The Case for Gary Johnson
(https://photos.smugmug.com/Politics/National-Elections-2016/i-hDtgg9X/0/M/garyjohnson-M.jpg)
Jonathan Loesche makes the case for Libertarian Candidate for President of the United States, Gary Johnson.
Read More: http://www.metrojacksonville.com/article/2016-sep-the-case-for-gary-johnson
Quote
Johnson is the only candidate running that truly cares about the civil liberties for all Americans.
Yeah - the guy who champions private prisons and opposes hate crime legislation 'truly cares'. Beyond that, I'd argue Jill Stein cares as much, if not more.
As far as him vetoing legislation (I assume that's what you meant - the article said 'voted over 750 bills') - without context, that's a meaningless statement. All that tells me is that he is obstructive and doesn't want to let the legislature do its job.
And nice job sweeping the Aleppo comment aside - I'm not asking "where's Aleppo" because I know where it is. I sure as hell would expect any candidate running for President to have an idea.
As viable as Lyndon LaRouche.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyndon_LaRouche_U.S._presidential_campaigns?wprov=sfla1 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyndon_LaRouche_U.S._presidential_campaigns?wprov=sfla1)
Quote from: spuwho on September 14, 2016, 08:03:46 AM
As viable as Lyndon LaRouche.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyndon_LaRouche_U.S._presidential_campaigns?wprov=sfla1 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyndon_LaRouche_U.S._presidential_campaigns?wprov=sfla1)
God, that's a name I've not heard in a long time!
Good interview w/ Gary Johnson on WBUR's On Point (best call-in radio show in America?) here: http://www.wbur.org/onpoint/2016/08/10/gary-johnson-on-what-it-means-to-be-a-libertarian (http://www.wbur.org/onpoint/2016/08/10/gary-johnson-on-what-it-means-to-be-a-libertarian)
And one w/ Jill Stein: http://www.wbur.org/onpoint/2016/08/10/green-party-nominee-dr-jill-stein (http://www.wbur.org/onpoint/2016/08/10/green-party-nominee-dr-jill-stein)
Both highly recommended.
Just wanted to say thanks to Stephen for giving me the platform.
Quote from: FSBA on September 14, 2016, 08:50:09 AM
Just wanted to say thanks to Stephen for giving me the platform.
Thanks for taking the time to write the article - even if I disagree with your case :)
I'd estimate that there are probably several thousand core Johnson voters in Jax. From what I've heard, there are hundreds at the colleges alone. He's also get a "protest" bump from Republican and Republican-leaning voters who don't want to vote for Trump, and probably some Democrats and Dem-leaning voters who won't vote for Clinton. Polls are showing him at or above 5% in the Florida general, which is a lot for a third party (if he can keep it up).
Can't say for sure. Johnson received about 2000 votes in Duval in 2012 with nowhere close to the same amount of media attention. Then Adrian Wyllie got 8000 for governor in 2014. Even without getting in the debates anything less than 10,000 votes would be a disappointment.
The Case For Gary Johnson:
1. He's not Donald Trump.
I rest my case.
Quote from: stephendare on September 14, 2016, 10:22:14 AM
Seriously! Thank you for this excellent essay.
How many Gary Johnson supporters are there around town, FSBA?
Ive run into a few, but under a hundred. Is the organization larger?
At least 2- I am one. ;D
There's lots of us (yep, me too) around town. The Duval Party Libertarians are quite active and meet monthly, and attend each city council meeting. Remember, it's the only party in America growing, so I only expect the numbers to go way up.
Great article!
Whether you like Johnson or not, he deserves to be in the presidential debates for the simple fact that he is the only other candidate on the ballot in all fifty states. That is very difficult to accomplish, and the Libertarian party is the only other party to have done that in at least four presidential elections.
As a two-term governor with a proven record of fighting corruption, balancing the budget, cutting taxes and leaving a budget surplus of a billion dollars, his resume as an executive is more impressive than either of the other candidates. Without any scandals.
Undecided voters should at least do some research and consider Gary Johnson. He has my vote.
https://www.johnsonweld.com/
Quote from: Murder_me_Rachel on September 14, 2016, 04:31:51 PM
Yeah, because budgets and money are all that matter. Forget protecting citizens from corrupt corporations, forget about protecting our environment; let's make sure we outsource everything to private companies. NO RULES! THE MARKET WILL SORT IT OUT.
Same old Libertarian nonsense, except now with more 420.
Same old left wing "government help me because I can't help myself" nonsense. Perhaps you should click the link that willtyler provided and READ up on where he stands on issues, like, the environment:
Quote
The environment is a precious gift and must be protected. Governors Johnson and Weld believe strongly that the first responsibility of government is to protect citizens from those who would do them harm, whether it be a foreign aggressor, a criminal — or a bad actor who harms the environment upon which we all depend.
We need to stand firm to protect our environment for our future generations, especially those designated areas of protection like our National Parks. Consistent with that responsibility, the proper role of government is to enforce reasonable environmental protections. Governor Johnson did that as Governor, and would do so as President.
https://www.johnsonweld.com/environment
But, sounds like your mind was already made up...
Quote from: coredumped on September 14, 2016, 04:50:04 PM
Quote from: Murder_me_Rachel on September 14, 2016, 04:31:51 PM
Yeah, because budgets and money are all that matter. Forget protecting citizens from corrupt corporations, forget about protecting our environment; let's make sure we outsource everything to private companies. NO RULES! THE MARKET WILL SORT IT OUT.
Same old Libertarian nonsense, except now with more 420.
Same old left wing "government help me because I can't help myself" nonsense.
Erm... I didn't see that in MMR's post.
Terrible option....Sorry
and murder_me_rachel you hit the nail on the head.....
Quote from: Adam White on September 14, 2016, 06:43:09 AM
Quote
doesn't want to let the legislature do its job.
That's true - he wants the legislature to do a job FOR, not TO the people as far too many do today.
Small business men and lower level public servants with an education founded this country. When they did it was not perfect as they were not groomed leaders of the aristocracy only citizens just a bit higher on the food chain then common citizens.
Not so far removed from the trials and tribulations of governmental control and taxation without adequate and equal representation to the extremely wealthy higher ups in government and in the aristocracy as the other citizens. Coming from many beliefs even including agnostics and atheists, political leanings, and mindsets.
They were forged in a time that was preceded by the age of enlightenment and became the age of reason. At the time they came to some ideas that were popular and could be implemented and some not popular which one day could be.
They formed the articles we hold most dear and set them so we could find a better future free of tyranny from rulers be it religious or mass and mob rule in hopes mankind under our flag would unite as human beings and prize freedom of conscience. Not to be given that future but for those willing to fight for it the ability to do so peacefully or by force when necessary.
