DescentBB

before it starts to sound too good to be true, read this about their nominee:
https://pando.com/2016/01/08/gary-johns ... -politics/

He's nuttier than a fruitcake, period. Not an option.

I thought Jill Stein and the Green Party were supposed to be the best choice for hardcore Bernie aficionados.

A distinct possibility Top Gun.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/dr- ... f01ea037c3

I can't help but picture the author of that article having one of those crazy walls in his office with a picture of Gary Johnson in the center of it. As a simple sanity check, if Gary Johnson's presidential campaigns are really in the Koch brothers' pockets, then why haven't they given any money to his campaigns? P.S. this article is from 2012. Since the article is all over the place, Slick, if you think there's something compelling in it, perhaps you could give the most compelling point that you think it makes against Gary Johnson? (I won't necessarily disagree with it by the way, although I might, but I am either way curious.)

the compelling points aren't about the Koch thing, but how he dealt with corrections(farmed out prisoners to a hell-hole in Virginia) and his gross mismanagement of his administration that was full of graft and the like. Yes, the article was originally published during his 2012 attempt. I thought it was salient as we hear so little of Johnson, yet some tell me he seems appealing. I felt interested enough to look into it, and started getting uneasy with what I found.

I couldn't find enough details about the story to really come to a definite position on the matter. The tl;dr seems to be that, in 1999, New Mexico prisoners who participated in a prison riot were sent to a Virginia supermax prison that many claimed had too harsh of conditions. And from what I can tell, nothing measurably bad happened to the New Mexico prisoners while they were there. My instinct is to say that this was still the wrong thing to do; however, you're being wildly inconsistent. Howcome when 90's Gary Johnson does this you make a big fuss about it, but when 90's Hillary Clinton supported mandatory minimum sentencing, which was actually damaging to our criminal justice system, you don't create any threads about that? (The answer is because you hold these candidates to different standards.)

By the way, if you are really concerned about the criminal justice system, then you should support a candidate in favor of legalizing marijuana and harm reduction programs.

Slick wrote:I felt interested enough to look into it, and started getting uneasy with what I found.

Really? What did you Google to find that page?

Why just marijuana? To legalize the cultivation and use of opium poppy products does not allow religion, natural conditions or what?

Jeff250 wrote:I couldn't find enough details about the story to really come to a definite position on the matter. The tl;dr seems to be that, in 1999, New Mexico prisoners who participated in a prison riot were sent to a Virginia supermax prison that many claimed had too harsh of conditions. And from what I can tell, nothing measurably bad happened to the New Mexico prisoners while they were there. My instinct is to say that this was still the wrong thing to do; however, you're being wildly inconsistent. Howcome when 90's Gary Johnson does this you make a big fuss about it, but when 90's Hillary Clinton supported mandatory minimum sentencing, which was actually damaging to our criminal justice system, you don't create any threads about that? (The answer is because you hold these candidates to different standards.)

By the way, if you are really concerned about the criminal justice system, then you should support a candidate in favor of legalizing marijuana and harm reduction programs.

which is where the Dem platform stands, at this moment. I've been pretty active in fighting for the former(especially for medical purposes), although 'harm reduction programs can be good or bad, with the devil in the details. I reposted the Johnson piece because I honestly didn't remember him, living here on the East Coast, too clearly. The VA prison thing was worrisome, remembering the brouhaha around that prison on the local level. The corruption was quite typical, as much as I could glean, but the issue is that they are selling Johnson as above reproach and not in anyone's pockets. One has to have a few questions about that after reading the article.

And Hillary is not above reproach and not in anyone's pocket? Lets face it slick, all you are good for is finding fault with anyone who is not a Dem when in fact all politicians have their faults and skeletons.

woodchip wrote:And Hillary is not above reproach and not in anyone's pocket? Lets face it slick, all you are good for is finding fault with anyone who is not a Dem when in fact all politicians have their faults and skeletons.

she's not being sold the way Johnson is, as I pointed out, as being above it all. Like I said, I pointed that out in plain English, do try and keep up.

I didn't realize a obscure Libertarian was being promoted to any degree.

Psssst….the OP combined with the thread title is really just an attempt to tar and feather a political philosophy using the actions of one man.

We now return you to the usual BS…

callmeslick wrote:which is where the Dem platform stands, at this moment.

But it isn't where Hillary Clinton stands. I suspect she might know that marijuana should be legalized, but instead of standing for what's right, she is taking the politically expedient position instead.

callmeslick wrote:The corruption was quite typical, as much as I could glean, but the issue is that they are selling Johnson as above reproach and not in anyone's pockets. One has to have a few questions about that after reading the article.

