|
Post by duke on Oct 23, 2012 10:38:21 GMT -5
Gary's track record speaks volumes. Gary Johnson has been an outspoken advocate for efficient government, balanced budgets, rational drug policy reform, protection of civil liberties, comprehensive tax reform, and personal freedom. As Governor of New Mexico, Johnson was known for his common sense business approach to governing. He eliminated New Mexico's budget deficit, cut the rate of growth in state government in half, and privatized half of the state prisons. www.garyjohnson2012.com/front
|
|
|
Post by Fredo on Oct 23, 2012 11:08:59 GMT -5
It would be nice if he were actually "in" the race.
|
|
|
Post by Motherjones on Oct 23, 2012 11:29:40 GMT -5
It would be nice if he were actually "in" the race. He's on the ballot in 48 states. That's undoubtedly "in" the race. He seems to be getting a lot of attention here as we come down to the wire. A good alternative for voters who don't like the Obama or Romney and want to vote with their conscience. Here's his stand on the issues: www.garyjohnson2012.com/issuesBig on gun rights, tough on deficits, anti-tax - he could be a realistic alternative for many.
|
|
|
Post by Motherjones on Oct 23, 2012 11:58:54 GMT -5
Gary Johnson wants the US to halt foreign aid and draw down US participation in the UN.
We heard last night that Gov Romney wants the US to sign onto the International Criminal Court, which would represent a huge increase in commitment to UN-style international institutions.
Johnson wants to privatize space exploration, getting government out of that business altogether, while Romney wants to increase government spending for NASA.
Finally, Johnson is opposed to the US government surveillance on US citizens via the Patriot Act, while Romney supports it.
Some very interesting distinctions.
|
|
|
Post by Fredo on Oct 23, 2012 12:07:25 GMT -5
There's a very large difference between being on the ballot and in the race. His numbers will be so low that they're unlikely to even register. It's unfortunate because I like him better than either your boy or Romney. At least with Romney, I get someone with a useful skill set.
|
|
|
Post by duke on Oct 23, 2012 12:33:13 GMT -5
Fredo: A counted vote is never wasted. This is not a horse race. If Romney wins TN as predicted, you vote for the winner does nothing toward that result. On the other hand, a voted counted for Johnson would impress the winner and the loser of the two party system to the extent they have a better understanding of what the voters wanted.
|
|
|
Post by Motherjones on Oct 23, 2012 12:56:41 GMT -5
At least with Romney, I get someone with a useful skill set. If you see "changing your position on core issues every 5 minutes" as a useful skill set, then yeah, Romney is definitely your guy. And it appears after last night that if you think that "signing on to the Rome Treaty and joining the International Criminal Court" is a useful skill set, then yep, Willard is the dude for you. You like a skill set that includes blowing the budget deficit up even further by massively ratcheting up military spending and huge tax cuts for the mega-rich? Vote for the guy in the magic Mormon underwear. Voucherizing Medicare and privatizing Social Security the kind of "skills" that you seek? - yep, vote for Bishop Romney. The thing about Gary Johnson is that he appears to know what he stands for and he says what he means. That is an decisive character trait for many voters in the Presidential race, and I predict that after last night's Romneyshambles, he will attract lots of new supporters.
|
|
|
Post by duke on Oct 23, 2012 14:04:53 GMT -5
It is amazing that the more times Romney changes his position of the issues, the more supportive his supporters become and more stubborn about denouncing any attempt to point out the obvious.
