is their major reason for being upset with us? And as a president, what would you do to try to stop that? and not allow it to spread. And now I'm back to military policy, defense,

having an impenetrable national defense. The notion of somehow a dirty bomb getting over here into the United States, I mean, that should be a real live concern. When I've talked to military operatives, though, they believe that a proactive attack or a proactive action is much more likely to stop ISIS or any of these ISIL. Well, and that's been our tact to date. And I'm going to say that without exception, that every one of those military interventions have had an unintended consequence of, at best, you know, we always deal with atrocity. There are atrocities going on. We go in to deal with that atrocity. And at the

end of the day, the new dictator, the new despot that we put into place to replace the bad despot at the end of the day is just as bad or in many cases worse. We cut off the head of the Hydra and lo and behold, there are more heads. So how does one stop that? I mean, have you ever tried to come up with some sort of a solution or look at some sort of a long-term plan that would somehow or another calm the world or at least allow the United States to make peace? One of the reasons that I'm seeking to become president of the United States is I think? One of the reasons that I'm seeking to become president of the United States is I think I do a really good job of presiding over all the intelligence that we do have regarding all of this. And I don't want to present myself as having the answers as

much as, you know what, give me the intel. Let me be part of this discussion. But I'm going to enter into this discussion as a real skeptic on what we've done to this point and a real skeptic on what appears to be what we're going to do in the future regarding all this. And isn't there a more effective way of dealing with this? I wouldn't be seeking this job if I didn't think that I could make a difference in it. And I do not want to misstate. I don't want to play cards. Obama draws lines in the sand. I'm not going to draw lines in the sand. If you draw any lines in the sand, you better be prepared to back up what you've said with action. And that's also been an issue with Obama. How much different do you think perspective changes once you get into office?

Once you get into office and you sit down with military leaders and you sit down with someone who explains to you the actual landscape you're dealing with? I think that perspective can change a lot. But how about being transparent? How about being transparent with the American public? How about educating the American public to the intel that does exist? But wouldn't they possibly alert the enemy that we have knowledge of some things they may or may not know we have knowledge of and that would put people in danger? militarily intervene somewhere, you better darn well get up in front of the American public and take the eggs and tomatoes or worse. What was your take when Obama went on television and was talking about how we needed to invade

Syria? And Syria was a huge issue. And then the American public was up in arms, both the right and the left. People like, what are you talking about? This is craziness. And then the administration backed off. I mean, it was, in my opinion, it was one of the first- That was drawing? I'm sorry, I didn't mean to interrupt. No, it's okay. But it was one of the first examples of the United States, sort of collectively,

the will of the people being openly expressed that the idea of entering Syria was outrageous. Nobody wanted to do it. It didn't make any sense to people. This gas attack, like how is this any more horrible than a lot of shit that's going on all over the world all the time? What is it about Syria that all of a sudden we have to go and invade Syria? One more intervention in one more country and the administration backed off. Great example.

The administration backed off. Great example. People are fed up with this and the fact that 22 million people in Syria and 11 million of them have been displaced. Don't we have a share in that consequence? Well, what was the motivation? What was the motivation for the United States wanting to invade there in the first place. Well, wasn't it McCain going over there and beating his chest and along with Lindsey Graham and, and let's go over there and support the good guys. Well, the good guys are the minority and the good guys at the end of the day. Look, this is

somehow we're going to determine the outcomes in other countries? I mean, that's just, it's preposterous that as individuals we can do that. But this seems so contrary to what Obama stood for before he got in office. So when he gets on television and talks about intervening, going over to Syria, about, you know, there's gas attacks and all this jazz, like, where's that motivation coming from? Like, who's behind him pushing him into this direction? Or is this just how he's been the entire time and he just sold us a song and dance before

he got into office? You let off this kind of line of thought by saying, or this is where I thought you were headed, was can you get in and not be co-opted by the system? Based on my only experience, having been governor of New Mexico, yeah, you can, meaning you can, that good government was easy. It wasn't hard, that you weren't co-opted. There was plenty of co-option that, you know, that tried to wield itself. But you know what? You're the president of the United States. You're the governor of a state. You know, you're at the top of the pyramid. Yes, you do have limited powers, but even with those limited

