Maybe people who are interested enough to look into and vote for a 3rd party candidate like Gary Johnson are more interested in discussing politics online than the average voter. My voting for Gary Johnson is a matter of historical fact whether you believe it or not. Fiscal responsibility in private and public life is important to me unlike you.
Yea, I don’t subscribe to your economic theory that the unlimited expansion of government to pay for everything and anything is going to reduce the deficit and federal debt.
Third parties are a joke and nothing but attention seekers. You cant do anything without a coalition. Third parties need to build a coalition that actually governed and legislates at a local or state level then run for president.
Trump was known for having multiple bankruptcies and is a tax-cutting republican populist (whereas Clinton was known to be a wall street loving centrist) and a clueless sounding Johnson had no chance of winning. Was voting for him really the most effective way to push for your fiscal responsibility agenda? With Trump in office, we've moved farther away from fiscal responsibility on both sides of the isle. Please, explain your logic, so maybe I'll join you because I also love fiscal responsibility in life and government.
You don't care about unlimited expansion of government. You only care about it when it's for healthcare and education. You didn't b**** about it when defensive contractors charge 1500 dollars to the DOD for a clutch disc that cost 32 dollars to manufacture in bulk because those defense contractors legally bribe politicians to lobby favors for them.
He had a big boost in ratings recently at expense of Bernie, so I assume people are paying attention and he has something else going for him... Please, feel free to argue against that.
I complain about defense spending regularly. I'd love to see it happen. Neither the Dems or the Republicans are serious about it though. The unhinged... unhinging more.
If you do, it isn't nearly as much as you do for people who advocate for healthcare and education. I suggest you look at motive. One side's motivation to expand the defensive budget comes from selfish interests as a result of super PACs and lobbying while the other side even if you believe it's pure idealism and unpragmatic genuinely want to help normal citizens, not defense contractors because they'll finance their campaign or hold an executive position for them after they leave office. At the very least, politicians who do advocate for Medicare for all and free college such as Bernie and Warren also have a genuine passion to remove corporate influence in our legislative proccess that allows for 32 dollars clutch discs to be sold at 1500 dollars per unit at tax payer expenses.
I believe when selecting a Presidential candidate to vote for have to weigh a number of things. None of those things include "likelihood of success." I look at all the issues, look at where the candidates stand on them and consider the importance of the issues and the stance and decide who to vote for. I'm a really big believer in fiscal responsibility and neither the Democrats nor the Republicans are interested in the slightest in being fiscally responsible. So I won't vote for their candidate for President. Gary Johnson has proven to be a fiscally responsible executive and I believe in his message of fiscal responsibility and support him on a number of other issues too, so I voted for him.
I thought that at first too, but I no longer agree. He's the frontrunner because he's seen as the guy most likely to beat Trump (fair or not), and that's the #1 thing Dems are looking for in their nominee. Progressives don't dominate the Democratic primaries in the same way tea parties do in the GOP, and much of the party is more concerned with beating Trump than a laundry list of progressive agenda items. He only loses his frontrunner status if one of two things happen: (1) the electability argument falters and he's no longer seen as the most likely to beat Trump or (2) the Warren/Bernie progressive vote coalesces behind Warren (Bernie likely has a lower ceiling) and provides a one-on-one challenge.
I do it in the proper threads. I try to stay on topic. First of all, I don't care what the defense spending motivations are on either side, I think it needs to be gutted either way. Secondly, How does the Democrats support of massive amounts of defense spending come from a "desire to help normal citizens"?
That's not really true. Both are spenders, but Dems tend to be responsible and pay for all their spending. Everything in the Obama administration (Obamacare/etc) were all fully funded - with the exception of the one-time emergency stimulus bill that was there to prevent a financial collapse. The GOP is really the only party that routinely blows up the deficits by being irresponsible by not financing their spending.
I was about to say that you might not like the idealism that many percieve Bernie type politicians to be rife with but then again you support Gary Johnson, who is the opposite of a pragmatist.
The lead candidates on the left in Bernie and Warren are definitely not for expansion of our defense budget. Your favorite centrist candidates probably are.
Obama ran a deficit between $666 billion and $1.55 trillion every year in office. We are currently 22 trillion in debt and every major Democrat candidate is running on a platform that would massively expand entitlements and not once have I heard any discuss tackling the debt or deficit in a meaningful way.
I think Biden is aligned with mainstream Democrats but I agree that he has lost his fastball. Will be interesting to see how he does in this debate. What is your definition of the mainstream?
That's not really relevant - he doesn't control the past or what's already on the books. He came into office with a $1T deficit and a collapsing economy. The deficits were caused by a revenue shortfall due to the economic collapse. Any new policies he implemented (outside of stimulus bill) were paid for and the deficit shrunk over his time in office (as it should, due to the improving economy). The GOP is just the opposite. They've expanded the deficit *in a growing economy* by literally passing endless things that are not paid for. The libertarians like the Rand Pauls of the world happily voted for all these deficit-growing bills because they don't actually believe in fiscal responsibility. Your love for Gary Johnson as a "fiscally responsible" executive is laughable. States can't run long-term deficits by law - so all governors are "fiscally responsible" by that standard. Nothing he did as President would have eliminated federal deficits, though.
