Johnson What would YOU DO about Aleppo?

Discussion in 'Gary Johnson' started by flacaltenn, Sep 8, 2016.

  1. flacaltenn
    Offline

    flacaltenn Senior Mod Staff Member Senior USMB Moderator Gold Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2011
    Messages:
    40,687
    Thanks Received:
    6,442
    Trophy Points:
    1,830
    Location:
    Hillbilly Hollywood, Tenn
    Ratings:
    +21,838
    Who said I'm opposed to that? I'm not. .I think Kurdish autonomy is probably a damn good thing for instance. But the point was --- OUR idiots did all that to bring "democracy and inclusion" to MidEast. And that will NEVER happen, no matter how the borders change. It will be always be tyrants running theocratic crap holes that all want to kill each other.

    The problem with YOUR DESIRED plan is -- You separate them all in their own borders and the CONFLICTS will be get bigger and more severe. And pretty soon it will show down between Iran and the Saudis with everyone else looking for cover and picking sides.

    Anyways -- I would hope that we agree that the Libertarian commitment to not "redesign" the MidEast is something that we should agree on. I just don't know if I have the stomach to watch all the MEast Arabs unscrew themselves from those "imposed" borders.
     
  2. flacaltenn
    Offline

    flacaltenn Senior Mod Staff Member Senior USMB Moderator Gold Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2011
    Messages:
    40,687
    Thanks Received:
    6,442
    Trophy Points:
    1,830
    Location:
    Hillbilly Hollywood, Tenn
    Ratings:
    +21,838
    Humble and honest is very refreshing considering what's being served up on the Main Menu..
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  3. flacaltenn
    Offline

    flacaltenn Senior Mod Staff Member Senior USMB Moderator Gold Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2011
    Messages:
    40,687
    Thanks Received:
    6,442
    Trophy Points:
    1,830
    Location:
    Hillbilly Hollywood, Tenn
    Ratings:
    +21,838
    Are you all aware that last week in debate -- Hillary misplaced Mosul by a couple hundred miles. Said it had a strategic location right on the Turkish border. Went right thru the ears of 98% of the press and pundits.

    And a former Secretary of State who served during the Iraq war doesn't know that? :ack-1:
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  4. FA_Q2
    Offline

    FA_Q2 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2009
    Messages:
    16,013
    Thanks Received:
    2,363
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    Washington State
    Ratings:
    +5,502
    They get a pass because they are the presumed winners.

    It really is pathetic.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  5. flacaltenn
    Offline

    flacaltenn Senior Mod Staff Member Senior USMB Moderator Gold Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2011
    Messages:
    40,687
    Thanks Received:
    6,442
    Trophy Points:
    1,830
    Location:
    Hillbilly Hollywood, Tenn
    Ratings:
    +21,838
    We'll probably NEVER take Federal Matching Funds. Can't say for sure. But MOST Libertarians don't want tax dollars to run their campaigns.

    But what we DO WANT -- is to pull > 5% in enough states to save us $MILLs in ballot petitioning, and legal fees when the Dems and Reps sue us to keep us off the ballots. That's a good day's work for a 3rd party that's only there to offer choice and better government. We can only ASK. We don't pander and EXPECT votes -- like your dynasty teams do.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 2
  6. dblack
    Online

    dblack Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 21, 2011
    Messages:
    22,669
    Thanks Received:
    2,180
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +4,746
    I think it's foolish not to. We should use every tool available to us to gain a foothold. We should always be wary, and ready to drop them at first hint of federal arm-twisting. But we need to start getting serious about turning the party into a real campaign for change, rather than sideline critics.

    I think this is a very achievable goal, and a rare opportunity. It's frustrating, because by all reason, large portions of the Republicans and Democrats should be voting Libertarian, but fear rules the day. Most of them will vote second-most-evil. But even with the gravity of vested interests, we might be able to break the 5% barrier, which would be huge.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  7. flacaltenn
    Offline

    flacaltenn Senior Mod Staff Member Senior USMB Moderator Gold Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2011
    Messages:
    40,687
    Thanks Received:
    6,442
    Trophy Points:
    1,830
    Location:
    Hillbilly Hollywood, Tenn
    Ratings:
    +21,838
    Personally I'm conflicted about taking matching funds. Some days I look at what the Party lays out just for court costs to fight the Dems and Reps over ballot access and I want to do it. Look at Hillary and Trump with the easy money and figure 'what the hell'. I noticed that the GREEN party took matching funds this cycle. But then -- those guys think their entire campaign ought to be Fed funded.

    But since being a Libertarian is NOT neccessarily about winning until America completely and obviously loses it's freedom and choices, I don't want OPiuM (other people's money) juicing our campaigns.... They don't want us -- shouldn't be FORCED to contribute. Even if -- they did it voluntarily on their 1040.....
     
  8. FA_Q2
    Offline

    FA_Q2 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2009
    Messages:
    16,013
    Thanks Received:
    2,363
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    Washington State
    Ratings:
    +5,502
    I disagree with this mentality.

    The reality is that these funds are taken and given under current law. Disadvantaging yourself by taking the 'high road' does not actually change the fact the money has already been taken and just funnels it to those that are supporting the habit in the first place. Further, the government is not going to abstain from collecting that money either. What is gained from handing your opponent an advantage because it is against your ethos that such a law exists?

    Better to abide by the standards with the clear intent of changing it when you are able to garner the support.


    Then again, I am not totally sold on divorcing public funds from elections in the first place. I used to be there until a very good debate here on this board brought a lot of good evidence to the table showing its advantages.
     
  9. flacaltenn
    Offline

    flacaltenn Senior Mod Staff Member Senior USMB Moderator Gold Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2011
    Messages:
    40,687
    Thanks Received:
    6,442
    Trophy Points:
    1,830
    Location:
    Hillbilly Hollywood, Tenn
    Ratings:
    +21,838
    you're right in the sense that we don't have problem taking Soc Sec/Medicare funds and stuff like that. That people participated in with their OWN cash. I'm sure that Johnson raised enough qualify. Maybe they will trigger the matching funds at the last moment to keep the campaign debt free after the election..

    You can always take Johnson/Weld tee shirts and reprint them with "Dont' Blame Me. I Voted For ---" above the old lettering. :biggrin:

    Public financing is a very bad idea. Collusion can occur OFF the election cycle and very easily WITHOUT money. As in companies locating to the district of the Congress Critters that favor them with handouts. And it's the power to GRANT those handouts that is the problem anyway.

    I'd be more open to "public money" --- if the EASIER thing happened 1st -- and that's stopping the tax benefits and handouts that can be TARGETED to favorite corporations. Until THAT happens, I don't believe anyone is serious about stopping it. In fact, I believe, that step alone would destroy K Street and recycle it into a big Visitor Center. MOST companies lobby and influence because they HAVE TO.. It's a defensive thing to keep their corporation from being blindsided by crony legislation..
     
  10. FA_Q2
    Offline

    FA_Q2 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2009
    Messages:
    16,013
    Thanks Received:
    2,363
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    Washington State
    Ratings:
    +5,502
    I can agree to the last statement. The problem is that congress has the power to pander in the first place. Companies go where there is money to be made. When you allow the purchasing of congressmen to be lucrative companies will buy - that is a hard fact.

    That needs to be taken care of.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2

Share This Page