powers, you're still the most powerful human being on earth. Don't you think there's a pretty radical difference between being a governor of a state without a military and being the president of the United States dealing not just with the same sort of problems that you dealt with as a governor, but on a much larger scale, plus the problems of the world, plus the military, plus the weird stuff like the NSA and the CIA and the FBI? It has to be extremely more complex. But at the end of the day, can you still tell the truth? Can you still admit mistakes? And, you know, if you're willing to tell the truth and you're willing to admit mistakes, mistakes seem to have a way of compounding themselves when you don't admit the mistakes as in lieu of admitting the mistakes and then taking corrective action. But really, at the end of the day, doesn't it boil down to telling the truth and fessing up to mistakes and fixing things? I would think so. But it seems to me that the wiring of the office is so complex and there's so much craziness going on that no one gets in

office and does what they said they were going to that no one gets in office and does what they said they were going to do before they got in office because it almost seems insurmountable that was not my experience that was not as a governor yeah right governors have done what they've pledged well so would you rather would you rather elect someone who has had the experience of not having been co-opted as opposed to somebody who has been co-opted? Won't someone that's been co-opted – at the end of the day, would I – if I'm elected president of the United States, at the end of the day, would I be able to make that same statement? I hope so. That's the best way to put it. That's an honest way to put it. You hope so. Because it just, I really would like to know. I would love it if you became president,

we could stay friends and I could go, hey man, I won't tell anybody. No, we'll tell the world. We'll tell the world. Fuck, let's go run back here. We'll tell the world. Well, I don't want to get shot with you. I'm going to run away. back here. We'll tell the world. Well, I don't want to get shot with you.

I'm going to run away. I just, it just, the whole thing seems so almost impossibly intertwined that it's like a, you go fishing? You ever go fishing? No, I'm on my mountain bike as opposed to fishing. Okay. I do have a, just a side light, I do have a stream running through my, right by my house. Do you?

I have 1,600 feet of frontage on the Hondo River, and it's loaded with taxpayer trout. So I'll give you an invitation to come fish that stream. That would be like probably fly fishing, right? What I'm talking about is there's a thing called a bird's nest. What a bird's nest is when you use a bait casting reel and the line spools quicker than it can roll over and it gets it becomes this gigantic tangle and when you when you use a bait casting reel you're supposed to sort of regulate at least the old school ones you regulate the amount of pressure with your thumb as to like uh how fast the the wheel turns

the wheel turns too quick the line gets so tangled, and it almost becomes impossible. You look at it and you go, shit, what am I going to do with all this? There's a perfect image. That's what a bird's nest looks like. You see how all that line is all just... Try getting through that. That's a mess. See, when I think of the government,

I think of that with bullets. This is almost like... I like the that like this is almost like the analogy branches. It's almost like it's so tangled. And with all the other variables that you discussed, terms, term limitations that aren't in place, ideological blockades on the left and the right, supporting your constituents on the left and the right, special interest groups, lobbyists. The fact that there's this one area outside of Washington, D.C.

that is just all lobbyists, these neighborhoods. And it's one of the wealthiest parts of the area. And it's just because people are making insane amounts of money manipulating the system. So I am advocating eliminating income tax and corporate tax. And as a result of that- Wait a minute. Hit the brakes. Did you just say-

You were talking about lobbyists. Eliminating income tax? Yeah, yeah. How are you going to do that? So eliminate income tax, eliminate corporate tax. Because you're going to do that, you're going to also be able to abolish the IRS. Whoa. Just hear me out here. Just a couple more minutes. And we would replace all of that with one federal consumption tax. Now, how do you do

that? Well, there's an actual proposal out there. It's called the fair tax, and it's how you dot the I's and cross the T's when it comes to establishing one federal consumption tax. If we had zero corporate tax in this country, I believe tens of millions of jobs would get created. If we did not have corporate tax, if we did not have income tax, I believe that pink slips would get issued to 80 percent of Washington lobbyists because that's why they're there to garner special tax favor. At the end of the day, it's all about advantage and really that amounts to tax money spent. So how does this consumption tax work, and how would you possibly implement it, and how would you possibly get anyone to agree to do this, to get rid of the IRS, to get rid of the income tax, corporate tax. A couple hundred congressmen and women, maybe 160, have actually signed on to this proposal. So this proposal has been around for quite a while. And how many oppose it? Well, you've got, what, how many?

