Johnson What would YOU DO about Aleppo?

[JoeB131]

Here's the Irony.

Gary "Roll Your Own" Johnson panders to the "Government bad" crowd, but his best hope is to get just enough this election so the Libertardian Hippies can feed off the trough of Federal Matching Funds in Presidential races that the two main parties have long since rejected.

Crazy, right?

 

[JoeMoma]

Here's the Irony.

Gary "Roll Your Own" Johnson panders to the "Government bad" crowd, but his best hope is to get just enough this election so the Libertardian Hippies can feed off the trough of Federal Matching Funds in Presidential races that the two main parties have long since rejected.

Crazy, right?

Which presidential races have the two main parties rejected? I think I know what you are trying to say, but you didn't quite say it.

 

[JoeB131]

Which presidential races have the two main parties rejected? I think I know what you are trying to say, but you didn't quite say it.

I thought i made my point pretty clear.

The two parties don't take matching funds now because they limit how much they can spend.

So it's just third parties trying to get enough votes to qualify for them and be a stain like the Reform Party was for a few cycles.

The irony is the LIbertarians trying to cash in on Welfare for Politicians is hilarious.

 

[ChrisL]

Which presidential races have the two main parties rejected? I think I know what you are trying to say, but you didn't quite say it.

I thought i made my point pretty clear.

The two parties don't take matching funds now because they limit how much they can spend.

So it's just third parties trying to get enough votes to qualify for them and be a stain like the Reform Party was for a few cycles.

The irony is the LIbertarians trying to cash in on Welfare for Politicians is hilarious.

Campaign spending limits are a GOOD idea.

 

[dblack]

Which presidential races have the two main parties rejected? I think I know what you are trying to say, but you didn't quite say it.

I thought i made my point pretty clear.

The two parties don't take matching funds now because they limit how much they can spend.

So it's just third parties trying to get enough votes to qualify for them and be a stain like the Reform Party was for a few cycles.

The irony is the LIbertarians trying to cash in on Welfare for Politicians is hilarious.

Campaign spending limits are a GOOD idea.

Limits on government's power to influence the economy (the graft that our leaders are 'selling') would be a better idea.

 

[flacaltenn]

Which presidential races have the two main parties rejected? I think I know what you are trying to say, but you didn't quite say it.

I thought i made my point pretty clear.

The two parties don't take matching funds now because they limit how much they can spend.

So it's just third parties trying to get enough votes to qualify for them and be a stain like the Reform Party was for a few cycles.

The irony is the LIbertarians trying to cash in on Welfare for Politicians is hilarious.

Yeah --- when that HAPPENS -- let us know.. We'll laugh with you.. Not bloody likely. But for certain, the only campaign I know of taking "matching funds" to date are the Greenies. Of course...

What we DO GET out of this most certainly --- is about $15 to $30MILL off the cost of campaigns for the NEXT cycle. Largely because we don't have to jump the 10s of thousands of signatures in each state and pay for the court challenges when the DemReps try to disqualify us from ballot access. We can just thumb our nose and waltz right onto the ballots.

 

[JoeB131]

Campaign spending limits are a GOOD idea.

I agree.

Too bad the Supreme Court ruled them unconstitutional in Citizen's United.

 

[oldsoul]

Which presidential races have the two main parties rejected? I think I know what you are trying to say, but you didn't quite say it.

I thought i made my point pretty clear.

The two parties don't take matching funds now because they limit how much they can spend.

So it's just third parties trying to get enough votes to qualify for them and be a stain like the Reform Party was for a few cycles.

The irony is the LIbertarians trying to cash in on Welfare for Politicians is hilarious.

Campaign spending limits are a GOOD idea.

If done across the board in such a way that ANYONE has a realistic chance (financially) of being considered by the nation, yes, they would be a good thing. Unfortunately the current two party system that has a straggle hold on American politics will NEVER allow such a thing to threaten their power.

 

[Dreamer]

Send 60,000 USAF soldiers to Syrian border. Against IS.

