'Honorable Alternative' Gary Johnson Sides With Bernie Sanders 73 Percent Of The Time - Matt Vespa
Concern. Sorry 20% would be too much for me to stomach.
- Hot
- New
- Categories...
- Producer's Lounge
- Producer's Vault
- The Gulch: Live! (New)
- Ask the Gulch!
- Going Galt
- Books
- Business
- Classifieds
- Culture
- Economics
- Education
- Entertainment
- Government
- History
- Humor
- Legislation
- Movies
- News
- Philosophy
- Pics
- Politics
- Science
- Technology
- Video
- The Gulch: Best of
- The Gulch: Bugs
- The Gulch: Feature Requests
- The Gulch: Featured Producers
- The Gulch: General
- The Gulch: Introductions
- The Gulch: Local
- The Gulch: Promotions
- Marketplace
- Members
- Store
- More...
Does the author actually look at the content of Johnson's statement? Do they examine what the libertarian party platform says?
No, he takes a phrase out of context and splash it in a headline to trick the reader.
Typical piss-poor reporting.
You need to look at the site where the 73% was calculated, and the questions asked. Then ask yourself how much the statist candidates can be trusted to do what they say in an online quiz? You might agree with lots of things they say, but disagree with everything you know they will actaully do. Johnson was a gentleman and didn't accuse the socialist of lying on some things, (maybe because he thinks we don't have to be told.)
“Now, that’s the side of Bernie that has to do with pro-choice, pro-marriage equality, let’s stop with the military interventions, that there is crony capitalism, that government really isn’t fair when it comes to this level playing field, legalize marijuana,” he said. “Look, 73 percent of what Bernie says I agree with. We come to a T in the road when it comes to economics. I would really argue that if we absolutely had a fair system of economics, that free markets, that we would do a lot better than going down the– going down the path of socialism.” - Gary Johnson
However, since all the demrep candidates are looting liars who will never do the pro-liberty, free-market things they say, it doesn't matter if Johnson "agrees" with what Bernie says because Bernie is a looting liar.
FWIW, I took the "test" at http://www.isidewith.com and agreed most with Johnson, and least with Hillary. Hillary, Bernie and Jill sloshed around near the bottom with HRM Donnie in the middle of the disgusting bottle of poison. Only Johnson rose to the top.
Good point: you can specify your own answer if none are right for you.
Bad point: if you specify your answers, they are counted as not agreeing with anyone, when in fact you may be close to agreement. So you have switch the ones you think are "agreement" and then re-calculate the percentage.
I would esp like to see examples of issues where some other candidate on the ballot in all states has a better record than Johnson on free markets.
2. Health Care - Medicare - Johnson's view is that states need to control it, not federal government. Although better than federal government, it is still a far cry from a free market approach. Although understandable due to perceptions. To be fair, he does advocate free market healthcare for most others.
3. State regulation of energy prices, government meddling in energy policies, taxes and redistribution, along with environmental regulation.
4. Johnson claims to support the Second Amendment, but his choice of a blatant anti-gun rights (e.g., anti-civil rights) Weld makes his proclaimed support less than believable. Johnson tossing into garbage a pistol presented to him by Peterson give more believe to his anti-gun attitude.
And I just can't stop boiling over the choice of a sleazy, slimy RINO Weld, who calls himself a Libertarian but simply ignores pretty much every Libertarian principle and who's definitions of freedom are not related to the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. Tell me who your friends are, and I'll tell you who you are.
Overall, Johnson has the best free-market claims of anyone on the American stage today. Of course, that is because no one else on that stage makes any free-market claims at all.
#1 - In this case he's just stating facts. We may not like the facts, but he's stating them.
#2 - Devolving it to the states sounds like a first step toward getting gov't out of it. I am fine with moving incrementally in the right direction.
#3 - I didn't know about these.
#4 - Wow! I had never heard of that.
1. Man-made global warming is not a fact. There is Zero scientific evidence (not falsified, and lately even admitted falsified) of any abnormal global warming. The Earth may even be slightly cooling. In any case, any man-made contribution is less than a small fraction of one percent. Those are scientific facts. For a person to be on a national stage, he needs to make sure that he knows and understands the issues that he is talking about. Otherwise, we're back to what I describe as my claim #1.
2. Agree - going in the right direction is preferable.
3. http://www.ontheissues.org/Gary_Johns...
