- 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...
A few minutes ago I stopped to get lunch Two employees were watching a TV showing Trump with the volume down. The caption said he was speaking about increasing military deployment or something. One person said, "God I hope he doesn't get in, or we're totally screwed." The other person said, "Yeah, but the only other choice is Hilary who isn't that great either." This was minutes ago. I told them Gary Johnson is on the ballot in all states and polling around 10% in a 3-way race. They said they'd never heard of him. I'm not sure if they even believed me. Or maybe they didn't want to get into politics with customers. Either way, I'd like to see this ad get out to more people.
Here is a video (not from the Johnson campaign) showing the integrity of the major party candidates:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=12iBi...
I choose to take his point to mean Johnson is now officially a mainstream candidate in the eyes of the media.
I want to see him on the debate stage. He has some excellent positions that need the exposure. Without that opportunity he hasn't much of a chance at that four years.
Regards,
O.A.
The second important thing is that nobody owns Trump. He may be rough around the edges but he knows how to get things done.
It is of course for each of us to decide and no one is supposed to know for whom you pull the lever once in the voting booth. I have seen polls that swing both ways, making it hard to determine who he will take more votes from. I quite agree the most compelling argument is who will be selecting SCOTUS replacements. We all must weigh the choices and live with the consequences. I can accept and even respect people choosing whomever they choose, so long as they never let me know they voted for Hillary. If that is one's choice, I would rather not know, because I see her so clearly as an irresponsible grifter and a threat to the Republic of which we could probably never recover.
Respectfully,
O.A.
I saw that too. Also I posted this unfortunate bit of PC on his part.... some would call it passion, others a problem. You decide.
https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/post...
I see different polls that make it hard to determine who he takes more votes from, but he does have some policies (not all) I wish other candidates and voters would consider.
Respectfully,
O.A.
I really want to see him on the debate stage with Hillary and Trump. I'm not big on all his policies, but he's a better option than either of the other two.
Really frustrating. But it's a realistic objective way to look at it. Cherry picking fairy tails don't really provide anyithing of value.
BUT! he sure would be better than the other choices.
Do you think he has the ability to adapt and learn?
Your thoughts...
Plus, 3rd party candidates have traditionally taken votes from Republicans, but it looks as if Johnson is taking them from Democrats. If true, it is a win-win.
still has my vote
Sounds like a joke, but I am serious.
I want an ethical person as president, not some jackass who is good at photo ops, condesceding use of insults as a distraction from truth, with expertise at fielding questions without answering them, or a traitorous liar whose only arguable qualification for office is her alleged gender.
Hillary and Trump instead invent side issues that inspire fear, hate, and divisiveness, and distract the voters from the issues to vote in fear not based on merit or principle.
Sorry, your argument is without merit.
Voting in fear of one evil for another evil is not rational. To do the same thing repeatedly when history proves the result to be a larger state, more oppression of liberty, and more manipulated inefficient markets is irrational.
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to compromise their principles.
You have been around longer than most.
Like your dogs.
I use my occasional downvotes for something more serious than a difference of opinion.
Besides, my state will certainly go big for Hillary; it won't be close. So there is no reason not to help boost Johnson's numbers.
Even so his, "They suck. I may suck too, but I not as much as them, why not give me a shot." Doesn't impress me very much. This is the best the libertarians have to offer?
anemic choices 2016, none of them worth my vote.
You have the D, the D posing as R, and the L talking like a D on key subjects. I'd rather drink a coffee or read/write a book and listen to the farce unfold on the news without having stood on line. My vote isn't worth a damn anyway.
Where is the choice?
“I think it [right-to-work law] does send an important message and along with that it saves people money.”
https://voicesofliberty.com/2015/03/0...
"I support the notion of right-to-work [legislation that lets employees decide for themselves whether or not they want to join a union or financially support it] and worked hard to see that happen in New Mexico. It didn't while I was governor of New Mexico, but that didn't take away from my support. The only basic problem that I have with unions is the union gives me two workers. One is the worst worker that I've ever seen, the other is the best worker that I've ever had. I can't reward the best, I can't get rid of the worst. Right-to-work, I think, is a decision that states should make. I think based on right-to-work legislation in states across the country, those states that have passed right-to-work have shown much greater economic prosperity as a result of that legislation."
So he agrees with what you want and that makes you call him names as if he is stupid?
Rand Paul isn't running.
He LOST. He did the same things that libertarians have done in the past and he LOST. Just as libertarians have been losing for 30 years.
Repeating the same action and expecting a diffferent result is not rational.
Johnson decided not to repeat the same action and it has broadened his support while losing the support of a few. Johnson supports your alleged principles. Trump doesn't.
"Duh!"
But Johnson doesn't complain, he keeps his eye on the prize and works to get in the debates so libertarian arguments can reach a wider audience.
Will he win? We shall see. The battle goes on.
For the media and their ignorant salivating masses, not getting a question on Aleppo is more important than criminal actions hiding criminal conduct at Benghazi.
In the world of geography, Aleppo is a pimple next to Hillary's anus. Irrelevant and of no possible interest to anyone but a Hillerite!
Such people get the socialist government collapse they deserve.
Unfortunately in a demoncracy, they can drag the rational 20% into the abyss with them.
(No offense intended, RonC ;^)
Think about Howard Deans whoop and the media destroying him for it. I didn't favor him personally but I always found the destruction swift and curious.
As for the people reasoning, that takes effort. It is much easier to sit back and be spoon fed.
Free Trump refried beans!
(Guffaw!)
He has a video where he says just this, that he cannot solve all of it as POTUS, that he will only be one piece of the puzzle.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VxEJd...
What in this specifically are you referring to?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VxEJd...
One who champions the individual! Turn him into a mouthpiece for reason and sanity. Also must educate the masses some how to give them common sense.
Other wise the rest is just talk and wishful thinking.
He does not believe in a criminal-justice or "war" approach to any drug abuse issues. But he also is not for radical change. The notion of treating drugs like a criminal problem started 100 years ago and it became a "war" on people who use drugs in 1970. He's not going to dismantle the whole thing overnight.
Less so than the other candidates
Support he wants to decriminalize the least harmful drugs first. Marijuana fits that. Suppose he wants to decriminalize all drugs safer than alcohol. That would include things like khat too. If that rule applies to prescription drugs, it would decriminalize benzodiazepines. Suppose he wants to treat all drugs as not a criminal problem. (This is what I think his opinion is.) He has no obligation to go into his philosophy on it if he thinks it's completely impractical to implement in eight years. He'll be lucky to dismantle just the marijuana part of it.
The funny thing is no other candidate is even talking about this rationally. The unofficial policy is "no new drugs." Alcohol and caffeine got grandfathered in, despite that there have been efforts in the past to ban them. Marijuana and khat are demonized. N2O (nitrous oxide) can be purchased without a permit, but it's usually only a few geeks who do it, so it missed the wave of crimalization in the 70s; so it's grandfathered in. Even if I thought the drug war didn't hurt liberty in multiple ways, the way we execute it is illogical with penalties being completely unrelated to the properties of the drug.
Imagine if govt allowed pharmaceutical companies to compete to produce a drug that got users the effect they wanted, was less harmful to the body than alcohol, was less addictive than alcohol, and was less likely to cause violent behavior than alcohol. Imagine they invented something really good. Imagine it even had an antidote (similar to opiod antagonists) that would cause most of the effects to fade quickly if someone needed their faculties. Gov't would be at war with it. It doesn't matter that it's safer than anything else because there's no logic behind the drug war. We gave gov't these powers, reasons to conduct searches, budgets for agents, and it's very hard to take them away.
In the meantime, he might want to check out where Aleppo is located....
He couldn't tell from context what the question was about. A LEPO ?
The question was unclear and the biased media made the most of the confusion.
You are better than that, term.
Intellectual consistency is not going to change your mind anyway, term, since your chosen candidate wouldn't know consistency if it bit him on the nose, and you admitted as much.
Hillary just scares the hell out of me. She will ruin my manufacturing business and is already causing me to make plans to move the rest of our manufacturing to china in an attempt to save it.