We have leaders currently that emulate aristocracy and are far removed from the populace who have been groomed by parents to be in office, many coming from prominent families and some by the grit of their own spirit and brought up the ranks by their own hard work coming from modest beginnings.
Both types reside in party affiliations separate from the others the modest being the few in each.
This year it is ever present that we have main party choices who do not believe in ethics or moral soceital common law and feel above it. They see the American people as beneath them and to be ruled. With the exception of one who made his own way without a silver spoon, ran a successful ethically managed company to a million dollar business not a billion and decided to run for office in order to effect change.
Many do not know him before this election outside his state which he ran ethically and with a extremely high bipartisan approval rating, vetoing many legislations he felt not in the peoples interest at great disapproval from other politicians bipartisanly. That's because he did well and was more worried about the service of the people he served than fame.
He is transparent and believes in you and America. I will return that favor when the time comes and vote for him. I hope you will too.
If you are unfamiliar do your own research on his track record as a person, as a construction worker, as a business owner, a family man, an adventurer, as a public servant, and as an American.
Out of two lesser evils I will choose neither. I have the choice of an American Citizen who knows what it's like on this side of the fence as well as the other. He is capable. I will choose him.
Gary Johnson/Bill Weld 2016
Johnson's running mate, former Massachuessets governor Bill Well will be holding a town hall event this Thursday at JU.
Awesome, how do we get tickets?
https://www.eventbrite.com/e/jacksonville-town-hall-forum-with-governor-bill-weld-tickets-27793187171
Registered! Thanks.
Crazy turn out. They had to use 2 overflow rooms. The live feed has been viewed over 175,000 times, and it's only been a few hours.
I think he did a good job, he's a very good public speaker.
This ticket should have been flipped.
Quote from: Murder_me_Rachel on September 23, 2016, 08:36:31 AM
If you are unfamiliar do your own research on his track record as a person, as a construction worker, as a business owner, a family man, an adventurer, as a public servant, and as an American.
Out of two lesser evils I will choose neither. I have the choice of an American Citizen who knows what it's like on this side of the fence as well as the other. He is capable. I will choose him.
Gary Johnson/Bill Weld 2016
HHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/09/us/politics/gary-johnson-aleppo.html
Oh wait, you were serious? :'(
[/quote]
Don't forget:
QuoteSmall business men and lower level public servants with an education founded this country. When they did it was not perfect as they were not groomed leaders of the aristocracy only citizens just a bit higher on the food chain then common citizens.
Quote from: Murder_me_Rachel on September 23, 2016, 08:49:52 AM
I am so sick of this BUSINESS IS THE ANSWER TO EVERYTHING notion. Being a small businessman doesn't make you competent to run a country; it doesn't make you some more-noble-than-everyone-else figure. Furthermore, a country should not be run on the principles of capitalism. S
ure, there's pleeeeeeeeeenty wrong with Clinton, and anyone who isn't by now truly afraid of a Trump presidency really has something wrong with him. But, this clown, Johnson, is NOT the answer. Libertarianism is a joke. All the corporate-centric facism of Trump and Clinton, BUT WITH WEED, and oh by the way your child just died from lead poisoning because fuck any sort of regulation! YEE-HAW!!!
You're not going to get an argument from me, that's for sure.
I do, however, disagree with the contention that the so-called 'founding fathers' were small businessmen just a bit higher on the food chain than common citizens.
Quote from: Murder_me_Rachel on September 23, 2016, 08:49:52 AM
I am so sick of this BUSINESS IS THE ANSWER TO EVERYTHING notion. Being a small businessman doesn't make you competent to run a country; it doesn't make you some more-noble-than-everyone-else figure. Furthermore, a country should not be run on the principles of capitalism. S
ure, there's pleeeeeeeeeenty wrong with Clinton, and anyone who isn't by now truly afraid of a Trump presidency really has something wrong with him. But, this clown, Johnson, is NOT the answer. Libertarianism is a joke. All the corporate-centric facism of Trump and Clinton, BUT WITH WEED, and oh by the way your child just died from lead poisoning because fuck any sort of regulation! YEE-HAW!!!
If there's any way to make a serious political point, it's SHOUTING CAPITALS, SARCASTIC WOOOOOOOOOOOOOORD LENGHTENIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIING AND MULTIPLE EXCLAMATION POINTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Yee-haw.
Positions Johnson either holds or has held on nearly 20 key issues:
* He supports TPP.
* He supports fracking.
* He opposes any federal policies that would make college more affordable or reduce student debt. In fact, he wants to abolish student loans entirely.
* He thinks Citizens United is great.
* He doesn't want to raise the minimum wage. At all.
* He favors a balanced-budget amendment and has previously suggested that he would slash federal spending 43 percent in order to balance the budget. This would require massive cuts to Social Security, Medicare, and social welfare programs of all kinds.
* He opposes net neutrality.
* He wants to increase the Social Security retirement age to 75 and he's open to privatization.
* He opposes any kind of national health care and wants to repeal Obamacare.
* He opposes practically all forms of gun control.
* He opposes any kind of paid maternity or medical leave.
* He supported the Keystone XL pipeline.
* He opposes any government action to address climate change.
* He wants to cut the corporate tax rate to zero.
* He appears to believe that we should reduce financial regulation. All we need to do is allow big banks to fail and everything will be OK.
* He wants to remove the Fed's mandate to maximize employment and has spoken favorably of returning to the gold standard.
* He wants to block-grant Medicare and turn it over to the states.
* He wants to repeal the 16th Amendment and eliminate the income tax, the payroll tax, and the estate tax. He would replace it with a 28 percent FairTax that exempts the poor. This is equivalent to a 39 percent sales tax, and it would almost certainly represent a large tax cut for the rich.
Also of paramount interest to young voters, elsewhere at Mother Jones, site manager Jeremy Schulman posted a clip from 2011 (viewable at the link) in which Johnson told attendees of a National Press Club luncheon that climate change, though real and "man-caused," "is completely inconsequential to the money that we would end up spending."
"Should we take the long-term view when it comes to global warming?" Johnson asked. "I think that we should, and the long-term view is that in billions of years the sun is going to actually grow and encompass the Earth, right? So global warming is in our future."
Schulman writes that "Johnson's 2011 comments weren't an aberration":
Over the past few years, he has spoken out repeatedly against environmental regulation. In a 2011 NPR interview, he instead called for a "free-market approach" to reducing carbon emissions, arguing that consumer demand for cleaner energy, coupled with cheap natural gas, was causing a shift away from coal. He made the same argument during a Libertarian presidential candidate debate in May 2012. "If government gets involved" in fighting climate change, he said, "we are going to be spending trillions of dollars and have no effect whatsoever on the desired outcome."
