Gary Johnson - Another 2012 Presidential Darkhorse?
31 replies, posted
[quote=2012.presidential-candidates.org]The former Libertarian Republican Governor does not attend church, is pro-choice, anti-big government, pro-immigration, an outspoken critic of the war on drugs and favors legalizing marijuana. He led New Mexico for eight years, during which time the state saw no tax increase, and he vetoed over 750 separate pieces of legislation to keep the government from growing. However, his views on civil liberties, foreign policy and drugs may be difficult for many conservatives to reconcile with. [/quote]
An interesting Republican candidate for sure. The below video is an interview with him on CNN, and although the title is captioned to be pro-cannabis, he does talk about the financial situation of the country at the beginning. Also, he was on The Colbert Report during one interview if you want to search around for that.
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFf4P20cWmU&feature=player_embedded#![/media]
The Repubs need more sane people to run, just in case the Democrats don't win.
I think I like his interpretation of basic Republican ideas.
He seems like a smart man.
Based on what he said there, he seems like a reasonable candidate.
Which is why the Republicans will never vote for him.
[QUOTE=Rubs10;32012927]The Repubs need more sane people to run, just in case the Democrats don't win.
I think I like his interpretation of basic Republican ideas.[/QUOTE]
One of the problems with the bipartisan system is that people like Gary Johnson may represent the interests of Americans but not necessarily of the party... so they won't gain any standings in the primaries and as such remain unelectable.
[QUOTE=FinalHunter;32013199]Why does everyone on Facepunch seem liberal?[/QUOTE]
Bandwagon effect + the fact that liberalism generally represents the views of the social groups most facepunchers fall under
I hope he isn't one of the people who wants to get rid of social programs to shrink government.
[QUOTE=FinalHunter;32013199]Why does everyone on Facepunch seem liberal?[/QUOTE]
Because socially, and fiscally, conservatives are utter morons. At one time, they were a useful counterbalance to certain political stances, now they have proven to not only fail to provide a proper counterbalance, but also actively destroy the country through their ignorance, hypocrisy, and sheer malice.
The question is: Why are you conservative?
[QUOTE=GunFox;32013329]Because socially, and fiscally, conservatives are utter morons. At one time, they were a useful counterbalance to certain political stances, now they have proven to not only fail to provide a proper counterbalance, but also actively destroy the country through their ignorance, hypocrisy, and sheer malice.
The question is: Why are you conservative?[/QUOTE]
There's a profound difference between what some politicians call conservatism which is actually religious extremism and corporatism, and what others just simply call conservatism in the name of removing unnecessary spending to wasteful programs and giving small businesses more freedom to set up shop and compete among each other. Unfortunately, the federal level is dominated by the former.
Generalizing both groups under the umbrella term conservatism to be the same, though, is kind of unwarranted imo.
[QUOTE=MrBob1337;32013242]I hope he isn't one of the people who wants to get rid of social programs to shrink government.[/QUOTE]
He's exactly that type of candidate and he's not the type who just talk the talk. He will do it.
That's why Johnson is one of the candidates I will support.
[QUOTE=GunFox;32013329]Because socially, and fiscally, conservatives are utter morons. At one time, they were a useful counterbalance to certain political stances, now they have proven to not only fail to provide a proper counterbalance, but also actively destroy the country through their ignorance, hypocrisy, and sheer malice.
The question is: Why are you conservative?[/QUOTE]
You're using conservative in the wrong context, I believe. Enlighten me and define it for me, because conservative =/= republican.
[QUOTE=FinalHunter;32013199]Why does everyone on Facepunch seem liberal?[/QUOTE]
Google, cites that the [url=http://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1GGGE_enUS395US395&aq=f&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=define%3Aliberal#hl=en&rlz=1C1GGGE_enUS395US395&q=liberal&tbs=dfn:1&tbo=u&sa=X&ei=nj1cTvmdFuOosALWiLkj&ved=0CCYQkQ4&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=c313f2edd24fc65d&biw=1440&bih=809]definition of Liberal[/url] includes
[quote]Open to new behavior or opinions and willing to discard traditional values[/quote]
[quote]Favorable to or respectful of individual rights and freedoms[/quote]
[quote]Concerned mainly with broadening a person's general knowledge and experience, rather than with technical or professional training[/quote]
I like knowledge and I picked up on these characteristics in order to acquire more of it.
So you could say that liberalism is a side effect of learning.