400? Well, by oppose, not necessarily oppose, but, you know, you haven't signed on. Haven't signed on. Well, that would be more than half have not signed on, but a significant number have. So it's been vetted. It's out there. Okay. So this consumption tax, how does this work?

It would be a 28% consumption tax. Across the board. On all new goods and services, not used goods and services. And before you fall off the chair, the theory is that it wouldn't necessarily, it would be cost neutral. So if I could use a can of Coke as an example, a can of Coke that sells for a buck today has corporate tax contained in that buck. It has unemployment contained in that buck. It has Social Security match contained in that buck. It has Medicare contained in that dollar. It has the accounting fees and the legal fees that go along with complying with the IRS and the filing with the IRS.

So arguably, the can of Coke would not sell for a buck. It would sell for 73 cents. And then the 28 percent tax would get applied to the can of Coke. So you'd still end up paying a buck for the can of Coke. That's the theory. So by doing this and eliminating income tax, how much different would the amount be that the government receives? This is intended to be revenue neutral. Revenue neutral.

So government's still going to receive the same amount of money. That's also the projection. That's the, that's also the projection. How's that possible? If people are not paying income tax, like say, if someone's wealthy, if they make a million dollars a year and you know, a million dollars a year, you're probably in a 48% tax bracket, take away all your tax shelters and all the various ways, corporations, LLCs, all that jazz. You're, you 30s probably, right? That's a lot of money. That's $300,000. So how much money are you, how are you going to regain that? Well, if you're making a lot of money, you spend a lot of money. So you're going to pay that money in consumption tax.

What if you're Scrooge McDuck and you're just hanging back? Whoa, then that's a way that you can, isn't there a fairness in that? But the reality is the more people make when it comes to money, the more people spend. But if you want to save your money. When you say new and used, does that apply to homes? Yep. So a new home, you would have to pay 38%. That would cripple the home market. 28%. That would cripple the home market because no one would want to buy a new home. No, but I'm back to the theory. Right now, when you enlist the aid of the plumbing company, the plumbing company has— So, first of all, no more payroll deductions.

The Social Security, unemployment, Medicare, all of that would come out of the proceeds of one federal consumption tax. So all government proceeds would come from this new pot of money. So it's just like a sales tax. So instead of the plumber on your home giving you a $100,000 bill for the plumbing, theoretically, the bill will be 73 grand with me so it's not the the the theory is the house really isn't going to cost you any more because all these hidden taxes that exist are going to go away hmm that sounds cute it's in. Well, and let me also just say I'm looking to get elected president of the United States. I'm going to sign on to what I think is going to make anything better.

But when you talk about making things really better, I think this is a proposal that simplifies all of our lives in a huge way. Imagine not having to deal with the IRS. It would be tremendous. But you would also put all those people out of jobs, and they're going to fight for that. They're going to try to fight against that. That would be a giant issue. The accounting and the attorney fees that go along with complying with the IRS and the IRS employees themselves. And if you think about the pressure that the police unions or the guard unions,

rather prison guard unions put to make sure that marijuana remains illegal and drug laws remain in place, imagine the kind of pressure that lobbyists and the IRS and anyone else that might be affected by these decisions are going to put to try to stop this from happening. else that might be affected by these decisions are going to put to try to stop this from happening. Well, this though would be a dialogue if you had, in this case, Gary Johnson on stage in the presidential debates talking about something like this. Wouldn't that maybe open people's eyes to the fact that, whoa, life could change dramatically. Some would argue for the better. I think at the end of the day, you can argue that this would make life a lot better for everybody. Well, it certainly stimulated dialogue.

