Jo Jorgensen: Here is What I am Fighting for

2020 Libertarian presidential nominee Jo Jorgensen sent the following fundraising pitch today to her email subscribers:

Over the past week I’ve been asked several questions from both Republicans and Democrats regarding where I stand on the issues.

Donald Trump and Joe Biden’s records of policy failures, racism, and inappropriate behavior are making many traditional voters reconsider who they will cast their ballot for.

Allow me to briefly tell you what I am fighting for:

  • Healthcare FreedomWe can reduce the cost of health care 75% by allowing real price competition, and by substantially reducing government and insurance company paperwork. This will make health care affordable for most Americans, while also reducing the cost of legacy programs like Medicare, Medicaid, and the VA.
  • Criminal Justice Reform: As President, I will use my Constitutional authority to end federal civil asset forfeiture prior to conviction, and pardon persons convicted of non-violent victimless crimes. I will also work with Congress to end the failed War on Drugs and other victimless crimes.
  • Auditing the Federal Reserve: Our reckless monetary system threatens to destroy the value of the U.S. entirely and must be stopped. As President, I will audit the Federal Reserve and begin shutting down the money printing machine.
  • Peace: I believe we should turn America into one giant Switzerland — Armed and Neutral. It’s time to bring our troops home and engage in free trade with our neighbors across the globe.
  • Spending & DebtAs President, I will draw a line in the sand. NO MORE DEBT. I will use my authority to block any new borrowing and veto all new spending increases.

I believe 2020 has become a pivotal year for our movement.

The demand for criminal justice reform has never been greater… the two-party system has utterly failed to produce candidates worth voting for… and Americans are desperate for a leader with real solutions.

I hope you will consider joining our campaign. Please consider making an online contribution of $20.20, $35, $50, $100 or whatever you can afford by clicking here.

Thank you,

Dr. Jo Jorgensen

17 thoughts on “Jo Jorgensen: Here is What I am Fighting for

  1. Tony From Long Island

    Of these five issues, I am for 3 and a half of them 🙂

    There is still a few shreds of libertarianism in me . . .

  2. Jared

    From her website’s issues page: “Here is a brief overview of my bold, practical, Libertarian vision for America’s future:”

    I would like to see more specific proposals and roadmaps, fewer libertarian platitudes about government being too involved and needing to get out of the way. Sure, most voters aren’t policy wonks, but as she is the LP nominee, I would hope it’s obvious she wants to reduce the size and scope of government. “Helping Americans to keep more of what they earn” is not a tax policy. “Becoming a giant Switzerland” is not a trade policy. “Reducing the paperwork burden on medical insurance providers” is not a healthcare policy. I get that these snippets are allegedly only bite-sized summaries of the campaign’s positions, so where can we read up on the details?

  3. paulie

    I would hope it’s obvious she wants to reduce the size and scope of government.

    A lot of people still don’t know what we stand for, even approximately, or think they know and are way off.

  4. wolfefan

    I’m a little surprised that she favors continuing the arbitrary distinction between different types of income in a manner that favors the wealthy.

  5. Jared

    “[C]onsensual sex with a spouse under the age of 18 should be classified as statutory rape.”

    That one surprised me.

  6. Jared

    You must have been raping each other, statutorily of course, and I didn’t see anything in her FAQ about a statute of limitations for sex crimes.

    Pray she doesn’t win, or you’ll be living on borrowed time.

  7. JCY

    I mean, I’m for two of them and I’m the exact opposite of a libertarian. I think that’s pretty good evidence that she’s offering some pretty broad appeal here.

  8. paulie

    Jcy I think it’s better evidence that you are not as much of an opposite of libertarian as you think you are. If you really were you would be for zero of them. I’ve met many people, especially on the left, who presume they have little or nothing in common with libertarian views but talking issue by issue we agreed at least directionally more than we disagreed.

    For a true opposite of libertarian you’d need to favor the sort of totalitarian government that the worst dictatorships in the world have had. That’s not exactly a popular position in the us. You may want to make the country slightly more populist, technocratic or light authoritarian but that’s still a long way from polar opposite.

  9. paulie

    Realistically that’s not even a matter for the feds to address. Not sure why Jo or anyone on her staff felt the need to comment on it at all.

  10. Jared

    Here are a few more responses that struck me as odd, awkward, confusing, or at least in need of further elucidation:

    Q: Should the government hire private companies to run prisons?
    A: Yes, but they should be strictly regulated to prevent mismanagement and corruption.

    Q: Should non-violent prisoners be released from jail in order to reduce overcrowding?
    A: Not if the crime did serious harm to others.

    Q: Should the government cancel production of the F-35 fighter?
    A: Yes.

    Q: Should the Chinese government be able to extradite fugitives from Hong Kong?
    A: We should not coerce China, but encourage them to embrace freedom.

    Q: Should victims of gun violence be allowed to sue firearms dealers and manufacturers?
    A: No.

    Q: Should social media companies ban political advertising?
    A: No.

    Q: Should researchers be allowed to use animals in testing the safety of drugs, vaccines, medical devices, and cosmetics?
    A: This should be decided by individuals, hoping they choose not to harm any animal. The free market will judge their actions.

    Q: Should the government stop construction of the Dakota Access pipeline?
    A: Yes.

    Q: Should “gender identity” be added to anti-discrimination laws?
    A: Yes.

    Q: Should women be allowed to wear a Niqab, or face veil, to civic ceremonies?
    A: Yes, but where there is a legitimate need to identify their identity, provisions must be made for this.

    Q: Should immigrants be required to learn English?
    A: No, but remove multilingual translations from government documents and services.

    Q: Should illegal immigrants be offered in-state tuition rates at public colleges within their residing state?
    A: This would be determined by the college.

    Q: Should foreign lobbyists be allowed to raise money for American elections?
    A: Yes.

    There are plenty of other answers she gives that I disagree with, but these (and her volunteered remark concerning statutory marital rape) in particular left me with more questions.

  11. dL

    “[C]onsensual sex with a spouse under the age of 18 should be classified as statutory rape.”

    I would assume the same would apply to casual sex as well. No sex in high school!! Shit, in Jo Jorgensen’s libertopia, I would still be in jail for my sex crimes against Jesus. lol

  12. paulie

    A lot of that has little if anything to do with what she would be doing if she was somehow to be elected. I am guessing it was most likely someone on staff who wrote it, but if she wrote it herself or not, it seems unwise to post all that. The best answer to a lot of these questions is it’s not the president’s job.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *