Gary Johnson for President

[Askthepizzaguy]

I could easily respect and work with libertarians on the other side of the aisle, as opposed to Republicans.

I can't support libertarians if I have a better option, since their solution to government is to not govern and get rid of government programs that are badly needed. Fraid the nation needs a government. But, even though their positions are essentially to dismantle the government, they're still better than Republicans, because when they don't get 100 percent of what they want, they'll still negotiate and compromise and aren't obstinate obstructionist fill-in-the-blanks.

They would make an acceptable minority party. So if the senate or congressional races are between any Republican (any I've seen in the past 2 decades, pretty much) a Democrat that sucks (which they do, by at least half or more) and a Libertarian, I'd maybe vote that way, even though I'm more Socialist than libertarian. Just to give them more power and Rs and Ds less.

Frankly, if the two major parties were Socialists and libertarians, they'd agree more often and get more done than Republicans and Democrats, despite the obvious wide gap between socialism and libertarianism. Pretty sick of both major parties, but I can't pull the lever for any option except the most likely to win against Trump this time. And trust me, I've ranted about how much I despise Hillary.

 

[Askthepizzaguy]

At this point I agree. However, the big hurdle is getting him onto the podium for the debates. Once that is achieved, and if he has a great showing - which lets admit, it wouldn't take much to have a great showing between Clinton and Trump as they would be going after one another so hard - then his movement could catch real fire.

From what i'm reading he's actually making the most ground among millennials, which probably isn't surprising. I wonder if they are disillusioned Bernie supporters that just cant reconcile with a Clinton choice? Hard to tell at this point.

As a Bernie supporter, Clinton is very difficult to swallow.

Clinton and I might even agree on political positions 80+ percent of the time. It doesn't matter. Her character is terrible. Leaps and bounds ahead of Trump, but never white house material.

I still have to do it. Libertarians in congress forced to work with other parties, sure. President? No.

 

[Takhisis]

I lived in Arkansas during Clinton as governor. My wife's uncles used to play poker with the guy. Lots of things that never made it to the press were talked about. No thanks.

OK… then why vote for almost any presidential candidate who's been in office in the US?

I could easily respect and work with libertarians on the other side of the aisle, as opposed to Republicans.

I can't support libertarians if I have a better option, since their solution to government is to not govern and get rid of government programs that are badly needed. Fraid the nation needs a government. But, even though their positions are essentially to dismantle the government, they're still better than Republicans, because when they don't get 100 percent of what they want, they'll still negotiate and compromise and aren't obstinate obstructionist fill-in-the-blanks.

They would make an acceptable minority party. So if the senate or congressional races are between any Republican (any I've seen in the past 2 decades, pretty much) a Democrat that sucks (which they do, by at least half or more) and a Libertarian, I'd maybe vote that way, even though I'm more Socialist than libertarian. Just to give them more power and Rs and Ds less.

Frankly, if the two major parties were Socialists and libertarians, they'd agree more often and get more done than Republicans and Democrats, despite the obvious wide gap between socialism and libertarianism. Pretty sick of both major parties, but I can't pull the lever for any option except the most likely to win against Trump this time. And trust me, I've ranted about how much I despise Hillary.

Reading up on the previous nominees from back in the '90s when I had no stable Internet connection, it seems more and more as if, for the last past decades, the presidential elections in the US have fallen into two categories: jump into the shark pit (Republican) and holding action/mulligan (Democrats). Maybe something more constructive could be done.

 

[metalhead]

I don't think people really understand coalition governance, or how it works.

 

[Takhisis]

Why not? The RNC groups together free-market fundamentalistic ideologues with deeply religious nuts with people who are angry at the world for whatever reason.

 

[MobBoss]

As a Bernie supporter, Clinton is very difficult to swallow.

Clinton and I might even agree on political positions 80+ percent of the time. It doesn't matter. Her character is terrible. Leaps and bounds ahead of Trump, but never white house material.

I still have to do it. Libertarians in congress forced to work with other parties, sure. President? No.

Actually, if the adage 'government works best that works least' is true, then a 3rd party in the oval office would be very good indeed. Perhaps it would force the childish GOP and DEMs to actually compromise as opposed to working against one another.

 

[Takhisis]

Erm… some Libertarians espouse destroying state-funded healthcare completely (I'm not sure about their current candidates, as I missed the CNN town hall). That would amount to intervening in the market in a very big way, I think.

 

[MobBoss]

Yes, of course they are bound by it, and it's silly to argue otherwise. International law and the UN charter are quite clear on the point that the only permissible war against another member state is if they actually attack, or the action is specifically authorized by UNSC resolution. A mere risk to national security is not a valid justification under any legal precedent, and certainly not under the UN charter. You don't get to ignore those things because a permanent UNSC member with veto power is disagreeing with you, regardless of their reasons for doing so. That undermines the rule of law, and the UN, and violates our treaty.

And this is why the UN is for all intents and purposes meaningless if member states have to forfeit their own national security interests to appease other nations that are found to be dealing under the table with the nations they are supposedly trying to punish/coerce to adhere to rule of international law.

It's absurd actually. Kind of like when Libya had the chair of the UN human rights commission for years while having one of the worst human rights records on the planet.

