Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by freedomforall 5 years, 3 months ago
    I agree, JJJ. It could only have been worse if he promised to have a sex change and supported a carbon tax.
    Johnson is a frakking idiot, and has lost any façade of being libertarian.
    NOT HRM Trump.
    NOT Shitlery.
    NOT Johnson (and his statist running mate Weld.)
    NOTA is a better choice than any of these tax and spenders.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 5 years, 3 months ago
      I can't figure out what happened to his thinking. Did he fall, like Hildebeast, have a TBI, and lost his senses?
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by freedomforall 5 years, 3 months ago
        This is more like a shotgun blast in the mouth than a shot to the foot. I don't want anyone (else) in the oval office who is so utterly clueless about the political fraud of climate change.
        imo, he listened to Trump speak like an idiot without any focus one time too many and thought he could do the same, but that still doesn't excuse the fact he can't rationally examine facts, ignore propaganda, and come to a reasonable conclusion.
        I am delighted that he made this error and completely exposed his stupidity. I only wish he had done so before the Libertarian Convention.
        Libertarians gave him the rope, and now he has used it to hang himself along with the party.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by term2 5 years, 3 months ago
          Libertarians arent philosophically coherent and consistent. Ayn Rand even disliked them for that, and she was right.

          Johnson also wanted weed to be decriminalized, but not other drugs. Either prohibition is wrong, or its not, in my view. Remove criminal penalties for producing, selling, and using any drug a person wants to ingest. The only way to go.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by freedomforall 5 years, 3 months ago
            Blaming Libertarians for inconsistency and voting for Trump. ROTFL!
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by term2 5 years, 3 months ago
              but libertarians are SUPPOSED to be for freedom. they are the ones YOU were promoting, at least earlier. Trump is a way to keep Hillary OUT and maybe slow down socialism by a bit.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by freedomforall 5 years, 3 months ago
                No need to go through the same dead end discussion again, Term. I don't base my support for candidates based on faith. At this point that would be the only reason to vote for Trump. I do not trust him to act any better than I trust Hillary. Fear of Hillary is not a reason to vote for another bad candidate.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by term2 5 years, 3 months ago
                  One vote doesn't really matter when it's mob rule anyway. Supporters of Hillary know she gets away with offering government favors in exchange for votes and money, and they want the goodies she offers
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by 5 years, 3 months ago
                  "Fear of Hillary is not a reason to vote for another bad candidate" Yes, it is.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by freedomforall 5 years, 3 months ago
                    Same excuse used to put statists in office for the past 30 years. Didn't work before; will not work now. Just wasting your vote and consenting to looters. Its exactly what the looters want.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by 5 years, 3 months ago
                      "One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors." Plato
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by freedomforall 5 years, 3 months ago
                        Participation does not imply consent.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Posted by 5 years, 3 months ago
                          Exactly.

                          Life has lots of unsavory choices, consent notwithstanding, but we make the choice anyway.
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                          • Posted by freedomforall 5 years, 3 months ago
                            Choosing to vote for a looter/lesser-evil in fear of an alleged greater evil is giving consent to being looted by evil. We have the result of this today because most "conservatives" have held their noses and voted in fear instead of based upon their principles for the past 30+ years.
                            Einsteain's definition of insanity applies to voting for a lesser evil: Repeating the same action and expecting a different result.
                            Voting on principle for a candidate with a history of pro-free-market, non-looting policies is not consent.
                            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                            • Posted by 5 years, 3 months ago
                              Not voting for either will not stop the looting. Not voting does nothing but assuage your conscience. Voting for Hillary will guarantee to increase looting; voting for Trump MIGHT slow it. I'll vote for the "might" versus the "guarantee" because those are the only choices.
                              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                              • Posted by freedomforall 5 years, 3 months ago
                                Didn't say a word about not voting.
                                "Voting on principle for a candidate with a history of pro-free-market, non-looting policies is not consent."
                                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                                • Posted by 5 years, 3 months ago
                                  Voting is a crap shoot. Rationales for voting or not voting are myriad.