4. Weld had several interviews (Youtube) where he was asked about the right to bear arms and he sounded exactly like Bernie. Johnson was given a replica of George Washington's pistol by Austin Petersen at the convention. Johnson threw it in the trash and it was witnessed by several people there, retrieved and returned to Petersen. Says a lot about several issues.
I find this so patently absurd that I could not take seriously a candidate who simply denies an unpleasant reality.
#3 - I did a CNTL-F on that page and couldn't find those issues, but I may have been searching under the wrong terms.
#4 - I hope he has answer for this soon rather than after he hits 15% and is in the debates. Maybe his issue was with Austin Petersen, and he would have thrown away anything Petersen gave him. I'm just guessing. On the page you linked to for #3, it says he supports gun rights.
Federal tax incentives for energy, with state decisions.
Johnson co-sponsored the Western Governors' Association resolution:
Western Governors find that states must continue to play a pivotal role in electric power decisions. Specifically:
The existing authority of states over retail electric power sales and transmissions must be retained.
Congress should allow states to create regional mechanisms to decide regional power issues.
We need to pursue a national energy policy that will result in a diverse energy portfolio:
New energy development: Enable exploration and development of promising domestic oil, gas, coal, geothermal or wind resources.
Coal: Implement R&D and tax incentives to promote the development and deployment of new technologies.
Renewables: Accelerate the development and deployment of promising renewable energy technologies through the extension and expansion of state and federal production tax credits.
Environmental Regulation: Review environmental and natural resource policies to ensure they are as efficient as possible.
Permitting Energy Facilities: Streamline state, tribal and federal processes for siting new generation, electric transmission and natural gas pipelines.
Energy Infrastructure: Support economic and environmentally sound energy infrastructure investments to transport energy to markets
All of the above a standard code words for government control.
http://www.ontheissues.org/2016/Gary_...
As to "man-made global warming," there are a multitude of actual scientific studies that present data to show that there is no man-made warming. But, without getting into deep specifics (we can, and perhaps should, in a separate post), simply ask yourself, if man-made warming is a fact, why would "scientists" and organizations, including governments, blatantly falsify the data? I think that there have been too many instances where the falsification of data (an anathema in the world of science) has been uncovered at the highest levels. Any scientist that lies and falsifies data eliminates himself (or herself, if you wish) from the scientific pool. I hope that we do not need to argue about that. Any "scientist" that disallows a different view, backed up by data, to be considered, is not a scientist, but a dogmatic theologian.
The only semi-questionable market problem I have with Gary is GayNazi Cakes. I understand his point, but he should stand with the constitution, "everyone has a right to be a jerk". In the case of the baker, the aggressor is the person demanding a cake be made for them which is stepping on the liberties of the baker.
Other than that, I have no problems with Gary's economic policies.
Even the founding fathers believed we should have a minimal social safety net, but it should be uncomfortable. Communal Responsibilities as in volunteering, like Volunteer Fire Dept. Neither of which has anything to do with markets.
I've reads his last two books, I read nothing of such "socialist" tendencies. He believes in good neighbors, It takes a village, not a government.
The most liberal stance he has is, the gubermnet should stay the hell out of our lives, and bedrooms. He wants to roll back the budget to Clinton era spending.
Sanders is not 100% bad in all areas, but he IS a total statist when it comes to how he should run your life. He is an inconsistent statist who has picked up on the upset with the establishment and figures that fighting the establishment IS the way YOU should feel too.
For example, when GHW Bush ran for re-election against Clinton he could have changed his stand on gun laws and gained enough votes (without danger of losing a single one) to win the election. But he was Bush and New World Order doesn't want guns in the serfs hands.
Presidency should be won on administrative ability to run the country most efficiently as the constitution dictates (with the additional amendment that the government cant take from one to give to another)
Any R's looking for a Trump alternative already know about Libertarians and know who/what they are.
Same with D's.
It's the yoots that have been hanging onto their parents politics that need to be persuaded. Convincing that college kids that Johnson isn't all that far away from Bernie should be an easy sell. Just don't tell them Gary won't give them any free stuff. :-)
We will just have to rely on blogs, and on libertarian news outlets such as The Blaze, to get Johnson's message out to those willing to hear it. At least Johnson, unlike Sarah Palin, has the good sense not to panic when smeared by idiots with cameras.
You can believe the climate is upside down, that doesn't mean you believe the UN has to do anything about it.
The market has to have provisions to make people whole if someone's waste products are costing them money. On one hand this is a huge problem, but I think the market will fix it.
Call the ones influenced by those extremist sheep but is catering to their wants so bad if it drives innovation and helps the economy?