During his 2012 campaign, Johnson called for cutting federal spending by 43 percent. In one interview, he noted that this would also mean a 43 percent reduction in the Environmental Protection Agency's budget. (During that same interview, he repeated his statement about the sun eventually destroying the planet: "Long-term consequence of our existence in the whole scheme of things is the sun is getting closer to the Earth and that at a point in the very distant future, the sun will actually encompass the Earth. So global warming is something that's going to be inevitable.")
In July, during the current election season, Johnson briefly flirted with the idea of a carbon tax after answering "No," in an appearance on Real Time With Bill Maher, to the question of whether he had a "comprehensive plan to combat climate change."
But then Johnson's stance changed dramatically. In an August interview with the Los Angeles Times, he announced he was "open" to the idea of the federal government imposing a revenue-neutral tax on carbon emissions. Economists have long viewed a carbon tax as the most efficient way of putting a price on greenhouse gas emissions in an effort to limit warming—many see it as preferable to the complex cap-and-trade proposal backed by President Barack Obama during his first term. In a subsequent interview on CNBC, Johnson called a carbon tax a "very libertarian proposal" under which "the market will take care of" climate change. (During the Democratic primaries, Bernie Sanders endorsed a carbon tax; Clinton did not.)
Many Libertarians and conservatives were outraged by Johnson's sudden embrace of a carbon tax. "It's Official: Gary Johnson Is a Left-Wing Candidate," declared the Federalist, a conservative publication. After plenty of public criticism from the right, Johnson changed his mind, telling supporters at a New Hampshire rally that after considering a carbon tax, "I have determined that, you know what, it's a great theory, but I don't think it can work, and I've worked my way through that." His flip-flop drew loud applause from the crowd.
http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/hey_millennials_heres_what_gary_johnson_believes_video_20160923
Holy hell there's so much wrong with finehoes post I'm not even going to touch it.
I'll say this to the Clinton/Trump zombies on this board: if you like the direction of the country, keep voting the same.
If you like how our current country is treating minorities, even with a black president, keep voting the same.
If you like the countless wars that Clinton will bring, keep voting the same.
If you like the idea of the country being more divided as Trump is doing, keep voting the same way.
If you like the war on drugs, which will continue with both Clinton and Trump, keep voting the same way.
And of course, if you like the deficit doubling each presidency, R or D, keep voting the same way.
I'll be voting my conscious.
Quote from: coredumped on September 23, 2016, 08:17:51 PM
Holy hell there's so much wrong with finehoes post I'm not even going to touch it.
I'll say this to the Clinton/Trump zombies on this board: if you like the direction of the country, keep voting the same.
If you like how our current country is treating minorities, even with a black president, keep voting the same.
If you like the countless wars that Clinton will bring, keep voting the same.
If you like the idea of the country being more divided as Trump is doing, keep voting the same way.
If you like the war on drugs, which will continue with both Clinton and Trump, keep voting the same way.
And of course, if you like the deficit doubling each presidency, R or D, keep voting the same way.
I'll be voting my conscious.
There's a difference between not voting the same and voting for a "libertarian" though. It's an alternative, but not necessarily any better of an option.
Better is subjective. My point is that Republicans and Democrats haven't and won't change a thing.
Remember when Democrats were anti-war? Me neither. Remember when Republicans were for smaller government? Not in my life time.
They're basically the same party now.
Quote from: coredumped on September 24, 2016, 04:12:34 PM
Better is subjective. My point is that Republicans and Democrats haven't and won't change a thing.
Remember when Democrats were anti-war? Me neither. Remember when Republicans were for smaller government? Not in my life time.
They're basically the same party now.
That's a cherry-picked list, though. If you exclude all sorts of stuff, they can look like the same party. In that sense, the libertarians are the same as the Democrats and Republicans.
I agree it's a cherry picked list, but what do the Democrats and Republicans stand for anymore?
Neither party upholds the party's mission statement. I believe the Republican party won't even be around in 20 years. It'll fall apart (as it has been) and what's left of it will merge with the Democratic party.
The plan is to replace potential tyranny from the State for probable tyranny from the business sector (para. Chomsky)... At least in the libertarian way, the population will have enough Soma (weed, etc.) not to care so much... gotta keep those Epsilon-minuses pounding away...
Quote from: Adam White on September 24, 2016, 03:27:09 AM
Quote from: coredumped on September 23, 2016, 08:17:51 PM
Holy hell there's so much wrong with finehoes post I'm not even going to touch it.
I'll say this to the Clinton/Trump zombies on this board: if you like the direction of the country, keep voting the same.
If you like the countless wars that Clinton will bring, keep voting the same.
I'll be voting my conscious.
And you think that Trump, with his short temper and bombastic talk will not start wars?
Quote from: finehoe on September 23, 2016, 01:44:49 PM
Positions Johnson either holds or has held on nearly 20 key issues:
* He supports TPP.
* He supports fracking.
* He opposes any federal policies that would make college more affordable or reduce student debt. In fact, he wants to abolish student loans entirely.
* He thinks Citizens United is great.
* He doesn't want to raise the minimum wage. At all.
* He favors a balanced-budget amendment and has previously suggested that he would slash federal spending 43 percent in order to balance the budget. This would require massive cuts to Social Security, Medicare, and social welfare programs of all kinds.
* He opposes net neutrality.
* He wants to increase the Social Security retirement age to 75 and he's open to privatization.
* He opposes any kind of national health care and wants to repeal Obamacare.
* He opposes practically all forms of gun control.
* He opposes any kind of paid maternity or medical leave.
* He supported the Keystone XL pipeline.
* He opposes any government action to address climate change.
* He wants to cut the corporate tax rate to zero.
* He appears to believe that we should reduce financial regulation. All we need to do is allow big banks to fail and everything will be OK.
* He wants to remove the Fed's mandate to maximize employment and has spoken favorably of returning to the gold standard.
* He wants to block-grant Medicare and turn it over to the states.
* He wants to repeal the 16th Amendment and eliminate the income tax, the payroll tax, and the estate tax. He would replace it with a 28 percent FairTax that exempts the poor. This is equivalent to a 39 percent sales tax, and it would almost certainly represent a large tax cut for the rich.
Also of paramount interest to young voters, elsewhere at Mother Jones, site manager Jeremy Schulman posted a clip from 2011 (viewable at the link) in which Johnson told attendees of a National Press Club luncheon that climate change, though real and "man-caused," "is completely inconsequential to the money that we would end up spending."
"Should we take the long-term view when it comes to global warming?" Johnson asked. "I think that we should, and the long-term view is that in billions of years the sun is going to actually grow and encompass the Earth, right? So global warming is in our future."