                                  But, as my best friend's mom said a long time ago: "I vote for the SOB that tells me the lies I want to hear." Trump's lies are way better than the Hildebeast's........
                                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                                  • freedomforall replied 5 years, 3 months ago
          • Posted by lrshultis 5 years, 3 months ago
            Yes the removal of penalties helps but the market must have the bottom fall out of it so that there is no profit to be made other than a little above the manufacturing cost. Then the only marketing would be by pier pressure and not with force. Might even stop some deaths without the pressure from the pushers. Heroin has come to my small, 1700, village with an overdose death of a 33 year old woman in an apartment in the building next to my house.
            Was it only the early few candidates for the Libertarian Party that had any coherency or consistency to their beliefs? Rand could have been called a libertarian with a nearly consistent philosophy. I have some problems with her reification of the adjective and adverb 'right' to a noun 'right' which is somehow inborn as an nattribute of a human being. She somewhat gets around that with a right being a moral principle which has a choice to it.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by term2 5 years, 3 months ago
              If drugs werent illegal, the stage would be set for all out free market competition. I suspect a lot of weed would be just grown at home (cheap), but definitely the price would come down so it was just another commodity. As to the other drugs, the best part would be that the prices would fall and the quality would go up. There would be no need for streetcorner drug dealers when you could get it at a drugstore or walmart even. Less violence for sure. As to its attraction, it would lose the rebel attraction. Just another drug, like the currently legal ones, that one needs to evaluate before you take it.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by lrshultis 5 years, 3 months ago
                Then there is the problem of taxation to keep the price high to stop the kiddies from starting use as with the high tax on tobacco. Just gets a black market and theft and pushing to their friends.
                There is little rationality with drug use. My neighbor in the same building as the heroin overdose asked if I ever smoked tobacco. I said yes and he lit into me for it being stupid due to toxins. He thought I should start using weed like he does and alcohol instead because it is safer. I told him that when burned the two each make hundreds of possibly dangerous toxins. "No", he said. weed is more natural and less toxins because tobacco fields are treated with chemicals, completely forgetting the main reason besides the difference in arterial dilation or constrictions, for the toxins produced by burning of organic matter.
                As for drug use, do you think that Rand could have written her stuff without the use of tobacco and amphetamines? I found that with giving up tobacco that I wasn't as able to to get new math ideas as easily as without it.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by Mamaemma 5 years, 3 months ago
          I just hate for people to vote for him thinking he's great, when he's not, and it's a wasted vote. Of course I think all of them are wasted
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by RobertFl 5 years, 3 months ago
            And the alternative would be?
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by Mamaemma 5 years, 3 months ago
              Robert, I wish I knew a good alternative. I happen to live in a gerrymandered district, so my vote is irrelevant no matter what it is. I do happen to think that nothing could be worse than Hillary.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by freedomforall 5 years, 3 months ago
                And in a state with winner take all. Your vote means nothing (nor does mine.) You have no representation and peacefully you can do nothing about it. Just pay taxes and be silent (or be audited.) This is not freedom.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by term2 5 years, 3 months ago
                Given the choice is Hillary OR Trump this time around, the rational choice has to be Trump. He isnt perfect by any means, but a lot more sensible than Hillary, and at least hasnt shown us the extreme crookedness that Hillary has. She is the posterchild for cronyism.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • -1
                  Posted by $ Temlakos 5 years, 3 months ago
                  Agreed. Donald Trump is a self-made business emperor. Hillary Clinton sells government policy to the highest bidder. I know which of them I would rather have.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by johnpe1 5 years, 3 months ago
      now, I know people who are headed for gender change
      who are more consistent in their rationality, so please
      go easy there. -- j
      .
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by freedomforall 5 years, 3 months ago
        When they are running for office I will consider them on their merit.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by johnpe1 5 years, 3 months ago
          Well Said, Sir! . let's just remember that freedom
          includes self-determination. -- j
          .
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by freedomforall 5 years, 3 months ago
            Some time in the future, all this will be a non issue. There are a lot better things to be concerned about than what someone decides to do to their own body. However, if a candidate decides during the campaign that it is time to have a sex change (today, not in the future) then they will likely have lost my vote because the surgery will debilitate, and if the candidate thinks they must have the surgery immediately, then without it they will also be at least distracted from the job they are pursuing. Either way, it is a significant change that requires re-evaluation.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by johnpe1 5 years, 3 months ago
              the future probably contains alternatives which only
              the science-fiction authors and thinkers may be
              envisioning today. . cloning is just around the corner
              and progeny can now be created in vitro ... and maybe
              also by more exotic means. . the idea just struck me
              that a transgender candidate would be even more
              novel than the female candidate. . brave new world. -- j
              .
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ Radio_Randy 5 years, 3 months ago
        John,

        I'll try to go easy, but I had to respond.

