PILOT SPIN
Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: Jim Logajan on October 13, 2016, 01:22:59 PM
-
Not an Aleppo moment by the Libertarian candidate:
-
If people were to hear more like this from Gary Johnson, he might have a chance,
and more importantly, we might have a legitimate alternative from Trump/Clinton.
It is true that sometimes he sounds like a goofball, and I have even called him that. But compared to our other candidates, he might just be credible.
-
If people were to hear more like this from Gary Johnson, he might have a chance,
and more importantly, we might have a legitimate alternative from Trump/Clinton.
It is true that sometimes he sounds like a goofball, and I have even called him that. But compared to our other candidates, he might just be credible.
With just over 3 weeks to go, it's not going to happen. That's reality.
-
With just over 3 weeks to go, it's not going to happen. That's reality.
The closer this election gets, the more unreal it gets. That's reality.
My biggest fear is that Clinton wins.
My second biggest fear is that Trump wins and we have to listen to the MSM nitpick, spin and lie about everything he does for the next 4 to 8 years.
Both Gary Johnson and Bill Weld were both state governors. That gives them more government executive experience than either of the other tickets.
-
The closer this election gets, the more unreal it gets. That's reality.
My biggest fear is that Clinton wins.
My second biggest fear is that Trump wins and we have to listen to the MSM nitpick, spin and lie about everything he does for the next 4 to 8 years.
Both Gary Johnson and Bill Weld were both state governors. That gives them more government executive experience than either of the other tickets.
Weld called AR-15s "weapons of mass destruction."
No thanks.
-
Weld called AR-15s "weapons of mass destruction."
No thanks.
Yep, deal breaker for me also. Plus, I think Johnson is half a loon.
-
Remember how we used to smile indulgently at Ralph Nader? That was when the parties could spare a few percent here and there.
The Independents and Libertarians tend to get my attention, until I get to the last few paragraphs on their pages in the voter's pamphlet.
They are usually too idealistic. We know at this point in our history that every citizen is not going to be mature and capable of showing good judgement.
-
Weld called AR-15s "weapons of mass destruction."
No thanks.
Sigh. Yeah, Weld was being a doofus. And Johnson could have been a more serious contender in Utah if he hadn't screwed up on religious freedom. But I'm going to throw away my vote as I have done before and vote for them. I just think of the application of political principles as a form of engineering, not a form of mathematics.
As to Weld's position on gun rights, it isn't clear what he believes, given this statement from him:
"I am a lifelong hunter and gun owner. In 1993, however, as Governor of Massachusetts, I went along with some modest restrictions on certain types of firearms. I was deeply concerned about gun violence, and frankly, the people I represented were demanding action. Sometimes, governing involves tough choices, and I had to make more than a few.
Today, almost 25 years later, I would make some different choices. Restricting Americans’ gun rights doesn’t make us safer, and threatens our constitutional freedoms. I was pleased by and support the Supreme Court’s decision in the District of Columbia vs. Heller -- a decision that embraced the notion that our Second Amendment rights are individual rights, not to be abridged by the government."
From: http://reason.com/blog/2016/05/21/william-weld-responds-to-libertarian-par (http://reason.com/blog/2016/05/21/william-weld-responds-to-libertarian-par)
But Snopes says "Overall, both candidates on the Libertarian ticket have expressed unequivocal support for gun rights.":
http://www.snopes.com/gary-johnson-automatic-weapons/ (http://www.snopes.com/gary-johnson-automatic-weapons/)
-
Sigh. Yeah, Weld was being a doofus. And Johnson could have been a more serious contender in Utah if he hadn't screwed up on religious freedom. But I'm going to throw away my vote as I have done before and vote for them. I just think of the application of political principles as a form of engineering, not a form of mathematics.
As to Weld's position on gun rights, it isn't clear what he believes, given this statement from him:
"I am a lifelong hunter and gun owner. In 1993, however, as Governor of Massachusetts, I went along with some modest restrictions on certain types of firearms. I was deeply concerned about gun violence, and frankly, the people I represented were demanding action. Sometimes, governing involves tough choices, and I had to make more than a few.