Schulman writes that "Johnson's 2011 comments weren't an aberration":
Over the past few years, he has spoken out repeatedly against environmental regulation. In a 2011 NPR interview, he instead called for a "free-market approach" to reducing carbon emissions, arguing that consumer demand for cleaner energy, coupled with cheap natural gas, was causing a shift away from coal. He made the same argument during a Libertarian presidential candidate debate in May 2012. "If government gets involved" in fighting climate change, he said, "we are going to be spending trillions of dollars and have no effect whatsoever on the desired outcome."
During his 2012 campaign, Johnson called for cutting federal spending by 43 percent. In one interview, he noted that this would also mean a 43 percent reduction in the Environmental Protection Agency's budget. (During that same interview, he repeated his statement about the sun eventually destroying the planet: "Long-term consequence of our existence in the whole scheme of things is the sun is getting closer to the Earth and that at a point in the very distant future, the sun will actually encompass the Earth. So global warming is something that's going to be inevitable.")
In July, during the current election season, Johnson briefly flirted with the idea of a carbon tax after answering "No," in an appearance on Real Time With Bill Maher, to the question of whether he had a "comprehensive plan to combat climate change."
But then Johnson's stance changed dramatically. In an August interview with the Los Angeles Times, he announced he was "open" to the idea of the federal government imposing a revenue-neutral tax on carbon emissions. Economists have long viewed a carbon tax as the most efficient way of putting a price on greenhouse gas emissions in an effort to limit warming—many see it as preferable to the complex cap-and-trade proposal backed by President Barack Obama during his first term. In a subsequent interview on CNBC, Johnson called a carbon tax a "very libertarian proposal" under which "the market will take care of" climate change. (During the Democratic primaries, Bernie Sanders endorsed a carbon tax; Clinton did not.)
Many Libertarians and conservatives were outraged by Johnson's sudden embrace of a carbon tax. "It's Official: Gary Johnson Is a Left-Wing Candidate," declared the Federalist, a conservative publication. After plenty of public criticism from the right, Johnson changed his mind, telling supporters at a New Hampshire rally that after considering a carbon tax, "I have determined that, you know what, it's a great theory, but I don't think it can work, and I've worked my way through that." His flip-flop drew loud applause from the crowd.
http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/hey_millennials_heres_what_gary_johnson_believes_video_20160923
It's too bad that coredumped knows nothing about Gary Johnson....
This is the Libertarian way.....
I'm going to say it.....You would have to be an idiot to vote for Johnson......
Oh, and by the way this post by finehoe is very accurate so I don't know what rock coredumped has been living under....
Just saying......
But if I'm wrong please show me your facts.....or can you touch that?
But what if I agree with some of these ideas? Or at least agree somewhere along the spectrum of these ideas? Does that make me crazy? Maybe Johnson supporters are attempting to explore new ways of thinking about issues and solutions. Do something other than stick to Dem or Rep dogma.
To the comment about Johnson believing "...consumer demand for cleaner energy, coupled with cheap natural gas, was causing a shift away from coal. " This is an accurate statement than can be shown in the last few years as nat gas has been relatively cheap and we have seen fuel switching from coal to nat gas for production of electricity.
Also, I would love to see Finehoe's or your analysis of TPP. All 5500+ pages of it. Please provide your personal opinions and not simply link a Krugman article. I say this because while there are things to question about TPP, most people waving the "I'm against TPP" flag aren't in tune with the details.
Quote from: JHAT76 on September 26, 2016, 01:20:03 PM
...most people waving the "I'm against TPP" flag aren't in tune with the details.
I'm sure I'm as attuned to the details as you are. My main problem with the TPP is it lets foreign corporations bypass U.S. law. The current TPP text allows multinational companies to challenge U.S. laws, regulations and safeguards through a provision called investor-to-state dispute settlement (ISDS), a private justice system that undermines our democracy. Through ISDS, foreign investors can seek compensation from the United States for enforcing regulations and safeguards designed to protect America's working families. In fact, multinational companies currently are using ISDS to attack democratic policies and laws in Australia, Canada, Peru and Uruguay, among many others.
http://www.citizen.org/investorcases
ISDS provisions have been in numerous deals. I don't think there has been an ISDS dispute that has resulted in an large amount against the US.
Quote from: JHAT76 on September 26, 2016, 01:20:03 PM
Also, I would love to see Finehoe's or your analysis of TPP. All 5500+ pages of it. Please provide your personal opinions and not simply link a Krugman article. I say this because while there are things to question about TPP, most people waving the "I'm against TPP" flag aren't in tune with the details.
So, let's hear your analysis of TPP - all 5500+ pages of it. And not a link to an article. Because presumably, if you support it, you must've read and digested the entire thing (not like us mortals who rely on third party analysis).
Quote from: JHAT76 on September 26, 2016, 01:53:20 PM
ISDS provisions have been in numerous deals. I don't think there has been an ISDS dispute that has resulted in an large amount against the US.
The U.S. has dodged ISDS liability to date because past treaties have only covered a limited number of investors here.
If an ISDS tribunal rules against a challenged policy, there is no limit to the amount of taxpayer money it can order the government to pay the multinational corporation. The amount is based on the "expected future profits" the tribunal surmises that the corporation would have earned in the absence of the public policy it is attacking. Under existing U.S. pacts, tribunals have ordered nearly $3 billion in taxpayer compensation to multinational firms , and more than $70 billion is pending.
The TPP allows such lawyers to rotate between serving as "judges" and bringing cases for corporations against governments – a conflict of interest that would be deemed unethical under most legal systems. These "tribunalists," as they are formally called, are not bound by precedent or the opinions of governments, and there is no outside appeal to their rulings. If that were not sufficiently outrageous, the TPP special protections for multinational corporations also incentivize more job offshoring. The new corporate rights and powers would eliminate many of the usual costs and risks that make firms think twice about moving to low-wage countries, literally promoting corporations to launch a new wave of job offshoring
While this shadow legal system for multinational corporations has been around since the 1950s, just 50 known cases were launched in the regime's first three decades combined. In contrast, corporations have launched approximately 50 claims in each of the last four years.
Instead of decreasing our exposure to this surge of corporate attacks, the TPP would roughly double U.S. exposure to investor-state attacks against U.S. policies. The TPP would newly empower more than 1,000 additional corporations in TPP countries, which own more than 9,200 additional subsidiaries in the United States, to launch investor-state cases against the U.S. government.
Quote from: Adam White on September 26, 2016, 02:12:28 PM
Quote from: JHAT76 on September 26, 2016, 01:20:03 PM
Also, I would love to see Finehoe's or your analysis of TPP. All 5500+ pages of it. Please provide your personal opinions and not simply link a Krugman article. I say this because while there are things to question about TPP, most people waving the "I'm against TPP" flag aren't in tune with the details.
So, let's hear your analysis of TPP - all 5500+ pages of it. And not a link to an article. Because presumably, if you support it, you must've read and digested the entire thing (not like us mortals who rely on third party analysis).