[QUOTE=Rubs10;32013707]Google, cites that the [url=http://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1GGGE_enUS395US395&aq=f&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=define%3Aliberal#hl=en&rlz=1C1GGGE_enUS395US395&q=liberal&tbs=dfn:1&tbo=u&sa=X&ei=nj1cTvmdFuOosALWiLkj&ved=0CCYQkQ4&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=c313f2edd24fc65d&biw=1440&bih=809]definition of Liberal[/url] includes
I like knowledge and I picked up on these characteristics in order to acquire more of it.
So you could say that liberalism is a side effect of learning.[/QUOTE]
Original meaning of a "liberal" in politcal sense used to mean pro-free market, pro-individual rights, anti-war and so on. In Europe, this term still bears its partial meaning.
In US however, the meaning has been hijacked by the progressives to represent, welfarism, interventionism abroa.
I absolutely love how the media tries to shift the focus back to his policy on marijuana every minute he switches off. The media just feeds off of topics that can make them money. Its funny yet disgusting.
This man is intelligent. I will give him that. He focuses mostly on the economy and spending. I don't do drugs at all, nor do I plan to, but I must say he has an excellent point. If we can regulate alcohol, then we could probably regulate cannabis. Very ambitious. He probably can't get far with that because republicans aim to shoot any reasonable man down.
Yeah, as much as I care about those issues, our debt overshadows all of them.
[QUOTE=Rubs10;32013707]Google, cites that the [url=http://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1GGGE_enUS395US395&aq=f&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=define%3Aliberal#hl=en&rlz=1C1GGGE_enUS395US395&q=liberal&tbs=dfn:1&tbo=u&sa=X&ei=nj1cTvmdFuOosALWiLkj&ved=0CCYQkQ4&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=c313f2edd24fc65d&biw=1440&bih=809]definition of Liberal[/url] includes
I like knowledge and I picked up on these characteristics in order to acquire more of it.
So you could say that liberalism is a side effect of learning.[/QUOTE]
Your being deliberately dumb and nit picking at definitions,
In the context of north america at this specific point in history to call someone a "liberal" does not mean they support individual rights and liberties, and does not mean they are open to new behaviour or opinions,
At this point in time the word liberal has become a code word for Socialist, that said Socialists use to avoid the bad press words like Communist, and Socialist have justly acquired over the years.
I myself don't even use the word liberal any more in a political context, as it would imply that the people who are generally referred to as "liberal" have even the slightest concern for liberty, which to insinuate would be an absolute farce.
If I am referring to those often called "liberals" I normally use the therm, "Leftist", "Socialist", or "Statist".
Conservative though I think fits perfectly, considering those who are called conservatives attempt to preserve systems of government and values from the past, and hold tradition in great reverence.
Cool, another false puppet designed by the Bilderberg group to prevent Ron Paul from being elected.
[QUOTE=Real Hitler Fag;32014629]Cool, another false puppet designed by the Bilderberg group to prevent Ron Paul from being elected.[/QUOTE]
I hope that's sarcasm,
Also I'm pretty sure that most Libertarian leaning people would rather vote for Johnson than Paul considering the fact that Paul opposes abortion and is much more religiously motivated than Johnson, who does not oppose abortion.
[QUOTE=fishyfish777;32013627]There's a profound difference between what some politicians call conservatism which is actually religious extremism and corporatism, and what others just simply call conservatism in the name of removing unnecessary spending to wasteful programs and giving small businesses more freedom to set up shop and compete among each other. Unfortunately, the federal level is dominated by the former.
Generalizing both groups under the umbrella term conservatism to be the same, though, is kind of unwarranted imo.[/QUOTE]
Social conservatism: Blocking of new ideas.
Gay marriage, abortion, marijuana, assisted suicide, gays in the military, death penalty, etc etc.
The Republican party as a whole adopts these quite heavily and all of them are very much conservative ideals. The Republicans who DON'T adopt them tend to favor a more libertarian approach, such as Ron Paul or Johnson here.
Economic conservatism:
Trickle down economics, tax cuts, strong military powers, and generally strong pushes for a free market.
This would be great, except for the part where the military is eating all of our money, the free market abuses EVERYONE but the extremely wealthy, and trickle down economics don't work even a tiny bit.
Oh no wait, I guess that means it doesn't work at all.
Lets break this down!
Gay marriage: It is a property contract mixed with a political agreement. It isn't sacred. Virtually every wedding tradition stems from this. The Father literally used to give the bride away because he was fulfilling a contract. The bridesmaid and groomsmen? Standins for either party in the event that the groom or the bride bailed. They would legitimately marry the replacements simply to avoid a breach of contract and maintain the political connection. Virtually every tradition in a wedding finds its roots in these contracts. So no, marriage is not only NOT sacred, it is an archaic and fucked up practice.