Today, almost 25 years later, I would make some different choices. Restricting Americans’ gun rights doesn’t make us safer, and threatens our constitutional freedoms. I was pleased by and support the Supreme Court’s decision in the District of Columbia vs. Heller -- a decision that embraced the notion that our Second Amendment rights are individual rights, not to be abridged by the government."
From: http://reason.com/blog/2016/05/21/william-weld-responds-to-libertarian-par (http://reason.com/blog/2016/05/21/william-weld-responds-to-libertarian-par)
But Snopes says "Overall, both candidates on the Libertarian ticket have expressed unequivocal support for gun rights.":
http://www.snopes.com/gary-johnson-automatic-weapons/ (http://www.snopes.com/gary-johnson-automatic-weapons/)
I don't know what the NRA-ILA rates Weld, but this article is pretty damning.
https://www.nraila.org/articles/20160826/libertarian-vp-candidate-william-f-weld-continues-to-be-anti-gun
-
I think that the president, not the vice president, is the driver of public policy positions that emanate from the executive office. Johnson is a long time gun rights advocate with a proven, consistent position. Trump has no such consistent position. It is my opinion that the NRA should have endorsed Johnson.
-
Yep, deal breaker for me also. Plus, I think Johnson is half a loon.
But you're cool with voting for someone at the top of the ticket saying that "Obama speaks for all of us" after his call to ban "assault weapons" after Sandy Hook. Interesting...that's pretty severe cognitive dissonance you have running around in your head there.
-
It is my opinion that the NRA should have endorsed Johnson.
Johnson has absolutely no chance. Why would the NRA endorse him? Why not just endorse Ronald McDonald. Clowns are all the rage you know.
-
Johnson has absolutely no chance. Why would the NRA endorse him? Why not just endorse Ronald McDonald. Clowns are all the rage you know.
They would endorse him because he is the only presidential candidate with a proven, consistent record on gun rights. It seems fairly simple to me. And if they can't do that, they could follow a number of other gun rights groups in foregoing a formal endorsement of anyone.
PS - I assume you recognize that Ronald Mcdonald has a more consistent gun rights record than Trump? ;)
[edit] spelling
-
Remember how we used to smile indulgently at Ralph Nader? That was when the parties could spare a few percent here and there.
The Independents and Libertarians tend to get my attention, until I get to the last few paragraphs on their pages in the voter's pamphlet.
They are usually too idealistic. We know at this point in our history that every citizen is not going to be mature and capable of showing good judgement.
In general, I have found that Libertarians would rather think of themselves as right than win. They participate witha dream of winning something one day but in the meantime, it is the chaance to say their piece.
-
But you're cool with voting for someone at the top of the ticket saying that "Obama speaks for all of us" after his call to ban "assault weapons" after Sandy Hook. Interesting...that's pretty severe cognitive dissonance you have running around in your head there.
You disagree? The president was only speaking for a part of the country? Wow, what a crappy thing for a president to do!
-
You disagree? The president was only speaking for a part of the country? Wow, what a crappy thing for a president to do!
Was the President speaking for you when he called for banning scary looking guns?
-
No, he wasn't. Like I said what kind of crappy president would only speak for part of the people?
-
No, he wasn't. Like I said what kind of crappy president would only speak for part of the people?
Well, Donnie-boy thought the President did speak for him when he called for banning scary guns.
All these people voting for Trump because "2ND AMENDMENT!!!!!!!!!!!" (sorry, they usually have more !s) are wilfully ignorant of the fact that Trump is a gun-grabber at heart.
-
All these people voting for Trump because "2ND AMENDMENT!!!!!!!!!!!" (sorry, they usually have more !s) are wilfully ignorant of the fact that Trump is a gun-grabber at heart.
With Hillary it is a guarantee that she will nullify the 2A. She wants to turn us into Australia with draconian gun bans and gun confiscation. With Trump it is an outside chance at best.
-
With Hillary it is a guarantee that she will nullify the 2A. She wants to turn us into Australia with draconian gun bans and gun confiscation. With Trump it is an outside chance at best.