I never said whether I support it or not. I don't mind taking a pragmatic course and really vetting this trade deal. I also feel it was pushed on the country and a lot of it done in secret. So I appreciate Clinton's more cautious approach. With that said, I find it interesting that most people will follow only the analysis that leads them to their predetermined desired outcome. Thus I said no Paul Krugman. Finehoe instead linked to a (let's be honest) left leaning website. Public Citizen was originally Ralph Nader correct?
Quote from: JHAT76 on September 26, 2016, 03:00:39 PM
Finehoe instead linked to a (let's be honest) left leaning website. Public Citizen was originally Ralph Nader correct?
And? What is factually incorrect in my post?
Quote from: JHAT76 on September 26, 2016, 03:00:39 PM
Quote from: Adam White on September 26, 2016, 02:12:28 PM
Quote from: JHAT76 on September 26, 2016, 01:20:03 PM
Also, I would love to see Finehoe's or your analysis of TPP. All 5500+ pages of it. Please provide your personal opinions and not simply link a Krugman article. I say this because while there are things to question about TPP, most people waving the "I'm against TPP" flag aren't in tune with the details.
So, let's hear your analysis of TPP - all 5500+ pages of it. And not a link to an article. Because presumably, if you support it, you must've read and digested the entire thing (not like us mortals who rely on third party analysis).
I never said whether I support it or not. I don't mind taking a pragmatic course and really vetting this trade deal. I also feel it was pushed on the country and a lot of it done in secret. So I appreciate Clinton's more cautious approach. With that said, I find it interesting that most people will follow only the analysis that leads them to their predetermined desired outcome. Thus I said no Paul Krugman. Finehoe instead linked to a (let's be honest) left leaning website. Public Citizen was originally Ralph Nader correct?
This statement implies that a) you support it and b) that people who don't support it are the only ones who haven't read it:
QuoteI say this because while there are things to question about TPP, most people waving the "I'm against TPP" flag aren't in tune with the details.
It goes to figure that most people - overwhelmingly - haven't read the thing, regardless of whether they support it or not.
Quote from: finehoe on September 26, 2016, 03:03:32 PM
Quote from: JHAT76 on September 26, 2016, 03:00:39 PM
Finehoe instead linked to a (let's be honest) left leaning website. Public Citizen was originally Ralph Nader correct?
And? What is factually incorrect in my post?
OK I will post a second opinion on TPP. What is factually incorrect in this positive review of ISDS? http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2016/05/straight-talk-on-the-isds-provisions-in-the-trans-pacific-partnership (http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2016/05/straight-talk-on-the-isds-provisions-in-the-trans-pacific-partnership)
Quote from: JHAT76 on September 26, 2016, 03:51:50 PM
OK I will post a second opinion on TPP.
And I will post a third: http://ccsi.columbia.edu/files/2015/05/Investor-State-Dispute-Settlement-Public-Interest-and-U.S.-Domestic-Law-FINAL-May-19-8.pdf
Quote from: JHAT76 on September 26, 2016, 03:51:50 PM
What is factually incorrect in this positive review of ISDS? http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2016/05/straight-talk-on-the-isds-provisions-in-the-trans-pacific-partnership (http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2016/05/straight-talk-on-the-isds-provisions-in-the-trans-pacific-partnership)
Considering its provenance, probably quite a bit.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/09/the-fall-of-the-heritage-foundation-and-the-death-of-republican-ideas/279955/
https://www.thenation.com/article/why-does-press-still-take-heritage-foundation-seriously/
http://neweconomicperspectives.org/2013/06/the-heritage-foundation-where-7-8-growth-is-moderate-and-4-4-is-spectacular.html
The Hillary campaign is reportedly spending$18 million to discredit Gary Johnson. Somebody's scared....
Quote from: coredumped on September 30, 2016, 08:43:58 AM
The Hillary campaign is reportedly spending$18 million to discredit Gary Johnson. Somebody's scared....
Yes... scared of Trump.
Quote from: stephendare on September 30, 2016, 10:29:40 AM
Quote from: Murder_me_Rachel on September 30, 2016, 09:15:47 AM
Quote from: coredumped on September 30, 2016, 08:43:58 AM
The Hillary campaign is reportedly spending$18 million to discredit Gary Johnson. Somebody's scared....
Yeah, scared of someone who doesnt know what Allepo is, can't name a single world leader he admires, thinks we should go back to the gold standard, and thinks that corporations should just be left unfettered to do whatever they want on the honor system. Yeah, I am scared of someone who is every bit as dumb as Herman Caine, yet seems to be getting a pass by some, being taken seriously. Scared for humanity, that is.
I honestly dont get the recent libertarian formula of all liberty no citizenship.
Or the massive blind spot in relation to how unregulated/under regulated capitalism is antithetical to democracy and liberty.
Why You Shouldn't Vote for Gary Johnson
...we have some bad news for Americans seeking a Trump-Clinton alternative: Johnson has a poor fiscal track record, only the faintest fidelity to Libertarian ideals and a facile grip on issues both foreign and domestic – helping explain why 99.1 percent of the electorate decided he shouldn't be president four years ago. No matter where you sit on the ideological spectrum, you're likely to find something deeply objectionable in Johnson's views.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/why-you-shouldnt-vote-for-libertarian-nominee-gary-johnson-w435712
Quote from: Adam White on September 30, 2016, 08:59:44 AM
Quote from: coredumped on September 30, 2016, 08:43:58 AM
The Hillary campaign is reportedly spending$18 million to discredit Gary Johnson. Somebody's scared....
Yes... scared of Trump.
Scared of trump but spending money on Gary?? Hmmm...
Trump never had a shot against the Clinton machine. The republicans missed a HUGE opportunity (again) by having a candidate un-electable. Really, the only person WORSE than Hillary is Trump.
Literally anyone but Trump could really beat Hillary. Hillary will win the election, no doubt, but it's mostly because of the hatred for trump, not because people like hillary.
Quote from: coredumped on September 30, 2016, 11:31:54 AM
Quote from: Adam White on September 30, 2016, 08:59:44 AM
Quote from: coredumped on September 30, 2016, 08:43:58 AM
The Hillary campaign is reportedly spending$18 million to discredit Gary Johnson. Somebody's scared....
Yes... scared of Trump.
Scared of trump but spending money on Gary?? Hmmm...
Trump never had a shot against the Clinton machine. The republicans missed a HUGE opportunity (again) by having a candidate un-electable. Really, the only person WORSE than Hillary is Trump.
Literally anyone but Trump could really beat Hillary. Hillary will win the election, no doubt, but it's mostly because of the hatred for trump, not because people like hillary.