If you want to understand political corruption, then just follow the money. Gary Johnson's presidential campaign isn't receiving money from the Koch brothers or the prison industrial complex (Hillary Clinton is from the latter), so how can he be in their pockets? The article doesn't raise any important questions because it's just a crazy wall.

callmeslick wrote:the issue is that they are selling Johnson as above reproach and not in anyone's pockets

You're using false equivocation to attempt to show that since neither Gary Johnson nor Hillary Clinton are perfect then therefore they must be the same. No one is claiming that Gary Johnson is perfect, and although neither is perfect, there are different magnitudes of integrity, and compared to Hillary Clinton, Gary Johnson has a significantly better record of honesty, integrity, and standing up for issues because they are right, not because they are popular or because he is receiving donor money to do so.

I was hoping to see someone counter with an actual list of positives, as opposed to the 'look at him/her' that seems to be the flavor of political exchange far too often.

callmeslick wrote:I was hoping to see someone counter with an actual list of positives, as opposed to the 'look at him/her' that seems to be the flavor of political exchange far too often.

But I would like to have this conversation with someone who can evaluate candidates consistently and fairly. Can you do that?

Gary Johnson was a pretty popular governor in New Mexico where he won two consecutive terms by large margins in a state that is heavily Democrat. He was popular for balancing the budget and not cowtowing to either party's lines. In 1999, he was the first major U.S. politician to push for the decriminalization of marijuana and for harm reduction strategies for other drugs. He supports personal freedoms including gay rights and a woman's right to choose. Regarding his policy abroad, he is non-interventionalist and highly critical of Hillary Clinton's neoconservative foreign policy.

I have the same memories, albeit faint, as New Mexico isn't in the news here much. Also, I know this year's talking points, but they are so vague, and when they were interviewed on CNNs Town Hall, the two candidates never fleshed out one single policy, frankly. They muddled about drugs, never explained any cogent foreign policy and frankly blew a great chance to make their pitch. I do have some familiarity with Weld, who wasn't well regarded by the time he departed from his position in Massachusetts. If you can flesh out specifics, bring them on, Jeff. Take a week to flesh them out, as I'm about to depart to my house in VA, which I sort of keep off the grid in terms of wi-fi purposely.

You're still holding Gary Johnson to inconsistent and unrealistic standards. This time you're expecting a DBB member to spend a week writing up his foreign policy for you, which even if he did, you'd find some way to dismiss it in a few sentences anyways? (If you spend a week writing up Hillary Clinton's foreign policy for me though, then I will gladly reciprocate.) For Hillary Clinton to get your vote, all she has to be is not Trump, but any other candidate you will create arbitrary standards in order to attempt to eliminate them from consideration. If you hold Gary Johnson to a standard, then hold Hillary Clinton to the same one, and if you ask me to do something, then be willing to do it yourself.

the reason I asked was that he essentially doesn't HAVE one, that I can tell from any Libertarian party source

callmeslick wrote:the reason I asked was that he essentially doesn't HAVE one, that I can tell from any Libertarian party source

You should go tell all your friends to vote Green Party, Slick.

hell, I'm working like the devil to talk a lot of them OUT of it. After seeing that exercise in fascism last Thursday night, I'll literally spend two million dollars if it will help stop Trump, and would even reluctantly consider leaving the nation my family was around to help start nearly 350 years ago. I doubt either of those options will be necessary, now that Hllary went with Kaine. Yes, a lot of far left types are absolutely fuming. I'm hearing from folks saying they plan to turn their backs on him when he speaks this week. I hope not. He's a good man. Real good, possibly the best governor the Commonwealth of Virginia has seen in decades(you will NOT hear me say the same about the current Dem incumbant, by the way, but I am a friend of the Lt Governor, likely the next one). By picking him, she is clearly aiming not to just win, but to blow Trump out, by pulling in a lot of former Republicans and appealing to moderate independants. I think she'll succeed. Kaine should put both VA and NC in the Dem column, will probably help shore up most of New England and the Midwest.
The midwest, by the way, just got a big shakeup from that ad Kasich just ran, stating, " if Trump wins, you better hope someone is still there to save you" Pretty stark stuff, from a fellow Republican.
At this point, for the good of the nation, both Stein and Johnson should drop out. They won't.

callmeslick wrote:the reason I asked was that he essentially doesn't HAVE one, that I can tell from any Libertarian party source

Did you ask them to spend a week summarizing his foreign policy for you while you went fishing too? Hillary Clinton is a neocon, and neoconservativism has been proven to be a failed ideology. Her foreign policy has had disastrous consequences in the Middle East. I'd be more than happy to go toe to toe with you on Gary Johnson versus Hillary Clinton on foreign policy issues.