The neo-Luddites do, however, have one weakness. They don't believe it themselves. With rare exception, you don't see them turning in their car keys or selling their single-family residences (often on vast lots having two acres or more) and moving into apartments. Even penthouses don't seem good enough for them. Until they start paying any of the price they demands others pay, they'll never get universal acceptance. But if what you say is correct, then Ed Begley, Jr. (Living With Ed) will accomplish far more, by his own example, than the neo-Luddites can ever hope to accomplish.
I hear you on the rest. I work with a greenie, buys into GW, and then goes out for lunch every day.
But the important part of that belief chain is what you think should be done about it. And there Johnson is on the right side. If we need to cool the earth, Gregory Benford's boatload of iron filings will do the trick. If we need to warm it up, there are similarly easy and fast ways. All of them much cheaper and more sensible than ordering everybody to curtail building homes and driving cars.
Legalization of marijuana is popular with the Millennials (about half), but is very unpopular with Gen X - at most, it's 20% support, we were raised in the times and aftermath of what brought about the war on drugs - huge murder rates that were 700-1000% what they are today. We all know Boomers will vote for dope, but not actually in huge numbers and they are starting to go into nursing homes anyway - it might draw 25-30% support there.
Here's the rub, it's an issue that is NOT popular among Republican voters, so something close to 10% of Gen X Republicans for example will vote for it, where it is much more popular with the poor / people on public assistance / liberals / etc. - which are Democrats anyway and not likely to support much of the other things on the Libertarian platform and you can squeeze a liberal Democrat for pot-rights anyway. Where they might get a few votes is the Democrat that is opposed to the Hillary anti-2nd-Amendment philosophy and stated goals.
Do I hope he does well in the election? Yeah, because his pot thing will hurt the Democrats much more than it hurts Republicans to be sure. He might very well draw a lot of Millennials that are not to enthused to vote for Hillary anyway after Bernie drops out...
I don't agree with the claim, but even if it were true, people don't have a responsibility to get a job beyond Wendy's if they don't want to.
Add to that, better than 50% chance, Obama take Marijuana of the Sched 1 list of narcotics on his why out. We had problems with alcohol to, will get through potheads driving while toking.
If we make the assumption that Republicans tend to be anti-tax because they 'pay taxes' and have incomes that are in the upper 50% of society to require them to actually 'pay taxes', then most often the jobs that generate the income to pay taxes are going to also prohibit that kind of activity.
I'm sure people are going to freak out about that concept, but in Colorado and California, both at-will employment states, people can be terminated for no reason at all, so how is it a stretch to include a zero-tolerance policy? Answer: it isn't. The employee's choice is always to go work somewhere else if they don't like it.
As for legalization in California, it's on the ballot here every few years, always seems to fail. Last time I checked, it had not yet gathered enough signatures to make it on the ballot - which is only about 1/20th of the voter base. With something like 1200 amendments to the state constitution here, getting something on the ballot is pretty easy to do, I could probably get a state holiday for my dog's birthday if I wanted to spend the $4 per 600,000 signatures it takes to get it on the ballot.
And no, I'm not speculating on the percentages, I looked up the poll numbers. Those are the hard numbers.
California doesn't really enforce laws that are anything below assault/battery or robbery or manslaughter, as Moonbeam Brown diminished everything else to pretty much just a citation. The cities enforce speeding tickets because they get revenue for that, but for most anything else, it's not even enforced anymore. One would think you would see potheads running wild in the streets, and probably do in some areas, but at least here in Placer County where 9.73% are military veterans and 69% are Republicans, it seems like the only ones running around with pot are the young-ones and obviously visitors to the lakes & recreation areas.
Other than that, good for California. They had to stop imprisoning them because of overcrowding. Other states do imprison them. Further, there are still a lot of people being imprisoned for possession over more the just a little weed. And, is it better to imprison a heroin user, or put them into treatment? I'll bet treatment is cheaper.
I'm not condoning drugs at all. But, the fact is, whatever someone wants to shoot, snort, smoke, rub into there belly, or put up their butt is no ones business as long as they don't infringe on someone else's liberties. At least admit the war on drugs has failed and is a waste of our tax dollars.
I'm not in favor of using tax dollars to the tune of $150,000 to $300,000 a year to put them in 'treatment' either. The best medicine seems to be hitting rock-bottom, homeless, no family left, etc.
As long as it's not being "refined", I don't care what someone does with mother nature.
As long as it's not refined, processed, who care what another person ingests.