        Your acquaintances may be consistent in their rationality, but they also appear to suffer from gender dysphoria, a mental illness. This is a serious enough issue that I would even have to question their rationality.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by johnpe1 5 years, 3 months ago
          my condition might be considered a mental illness --
          I am a conservationistic objectivism advocate ... the
          society which determines what is a mental illness
          has a whole lot to do with the diagnosis, don't you think? -- j

          p.s. I have always considered that the ideal person
          would not be caged-in by gender, but would be able
          to navigate in either male or female interpersonal
          situations equally well. . takes a lot to do this.
          .
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • -1
      Posted by term2 5 years, 3 months ago
      but you are GOING to get either Trump OR Hillary. Trump is 1000 times better than Hillary. Not perfect but the only choice if you at least want to slow down the advancement of socialism.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • -1
      Posted by $ Temlakos 5 years, 3 months ago
      If not any of them, WHO?!?
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ blarman 5 years, 3 months ago
        Write in someone. There is also the possibility I posted a couple of days ago that if enough people vote third party we can throw the election to the House. (https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/post...)
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • -2
          Posted by $ Temlakos 5 years, 3 months ago
          You know better than this. To begin with, don't just say to write in someone. Unless everyone writes in the same someone, you'll have a smattering of votes each for a thousand candidates. Add this to it: even for a write-in candidate to appear on the ballot, you have to demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the State Division of Elections, that your write-in candidate has a slate of elector-candidates ready for the State to appoint them and tell them to go about their Constitutional business. That's why write-in candidacies for President never work.

          And about those third parties: the last time we had a third-party candidate try to knock off the Republican candidate for President, was Teddy Roosevelt against William Howard Taft. That gave us Woodrow Wilson. And we all know how that wound up.

          "Nobody stays in this valley by faking reality in any manner whatever." -- John Galt
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by $ blarman 5 years, 3 months ago
            Did you even read the article accompanying my reply? The purpose was to get enough people to vote for Gary Johnson (registered in every State BTW) to throw the race, defeating both major candidates and sending the election to the House of Representatives.

            A large part of the country voted for Bernie Sanders and a significant portion of the Democratic Party is incensed that the fix was in for Hillary. They are #NeverHillary. Another large portion are #NeverTrump. Put together, I think there is a substantial enough voting bloc to throw the election.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by $ Temlakos 5 years, 3 months ago
              If this race goes into the House of Representatives, you'll probably get Trump anyway. The Representatives will never vote for any candidate other than the Republican and Democratic Party nominees. Count on it.

              More to the point: to throw a contest usually means to lose it deliberately. Lose this election, lose the country. It's that simple. And last I heard, Ragnar Danneskjöld was a privateer captain, then a rescuer. He did not attempt an armed overthrow of the looters' state. And even at that, I think you underestimate the spite of the looters' side.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by $ blarman 5 years, 3 months ago
                I don't know what will happen. It's all speculation, and with a high degree of error since it's never happened since the adoption of the Twelfth Amendment. But I know there are a lot of Republican Reps who don't like Trump either, just like there are a lot of Democratic Reps who are ticked off at the DNC for rigging the election. So I think a lot of interesting things could happen.

                I'm not arguing for an armed overthrow. What I'm hoping for is that enough people realize what poor choices we are presented with and force a do-over. I'm not a Trump supporter per se, but I do appreciate his anti-establishment bent. If there was no choice, however, I think it would open up the races to additional political parties. I think that just like choices in the market, we should have choices in voting. That can't really happen without something changing in a major vote outcome because right now the two parties control the system.

                Am I concerned about the attempts by the looters to continue their control? Absolutely. The Democrats have been rigging votes for twenty years now and I don't think that is going to stop until Voter ID laws are mandatory. But they can only rig the votes of the people who don't show up. If we can encourage more and more people to go and vote against the status quo, we might be able to get back on the path to real reform. I may be a bit optimistic as it could very well be that we descend into the looter utopia in Atlas Shrugged instead. We'll see in about three months.

                (PS not me down-voting you)
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by $ Temlakos 5 years, 3 months ago
                  Now wait a minute. Of course the House of Representatives have decided a President since the Twelfth Amendment. It gave the Presidency to John Quincy Adams instead of to Andrew Jackson the first time those two ran against each other. Henry Clay came to Adams with a proposal: "I can make you President, if you will promise me the Secretaryship of State."

                  "Excuse me, Mr. Clay," said John Quincy Adams. Who then shut the door.

                  What happened next behind that closed door, we cannot know. But we can guess.

                  Now I find it difficult in the extreme to imagine Hillary Clinton bribing enough Republicans to sway their State delegations. That's how bitterly some of them hate her. The Clinton Foundation hasn't enough money to buy off that kind of hate. And because the feelings are mutual, I don't think the Foundation would even have the inclination.