But I wonder if you can get that point across in those little sound bites that you do in those debates. Yeah, I think so. tens of millions of jobs would get created overnight here in the United States because of a zero corporate tax rate. Why would you create a job anywhere in the world other than the United States given zero corporate taxes? So you think that like Apple would move their iPhone factors, they're paying people five cents an hour, they'd move into the United States and have to pay a working wage because they don't have to pay corporate taxes. Wouldn't they cancel each other out? Wouldn't it be more profitable to still invoke foreign labor and use third world countries?

Well, but they would have to pay that corporate tax in that foreign country. I mean- Right, but it's minimal, right? I mean- No, it's not minimal, but it's less. Right. But now I'm back to, hey, I get elected president of the United States and I get legislation submitted to reduce corporate tax. Yeah, I'm going to sign on to that because I think it really is a hindrance to job creation when should we reduce the corporate tax rate to 28 percent or 29 percent and Republicans and Democrats both get their peacock feathers all up in arms about 29 or 28 or 27. Well, how about zero? How about doing away with the IRS?

Oh, my gosh. Imagine the – I mean if lowering it is good, how about eliminating it? Well, I think you would get universal support from the United States. I mean, from people in the country. If you ask people how much do they love the United States IRS system, they would say zero. I mean, I don't think there's a single person other than people who work for the IRS that says, I love them. They're awesome. I love when they go after your bank account.

I love when they take all your money. Yeah, no, you're right. I mean, I love when they go after your bank account. I love when they take all your money. Yeah, no, you're right. I love when they sue you. Yeah, no, no, no. I'll drop the thought completely because of the love that does exist for the IRS. You're right. No, I'm saying no one loves it. I know.

Yeah. You know what I'm saying? I do know. I mean, everyone hates it. Everyone hates it. So you would get 100% support. Well, no, there's nothing. There's no such thing as 100% support.

Of course, obviously. But how about this entering into the debate? Yeah, well, it would be a great thing to talk about because the system is not good and no one thinks it is. So the idea of keeping it exactly the way it is seems pretty ridiculous, right? I mean, that's like the definition of insanity, doing the same thing over and over again, expecting different results. It's crony capitalism. Those that have money pay less of their share. This really, at the end of the day, is very fair. Right. So thinking of that and along those lines, how do you feel about corporations donating

to political candidates? I have no issue with corporations donating to political candidates. But the problem today is are these super PACs that are 100 percent non-transparent. You have no idea who's contributing to these super PACs. Make for unlimited contribution. Just make the contributions 100% transparent. I'm the one that said candidates should wear NASCAR-like jackets with... I think that was Robin Williams, actually.

Actually, that was me, maybe. Maybe he got it from me. He used to do it. He had a bit about it on HBO. You sure you didn't go to sleep with the TV on? No, I think I had this first. I think I did have this first. Tell me what the year was.

Let's Google it. Well, yeah, no, Google it. If Robin Williams ripped you off, that would be brutal. No, I'm not. There's no ripoff here. You might have. But this would have been, I'd have been saying this in 2009. Ooh, I think he might have got you.

Well, maybe so. I think he might have got you well maybe so but i did but but i'm not i'm not infringing on his stuff i i thought it was original i want to think it's special was in 2006 i want to think i want to think you might be well isn't this parallel thinking it doesn't mean yes right right right there you go that's the problem with uh intellectual property is uh look if it's parallel thinking thinking, then I'm not the only other one either. Right. I'm sure. There are probably 100 people listening right now that are going, no, I said that first.

100%. I said that in kindergarten. Well, it's a pretty obvious connection, right? You see NASCAR. They're all covered with logos. It stands out. Yeah. And you know who's sponsoring them.

The bigger the logo, the more money was controlled they're the direct i mean that's the the direct comparison because they're the most obvious sponsored thing the car is sponsored their jackets are sponsored everything's covered in logos they're like if you look at basketball players you don't see that you know it's very rare that you see yeah yeah any sort of a sporting event where they're covered with logos like that so what what year that's coming this next season what the nba is adding all those logos to all their things they're adding one they're adding one okay yeah they're in one logo and this is uh it was actually argued against the rebach deal for the ufc um i i i get real concerned with uh super packs for sure. I get real concerned with money and politics. And that is, I think, one of the reasons why Bernie Sanders has stood out. It's because he's the

only guy that is not really accepting money from these giant corporations and he's fairly self-funded. One of the misconceptions about campaign finances is that if you limit campaign contribution, that things are going to get better. You're going to eliminate the influence of big money, when the reality is by limiting campaign contribution, you basically, that's an incumbency protection act. So limiting campaign contribution is all about reelecting incumbents. That's what it's all about. Look, if you could get, if somebody would finance me to the tune of a billion dollars, they might change this country in a really big way. Should the billion dollars be anonymous?