The problem is, we have this half hearted attempt and stopping drug producers.
Our gov't feeds both sides of that problem.
Fact is, there are some Europeans countries that have legalized pot and it has reduced crime, and harder drug use.
Why is pot any different than tobacco, or alcohol?
I'm only talking pot. Any other drugs are all refined and processed and I do believe they need to be controlled. If it's nature, and you want to sprinkle it on your salad - go for it.
Exports of of marijuana have dropped rapidly since the USA has it's own grow ops in what four states now and looks like production is far more than four states would use. Got to be going somewhere.
D. Atkins a local boy turned Birkenstock Lawyer initially gave a lot of time to the effort while his sister and her husband ran a tree cutting operation. Another story. Some years went by and we heard he was involved in a start up farm land leasing something or other. Then one day pot became legal in Oregon. Most of the growers moved down into the farm lands and word had it if they couldn't or hadn't bought land were leasing it.
Looks like Davey had brought sharecropping to the pot industry. thus the Capitalist Cartel. Also hear they don't cotton to no illegal growers har de har har all of a sudden and along with Northern California have a thriving export business to the not so enlightened states.
So where did altruist Davey get the cash to buy the land - remember it was being californicated from breakfast to supper.
All those voluntary hours weren't. They won the spotted owl law suit - who were happily living in KMart Signs and such all over the place - Davey presented the losing side, your government and mine, were presented with his bill. The amounts very but Davey isn't poor anymore. The rest of us paid the bills through our taxes.
Headwaters apparently disappeared having no use for land protection racketeering anymore but that could be wrong there are always scams such as global warming.
There you have the makings of another epic by Al Bore Productions. I give you Davey and the Capitalist Cartel!
PD they have some great wineries in that area, their own appelation and a host of micro breweries.
They are also a prime retirement bedroom area for the Californicators.
Thus ends, the true ending of the Oregon Trail Saga.
Did they produce
"Tweaking Fahrenheit Higher"
Or the classic
"I know you are but what am I"
I don't think any market for narcotics that leave a lasting effect on the body makes any sense. To each their own, but like I said, drive while using it needs to result in significant jail time, hurt or kill someone and it needs to be lifetime imprisonment to make sure it doesn't happen. Someone else's poor choices shouldn't be everyone else's risk.
My stance on brews is that if you are not absolutely perfectly clean, bacteria is introduced during the 6 week fermentation process, feed that to someone that is unsuspecting and it can kill them. Letting Joe-Blow randomly brew some beer up and sell to strangers makes no sense. I don't have a problem with the health department ensuring their processes and cleanliness are fine. Generally, you can't make cookies in the kitchen with cats running across the counter either.
I've had food-borne illness too often traveling in other countries, etc.. no need for that shit here to placate someones desire for unlimited freedoms. It comes down to the rights of others and the public (to not be poisoned).
For example. you wouldn't can your own tomatoes if you had no idea what you were doing, as a hobby, my wife teaches food preservation on an outreach program for the UC, and something like 50-70% of the people that take her course (and actually have experience) do things that they learned from grandma or whatever and are absolutely dangerous. Sometimes she will take a sample of what they canned (before the class) and show the results - horrifying... so they start paying attention.
Brewing and bottling beer is no different, it's encouraging the growth of healthy bacteria which consume the yeast and expel alcohol as a byproduct. If you encourage or introduce the wrong bacteria for example through stupidity or failure to eliminate 100% of the germs on every single thing in the room/air/surfaces/pots/utensils... then you could easily create a perfect environment for other common household germs to take root - botulism, salmonella, etc. If you want to brew it up and drink your own poison, I have no issue with it, your debate point was being free to sell it at the farmer's market or whatever. My point was, only after certification of cleanliness and process. Beer is intentionally a rather pungent tasting liquid, having it full of bacteria may not necessarily dissuade someone from drinking it.
I did a paper on it in grad school actually, in the lowest year during prohibition, around 13,000 died from consuming infested alcohol, it caused a condition call 'Jake Foot', blindness, paralysis, and even death. 100s of thousands fell seriously ill, something in the millions had a bad case of Montezuma's Revenge...
I have a trust issue over what this "deal maker" will really do should he be voted into office.
i sent him an email "Manifesto for Job Growth and Economic Liberty"...never got a reply...
Mia sent this email. I got this email. He asked a question. I got a question with this email he sent.
He never got a reply. I never sent a reply. No, I never sent it. That email. That reply I never sent.