Yes, scared of Trump. His numbers have improved and, depending on the polls, the margin is only a couple of points. Clinton's campaign is smart to try to target voters who may be thinking of voting for third parties as every vote helps.
Quote from: coredumped on September 30, 2016, 11:31:54 AM
Scared of trump but spending money on Gary?? Hmmm...
Trump never had a shot against the Clinton machine. The republicans missed a HUGE opportunity (again) by having a candidate un-electable. Really, the only person WORSE than Hillary is Trump.
Literally anyone but Trump could really beat Hillary. Hillary will win the election, no doubt, but it's mostly because of the hatred for trump, not because people like hillary.
I think you are
highly underestimating Trump and his supporters.
Quote from: Murder_me_Rachel on September 30, 2016, 09:15:47 AM
Quote from: coredumped on September 30, 2016, 08:43:58 AM
The Hillary campaign is reportedly spending$18 million to discredit Gary Johnson. Somebody's scared....
Yeah, scared of someone who doesnt know what Allepo is, can't name a single world leader he admires, thinks we should go back to the gold standard, and thinks that corporations should just be left unfettered to do whatever they want on the honor system. Yeah, I am scared of someone who is every bit as dumb as Herman Caine, yet seems to be getting a pass by some, being taken seriously. Scared for humanity, that is.
Not my quote, I'm copying this from reddit but it's a good response to you being "scared" of someone who can't name a foreign city:
(https://i.redd.it/si26xqjo6hox.png)
Quote from: coredumped on September 30, 2016, 01:07:42 PM
Quote from: Murder_me_Rachel on September 30, 2016, 09:15:47 AM
Quote from: coredumped on September 30, 2016, 08:43:58 AM
The Hillary campaign is reportedly spending$18 million to discredit Gary Johnson. Somebody's scared....
Yeah, scared of someone who doesnt know what Allepo is, can't name a single world leader he admires, thinks we should go back to the gold standard, and thinks that corporations should just be left unfettered to do whatever they want on the honor system. Yeah, I am scared of someone who is every bit as dumb as Herman Caine, yet seems to be getting a pass by some, being taken seriously. Scared for humanity, that is.
Not my quote, I'm copying this from reddit but it's a good response to you being "scared" of someone who can't name a foreign city:
(https://i.redd.it/si26xqjo6hox.png)
Nothing disqualifies anyone from being President (except those under 35, not residents of the US for 14 years and not 'natural born citizens').
"Doesn't look up to any foreign leader"
Oh, is that what happened there.
Quote from: funwithteeth on September 30, 2016, 01:20:01 PM
"Doesn't look up to any foreign leader"
Oh, is that what happened there.
So is forgetting/not knowing something worse than lying & giving perjured testimony? (Assuming you're a Hillary fan)
Politics really makes people irrational...
Quote from: coredumped on September 30, 2016, 01:32:27 PM
Quote from: funwithteeth on September 30, 2016, 01:20:01 PM
"Doesn't look up to any foreign leader"
Oh, is that what happened there.
So is forgetting/not knowing something worse than lying & giving perjured testimony? (Assuming you're a Hillary fan)
Politics really makes people irrational...
I don't understand how criticism of one candidate means support for another. It seems that is the one constant throughout this election. Surely we can criticise Johnson without it having to be a case of, "so is forgetting/not knowing something worse than lying...."
I'm a fan of voting against the orange-skinned, bloviating, racist, misogynist demagogue. It's pretty easy to understand, or so I would think. It's just the hate-filled trashbag running as a Republican has become so normalized by the supposedly liberal media that there are people who honestly think he's no different than the person running as a Democrat.
Quote from: coredumped on September 30, 2016, 11:31:54 AM
Quote from: Adam White on September 30, 2016, 08:59:44 AM
Quote from: coredumped on September 30, 2016, 08:43:58 AM
The Hillary campaign is reportedly spending$18 million to discredit Gary Johnson. Somebody's scared....
Yes... scared of Trump.
Scared of trump but spending money on Gary?? Hmmm...
Trump never had a shot against the Clinton machine. The republicans missed a HUGE opportunity (again) by having a candidate un-electable. Really, the only person WORSE than Hillary is Trump.
Literally anyone but Trump could really beat Hillary. Hillary will win the election, no doubt, but it's mostly because of the hatred for trump, not because people like hillary.
Part of this is true: if either Clinton or Trump were up against a normal candidate, they'd get blown out of the water. For many voters, it's a matter of one or the other being the lesser of two evils.
That's where Clinton's strategy on the third parties comes in. She obviously isn't "scared" of Johnson per se. But polls are showing that Clinton is weaker against Trump when 3rd parties are included. That's because there's a contingent of voters who absolutely will not vote for Trump - "never Trump" Republicans and Republican-leaning voters, independents, some Bernie supporters, etc. - and a good number of them are voting for third parties instead of going over to Clinton. In a two-way race, they'd go for Clinton, or not vote. She's trying to convince those voters that she's the best anti-Trump vote.
My personal solution will be to leave the top section of the ballot unmarked. I will not be voting for a president this election. There are literally no candidates for me. >:(
Quote from: Adam White on September 30, 2016, 01:39:35 PM
Surely we can criticise Johnson without it having to be a case of, "so is forgetting/not knowing something worse than lying...."
Absolutely we can, and we should! Johnson is not my ideal candidate by any means. I don't agree with him on everything. It just seems that the media blasts him for minor things, when Clinton and Trump have done much worse. So when talking about the election you really have 3 choices (4 if you want to include Jill).
You must admit there's a large bias in the media, and this site. This site is obviously left leaning, and that's OK. But we shouldn't be blind to our candidates flaws.
Quote from: BridgeTroll on September 30, 2016, 02:18:07 PM
My personal solution will be to leave the top section of the ballot unmarked. I will not be voting for a president this election. There are literally no candidates for me. >:(
MY 2 cents: you should write in who you prefer, or vote for a 3rd party (if you like any of them). That way you at least send a message to the establishment.
The Chicago Tribune on Friday endorsed Libertarian Gary Johnson for president, joining a handful of other newspapers around the country that have rejected both the Republican and Democratic presidential nominees.
"We would rather recommend a principled candidate for president — regardless of his or her prospects for victory — than suggest that voters cast ballots for such disappointing major-party candidates," the editorial board wrote.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/editorials/ct-gary-johnson-president-endorsement-edit-1002-20160930-story.html
Quote from: coredumped on September 30, 2016, 03:10:58 PM
Quote from: Adam White on September 30, 2016, 01:39:35 PM
Surely we can criticise Johnson without it having to be a case of, "so is forgetting/not knowing something worse than lying...."
Absolutely we can, and we should! Johnson is not my ideal candidate by any means. I don't agree with him on everything. It just seems that the media blasts him for minor things, when Clinton and Trump have done much worse. So when talking about the election you really have 3 choices (4 if you want to include Jill).