I am not getting on Johnson's case for not knowing Aleppo. I thought it was in Iraq actually, so I cant complain. But I am not running for president either. I did like the fact he admitted that he wasnt up on that issue. Truth is always better than lies. Hillary would have just covered it over somehow and lied.
For me, Trump is just the last chance our country has to at least slow down the march to socialism and complete government control by cronyism. It will still get there, but maybe a little slower for 4 years.
If there was ANY chance for a libertarian, I would vote that way. But Its too late for a libertarian (or maybe too early...) and Johnson just doesnt have it to win THIS time.
You are making excuses and holding Johnson to a standard you won't hold Trump to, You accept all of Trumps faults even though they are against your supposed principles, while you nitpick everything that Johnson says even though he supports your alleged principles.
Freedom isn't free, and freedom isn't easy.
You can't have it or keep it by giving in and rationalizing your actions. Its damned hard and most people just cave, like the cowards and traitors in con-gress. The only way we get to have freedom is by fighting for it, even when winning appears unlikely.
I suspect its your view that no matter whether Hillary OR Trump wins, the result will be same destruction of the country so one might as well be a voice of dissent.
I agree with this completely. I think this is what he thinks and he's not saying it explicitly.
BTW, it's a reasonable position that some drugs be treated criminally and others not. We already have that policy. It's also reasonable to rework that. Maybe there could rate drugs according the level of craving they cause, the level of risky behavior they cause, and the harm they do the user. So maybe a drug that just harms the user but doesn't cause unpredictable behavior would be considered a medical problem while drugs known to cause unpredictable or violent behavior would be criminal.
I don't think Johnson thinks this. I think you're right about him not being intellectually honest. I think he wants to treat known of it as criminal problem, but he accepts the political reality that this "war" on Americans will not be dismantled overnight.
Trump and Hitlary will continue the sam unjust drug war. Johnson wants to take a practical step in the right direction using facts that support benefits from a specific drug without debilitating side effects. That is a difficult task by itself in a country full of brainwashed people who have been purposely frightened so the state can continue to expand its police state for an unwinnable false war on drugs.
You complain about Johnson's consistency when he alone is promising a more rational (and the only achievable) policy on drugs that will reduce the insane cost of imprisoning marijuana users who are not dangerous to anyone except to the power of the state.
Trump and Hitlary will just keep on expanding the state and ruining the lives of innocent people.
I am excited to see libertarian ideas get more exposure After all the statist ideas rammed down my throat, I was hoping that FINALLY we can be exposed to free market ideas on an intellectually consistent basis !!
Maybe I am expecting too much at this point in time so I shouldn't complain about Johnson being a bit halfway. Ron Paul was more on point, but look how far he got.
I want an ethical person as president, not some jackass who is good at photo ops, condesceding use of insults as a distraction from truth, with expertise at fielding questions without answering them, or a traitorous liar whose only arguable qualification for office is her alleged gender.
The other two candidates are forceful in their statements, but they both deliver inconsistent irrational promises that have no reasonable basis in reality. See the inconsistency:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=12iBi...
Neither Trump nor Hitlery has any economically sound proposals.
Johnson is admirable and qualified to the office based on his actions as governor.
The other two are lying hacks that I wouldn't trust to pick up my garbage.
Actions matter. Campaign promises are empty talk.
Johnson walks the walk. The other two are nothing but talk, and unsupportable, irrational, unreasonable talk at that.
He has a tough idea to sell: the executive branch not being as in charge of the gov't and the gov't not being as in charge of the people.
It is much easier to learn to be convincing than to learn to be ethical.
What did Johnson say specifically that you disagree with?
it is unfortunate they are not on the D or R ticket then they would win. however, people like these men would never get the approval of either [party unless of course they compromised themselves so we are stuck with a t or h.
why elect someone who will poison the well for future libertarian candidates...
...anti-freedom...no thanks...
He said the current law is you could not discriminate on selling the cake but you don't have to write a message on it; or something like that. Then he said he would not want to change current law to make it easier to discriminate.