Fredo appears to be willing to be sacrificed on the alter of absurdity than to admit to changing his mind about Romney, the only candidate able to unseat Obama. Another, vote for anyone or any premise simply to turn out Obama. The consequences will be overlooked in their single mindedness to remove a BLACK president. Denial will be forthcoming shortly.
|
|
|
Post by Fredo on Oct 23, 2012 14:27:24 GMT -5
Fredo: A counted vote is never wasted. This is not a horse race. If Romney wins TN as predicted, you vote for the winner does nothing toward that result. On the other hand, a voted counted for Johnson would impress the winner and the loser of the two party system to the extent they have a better understanding of what the voters wanted. Agreed. Last cycle, I voted for the libertarian candidate(whose name I can't even remember now) because I could cast a third party vote without doing any damage. I'll probably do the same this time, but of the two viable candidates, I like Romney best. Obama is an unmitigated failure in nearly every category and has simply got to go before he's allowed to show any of that "flexibility" that he promised Putin. As far as getting rid of black president, who cares? If that's my motivation, what possible difference could it make? Am I not allowed to cast my ballot for any candidate for any reason that suits me? Would you have me help to re elect an imbecile just to ease your sense of white guilt? You people are sounding more like you're preparing your excuses for the thumping that you're about to take.
|
|
|
Post by Motherjones on Oct 23, 2012 14:46:36 GMT -5
Obama is an unmitigated failure in nearly every category Except that he kept a lid on federal spending (the slowest rise in spending since the Eisenhower Administration), saved Detroit, killed Bin Laden, turned the employment trends around and sustained them for for over 2 years, insured 32 million Americans who had no coverage, got us out of Iraq, began an orderly drawdown with honor in Afghanistan, organized a multilateral coalition to topple Ghaddafi, reversed the hideous Bush-era torture policies, saved students millions by kicking inefficient banks out of the student loan business, pivoted our military posture to Asia, decimated the Iranian economy by coordinating a global coalition against it, increased support for veterans by billions, passed the Lily Ledbeter act to ensure equal pay for equal work, killed the boondoggle F-22.... The list goes on and on and on. So your notion that Obama is some type of "failure" is very simply a total and complete fantasy.has simply got to go before he's allowed to show any of that "flexibility" that he promised Putin. [/quote] You seem to be very preoccupied with Russia policy right here. What aspect of Romney's Russia policy attracts you to him as a candidate the most?
|
|
|
Post by Motherjones on Oct 23, 2012 14:54:22 GMT -5
It is amazing that the more times Romney changes his position of the issues, the more supportive his supporters become and more stubborn about denouncing any attempt to point out the obvious. His supporters, like Fredo here, are immune from the actual facts. They are emotionally invested in an illusion, and any empirically-based attempt to point out the folly of that illusion is met with the same old "attack the messenger" nonsense. It's a purely emotional response and wholly unrelated to observable facts. The nub of your observations, though, is that the mask has come off Romney once again, and independent voters - who will decide this election - see him as the oily, unprincipled huckster who will say or do anything and sell his own grandmother out. That's not what they want in a President. It offends their basic sense of what they expect in terms of character and principles.
|
|
|
Post by duke on Oct 23, 2012 15:09:48 GMT -5
Hey Moma, Your quote editing is claiming duke made the statement that Obama is a failure. That is FALSE. Fredo: has not demonstrated that he is as dedicated to a religion as most of Romney's supporters are, but he does demonstrate the same delusionary characteristics. My pastor Rush Limbaugh has endorsed Mitt Romney so "I too must support the candidate and exercise my belief in whatever the anointed says as gospel fact or my soul will rot in hell." See Romney on the other hand has 1 religious denomination and 2 gods. This is the only thing that Romney has not waivered from. Mormon Church with is imaginary out of this world god and mamon / Money for himself but never for others if not required.
|
|
|
Post by Motherjones on Oct 23, 2012 15:18:01 GMT -5
Hey Moma, Your quote editing is claiming duke made the statement that Obama is a failure. That is FALSE. Good catch. Typo on my part, and yeah, it's Fredo that mindlessly parrots the "failure" line in these pages. And speaking of religion, what's also interesting is that Romney's church publicly, openly held the principle of white supremacy as a core tenet until 1978. Blacks were forbidden from participating in Mormon services, being clergy, and were by church doctrine seen as inferior due to some "past sin" in the Mormon scripture. Can you even imagine the uproar if President Obama had not just been a member of but rather a devoted CLERGYMAN in such a racist organization? So where is the outrage for Mitt Romney, who lived the first 31 years of his life deeply committed to this racist theology - attempting to spread its white supremacist message all around the world? Talk about a double standard.