 

[FA_Q2]

Johnson showed us he is an open, honest human being who can temporarily stumble (at ten minutes of five in the morning, to be fair) and who went on to give a thoroughly intelligent response to the Syrian situation. Regardless of whether I agree with him, he showed himself to be the candidate who one can trust, just from his wide open, unembarrassed reaction to a term that momentarily stumped him. As a human being, I adored him for that.

That's the rub though, isn't it. He actually gave an answer to what is going on there with substance and the only thing that the grater American electorate can comment on is that he did not know the name of the city.

A name that is utterly meaningless compared to knowing what needs to be done and why.

The electorate deserves the likes of Hillary and Trump - it seems to be what it thrives on.
\

 

[flacaltenn]

Originally posted by oldsoul
And what, pray tell, would you replace the vast power vacuum with?

Syria and Iraq with their artificial borders and minority Alawite\Hachemite\Sunni government were a creation of Anglo-French imperialism in the Middle East.

The "new" Iraq is the same artificial country with an equally unwanted Shiite government.

Israel is the result of the marriage between british imperialism and Zionism a nineteenth century european colonization movement.

The West can keep these 3 political anomalies alive for decades to come, as Flacaltenn seems to want, but 100 years from now the native people of Syria and Iraq will still be fighting the foreign imposition of borders that totally disregarded their wishes and the native people of Palestine will still be fighting for their right to live in Haifa, Askhelon and Jaffa.

What Flac and apparently you fail to realize is that the desire to undo 100 years of european colonialism will outlive Isis, the PA, the PLO and Hamas.

So I'd suggest replacing the "vast power vaccuum" with what the peoples of Syria and Iraq clearly wish:

Borders based on ethnicity and religion not on anglo-french under the table agreements.

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.

 

[flacaltenn]

Johnson showed us he is an open, honest human being who can temporarily stumble (at ten minutes of five in the morning, to be fair) and who went on to give a thoroughly intelligent response to the Syrian situation. Regardless of whether I agree with him, he showed himself to be the candidate who one can trust, just from his wide open, unembarrassed reaction to a term that momentarily stumped him. As a human being, I adored him for that.

Humble and honest is very refreshing considering what's being served up on the Main Menu..

 

[flacaltenn]

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?

 

[FA_Q2]

They get a pass because they are the presumed winners.

It really is pathetic.

 

[flacaltenn]

Here's the Irony.

Gary "Roll Your Own" Johnson panders to the "Government bad" crowd, but his best hope is to get just enough this election so the Libertardian Hippies can feed off the trough of Federal Matching Funds in Presidential races that the two main parties have long since rejected.

Crazy, right?

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.

 

[dblack]

Here's the Irony.

Gary "Roll Your Own" Johnson panders to the "Government bad" crowd, but his best hope is to get just enough this election so the Libertardian Hippies can feed off the trough of Federal Matching Funds in Presidential races that the two main parties have long since rejected.

Crazy, right?

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[flacaltenn]

Here's the Irony.

Gary "Roll Your Own" Johnson panders to the "Government bad" crowd, but his best hope is to get just enough this election so the Libertardian Hippies can feed off the trough of Federal Matching Funds in Presidential races that the two main parties have long since rejected.

Crazy, right?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.....

 

[FA_Q2]

Here's the Irony.

Gary "Roll Your Own" Johnson panders to the "Government bad" crowd, but his best hope is to get just enough this election so the Libertardian Hippies can feed off the trough of Federal Matching Funds in Presidential races that the two main parties have long since rejected.

Crazy, right?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.....

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.

 

[flacaltenn]

Here's the Irony.

Gary "Roll Your Own" Johnson panders to the "Government bad" crowd, but his best hope is to get just enough this election so the Libertardian Hippies can feed off the trough of Federal Matching Funds in Presidential races that the two main parties have long since rejected.

Crazy, right?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.....

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.

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.

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..

 

[FA_Q2]

Here's the Irony.

Gary "Roll Your Own" Johnson panders to the "Government bad" crowd, but his best hope is to get just enough this election so the Libertardian Hippies can feed off the trough of Federal Matching Funds in Presidential races that the two main parties have long since rejected.

Crazy, right?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.....

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.

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.

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..

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.