Ok, the VP candidate for one ticket saying something ambiguous about one gun is a deal breaker for you, but you're voting for a ticket that has the top of the ticket explicitly endorsing the Obama gun agenda. Like I said, cognitive dissonance.
-
Do not confuse me with someone who endorses Trump. Anyone who thinks that Trump stands for any particular position is a fool and that includes people who think he is in favor of gun control. Sure, he does have things but he won't tell you what is non-negotiable because that takes away from his deal making ability. Not understanding him gives him power in deal making.
So Trump is easy. What does Trump want? We don't really know.
Shall we start with listing everything that Hillary wants?
Start with complete disarmament
Open borders
Higher taxes
Single payer socialized medicine - VA care for everyone!
-
Ok, the VP candidate for one ticket saying something ambiguous about one gun is a deal breaker for you, but you're voting for a ticket that has the top of the ticket explicitly endorsing the Obama gun agenda. Like I said, cognitive dissonance.
No, that was me who said that Weld's statement is a deal breaker.
But even if Johnson/Weld were rated A+ by the NRA-PVF, they will garner not a single electoral vote, and accordingly can do nothing to safeguard the Second Amendment. The NRA is not ignorant of that fact.
You may be proud of a symbolic vote, but I'm ashamed of my symbolic vote for Ross Perot in 1992. I learned from my mistake. You?
-
Johnson is an assclown who actually allowed himself to be interviewed by Triumph the Comic Insult Dog, a stogie chewing puppet.
He is so far from being a serious candidate I can't understand why he gets any press at all.
'Gimp
-
Johnson is an assclown who actually allowed himself to be interviewed by Triumph the Comic Insult Dog, a stogie chewing puppet.
He is so far from being a serious candidate I can't understand why he gets any press at all.
'Gimp
Because Trump and Clinton are likewise, lousy candidates. Clinton more so than Trump, but Trump is still far from a stellar candidate.
-
Johnson is an assclown who actually allowed himself to be interviewed by Triumph the Comic Insult Dog, a stogie chewing puppet.
He is so far from being a serious candidate I can't understand why he gets any press at all.
Don't hold back - tell us how you really feel!
Johnson gets less press relative to his poll numbers than Hillary or Trump. The poll ratios are very roughly 7:6:1 (Clinton@45.3: Trump@39.4 :Johnson@6.6) (http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/national-polls/ (http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/national-polls/)) So if press coverage were proportionate to polling he should appear in 1 of every 14 articles at any given time. He has only appeared in Google News main election stories when he makes a "gaffe" - maybe 1 in 50 at best. He has made serious policy speeches - they get ignored.
-
Richard Nixon in '16!
The scary thing is, even knowing what we know about him now, he's a better candidate than either Hillary or Donald.
-
Richard Nixon in '16
Brilliant! If dead people can vote, why can't dead people be candidates? I like where this is going.
:)
-
Brilliant! If dead people can vote, why can't dead people be candidates? I like where this is going.
:)
I know it has happened before, but until I did a Google search I didn't know that 5 dead candidates have been elected to congress:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2014/10/01/five-people-have-won-election-to-congress-despite-being-dead/ (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2014/10/01/five-people-have-won-election-to-congress-despite-being-dead/)
Even aviation content, of an unfortunate sort: plane crashes appear to have dominated in their untimely demises.
"There don't seem to be examples of people who have died, been on the ballot themselves, and lost. In other words: Dead people appear to be batting 1.000 in their Congressional races. Nonetheless, we do not recommend it as a campaign strategy."
-
I assume you recognize that Ronald Mcdonald has a more consistent gun rights record than Trump? ;)
[edit] spelling
That may or may not be true, but Hilary Clinton is a certified communist on the issue of the Second Amendment. There is no wiggle room when examining her communism when it comes to personal rights, as opposed to the power of the autocratic state.
Trump may or may not be a rock solid supporter of the second amendment, depending upon how you parse his words, but there is no parsing necessary when considering Hilary Clinton on the issue of gun control.
What you are really indulging in is the clouding of the issue by making it about 'maybe' Trump does, or doesn't, while intentionally ignoring that Hilary has no such question attached to her.
That is hijacking the question to avoid the truth.