You must admit there's a large bias in the media, and this site. This site is obviously left leaning, and that's OK. But we shouldn't be blind to our candidates flaws.
I've written elsewhere that MJ has a slant on political topics (and got blasted for it), and clearly the media in general is left-leaning. However, I don't think many around here are really blind to any of the candidates' flaws. As for Johnson, I expect that if either Trump or Clinton made serious gaffs like the above, it would get a lot *more* play than with Johnson. The media loves to report stuff like that.
Quote from: Tacachale on September 30, 2016, 03:19:24 PM
Quote from: coredumped on September 30, 2016, 03:10:58 PM
Quote from: Adam White on September 30, 2016, 01:39:35 PM
Surely we can criticise Johnson without it having to be a case of, "so is forgetting/not knowing something worse than lying...."
Absolutely we can, and we should! Johnson is not my ideal candidate by any means. I don't agree with him on everything. It just seems that the media blasts him for minor things, when Clinton and Trump have done much worse. So when talking about the election you really have 3 choices (4 if you want to include Jill).
You must admit there's a large bias in the media, and this site. This site is obviously left leaning, and that's OK. But we shouldn't be blind to our candidates flaws.
As for Johnson, I expect that if either Trump or Clinton made serious gaffs like the above, it would get a lot *more* play than with Johnson. The media loves to report stuff like that.
Perhaps. But at the same time, Trump has said so much crazy shit that a comment like that might not seem like such a big deal!
Quote from: Adam White on September 30, 2016, 03:42:12 PM
Quote from: Tacachale on September 30, 2016, 03:19:24 PM
Quote from: coredumped on September 30, 2016, 03:10:58 PM
Quote from: Adam White on September 30, 2016, 01:39:35 PM
Surely we can criticise Johnson without it having to be a case of, "so is forgetting/not knowing something worse than lying...."
Absolutely we can, and we should! Johnson is not my ideal candidate by any means. I don't agree with him on everything. It just seems that the media blasts him for minor things, when Clinton and Trump have done much worse. So when talking about the election you really have 3 choices (4 if you want to include Jill).
You must admit there's a large bias in the media, and this site. This site is obviously left leaning, and that's OK. But we shouldn't be blind to our candidates flaws.
As for Johnson, I expect that if either Trump or Clinton made serious gaffs like the above, it would get a lot *more* play than with Johnson. The media loves to report stuff like that.
Perhaps. But at the same time, Trump has said so much crazy shit that a comment like that might not seem like such a big deal!
But the media still makes a big deal about all the crazy shit he says, he just seems to be immune from repercussions. Clinton would probably take some damage if she made a gaff like not recognizing what Aleppo is.
Quote from: Tacachale on September 30, 2016, 03:46:29 PM
Quote from: Adam White on September 30, 2016, 03:42:12 PM
Quote from: Tacachale on September 30, 2016, 03:19:24 PM
Quote from: coredumped on September 30, 2016, 03:10:58 PM
Quote from: Adam White on September 30, 2016, 01:39:35 PM
Surely we can criticise Johnson without it having to be a case of, "so is forgetting/not knowing something worse than lying...."
Absolutely we can, and we should! Johnson is not my ideal candidate by any means. I don't agree with him on everything. It just seems that the media blasts him for minor things, when Clinton and Trump have done much worse. So when talking about the election you really have 3 choices (4 if you want to include Jill).
You must admit there's a large bias in the media, and this site. This site is obviously left leaning, and that's OK. But we shouldn't be blind to our candidates flaws.
As for Johnson, I expect that if either Trump or Clinton made serious gaffs like the above, it would get a lot *more* play than with Johnson. The media loves to report stuff like that.
Perhaps. But at the same time, Trump has said so much crazy shit that a comment like that might not seem like such a big deal!
But the media still makes a big deal about all the crazy shit he says, he just seems to be immune from repercussions. Clinton would probably take some damage if she made a gaff like not recognizing what Aleppo is.
I was kind of joking. But I agree that it would be considered a really big deal if Clinton did it.
Quote from: Tacachale on September 30, 2016, 03:19:24 PM
...clearly the media in general is left-leaning.
Yes,
clearly the corporate behemoths that own the vast majority of US media outlets have an agenda that is virtually indistinguishable from a democratic-socialist party platform.
Quote
But the media still makes a big deal about all the crazy shit he says, he just seems to be immune from repercussions. Clinton would probably take some damage if she made a gaff like not recognizing what Aleppo is.
The difference is that when Gary screws up it's the ONLY time the media talks about him.
They don't talk about his policies, his debt reduction plan, his thoughts on race relations etc. It's hard to get to know a candidate the way the media presents them.
Quote from: stephendare on September 30, 2016, 05:10:55 PM
by the way: Happy Birthday. ;)
Thanks. btw I'm saving the above post to show to my family, who otherwise won't believe someone has said I'm spinning for Republicans ;) First time for everything, I suppose.
Quote from: coredumped on October 01, 2016, 08:55:03 AM
Quote
But the media still makes a big deal about all the crazy shit he says, he just seems to be immune from repercussions. Clinton would probably take some damage if she made a gaff like not recognizing what Aleppo is.
The difference is that when Gary screws up it's the ONLY time the media talks about him.
They don't talk about his policies, his debt reduction plan, his thoughts on race relations etc. It's hard to get to know a candidate the way the media presents them.
And he still gets more coverage than Stein.
Awesome article on the liberal bias:
Quote
Two weeks ago, the foreign affairs select committee of the British House of Commons released a detailed, damning report about one of Hillary Clinton's signature achievements as secretary of state: The 2011 US/UK/French-led military intervention into Moammar Gadhafi's Libya, which was sold as a necessity to prevent (in President Barack Obama's words) "a massacre that would have reverberated across the region."
"This policy," the conservative-led committee concluded, "was not informed by accurate intelligence. In particular, the [British] Government failed to identify that the threat to civilians was overstated and that the rebels included a significant Islamist element. By the summer of 2011, the limited intervention to protect civilians had drifted into an opportunist policy of regime change. That policy was not underpinned by a strategy to support and shape post-(Gadhafi) Libya. The result was political and economic collapse, inter-militia and inter-tribal warfare, humanitarian and migrant crises, widespread human rights violations, the spread of (Gadhafi) regime weapons across the region and the growth of ISIL in North Africa."
You might think that a deeply sourced report from an allied government about trumped-up intelligence leading to yet another destabilizing Middle East war might make some headlines in the country where the administration's leading proponent of said intervention is poised to become the next leader of the free world.
But you would be wrong.