|
|
|
Post by Motherjones on Oct 23, 2012 15:27:18 GMT -5
Fredo said:
Whoopsie. 10 points for anyone who spots the revealing assumption at the core of this sentence.
|
|
|
Post by Fredo on Oct 23, 2012 15:34:21 GMT -5
So it's your contention that 50+% of voters are some sort of religious nuts? I support Mitt because, of the two available candidates, he's the only one who's actually done anything of note with his life. Of the two, he's the only one to ever sign the front of a paycheck. Of the two he's the only one two have made a payroll. These are qualifications that cause him to stand head and shoulders above the current buffoon.
Compare that top obama's record of riding around in the choom wagon, rabble rousing a bit in chicago and taking a political patronage job. He's worse than useless, he's pointless.
|
|
|
Post by duke on Oct 23, 2012 15:44:51 GMT -5
One assumption is that duke is a white person who is only promoting Obama to ease a guilty conscience. Yet to be fair, duke has stated in the past that he is an older white male. So that fact is known and not simply assumed.
I have also stated in the past that my promotion of Obama is primarily a single issue. That I believe that Obama will appoint judges who will be more friendly to constitutional law beyond the 2nd amendment right to keep and bear arms. Those judges and Justices have lifetime tenure and will impact the daily lives of John and Jane Doe much more and for a longer period of time than the next four years. It is imperative in my opinion that Scalia and Thomas not be replaced with Justices of a similar stripe if at all possible. If not for the the judiciary issue I would be all for voting Obama out if for no other reason than a second terms removes most if not all accountability to the people of any President for it is a lame duck term.
|
|
|
Post by Motherjones on Oct 23, 2012 16:01:54 GMT -5
Except for the other one who, you know was editor of the Harvard Law Review, State Senator, US Senator and a successful President of the United States.
Here's a news flash: Presidents don't "make payroll" or "sign the front of checks". That kind of background is ZERO bearing on a President's effectiveness. Perhaps you should consider the dismal failure of the first "MBA President" - the universally reviled George W. Bush - before you establish these meaningless criteria as the basis for selecting a POTUS.
Yeah, dodging Vietnam to float through France trying to convince people to give up wine and sex, preaching that black people are evil is SO useful. Leveraging tax loopholes to suck value out of businesses as a vulture capitalist - and exporting jobs to China - SO useful.
|
|
|
Post by duke on Oct 23, 2012 16:09:19 GMT -5
Running a non-profit still has to meet payroll. The options for capitol is however much more limited than Romney had to deal with. Obama could not sign a payroll loan at the bank to cover the checks. Obama likely signed many payroll checks. It has been well documented here that Romney usually had little invested in the companies he purchased with leveraged [borrowed ] money. Or perhaps money supplied by investors from San Salvador, dealers in drugs destined for the US. www.democracynow.org/2012/8/10/romneys_death_squad_ties_bain_launched Now that is "real virtue" right? Even Ponsi could, and did, what Mitt did. For a while.
|
|
|
Post by Motherjones on Oct 23, 2012 16:15:32 GMT -5
So when do we get to hear Fredo's purple-faced criticism of Paul Ryan, who, as a lifelong politician, has never "signed the front of a paycheck" or "made payroll"?
|
|
|
Post by duke on Oct 23, 2012 16:22:24 GMT -5
"Yeah, dodging Vietnam to float through France trying to convince people to give up wine and sex, preaching that black people are evil is SO useful. Leveraging tax loopholes to suck value out of businesses as a vulture capitalist - and exporting jobs to China - SO useful."
Fredo, et. al: Where is the proof of success at the above endeavor? Anyone?
|
|