                  All Trump has to say is this: "You can pick me, or you can pick Hillary. But I warn you: if you pick Hillary, I will take you down with me, and don't think I can't." That's what I would say in his place.

                  Actually the only thing I think certain people are counting on, is that Hillary will drop dead within a month of taking office. But I am a native son of Virginia. And I can tell you flatly. You do not repeat not want Tim Kaine for President. That. Kind. Of. Failure. Is. Not. An option.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ dballing 5 years, 3 months ago
    It's true that he's fallen pretty far away from a lot of libertarian principles. BUT....

    BUT.

    He's still a damned sight more libertarian-minded than either of the other two contenders. In a race where -- finally -- a third party candidate might get at least some attention, would you rather:

    1.) Go full on "extreme" to the full-bore libertarian principles, possibly alienating good chunks of the folks who might be in the market to jump ship, or
    2.) Be more "centrist-libertarian", or "libertarian lite" or whatever euphemism you want to use, and accumulate a decent amount of votes, possibly enough to garner better attention in future elections?

    I mean, because let's be clear: No libertarian candidate was going to win. Period. Full-stop. Not a full-bore libertarian, not lib-lite Johnson.

    So, with "victory" off the the table, would you rather be the party the squandered its opportunity for attention of the masses by putting up someone whose ideas the electorate simply isn't ready for yet, or put up someone who can act as a ... gateway drug... to libertarianism. Someone who still says a lot of the things they like to hear, but also believes a lot of the things we do. As a perk, they're someone with executive success as governor and so aren't immediately dismissed on credibility issues.

    I might not agree with everything GJ proposes, but I think he was the best long-term nominee for the party, given the playing field as it exists today.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by freedomforall 5 years, 3 months ago
      I thought so, too. Johnson is a poor candidate, a poor speaker, a poor statesman, a pathetic excuse for a libertarian, but much less damaging to liberty than the statist twins of the DemRep party.
      But proposing that a carbon tax is a free market approach is unforgivable, utterly irrational, and just as new-speakish as the evil twins. His choice of running mate Weld the Wicked was prophetic, and in retrospect the Libertarian convention delegates should have insisted on a true libertarian as VP to keep Johnson from straying too far from principles. Instead Johnson has apparently taken Weld's idiotic statist position for his own. Johnson doesn't represent me or the free market or liberty.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ dballing 5 years, 3 months ago
        An again - it comes down to, which would you prefer:

        1.) Someone who is more adherent to our dogma, but will gain less traction from the undecided/NOTA crowd?
        2.) Someone who is less adherent to our dogma, but will potentially be able to bring people into the tent and at least open some doors to us?

        SINCE we were not going to win either way, it seems better to bring people into the tent, let them have some of their statist ideas still, and slowly wean them off. That seems to have a greater likelihood of long-term success than insisting that the undecideds should go "cold turkey" on a lot of the things they've been indoctrinated into.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by freedomforall 5 years, 3 months ago
          I was willing to tolerate his not defending the constitution, his insulting small business, his complimenting the Clintons, his choosing a statist for a running mate, and other things that I disagree with, in order to do what you noted. It isn't dogma, it's looting.
          I agreed with your premise until Johnson advocated a carbon tax. Misleading the public on an issue that is so anti- free market means that Johnson is not doing what you describe. Johnson could have done so, but he crossed a line into lying, looting, and destroying the free market by advocating a carbon tax that feeds the evil monster state by stealing from the productive, just as the income tax does. He has sided with Clinton, Gore, and Obama, and against liberty. Unforgiveable.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by $ dballing 5 years, 3 months ago
            But see here's the thing: he is doing what I describe. He's getting polling numbers the likes of which the LP has never seen. He might actually conceivably end up in the debates they're so good. This is literally unheard of territory for the LP.

            If it takes an imperfect LP candidate to break down that wall so that future, better, LP candidates can just walk on through? I'll take that any day and twice on sundays.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by freedomforall 5 years, 3 months ago
              You mean he was doing as you describe.
              The polling numbers have so far been based on dislike of the evil twins, and Johnson's silence on issues of importance to libertarians, but less important to other prospective voters. This latest LINO cave in to the propaganda of Gore, Obama, and Clinton will lose more than it gains in the polls. Johnson is done.
              Trump and Hillary have polling numbers, too. How did they get them? If you get people in your camp by purposely lying to them and sacrificing your principles you have failed. Not that Trump or Hillary actually have ethical principles.
              Some things are unacceptable.
              Johnson has crossed the line into statist looting. It is the dumbest thing he has done so far.
              I won't be surprised if the voters react irrationally, but I won't consent or condone Johnson's unethical (or statist) approach any longer.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by 5 years, 3 months ago
              I'm not willing to see Johnson gain ground because, in the end, it just might take votes away from the better of the two evils.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by $ dballing 5 years, 3 months ago
                Then - bluntly - you are part of the problem.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by 5 years, 3 months ago
                  Blunt is appreciated.