MAD as I understand it , has championed stiff consequences for fatal reckless and stupid behavior.
BTW: a nod of sorrow and sincere condolences to any parent who has lost a child to a drunk driver.
I like that Johnson agrees with Sanders. Maybe that will help him win. Any criticism of Johnson not being libertarian enough IMHO should always compare him to one of the other candidates on the ballot in all states. There's no point in comparing him to a hypothetical pure candidate who is not on the ballot.
.
You have jumped to a remarkable conclusion.
I would by far rather stop the criminal traffickers such as the cartels, street gangs, motorcycle gangs, profiteering crooks et als.
I have an ex-sister-in-law who has a son sired by the son of Mafia boss in Birmingham, AL.
She said running drugs was openly discussed at the boss's dinner table with her sitting right there.
She later had a girl by another guy that she married, but he died young due to messing with drugs. Then she lost her girl due to her own dope induced behavior.
Now she lives with a Greek who escaped what the USA is becoming.
The girl is now 13 and is being raised by my stepson who my ex-sister-in-law hates along with my ex.
The girl wound up with my stepson after she went crying to my ex around the age of 8, talking about illegal drugs and used condoms in the house.
I'd photograph gallons of hooch being poured down a storm drain but I always managed to have some beer in the house.
Another day I walked with deputies through a marijuana field with stalks twice as tall as me.
I had no idea they grew that high.
I recall the time an ABC agent shook my hand beside the Bibb County Courthouse. I found a wad of pot planted in the palm of my hand.
When it dried out, I put it in a pipe and smoked it.
Maybe you should do the same, chill out and not worry about what some old dino thinks.
Do believe my "stories" define who I am and this crap is getting tiresome.
"I agree with the executive orders." [Mr. Obama's]
"I won't use marijuana if I become President."
This is another reason I am supporting Trump. Trump is laying it out there saying, THIS IS ME!! THIS IS WHAT I THINK. THIS IS WHAT I STAND FOR. I am successful because I do what I say. If you like it great vote for me, if not go suck it.
I am sick of politicians pandering for votes, instead of presenting their view and saying if you agree with enough of my view then vote for me, if not there are other candidates.
STOP THE PANDERING.
Trump, actually sort of moves with the wind. He says over the top conservative oriented statements, then spends the next 2 days semi-back peddling. I'd call that pandering.
He has no views other than what draws crowds.
I've read his book, there really is no "there", there.
I've read Johnson's books.There is a philosophy, and logic to his thinking. Trump has no philosophy other than it makes Conservatives cheer.
Build Military
STOP Illegal immigration
Stop unvetted Muslims from coming here. (All are unvetted since you cannot verify anything)
At the core the same message he says and repeats and does not apologize, nor does he pander to the groups to "gain votes."
Even if the "PERFECT" President was elected it will take 20 years to unwind this statist government back to where we were 200 years ago, assuming everyone worked together for it. Simply due to the complexities of regulations and how intertwined everything is. Unwinding will take time.
There won't be a wall. Mexico is not going to pay for it. The man wants Tariffs - won't happen. Watch his tune change after he's nominated. And, should he get elected, see how none of his want-list gets addressed.
My pet peev is the debt - and no one is talking about that - other than Johnson.
There is no free trade when our products are tariffed at 20 - 50% going into other countries.
This is why the corporate inversion. When Nabisco can move a plant to Mexico, product their product and not have any tariff in China, vs. a 45% tariff from the USA they will move to Mexico. That is the way of the capitalist.
Balance of scales is required. Trump has alluded to this numerous times, but like any good chess player is not going to tell you his next ten moves.
If you tariff me 45% we tariff you 45%. That is what was alluded to. You tariff us ZERO we tariff you ZERO.
Cruz made a completely stupid argument on the tariff discussion when he told Trump.."..when diapers from china go up 45% you are going to hurt the middle class..." My answer to that is, tell that to the people from Carrier, Nabisco, Ford, HP, IBM that have been outsourced who have NO job to pay for diapers regardless of price.
Next, our Corporate tax and massive regulations are the other thing that drives out jobs. Trump understand exactly what is NEEDED to fix the system. Perot said this in a debate with Clinton and Bush when he talked about that giant sucking sound.
Perot was RIGHT then, and Trump knows that NOW.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rkgx1...
So I am guessing you are all on board with the USA suffering while every other country just uses their protectionist tactics to screw us and drive our country into financial oblivion, and get companies to relocate jobs outside the USA? Keep in mind with no jobs, welcome to Venezuela. The USA has inside its borders virtually ALL the resources we need and really do not "need? other countries. I am not saying be isolationist just pointing our they need us. We do not need them..