Abortion: It isn't a human being until it has higher thought function (Roughly 5-6 months). Until then a woman has every right in the world to choose if she is going to be a human incubator. Particularly given the risk and permanent damage caused by child birth.
Marijuana: Johnson pretty much said it. He took a surprisingly liberal stance there, rather than the traditional conservative or libertarian stance of the Republicans.
Assisted suicide: Really? Is anyone going to argue against this one? People are in extreme pain, have no hope for recovery, and wish to die with some dignity. Why not let them leave in some form of peace, rather than being forced to feel their own body shut down organ by organ?
Gays in the military: Grow up. They have every right to serve their country. You can spout bullshit all you like, but it really just boils down to garden variety homophobia.
Death penalty: The justice system makes mistakes, death can't be taken back. Our entire justice system is designed around the notion that is it better to let a guilty man go free, than imprison an innocent man. How about we actually try to stick to that for once? Not to mention the government having the ability to execute its citizens is fucked up to begin with.
Trickle down economics (AKA Tax cuts for the rich!): How could you possibly believe that, even for a second, this is a good idea? When you give people more money, do you know what they do with it? THEY KEEP IT. How about instead of being fucking morons and cutting taxes on the rich, we raise them and get our shit in line? What the entire conservative faction fails to fucking understand, is that raising taxes, funding more programs, and paying off our debt, IS WHAT MAKES THE DOLLAR STRONGER. HOW FUCKING HARD IS THIS TO UNDERSTAND? With a stronger dollar, EVERYONE now has more buying power. The numerical value of your cash may decrease, but instead of slowly devaluing over time, it might actually even out. Surprise!
Military funding: We all know this is killing us. The amount we spend is obscene. Lets dial it back a notch or five.
Free market: Yes, this doesn't end with children in sweatshops who are missing digits and limbs due to heavy machinery at all!
Oh wait, yes it did. I say DID because we TRIED a free economy and learned that companies are assholes who will stop at nothing to profit. The fact that anyone survived industrialization at all is amazing.
[editline]29th August 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Novistador;32014618]At this point in time the word liberal has become a code word for Socialist, that said Socialists use to avoid the bad press words like Communist, and Socialist have justly acquired over the years.
[/QUOTE]
Socialized health care and higher taxes do not produce a socialist society, genius. It makes one that doesn't have poor people dying just because they lack the social capital to move upward in the world.
The American dream doesn't exist. Who you are born to matters deeply and will strongly affect how high the social ladder you are able to climb unopposed.
[quote]Johnson supports balancing the federal budget immediately.[62] He supports "slashing government spending", include Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security entitlements.[59] His plans include cutting Medicare and Medicaid by 43% and turning them into block grant programs, with control of spending in the hands of the states to create "fifty laboratories of innovation".[62] He advocates passing a law allowing for state bankruptcy and expressly ruling out a federal bailout of any states.[/quote]
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=37OWL7AzvHo[/media]
he wants to balance the budget - how? does it include fixing the broken financial system (wall street) and locking up everybody responsible for the budget going to shit in the first place (wall street)? if not I wouldn't give him a second thought
Ha, the clock on the bottom right says 4:20 while he talks about the drug issue at ~1:50.
Anyway, he definitely breaks the stereotype. It's kind of nice. He makes good points with the personal responsibility thing, in my opinion.
GunFox, you have some nice views when it comes to some of your points, but I disagree with your death penalty point. The death penalty is probably one of the worst ideas possible. No one ever deserves the absolute punishment of death. The justice system should NEVER be based on retribution for crimes. The justice system should focus on rehabilitating criminals, not entirely removing them from society. In a justice system, all punishments should be "reversible" (such as monetary compensation), in case of a bad verdict. When you kill someone, that option is gone. Recently, a man sentenced to death after a very very very bad trial was set free (see "West Memphis Three"). He was only 18 when he was convicted and there was no evidence against him, thought everyone thought he was guilty because he, and his friend listened to death metal. He was on death row for many years. After 18 years, he was finally set free. If he was killed, and the others found innocent, there would be no way to have the punishment reversed. It's also cheaper to keep people in prisons than to kill them. In a California justice commission in 2008, The reported cost was 37.2$ million dollars for only one execution. That is expensive.