                  Johnson has no chance.

                  Voting for the lesser of two evils is moral and rational because it might prevent the greater evil and greater attendant consequences.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by $ dballing 5 years, 3 months ago
                    You're right that he has no chance. That's besides the point.

                    You're fighting a short game and ignoring the long one. "Yayyyyy" maybe for the next four years there's some fractional difference in evil. But by ignoring the objectively better third option you've made it harder for them, in the next election to make change.

                    In other words, you can't expect the non-evil to ever have a chance, if you're not willing to commit to the non-evil cause, so that other folks start to see non-evil as viable.

                    Until people stop voting for the lesser of two evils, aiming at short term concerns, there will be no end to evil.

                    And thus - you are part of the problem, not the solution.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by $ ObjectiveAnalyst 5 years, 3 months ago
                      Hello DB,
                      I think people are so terrified and desperate, they are resorting to Rand's ethics of emergencies when contemplating their choices. I have voted third party before. This time, as I look at the options that will be on my state's ballot, I find they are all distasteful and the quandary has me questioning whether I should just vote all the down ballot options and abstain from supporting any of the presidential options... At this point Johnson has become the lesser of three evils. I am on the fence, but will probably fall in his direction when push comes to shove. I feel as if we are up the proverbial $*%! creek without a paddle.
                      Galt this stinks.
                      Regards,
                      O.A.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by 5 years, 3 months ago
                      Forestalling a greater evil is moral and rational. Taking a putrid medicine may be distasteful (!) but if it prevents or slows the growth of the collectivist tumor, there's a benefit. My choice would be Rand Paul. But that is not a "medicine" the rigged system has provided.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by $ dballing 5 years, 3 months ago
                        It's only moral if, by your actions, you're not prolonging evil, because that creates a greater evil.

                        For instance, let's say candidate A is "1 Evil Unit", and B is ".8 Evil Units". Sure, it's easy to say "Well, I saved us 4 years at .2 EU, for .8EU savings woot!"

                        But if by doing so you prevent candidate C, down the road, who is "0.4 Evil Units" from being viable, you will create a longer-term harm than you are forestalling.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Posted by 5 years, 3 months ago
                          Forestalling evil is a good.
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                          • Posted by $ dballing 5 years, 3 months ago
                            You keep repeating that as if it makes it better. It doesn't.

                            Forestalling evil is a good if there isn't an opportunity to prevent future, greater, evil.

                            By "forestalling" evil you create a very small, very short-term, reduction in evil. By voting against evil entirely you might create a short-term increase in evil, but set in motion the ability to create a long-term, large reduction in evil, which vastly outweighs the amount of evil you "ignored" in the run-up to the tipping point.

                            The longer you "lesser of two evils" folks ignore that point, the longer until we can actually rid ourselves of the evil.

                            Like I said: You're part of the problem.
                            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • -1
      Posted by term2 5 years, 3 months ago
      I think that before we even consider a third party candidate the election system has to be unrigged so that the two major parties dont have a hold on it anymore. Trump is essentially an anti-establishment third party candidate, but he figured a way to hijack the republican party (much to their dismay). He is paying the price for that, as the establishment wants his campaign dead, dead, dead.

      After the system is unrigged, massive education has to be mounted with the populace so they understand what government should and actually can do. They have to stop listening to the promises of the Hillarys. The president is only 1/3 of the government anyway- and cant do much at all without the congress going along. Plus, no president that I can remember actually carried through on their promises, including Obama (who promised to get us out of useless wars- and 8 years later we are still there)
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ dballing 5 years, 3 months ago
        Catch-22.

        You can't "unrig" it from outside, because the ones who rig it are the ones who make the rules. You HAVE to get inside to unrig it.

        And I little to no faith that HucksterTrump will do anything to unrig the system.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • -1
          Posted by term2 5 years, 3 months ago
          He hijacked the republican party from the outside, though, by just speaking out. Sanders tried a hijacking, but failed. He did expose what was going on , though.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by $ dballing 5 years, 3 months ago
            Hijacking a party of misfits is way less of a challenge than unfucking democracy.