So please enlighten me on just you would propose to get china, mexico, japan and every other country to just play fair and equitably?
Your dream you speak of is not Objectivist "value for value", your stated action is the USA sacrifice ourselves for the good of others which is NOT objectivist at all but altruistic, or as Ayn put it EVIL.
If you hit me with a stick, and I hit you back harder, eventually you will STOP hitting me. Also who cares how cheap products are that come here if you have no job with which to earn the money to buy the cheap products with.
Keep telling that to the laid off employees of Ford, Nabisco, Carrier, and all the other companies that have taken millions of jobs out of this country leaving our people with nothing but welfare and unemployment.
Not only because of cheaper labor, and fewer regulations, but the markets that impose massive tariffs on US-made products. Ford can move to Mexico, make the SAME Chevy Impala, and pay ZERO tariff when they sell to China but get a 45% tariff when the car comes from the USA. They move to Mexico, The issues are naturally more complex but tariffs are a huge part of the issue.
Here is a list of companies that have left the USA for greener pastures for reasons of taxes, regulations, and tariffs they do not have to deal with elsewhere.
http://markmartinezshow.blogspot.com/...
YOU: A couple of points: First, you seem to think governments are people who need to hit each other with sticks.
REPLY: No place did I state they "NEED" to hit each other with sticks. I stated and implied that if you hit me I will hit you back harder to teach you to NOT DO THAT!!!. The United States needs to start HITTING BACK HARD and FAST in order to get these people to the table to negotiate FAIR trade. Be it totally free or protectionist between countries but trade needs to be an equitable 2 way street. If China, for example, did not add 100 - 225% tariffs on OUR products there would be no need to smack them down. Pacifism is contrary to objectivism since being pacifist does not provide value for value, it promotes self-sacrifice and altruism.
YOU: You also seem to think that governments produce or own the goods which are traded on the international market.
REPLY: NEVER in any post EVER have I ever stated or implied in any way shape or form Government produces anything. If I have please show me specifically because I mistyped. PERIOD!!! The government specifically the United States Government in the Constitution is and should be ONLY subsidized by tariffs.
Please read up on the history of Income Tax. http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A000592...
1913, the 16th Amendment made Income tax permanent, and thus started the downward spiral of Statism and Government control through levies on individuals. Prior the income tax was used to fund war efforts like the Civil war and was meant to be temporary.
Income tax in any form is nothing short of looting by statists.
YOU: The tariffs you speak of are government taxes on the otherwise willing trade between individuals and companies that actually produce and want to trade with one another.
REPLY: Within the United States Constitution at the founding of this country Tariffs were supposed to be the ONLY real means of funding the limited government the founders intended.
YOU: I did not call for any sacrifice at all.
Actually in your statement that WE should have zero tariffs while everyone else uses tariffs to prohibit or form trade barriers is indeed demanding sacrifice. Again economics 101. When profits are easier elsewhere, businesses flow like water, to the path of least resistance. Add the tariffs every other country imposes on the United States vs. every other country and you see a totally concerted effort to tear down this exceptional country by the rest of the world. Our supposed leaders are just too damn stupid to use the sticks we have to beat everyone back into FAIR trade for fear of offending someone. Sure there might be some pain in the short term, but when every other country suffers famine and we do not, they will either shape up or try to attack us for our resources, at which point we will do to them what we did to Germany in WWII.
YOU: I call for government getting out of the way of free trade.
REPLY: I do not disagree, however, please still tell me how you plan on getting ALL other sovereign nations to do the same? Please do tell. I would love you to give me the solution. Other than Tariffs, or invasion.
YOU: Finally, the fact that other countries are much worse on this issue does not mean that our government should follow suit or up the ante until all trade is prohibited (the logical consequence of your stick hitting strategy).
REPLY: Now you are hitting on the antithesis of Objectivism and promoting the self-sacrifice you said you did not promote.
When attacked you do not turn the other cheek and say "Thank you, Sir...May I have another." You react to stop their bad behavior regardless of the pain and suffering the other country might face. That is not our concern, nor should we really care. I quote Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged when Philip told his brother Hank. "You really do not care about the less fortunate do you?"
Hank. "No, No I do not."
YOU: As for your suggestion that we should study economics more, I would recommend Mises (greatly admired by Rand) and Rothbard on the tariff issue.