Hillary is not a neocon, and you can provide little or no evidence of any confluence with any major figure in that movement. Yes, some are supporting her in this election out of fear around Trump's temperment, but every last one of them has assured us that she in NO WAY agrees with their world-view. When Johnson actually states an official, detailed plan, I'll be all ears. So far, lotsa generalities, but what is the actual getting from here to there? I don't see anything put forth.

callmeslick wrote:The midwest, by the way, just got a big shakeup from that ad Kasich just ran, stating, " if Trump wins, you better hope someone is still there to save you" Pretty stark stuff, from a fellow Republican.

Kasich aired that in November. He dropped out of the race a long time ago.

callmeslick wrote:At this point, for the good of the nation, both Stein and Johnson should drop out. They won't.

I don't really understand the "I have to vote for the lesser of two evils" mantra. It is so persistent, but yet it really doesn't hold up to even the smallest bit of scrutiny unless maybe you live in Ohio or Florida (and probably a couple of others), and not even really then. If you live in Ohio and Florida, since this is #merka, you should still vote for whoever you think is the best candidate to be president. But in any other state, it doesn't mathematically matter who you vote for, and so you are obligated to vote your conscience. I have this discussion with people all the time, and I usually can, with some effort, convince them that in their state it doesn't make any sense to vote for the lesser of two evils, but then the next day they are trying to convince me to vote for the lesser of two evils again as though the conversation never happened. What is doing this to people? Is it TV? Is the 24 hour news cycle doing this to people? Is the Internet somehow to blame for this?

callmeslick wrote:Hillary is not a neocon, and you can provide little or no evidence of any confluence with any major figure in that movement. Yes, some are supporting her in this election out of fear around Trump's temperment, but every last one of them has assured us that she in NO WAY agrees with their world-view. When Johnson actually states an official, detailed plan, I'll be all ears. So far, lotsa generalities, but what is the actual getting from here to there? I don't see anything put forth.

As far as I know, none of the candidates have released detailed foreign policies (I'd be happy to be corrected on this). The reason for this is that doing that is a huge liability after the candidate is elected (think Obama and his red line), and they don't want to be in any way be artificially beholden after they become president. You are holding Gary Johnson to an unfair standard.

Regarding whether Hillary Clinton is a neocon, when you have someone with all of these interventionalist policies (invasion of Iraq, troop surges, extended stays, air strikes against Khaddafi, support of missile strikes against Assad), I guess you can call that whatever you want. We can call it Mickey Mouse foreign policy if you want. I think most people would call it neoconservative. In any case, whatever you want to call it, these policies have been and would be very damaging to the Middle East.

Glass Parking Lot ! Just sayin'...

Jeff, didn't Trump make a foreign policy speech back in April where he outlined his views?

woodchip wrote:...didn't Trump make a foreign policy speech back in April where he outlined his views?

Link to it?

google "Trump foreign policy" speech is too hard for you?

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/28/us/po ... olicy.html

never suggested, myself, that Trump didn't lay out plans. Bad plans. Stupid plans. Economically and politically suicidal plans. But, plans nonetheless.

Yeah, just read that speech. He's just reiterating all the popular Republican talking points. No new ideas. I thought he was supposed to be different?

Jeff250 wrote:

callmeslick wrote:the reason I asked was that he essentially doesn't HAVE one, that I can tell from any Libertarian party source

Did you ask them to spend a week summarizing his foreign policy for you while you went fishing too? Hillary Clinton is a neocon, and neoconservativism has been proven to be a failed ideology. Her foreign policy has had disastrous consequences in the Middle East. I'd be more than happy to go toe to toe with you on Gary Johnson versus Hillary Clinton on foreign policy issues.

Hillary nearly helped bring WWIII about with that Ukrainian business a year or two ago (which hasn't gone away BTW...it's still simmering.) AND the same administration Hillary was a part in supports the same Turkey that shot down a Russian military jet.

Oh...and after Bill Clinton got elected...guess who started pushing NATO into former Soviet territories?

We should NOT be building military bases on Russia's borders. It's almost like they want to start the next world war.

...the hell are you smoking?

Top Gun wrote:...the hell are you smoking?

Certainly not the sand you have your head buried in.

callmeslick wrote:hell, I'm working like the devil to talk a lot of them OUT of it.

No no no. You should vote your conscience!

not going to vote for them given the stakes here, but they HAVE to consider this signage, just to lighten the national mood:

Trumps johnson is bigger than Hillary's.

You're a classy guy Woodchip.

woodchip wrote:Trumps johnson is bigger than Hillary's.

one would presume so, from simple physiology and gender variance, but I suspect it really isn't that much so........

Wow, you libs are a humorless bunch. Slick when you have to analyze a joke means you don't get it. Sorry I tried to inject a little humor here.