I don't think so. I think that it should be front and center and whomever contributed that should be known completely and that their goal was to change America. opposed to having to take 500,000 contributions at $2,000, which at the end of the day has more of a corrupting influence. More of a corrupting influence than one super rich person that wants to influence your decision making? Well, as an example, governor of New Mexico, my number one contributor for two terms gave me $150,000. It may sound cheap to a lot of people. That doesn't sound cheap. It sounds like a guy with a lot of money. You can throw $150,000 your way. Yeah.

And over an eight-year period, he was never – not once did he call for anything there was never any request that's fairly rare though no well maybe but my point is is that if i would have had a thousand contributors uh giving me 150 right i see what you're saying. $1,500. A hundred people giving me $1,500. I guarantee you, Joe, that 10 of them at some point would have been on the phone wanting something. Right. Guarantee it. Okay. That's pretty anecdotal, though, no? I mean, you're talking about one contributor versus... If you're looking at someone who's trying to contribute though to the United States, to someone running for the United States, and if they give you a billion dollars,

one person who gives you a billion dollars, that guy's going to want some, he's going to want something. I really don't think it's that simple. Well, let's use a more realistic term, a billionaire that wants, you know, a multi-billionaire that wants to give $10 million. Like Bill Gates or someone like that. Someone like that, yeah. Like, you think he would? Is it inconceivable that there aren't a whole bunch of those people out there that would just be looking for good government and just be looking to back the candidate of their choice

based on what it was they were saying? I don't think it's inconceivable at all, but just let's all know who that contributor was and how much money they gave. Well, I understand that the transparency aspect that sort of makes sense, but boy, having one person that influences politics that much is concerning. It concerns people. And I think rightly so, because someone who has that much money, who they are, they're already in this very strong, advantageous position. And the only

reason why you would rationally give someone a billion dollars is if you thought that it was going to be an advantage to you, you were going to somehow or another reap the rewards of giving them that money. Yeah, good government. So in my, I'd never been involved in politics before running for governor of New Mexico. Never. You're a businessman, successful businessman. Never, never even pounded in a campaign sign. Well, how did I get elected? Well, I paid for my own campaign.

My primary, this is going to sound really cheap, but my primary the first time was $540,000. 510 of it was mine. What was your motivation? Just good government. The notion of life and what do you do with your life? And for me, my entire life, politics, I viewed it as a high calling. the notion of being in a position to make things better. Now, look, I'm the first person to also admit that if you had people lined up or if you asked how many are going to line up here to say Gary Johnson was the scourge of the earth, hey, you know, there'd be lines, blocks long out here. I get it. I get it. But you're trying to—

What would their main criticism be? No, I don't think you'd actually have that happen. But there's always criticism, regardless of what you do. And the motivation for what I've done always is to make things better. But there are always people that have something contrary to say. No matter what you do. No matter what you do. I mean, you could write an article about soccer and you're going to have a hundred people yeah well so i didn't have to go out and raise any money i i i gave the money to myself well why can't you extend that argument and say that if somebody would have given me if one person would have given me that same five hundred and ten thousand dollars that that person wouldn't have changed the uh okay my contributor that gave me

150 grand for good government well he had the ability to write you know he had the ability to give 510 grand and and essentially get me elected wouldn't that have been isn't that a good thing well it's only a good thing if it's a good guy well right but we don't know that it's a good guy we just know it's a rich guy. Well, right. But we don't know that it's a good guy. We just know it's a rich guy. And the amount of influence that one rich person has is very problematic to regular people. And should be part of the equation on the analysis of is this having an impact and who is it and how much money have they given, which currently these super PACs, 100% non-transparent. Right. But do you think that transparency protects you from influence?