Edited to correct a couple typos
REPLY: And they are wrong. I think the founding fathers of this country were FAR smarter than the others and placed tariffs as one of the many tools of Government to deal with other nations.
USA imposes mostly free or no tariff, then less than 6.5% in most all cases.
China imposes in many cases 100% or more tariffs on products entering their country. They impose NO tariff on products made in China or in some other countries. I suggest you study economics a bit more, and look at the WTO trade and tariff schedules to see just who is practicing this free trade and who is not.
I know I'm going to disagree with Clinton and Sanders nearly 100%, but 87% with Trump? Not buying it...
It provided me the proverbial last straw for considering the Libertarian Party for a presidential vote this time around.
It takes many, many straws to break a camel's back.
I was already pretty much buh-bye I'm out of here when I saw that.
I'd rather "cop a dirt nap" than vote for Evil Cackles.
Afraid I'll either "roll the bones" for him who speaks like a "skipping record" who looks like a "bad hair day" or just "shuck it" and "chill."
Or I could always write in "Who is John Galt?
https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/post...
I am against legalizing pot and any politician who believes in man-made global warming.
And now he agrees with a Bolshevik Bernie 73% of the time? A Libertarian would say that?
Maybe that was why 73% of my gut was already telling me to ditch this loser days ago.
He even looks too dopey to be electable if you want to get ad hominem about it.
My war on drugs?
Back in the 70s there was girl I dated who started to smoke pot. In fact, she did not want to do anything else save for staying home..
I watched her turn into a completely different person within two weeks.
Previously I had really gotten to like her, but now she got so dull and freaking boring I went looking for other fish in the sea. .
Later I heard she got raped by her drug dealer.
My grown bachelor son hates illegal drugs due to his own experiences with people
Hopefully, when he's out in his car he won't get collided by some by some doped up dude coming the other way.
I used to have a co-worker who was manslaughtered just that way.
I have an ex who, my wife at the time, wound up unharmed yet upside-down along with my car thanks to a druggie.
Oh, that ex is my dope-hating son's mother, by the way.
That "victim-less crime" keeps striking innocent bystanders again and again.
Call a taxi or have a designated driver.
Long time ago I experimented with weed and one of my brothers got seriously stung out on dope for a while back in the late 60s.
That same brother is now an executive for an insurance company and loves his daily bottle and/or bottles of beer and stores all kinds of wine.
There is a big difference between dope and alcohol beverages.
I classify tobacco products as dope. Kicking a nicotine addiction is the hardest thing I ever did. In that sense Old Dino was a drug addict.
Booze just doesn't reach out and addict people the same way as addictive drugs.
I've read that kicking a nicotine habit is harder than cocaine.
I've both read and seen people into pot move on to harder stuff that has killed off some of my favorite rock stars.
The latest example being Prince (opiates in his dead system) wasn't a favorite, though I liked that Purple Rain song.
2. No.
3. No.
But O'Riley on Fox recently opened his Factor show by stating that drug-related bad stuff like traffic accidents in Colorado are statistically spiking.
So I'm still not swayed.
You would not believe how many times I tried to get that top line to appear as~
1. No.
Johnson will never be elected either. It was stupid of him to say he agreed with Sanders 73% of the time, except perhaps he is pandering to Sanders' supporters to get them to vote for HIM.
I have thought that a Trump/Sanders ticket would be very interesting. It would allow for a LOT of debate and I think Sanders would lose on the socialism side.
As to voluntary socialism, I really dont have an issue with that. Families are essentially voluntary socialists, although I could argue that the term "socialist" really implies that people are forced to serve others, and therefore "voluntary socialism" is impossible.
The only reason I think this socialism stuff is popular with Millennials is because our shitty break-down in schools over the last 30 years or so has left them with a 6th grade education compared to previous generations and they probably think "socialism" means supporting social media and Facebook.
Just repeal the progressive tax rate, make everyone chip in 35% at the first dollar of income and make it very visible on their pay stub. This shit will go away real quick. It's only because the Millennials don't have much of a career or jobs (read as too-busy looking in Facebook all day), so they don't pay much or anything in taxes yet. Sooner or later they will find out where those 'free' government programs come from and they will swing hard to the conservative right.
I love that scandinavian proposalon to give everyone I think 2500 a month guaranteed. The first thing that came to mind is that everyone is going to have to make more than 2500 and give it all to the government (who takes a cut of course) for that system to work. So, whats the point really
By giving everyone something above zero as a baseline, you raise the costs of everything up to that baseline. Increase the baseline and the cost of everything goes up.