            Apples and BMWs.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by term2 5 years, 3 months ago
              What we need is to reboot the USA, as in the series Jericho on netflix. Not with bombs, though. their premise was that the system was so messed up and infected by cronyism that it had to be dismantled. good series tho
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by $ dballing 5 years, 3 months ago
                Well, sure, there's a reason why dystopic fiction appeals to me (and a lot of us actually) for precisely the reason you describe - it's an involuntary reboot.

                But in the real world, that's unlikely to happen, so we have to either find our zen place about the shit-show, or plot a course of slow correction towards something better.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by term2 5 years, 3 months ago
                  I agree that without a scenario like Jericho, "reboots" wont happen. They would be stopped by the NSA's powers. The zen place would have to be isolated as in Galts Gulch (unlikely), or heavily defended and totally self sufficient. The hatred against it by the establishment would make whats happening to Trump look like a circus.

                  Slow correction is possible, but could take 50-100 years to really happen.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by 5 years, 3 months ago
                    History shows cycles, rises and falls of both good and bad. Too bad we are living in a period of the fall (over the cliff) but I take some (less and less, per day) solace in the Chinese curse/blessing: "May you live in interesting times."
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by term2 5 years, 3 months ago
                      I read a documentary that said that cultures have a typical life of 250 years during which time they expand and then eventually crash. The crash is precipitated by citizens forgetting what made the culture great and then using government to get goodies instead of concentrating on being productive. We are at that 250 year point.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by 5 years, 3 months ago
                  I've stated this before: I'm 73,have watched collectivism gain ground every day, every year, and have zero "hope" that there will be a turn around on the slide of the USA into oblivion. However, at this point (the election) the choices are to elect the Whore of Islam and watch the slide turn into a cliff or Trump, who cannot stop it but might be a speed-bump on the slide and a bit more entertaining to watch.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Herb7734 5 years, 3 months ago
    Today, what passes for Libertarianism is a mish-mash of Libertarian and liberal conepts. The prevailing attitude seems to be that they base their premises on what is right, not what is ideological and as a result, straddles both left and right agendas. Johnson's proposal is a perfect example of this.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by freedomforall 5 years, 3 months ago
      What "passes" for libertarianism?? According to whom? You are blaming libertarians for what non-libertarians say it means to be libertarian? Unless I have misunderstood, that is complete rubbish and not worthy of your intelligence, Herb. I'd appreciate it if you can provide an objective explanation.
      Do you have a verifiable source for this conclusion that you can share? When you say "liberal" concepts do you mean the Democrat definition of "liberal", or the original definition that still exists everywhere else in the world ?
      Johnson's statements since he became the candidate have been anything but libertarian, and imo (without having taken a statistically valid poll ;^) an overwhelming majority of libertarians -those who understand what it means to be "libertarian" as opposed to those who claim to be libertarian without any understanding of it- do not support Johnson's non-libertarian and anti-free-market proposals. I suspect they are stunned by the stupidity Johnson has shown with this proposal.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by Herb7734 5 years, 3 months ago
        I just posted from experience. After Rand said we couldn't use her name (we called ourselves "The Ayn Rand Society") a group of us were so pissed off that we started looking around for other Randoids and got interested in this new thing called Libertarianism. What I posted was from my personal experience and things may have changed since then. However, the comment by Johnson flooded the old memory banks with that experience.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by freedomforall 5 years, 3 months ago
          Thanks, Herb. Did you get involved in founding the party ?
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by Herb7734 5 years, 3 months ago
            No.
            Just about that time I opened my first store, and 11 or 12 hours per day didn't leave much time for anything else. When I got to the point where I could finally take a breath, I started thinking about my family and expanding the biz. Activism of any kind too a back seat for the next 15 years.
            By the way, I should not have started my first post with "Today."
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by RobertFl 5 years, 3 months ago
    It's not a tax, it's a fee.
    Instead of making a decision on a chopped down interview, and speculating what "fee" means go READ his platform and stance on the issue and you'll at least understand his mind set regarding his environmental concerns.
    Yes, Gary is environmentally conscience (I have no problem with that), but he does not believe in penalizing Business, he wants to incentivize them to be clean.
    Hillary wants to tax all of us, and send that revenue to China.
    Trump is just a fail all around.
    And we can't have "NOTA" for President - hell, if that actually happened we might get Zippy for 4 more years.
    Pick your battles - Johnson is a far better choice than Hillary or Trump.
    I agree, I would like more details on that "fee", but regardless of what it is - I'm sure Johnson would make a better President then the other 2 chuckle-heads.
    Further, I'm sure it's a low priority item for a Johnson administration, and was primarily stated to appease Bernie people he's trying to swing.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 5 years, 3 months ago
      Again? Did it change in the last few days? I think not I'm waiting for the Town Hall event. Someone post the time and channels if you find out anything.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
      • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 5 years, 3 months ago
        That drew a zero Someone is REALLY running scared. You don't want people watching the Libertarian Town Hall?