Like if it is transparent and you have like one of the Koch brothers is giving all the money up, even if it's transparent, you know what the hell their motivation is. They want to continue to extract massive amounts of money, right? Well, if it's one person that's giving all the money, then there's that much more scrutiny that goes along with that person giving that much more money. And you'd have to think that the influence wouldn't be as blatant as it was if it was completely non-transparent. Yeah, I'm a little skeptical.

That's all right. That's okay. What did you think when the Supreme Court made the decision to allow corporations to donate as if they were individuals? It doesn't make much sense to me. No. It doesn't make much sense. What do you think the motivation Supreme Court made the decision to allow corporations to donate as if they were individuals? It doesn't make much sense to me. No. It doesn't make much sense. What do you think the motivation was for that, though?

Why would they pass something like that? You know, I'm too far in the weeds. But they did it, and it just doesn't make any sense. It's kind of creepy, though, isn't it? A little. Yeah. I think so. I like what you're saying.

I really like this idea of abolishing the IRS, a consumption tax. I love the little. Yeah, I think so. I like what you're saying. I really like this idea of abolishing the IRS, a consumption tax. I love the idea. Check out the fair tax. I will. Check out the fair tax. And there are no fair taxes, but like I say, dot the I's and cross the T's on how you accomplish one federal consumption tax. To wrap this up, I'm just going to give you the floor. Just sell it. Sell it to the American people. What is wrong? What can be fixed? And what can Gary Johnson do to fix this? I want to make a pitch for myself. And that is, is that I think I really am a unique package. I am fiscally conservative. I'm as frugal a human being as you've ever met. But that doesn't mean

that I'm cheap. It just means that I spend my money wisely. I got to serve as governor of New Mexico for two terms. I served as governor of New Mexico for two terms as a Republican in a state that's two to one Democrat. I got reelected by a bigger margin the second time than the first time, made a name for myself as a real government skeptic, vetoing legislation. I may have vetoed more legislation than the other 49 governors in the country combined. Coupled with that, I'm socially tolerant, socially liberal. Look, you and I should be able to make decisions in our own lives that only affect our own lives as long as those decisions don't adversely affect others.

And then there is a very real terrorist threat out there. It exists. But I do believe that our military interventions have resulted in making situations worse, not better. So I'm a real skeptic when it comes to government and the fact that government is too big. I've been an entrepreneur my entire life. I know what it is to hire and fire. I know what it is to share in the profits and what a magic formula that is, that when you share in the profits, amazingly, the profit pie grows significantly.

I've been an athlete my entire life, a bit of an axymoron as a 63-year-old, but what athletics has taught me is, you know, life is putting one foot in front of the other. Athletics has taught me that anything that can go wrong will go wrong. It's how you deal with failure that ultimately determines your success. Look, things go wrong all the time. You can crawl up on the couch, you can declare yourself a victim, you can give up, or you can recognize that that's just part of life and wake up the next day with a smile on your face and continue to move forward and just do your best. I've told the truth. I think it's really hard to do any damage to somebody who's willing to tell the truth, regardless of the consequences. And then I admit mistakes. I think mistakes have

a way of so compounding themselves just because people don't acknowledge those mistakes. So given this pitch, all I want to do is just get in the polls that determines who is in the presidential debates. I think that if I'm in the presidential debates, I have an opportunity of actually winning because of this package that you've allowed me to present here today, Joe. Thank you. Well, I appreciate you coming on, sir. I really do. It was very enjoyable talking to you. And I hope you win, man. I really do. I hope you at the very least make enough headway to get people paying attention to you and to get into the polls

and just to listen to your message. And if I'm in the presidential debates, that means I'm representing 25 million people. So what comes out of my mouth, if I don't end up getting more votes than the other two candidates, the one that does, you know what, they're not blind to the fact that, whoa, this guy's sitting over here. He's representing 25 million people because he's in the debate. So we better pick up a little bit on what he has to say because they're going to see some sense in it also. Anyway, thank you again. Gary Johnson, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you very much, sir. Really appreciate it. Thank you.