They (Scandinavia) also have that little thing called miserably small donations to NATO while soaking up that 'you defend us if we are attacked' clause and pretty much not doing any kind of national defense planning or budget. The definition of a moocher in the NATO alliance. Trump was very right to point that out, France is pretty bad too, they don't necessarily participate in NATO exercises or wartime planning, but would certainly want to be rescued (again). The Brits are pretty much the only ones that carry their own weight on that.
Trump isn't saying scrap NATO either, nor am I, but he is very correct to say "chip in your fair share or get out".
My wife's family has had huge issues with drugs, there were six kids, she is the oldest and is a civil engineer, the second oldest is a civil engineer but never got his PE (he's a pot head) and he only got the scholarship to go to school because my wife wrote his essay & application (on the day it was due because he sloughed it). Third one is ok, but has smoked and drank and now has stage 4 cancer at 43, the youngest 3 are all potheads, all on public assistance, one is in jail more than out of jail, and the youngest has like 6 months of total job experience and she's 30 years old and now on a worker's-comp claim (from her first 6 months of working in her life).
People that get addicted to that stuff (and I'll lump alcohol and tobacco in the same group), get transfixed on chasing their next high / drunk / cigarette. The other responsibilities in life kind of become subordinate to that... If they always did it in the privacy of their own home, I wouldn't care, but they don't - they stop at stop lights and get out to share a joint with the person in the car next to them, they think no one knows (but I can smell the skunk weed from 150 feet back behind them at 50 mph, so I'm sure everyone else can). We had an old bag of a piece of shit of a woman high & drunk flying down the 40 mph zone my dead end street tee's off from, hit a young 15 year old girl on the walking trail adjacent, "thought she hit a deer" and dragged pieces & parts of her 7 miles to the next town on her way home with the poor girl's scalp, ear, and a foot stuck in the bitch's suspension where they found it after arresting her. The family said "she doesn't really ever get that drunk & high"... oh, that makes it better!
So don't hit me with that stupid 'alcohol' argument, I don't drink either, and very few people statistically have more than maybe a glass of wine with a Friday dinner or something. I grew up in an area where alcoholism was rampant (in a small town in the center of the 3 largest tribal reservations in the country), and I even worked in a sports bar as a bartender in college and had to deal with the assholes and shit heads up-front and firsthand. I don't support that stuff either.
I have a simple policy, do what you want, but do it in public on a public road and hit someone, its zero tolerance, life in prison after that.
I have also toyed with the idea that when a person's rights are violated, the perpetrator should lose some or all of HIS rights, which means either the victim or his family (if he is killed) or anyone they appoint, could do what they wanted with the perpetrator to the extent that HIS remaining rights werent violated.
Kill my daughter with your car and you are subject to being killed in return- my choice. How about that to discourage drunk driving.
The statistics we have about drunk driving are collected in a very biased way, dictated by NHTSA: every accident in which any participant, even a pedestrian, has some alcohol in their blood gets counted as alcohol related and assumed to be the fault of a drunk driver.
Yet even with that biased data, we can reach some conclusions. NHTSA tells the public that if you have even one drink, and drive after dark, your chance of an accident with an injury or death goes up by a factor of 100. And that's true as far as it goes. What they don't say out loud are the numbers. Your chance of an injury accident on that one drive home from your favorite restaurant goes up from about 1 in 20 million to 1 in 200,000.
I can't especially blame someone for believing that 1 in 200,000 is still close enough to zero that he'll risk it. And besides, that chance varies hugely from one driver to another. Some people, especially the heaviest drinkers, are affected much less by alcohol than others. The same goes for other drugs.
Therefore, I would repeal any laws that set a specific legal limit for alcohol or drugs in the body, and simply require that any arrest for drunk driving must be backed up by video of that person driving badly. (Or showing gross clumsiness and then getting behind the wheel.) Let a jury view it and decide whether the person is too drunk -- and let the police stop bothering the people who really aren't drunk enough that a convincing video could be made, or who were sleeping in the back seat and not driving when they were arrested.
I agree with all jdg's points above. It's like buying 1 lottery ticket vs 100. Your chances of winning the jackpot are 100 times more but are essentially the same.
He opposed the war on drugs when millennials were babies and couldn't vote. So it can't be that he started opposing prohibition to pander to millennials.
The polling may back that up. I don't know. In my personal case, the older I get the less I approve of proposed solutions that involve gov't force.
Not using forced tax dollars to fund something is not the same opposing that thing.