 

[Takhisis]

If it comes to that, the five permanent members of the ‘Security’ Council of the UN comprise:

The UK ('nuff said with the Mau-Maus, Syria, Iraq et. al.)
The US (currently still at war here and there in the Middle East)
Russia (they're not in Ukraine)
France (interventions anywhere? can't remember)
China (never at war, supports all of its peace-loving neighbours)​

All with sizable arms industries.

 

[Archbob]

Honestly Stein is just too far out there and I don't like her VP pick and Clinton is far closer to me on the issues than Johnson. Honestly all politicians lie, Hillary is no different from the rest of them.

 

[metalhead]

And this is why the UN is for all intents and purposes meaningless if member states have to forfeit their own national security interests to appease other nations that are found to be dealing under the table with the nations they are supposedly trying to punish/coerce to adhere to rule of international law.

It's absurd actually. Kind of like when Libya had the chair of the UN human rights commission for years while having one of the worst human rights records on the planet.

Absurd or not, we signed the treaties to join the UN and agreed to abide by the rules of the institutions. We had no right to violate them. You can't just up and decide you don't like the decisions they're making and act outside them. That shows a total disregard for the rule of law.

 

[MobBoss]

Erm… some Libertarians espouse destroying state-funded healthcare completely (I'm not sure about their current candidates, as I missed the CNN town hall). That would amount to intervening in the market in a very big way, I think.

At worst they would espouse delegating it down to the individual states. Current federal version of it isn't really working that well anyway. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...etna-pulls-back-from-the-obamacare-exchanges/

Absurd or not, we signed the treaties to join the UN and agreed to abide by the rules of the institutions. We had no right to violate them. You can't just up and decide you don't like the decisions they're making and act outside them. That shows a total disregard for the rule of law.

Again, said violation is up to debate whether you personally think it is or not. However, lets for a moment say you are right. Then why hasn't the UN sanctioned the USA for violating its rule of law?

 

[gay_Aleks]

If it comes to that, the five permanent members of the ‘Security’ Council of the UN comprise:

The UK ('nuff said with the Mau-Maus, Syria, Iraq et. al.)
The US (currently still at war here and there in the Middle East)
Russia (they're not in Ukraine)
France (interventions anywhere? can't remember)
China (never at war, supports all of its peace-loving neighbours)​

All with sizable arms industries.

contrary to popular thought, there are no French soldiers in Mali

nor any French planes

there's just no French people in Mali, man, and anything else you see there is just an illusion

 

[Takhisis]

At worst they would espouse delegating it down to the individual states. Current federal version of it isn't really working that well anyway. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...etna-pulls-back-from-the-obamacare-exchanges/

I also see there that Aetna and several others are trying to cartelise the health market even further by merging together. I don't know what to make of it.

Again, said violation is up to debate whether you personally think it is or not. However, lets for a moment say you are right. Then why hasn't the UN sanctioned the USA for violating its rule of law?

Can the UN sanction the USA without the USA vetoing that?

contrary to popular thought, there are no French soldiers in Mali

nor any French planes

there's just no French people in Mali, man, and anything else you see there is just an illusion

there is no spoon

 

[gay_Aleks]

French people would use a fork anyway

 

[Takhisis]

Not for soup. Soup is important in France.

 

[MobBoss]

I also see there that Aetna and several others are trying to cartelise the health market even further by merging together. I don't know what to make of it.

Can the UN sanction the USA without the USA vetoing that?

They could do it via non-binding resolution to show their displeasure, which can't be vetoed, but doesn't carry any real punishment per se.

 

[Leoreth]

Why not? The RNC groups together free-market fundamentalistic ideologues with deeply religious nuts with people who are angry at the world for whatever reason.

You forgot neo-conservative war hawks, even if those are currently (and very worryingly) drifting towards the democratic camp.

And this is why the UN is for all intents and purposes meaningless if member states have to forfeit their own national security interests to appease other nations that are found to be dealing under the table with the nations they are supposedly trying to punish/coerce to adhere to rule of international law.

It's absurd actually. Kind of like when Libya had the chair of the UN human rights commission for years while having one of the worst human rights records on the planet.

What is absurd is that you're currently defending conservative interventionism while professing support for a libertarian candidate because you dislike Clinton for supporting conservative interventionism.

 

[MobBoss]

What is absurd is that you're currently defending conservative interventionism while professing support for a libertarian candidate because you dislike Clinton for supporting conservative interventionism.

Perhaps, but it's more along the lines of showing Clintons ongoing hypocrisy in her political stances than defending conservative interventionism at large.

I like Gary Johnson as an alternative to the utterly unpalatable Clinton/Trump fiasco. I don't have to agree with every position he has to recognize he's the most sane choice of the three.

 

[Takhisis]

They could do it via non-binding resolution to show their displeasure, which can't be vetoed, but doesn't carry any real punishment per se.

So no, then.

You forgot neo-conservative war hawks, even if those are currently (and very worryingly) drifting towards the democratic camp.

I count them as part of the deregulation-mania patients in Economics ward at Arkham.

I like Gary Johnson as an alternative to the utterly unpalatable Clinton/Trump fiasco. I don't have to agree with every position he has to recognize he's the most sane choice of the three.

But… being a good candidate is not the same as being less bad than the others.