Aside from a handful of mostly ideological outlets, the US news media declined to even note that the Democratic presidential nominee suffered a comprehensive rebuke to her oft-repeated assertion that Libya represented American "smart power at its best." As The Atlantic delicately put it, "The British public has been engaged in a debate about war that has been largely absent from the U.S. presidential election."
Ah, yes, but did you hear the one about Gary Johnson not being able to come up on the spot with the name of his favorite foreign leader? Disqualifying! And also, oddly, nearly ubiquitous in the same media that couldn't be bothered to reexamine a Hillary Clinton policy that has adversely affected countless human lives.
Full article:
http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/30/opinions/hypocrisy-about-gary-johnson-welch/index.html
Quote from: coredumped on October 01, 2016, 10:15:02 AM
Awesome article on the liberal bias:
Quote
Two weeks ago, the foreign affairs select committee of the British House of Commons released a detailed, damning report about one of Hillary Clinton's signature achievements as secretary of state: The 2011 US/UK/French-led military intervention into Moammar Gadhafi's Libya, which was sold as a necessity to prevent (in President Barack Obama's words) "a massacre that would have reverberated across the region."
"This policy," the conservative-led committee concluded, "was not informed by accurate intelligence. In particular, the [British] Government failed to identify that the threat to civilians was overstated and that the rebels included a significant Islamist element. By the summer of 2011, the limited intervention to protect civilians had drifted into an opportunist policy of regime change. That policy was not underpinned by a strategy to support and shape post-(Gadhafi) Libya. The result was political and economic collapse, inter-militia and inter-tribal warfare, humanitarian and migrant crises, widespread human rights violations, the spread of (Gadhafi) regime weapons across the region and the growth of ISIL in North Africa."
You might think that a deeply sourced report from an allied government about trumped-up intelligence leading to yet another destabilizing Middle East war might make some headlines in the country where the administration's leading proponent of said intervention is poised to become the next leader of the free world.
But you would be wrong.
Aside from a handful of mostly ideological outlets, the US news media declined to even note that the Democratic presidential nominee suffered a comprehensive rebuke to her oft-repeated assertion that Libya represented American "smart power at its best." As The Atlantic delicately put it, "The British public has been engaged in a debate about war that has been largely absent from the U.S. presidential election."
Ah, yes, but did you hear the one about Gary Johnson not being able to come up on the spot with the name of his favorite foreign leader? Disqualifying! And also, oddly, nearly ubiquitous in the same media that couldn't be bothered to reexamine a Hillary Clinton policy that has adversely affected countless human lives.
Full article:
http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/30/opinions/hypocrisy-about-gary-johnson-welch/index.html
There are all sorts of problems with that piece. He'd have a point if Clinton got a free ride on Libya, whereas Johnson was criticized for being an architect of the military intervention in Libya. But since Johnson had no involvement, it's not possible. Johnson made some dumb mistakes on the campaign trail and the media reported them. They also reported when Clinton said half of Trump's supporters were racists or whatever.
Quite sick of the Johnson obsession of late. It reminds me of the Ron Paul obsession of years past.
People become obsessed with some of the more popular talking points, forgetting that there are vast ramifications of the not-so-discussed talking points.
I think Johnson wouldn't be able to get a damn thing done as president.
Also, his Aleppo moments should disqualify him right off the bat.
If the allepo issue is disqualifying then who would possibly be left? He also apologized for not knowing that. I'm still waiting for the apologies from Hillary for killing Americans, lying under oath, etc. And for everything Trump ever said.
You do realize that Hillary and Trump get security briefings from the government and Gary is denied these right?
This gives him a disadvantage in debates, etc.
And more in the media censorship of 3rd parties: Nicholas Sarwark (chair of the lp) has been shadow banned on Twitter, without reason.
Quote from: coredumped on October 01, 2016, 03:56:37 PM
If the allepo issue is disqualifying then who would possibly be left? He also apologized for not knowing that. I'm still waiting for the apologies from Hillary for killing Americans, lying under oath, etc. And for everything Trump ever said.
You do realize that Hillary and Trump get security briefings from the government and Gary is denied these right?
This gives him a disadvantage in debates, etc.
And more in the media censorship of 3rd parties: Nicholas Sarwark (chair of the lp) has been shadow banned on Twitter, without reason.
When did Clinton "kill Americans"?
Benghazi.
And if elected she'll continue the drug war which is basically a war on minorities.
(https://i.reddituploads.com/88b64ba2be044d0e9b92e92cec0e87ef?fit=max&h=1536&w=1536&s=5f48498f5271585ff17a61a9878e2dbd)
Quote from: coredumped on October 01, 2016, 05:07:06 PM
Benghazi.
And if elected she'll continue the drug war which is basically a war on minorities.
(https://i.reddituploads.com/88b64ba2be044d0e9b92e92cec0e87ef?fit=max&h=1536&w=1536&s=5f48498f5271585ff17a61a9878e2dbd)
Benghazi? Really? You actually believe that? :'(
I also forgot to point out how sexist that meme is. Clinton is somehow responsible for "her husband's" policies?
Quote from: Adam White on October 01, 2016, 04:06:22 PM
Quote from: coredumped on October 01, 2016, 03:56:37 PM
If the allepo issue is disqualifying then who would possibly be left? He also apologized for not knowing that. I'm still waiting for the apologies from Hillary for killing Americans, lying under oath, etc. And for everything Trump ever said.
You do realize that Hillary and Trump get security briefings from the government and Gary is denied these right?
This gives him a disadvantage in debates, etc.
And more in the media censorship of 3rd parties: Nicholas Sarwark (chair of the lp) has been shadow banned on Twitter, without reason.
When did Clinton "kill Americans"?
She was perfectly ok with Abdulrahman al-Awlaki's death.
Clinton killed Americans? News to me.
By that logic, ever president in American history has killed Americans.
PS, I'm by no means a Clinton fan, but I do think she is the best candidate in this election. And the more I read about her, the more of a fan I become.
Says the guy who wants to go to North Korea.
Quote from: FSBA on October 02, 2016, 07:40:51 PM
Quote from: Adam White on October 01, 2016, 04:06:22 PM
Quote from: coredumped on October 01, 2016, 03:56:37 PM
If the allepo issue is disqualifying then who would possibly be left? He also apologized for not knowing that. I'm still waiting for the apologies from Hillary for killing Americans, lying under oath, etc. And for everything Trump ever said.
You do realize that Hillary and Trump get security briefings from the government and Gary is denied these right?
This gives him a disadvantage in debates, etc.
And more in the media censorship of 3rd parties: Nicholas Sarwark (chair of the lp) has been shadow banned on Twitter, without reason.
When did Clinton "kill Americans"?
She was perfectly ok with Abdulrahman al-Awlaki's death.
Oh, then she must've killed him. My mistake.
I really hope you aren't a judge.