It also goes against all the morals that your parents taught you. Two wrongs don't make a right. They never do in reality. Murdering people for murders is just stupid.
(I in no way want this to become a death penalty discussion, those always end badly!)
[QUOTE=FinalHunter;32013199]Why does everyone on Facepunch seem liberal?[/QUOTE]
Because we can use computers.
[editline]29th August 2011[/editline]
I like this guy.
Holy shit! He's like another Ron Paul.
I'm gonna have to research more about this guy. He speaks some of the common sense truth that Ron Paul speaks of.
Quite an interesting fellow, I'll be watching him.
This actually got me caring about American politics for a second... Woah. Somebody with half a brain in politics? The end really must be coming....
[QUOTE=Rubs10;32012927]The Repubs need more sane people to run, just in case the Democrats don't win.
I think I like his interpretation of basic Republican ideas.[/QUOTE]
I've got my hand on my passport and immigration help numbers. If any of these idiot tea party nincompoops win, then I'm off to Scandinavia. If I'm gonna watch the US finally implode, it's better to do so abroad.
[editline]30th August 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=ElChrisman99;32016820]This actually got me caring about American politics for a second..[/QUOTE]
Politics and economics has to do with literally every aspect of your life. It's the measurement and management of how countries exist, everything from the water you drink to that xbox you bought at best buy, it all has to do with politics. If you have bad leaders, then you have a bad country, politics has the potential to turn 'perfect' first world countries to dirty 3rd world slums and viceversa.
[QUOTE=OogalaBoogal;32015672]GunFox, you have some nice views when it comes to some of your points, but I disagree with your death penalty point. The death penalty is probably one of the worst ideas possible. No one ever deserves the absolute punishment of death. The justice system should NEVER be based on retribution for crimes. The justice system should focus on rehabilitating criminals, not entirely removing them from society. In a justice system, all punishments should be "reversible" (such as monetary compensation), in case of a bad verdict. When you kill someone, that option is gone. Recently, a man sentenced to death after a very very very bad trial was set free (see "West Memphis Three"). He was only 18 when he was convicted and there was no evidence against him, thought everyone thought he was guilty because he, and his friend listened to death metal. He was on death row for many years. After 18 years, he was finally set free. If he was killed, and the others found innocent, there would be no way to have the punishment reversed. It's also cheaper to keep people in prisons than to kill them. In a California justice commission in 2008, The reported cost was 37.2$ million dollars for only one execution. That is expensive.
It also goes against all the morals that your parents taught you. Two wrongs don't make a right. They never do in reality. Murdering people for murders is just stupid.
(I in no way want this to become a death penalty discussion, those always end badly!)[/QUOTE]Death penalties are only more expensive because the massive block that people have against it. So the required chances for reconsideration and everything else have to go into the cost. It's cheaper to just kill them, but the bureaucracy ruins any kind of "savings" we might gain from it.
Just like all government.
[editline]30th August 2011[/editline]
More on topic, I'd definitely vote for this guy.
[editline]30th August 2011[/editline]
Although Ron Paul is actually introducing legislature to legalize marijuana [url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/22/marijuana-bill-barney-frank-ron-paul_n_882707.html]as seen here[/url].
same question as finalhunter.[img]http://goo.gl/YEJZp[/img]
[QUOTE=OogalaBoogal;32015672]GunFox, you have some nice views when it comes to some of your points, but I disagree with your death penalty point. The death penalty is probably one of the worst ideas possible. No one ever deserves the absolute punishment of death. The justice system should NEVER be based on retribution for crimes. The justice system should focus on rehabilitating criminals, not entirely removing them from society. In a justice system, all punishments should be "reversible" (such as monetary compensation), in case of a bad verdict. When you kill someone, that option is gone. Recently, a man sentenced to death after a very very very bad trial was set free (see "West Memphis Three"). He was only 18 when he was convicted and there was no evidence against him, thought everyone thought he was guilty because he, and his friend listened to death metal. He was on death row for many years. After 18 years, he was finally set free. If he was killed, and the others found innocent, there would be no way to have the punishment reversed. It's also cheaper to keep people in prisons than to kill them. In a California justice commission in 2008, The reported cost was 37.2$ million dollars for only one execution. That is expensive.
It also goes against all the morals that your parents taught you. Two wrongs don't make a right. They never do in reality. Murdering people for murders is just stupid.
(I in no way want this to become a death penalty discussion, those always end badly!)[/QUOTE]
you realize he's against the death penalty right?? :S did you read what he put there :P
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.