        I looked again but it appears they are all done and over with however will keep looking might be one in the works for October or early November. Damn that tv slot time must be real expensive!
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by term2 5 years, 3 months ago
      we will get EITHER Hillary OR Trump this time. Hillary is the posterchild for cronyism. She sells government access, then hides it with a personal email server. Isnt this the Nixon philosophy raised to substantially higher levels??? Imagine how she would sell us out as president and make behind the scenes deals.

      Trump is a straight shooter- he tells it like he sees it (politically incorrect). We need that . If all he did was destroy political correctness, I would consider his presidency helpful to the country. In addition, he will be far better than Hillary in foreign relations and at least stick up for USA and get some respect for us. Economically, he has a business background and wont do STUPID things like Hillary has and will do in the future. Johnson will go nowhere in this election, period. It would take far more consistency and education of the populace before he could hope to win.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by RobertFl 5 years, 3 months ago
        That's why Trump has back-peddled on everything he's said.
        You're not getting a wall. No one will tossed over it.
        There will be no tariffs.
        Trump will be ineffective
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by term2 5 years, 3 months ago
          I think he will tighten bordere security tho. he will be good at restoring the USA as a respected nation. Tariffs were always something he threw out there to negotiate more open trade so we can export to more countries. He wont do cronyism like Hillary, and he wont lead us into socialism as fast as her.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by term2 5 years, 3 months ago
          I think he will tighten bordere security tho. he will be good at restoring the USA as a respected nation. Tariffs were always something he threw out there to negotiate more open trade so we can export to more countries. He wont do cronyism like Hillary, and he wont lead us into socialism as fast as her.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by term2 5 years, 3 months ago
          I think he will tighten bordere security tho. he will be good at restoring the USA as a respected nation. Tariffs were always something he threw out there to negotiate more open trade so we can export to more countries. He wont do cronyism like Hillary, and he wont lead us into socialism as fast as her.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
        • -1
          Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 5 years, 3 months ago
          The only question worth answering is can he build a wall around Hillery the rest is conjecture and where has he back pedaled? Not on immigration unless you insist on pedantic repetititon.

          But down here in taco land the word is the new plan is pay Mexico to build a wall to protect themselves from the Gringos. ja ja ja ja which in spanish is ha ha ha ha.

          An ineffective Trump is a thousands of percent better than a day under Hillary.

          100% sure thing vs a lottery ticket vs are they breathing or just changing position and viably ineffective.

          The Millenials like Johnson though. Some of them. 66 days in motor voter land Hillary better wind uip those illegals and teach them enough to register and vote.

          I'd wait until the Libertarian Town House is done and then think about Life in a Socialist Autocracy more totalitarian than Obamas version.

          Meanwhile here in the Guch my tacos are getting cold excuse me?
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • -1
          Posted by 5 years, 3 months ago
          Back-peddling is part of negotiation. It's strategy.

          IF he gets in, there will be a wall, there will be tariffs because his ego won't let him fail.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by $ WilliamShipley 5 years, 3 months ago
            I wouldn't count on the tariffs, at least in a large degree, I think he wants it as a 'stick' in the negotiations.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by $ ObjectiveAnalyst 5 years, 3 months ago
              Hello WilliamShipley,
              "The Art of the Deal" ...could be, I suppose. I prefer straight forward dealing. Not being able to get into his head, I find it difficult to put faith in what could be. If the man does become POTUS, I hope Tariffs are just a negotiating ploy. They are simply bad economics. It is much better to reduce burdens here as incentive than to be punitive and risk trade wars.
              Respectfully,
              O.A.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by 5 years, 3 months ago
                I, too, doubt the tariffs, see that as a negotiating tool. However, I think instead of threatening tariffs on American companies that move manufacturing overseas, he should emphasize, one, they are there due to US government polices and that those polices will be changed.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ puzzlelady 5 years, 3 months ago
    Good grief, you people are overreacting without full context and information. Gary Johnson is NOT advocating a carbon tax. See here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2nOxl...