-
Hillary has told us she disagrees with the Heller decision that owning a firearm is an individual right. She also has told us she wants Australian style gun bans, and gun confiscation. How's that working out for the Aussies?
Trump has told us he supports the 2A AS IS, and will appoint justices in the Scalia mold.
-
Hillary has told us she disagrees with the Heller decision that owning a firearm is an individual right. She also has told us she wants Australian style gun bans, and gun confiscation. How's that working out for the Aussies?
Trump has told us he supports the 2A AS IS, and will appoint justices in the Scalia mold.
He's also said that Pres Obama "speaks for all of us" on gun control. So which Trump are you voting for? Do you have any clue?
-
That may or may not be true, but Hilary Clinton is a certified communist on the issue of the Second Amendment. There is no wiggle room when examining her communism when it comes to personal rights, as opposed to the power of the autocratic state.
Trump may or may not be a rock solid supporter of the second amendment, depending upon how you parse his words, but there is no parsing necessary when considering Hilary Clinton on the issue of gun control.
What you are really indulging in is the clouding of the issue by making it about 'maybe' Trump does, or doesn't, while intentionally ignoring that Hilary has no such question attached to her.
That is hijacking the question to avoid the truth.
Sorry, I don't indulge in the "but Hillary!" approach. I make my decision on the merit of the candidate in question. I am not a single issue voter, and I remain unconvinced that Trump would be any better for the country than would Hillary. Even if I was convinced that Trump would be marginally better for the country than would Hillary, I still consider him to be a despicable candidate and would not vote for him anyway.
This is, of course, beside my point. Johnson is the only consistent 2A supporter, and Ronald McDonald has a more consistent record on the 2A than does Trump. These are simple truths.
-
I make my decision on the merit of the candidate in question.
Wait...you think either one of the candidates has merit?
-
Wait...you think either one of the candidates has merit?
Answered by my voting booth intentions.
-
Wait...you think either one of the candidates has merit?
I do. The amount, based on a 100 point scale may be in the single digits, but Trump still has a few points edge on Clinton. Perhaps something line 7 to 2. Thus, I choose Trump over Clinton.
And if I had a chance to actually see much of Gary Johnson, and if I rated his merit above 7 (in this example), then I might vote for him, unless I was convinced that would throw the election to Clinton.
-
Sorry, I don't indulge in the "but Hillary!" approach. I make my decision on the merit of the candidate in question. I am not a single issue voter, and I remain unconvinced that Trump would be any better for the country than would Hillary. Even if I was convinced that Trump would be marginally better for the country than would Hillary, I still consider him to be a despicable candidate and would not vote for him anyway.
This is, of course, beside my point. Johnson is the only consistent 2A supporter, and Ronald McDonald has a more consistent record on the 2A than does Trump. These are simple truths.
Other than an evasion I see little in your response that speaks to the problem at hand. Choosing to drag the Donald through Hilary's mud just because he might or might not do, or not do what Hilary has done and has said she will do, is all about refusing to address the Hilary problem.
It is very similar to Steingar claiming that the Clinton crime Syndicate has save dchildren and does excellent work, when under six percent of the funds raised through selling out the office of secretary of state went to anything but their wants and needs.
George Stephanopolis ran the same route when he claimed that he gave the Clinton Family Crime Syndicate lots of money because they donated to AIDS research. If he was intent on his money going to AIDS the he would have sent it there. He was buying access and/or paying a bribe just like all those Muslim nations who condone murdering gays and torturing women and owning slaves, who bought Hilary's silence about their grotesque civil rights abuses.
The Hilary problem is an epidemic.
The Donald problem is uncertainty.
-
George Stephanopolis ran the same route when he claimed that he gave the Clinton Family Crime Syndicate lots of money because they donated to AIDS research. If he was intent on his money going to AIDS the he would have sent it there. He was buying access and/or paying a bribe just like all those Muslim nations who condone murdering gays and torturing women and owning slaves, who bought Hilary's silence about their grotesque civil rights abuses.
The Hilary problem is an epidemic.
The Donald problem is uncertainty.
Yet Stephanopolis is allowed to read the "news" which is really leftist propaganda, and also moderate debates as "neutral".