The libertarian position is he would want to change the law, not because he wants discrimination but b/c he wants the gov't out of the business of deciding.
He doesn't want critics saying he'd "encourage discrimination" so he says he won't try to change that law.
If I want him to be a pure libertarian who loses, I want him to answer that question by explaining the role of gov't. If I want him to win, I want him to avoid any debate about cake and focus on his core message about reducing gov't.
http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/gar...
Beyond that, if you want a dictator to command everyone and all the state governments, you won't find it in Johnson. Is that really what you think is needed, a slavemaster?
Should the US Return to the Gold Standard in Which Coin and Currency Are Backed by Gold?
"[Reading question from listener] Would you support a return to a gold or commodity-based currency standard? Yes, I would. I think that, I think that would be very positive. And I understand the whole notion of competing currencies and how you could bring about a change from paper currency to commodity-based and I think that would be very very positive for the currency. It's the way the currency started out. It would bring increased value to the dollar as opposed to what we're facing, which is a monetary crisis where, hey, today our dollars are worth something and tomorrow they’re not and that’s just how quickly it happens."
http://2016election.procon.org/view.s...
Only Johnson has such a plan and a promise. Only Johnson says he will close down the fed. Only Johnson says he will eliminate the tax on productivity.
If Trump's promise to build a wall (expansion of government) and pay for it by additionally impairing free trade means more to you than the things Johnson plans to do then you should vote for Trump.
It was an eye opening experience.
I think the senator had the fear of FED.
What did Rand have that Gary doesn't, in your opinion, ycandrea?
I do get that you may trust Paul more than you trust Johnson, but supporting Trump is voting against all the things you say you liked about Rand Paul. If you search the internet you can verify this for yourself.
imo, johnson is specifically avoiding mention of his support in some libertarian areas, and he is doing this because he knows what happens if he does so. It happened to Ron Paul when he ran. It happened to Rand Paul when he ran. It happened to Johnson in 2012. It chases away voters who are vital to libertarian success at the polls. They are voters who have to learn about libertarianism before accepting all the prinsciples that are so obvious to libertarians. There is a vast audience who are beginning to understand the con, but they have been brainwashed in public schools and on tv for most of their lives. If we want to grow the support, we must educate. To educate we must get on the stage, make our rational arguments with verifiable proof, and be heard. If we don't get on the stage because we do what has failed in the past, we stay at 1% and the everyone loses.
This is the one from 2 weeks ago:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VxEJd...
Will Trump or Hitlery reduce the size and intrusiveness of government? Not a chance in hell. Johnson promises to do exactly that, eliminate the Dept of Education, eliminate the Income Tax.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epol...
But both are message candidates as the saying goes.. Stein wants us all to adopt a tree to hug and Johnsone wants.....?????
So how much coverage did that speech get? Or was it an advertisment? In how many markets?
Two days after the new ad went from 13.0 to 9.0. He needs a new message and not one that is and not vaguely reminescent of what we got from Republicans for 50 years.
But he did get two 12's and one 11
However with buth Stein and Johnson removed
RCP Average 8/26 - 9/8 -- -- 45.6 42.9 Clinton +2.7 shows a point Six gane for Comrade Clinton overall Trump up three and Clinton up 3,5 So it appears Johnson may not be the spoiler everyone thought. Hard to tell
and by the way thanks for the support.
RCP Average 8/26 - 9/7 -- -- 41.2 39.1 9.0 3.3 Clinton +2.1
13 becomes 9
JOHNSON: Yes.
GILLESPIE: Various states treat vaccines differently, and you're not wild about the range of individual choice and opt-out provisions, but you do believe it's a state-level decision—or certainly that it's not a federal-level decision.
JOHNSON: Right.
GILLESPIE: There are people who say vaccines cause autism [and other problems] or that vaccines don't work. Are you in that camp?
JOHNSON: No, I chose to have my children vaccinated. I understand all the concerns that some people have, but for me personally, I made a decision to have my children vaccinated. I want people to make decisions and I believe in [opt-outs].
http://reason.com/blog/2016/08/26/gar...