    At FreedomFest2016 in Las Vegas, moreover, he made a case that CO2 is good for plants. He is the real thing, an honest man. That he is not a slick performer like the hard-boiled politicos is actually a virtue. I spoke with him in Vegas, and he vowed to remain honest. He has been a Libertarian at heart and in his principles since 1971.

    Except for the three or four of you on this thread with a clear vision that Johnson is the best and only choice (thanks, db), y'all might want to rethink your misplaced emotional firestorms and restore your original appreciation of Gary Johnson.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by freedomforall 5 years, 3 months ago
      I agree, puzzlelady. When Johnson was interviewed recently he said some things about favoring a carbon tax (it was a tax, not a fee regardless of the label) and I came out against him because of those comments. He has since retracted those comments and I think he is sincere. His choice of Weld as VP is more troubling to me than any other of his acts, but I support Johnson. He is infinitely better than HRM Donnie or the other statist candidate, Clinton.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by cem4881 5 years, 3 months ago
    Johnson wants to cut taxes, and reduce the size of the federal government. He did this in New Mexico. He DID this. One of his biggest concerns is the national debt. It is unsustainable. You are criticizing him for pushing free market carbon tax. He is not. HE IS NOT. If there is anything absolutely wonderful about him, is that he listens and thinks. This from Reason Magazine. http://reason.com/blog/2016/08/26/lib...
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by rbroberg 5 years, 3 months ago
    Climate change is a hoax and not because human action is unrelated to rising temperatures or weather changes. It is a hoax because the interest of the government is not to solve any possible issue, but to tax non-compliance and thus increase available funds. Global warming from a practical perspective does not involve projects to end it, but rather to "mitigate" i.e. the taxpayer gets a few big levies and the government keeps the pocket change for other "related" programs. Now the Libertarian candidate pushes the same story. Unbelievable.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by DeanStriker 5 years, 3 months ago
    Having been a registered and somewhat active Libertarian for over 40 years now, that has been increasingly disappointing. Gary Johnson sounded better 4 years ago, but garnered only 1% of the vote. Today he's polling much better, but has obviously lost his way, leaving us with nobody worth voting for... that's right, NOBODY!

    There was a time when the LP was based on Principle, but those days are long gone. Today's Libertarians are scattered all over the philosophical map. Very recently I read the Arizona's Libertarian Platform, https://www.azlp.org/platform.php -- reading that was a SHOCK! Nothing within that suggests that Mises and Rothbard might survive. That platform seems both obsolete and awful,.

    All that leaves me feeling both "homeless" and hopeless.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 5 years, 3 months ago
    It's not a tax it's a fee BUT it's a fee that apparently can be resold at a profit to some other company. so if one doesn't need theirs they can make a bundle from the companies that can't meet the goals stated by the bureaucrats. .
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by term2 5 years, 3 months ago
    He is a terrible spokesperson for liberty. A carbon tax on the economy is the equivalent of Obamacare on the medical service industry. The LAST thing we need is another tax that brings more money to the government.

    Gone is whatever vote I might have given to Johnson (not that he would have won anyway).
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ allosaur 5 years, 3 months ago
    Well, for me, that's the carbon emission icing on the cake for the phony baloney Libertarian Party cow pie that is Gary Johnson.
    Me dino started to get put off when Gary said that there was an eleven foot ladder for a ten-foot fence, but even then I did not know there were libtard libertarians up until now.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Temlakos 5 years, 3 months ago
    Memo to Gary Johnson--or rather, forwarded and blind carbon copy of a memo from Phil Jones, Director, CRU, University of East Anglia, Norwich, England, UK, to his partners-in-crime:

    "I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to the [various proxy] series...to hide the decline."

    Surely Mr. Johnson knows: no mere tax would suffice, if "global warming" is half the threat he now seems to think it is. He would at once have to convert to building a special train and laying on "whistle stops" to campaign. But not one of these global warming activists (except perhaps Ed Begley, Jr.) want to pay any of the price they demand we pay.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ ObjectiveAnalyst 5 years, 3 months ago
    Hello jimjamesjames,
    Too bad he has a few poison pills in his thinking.
    Maybe he should have put down the bong a bit sooner.
    There is no acceptable choice for objectivists that will end up on the ballot in every state. Perhaps it is time to give the Constitution Party another look and some support... Who is John Galt?
    Respectfully,
    O.A.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • -1
    Posted by wmiranda 5 years, 3 months ago
    Third party running as spoiler. Then with such ideas, forget it. He's got a lot of campaigning to do starting 2017 if he wants to be a viable candidate and even get into the debates. But this elections, spoiler.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo