1. Welcome! Please take a few seconds to create your free account to post threads, make some friends, remove a few ads while surfing and much more. ClutchFans has been bringing fans together to talk Houston Sports since 1996. Join us!

Why is Gary Johnson not the best candidate?

Discussion in 'BBS Hangout: Debate & Discussion' started by Two Sandwiches, Aug 9, 2016.

Tags:
  1. dharocks

    dharocks Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2003
    Messages:
    9,032
    Likes Received:
    1,968
    I'm not a proponent of a $15 (federal) minimum wage, but this was a pretty batty argument against it, IMO:

    <iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/pQe_48ALjLQ" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

    Also not a fan of his foreign policy. I believe intervention is necessary at times.

    If you're not an ultra-small government fiscal conservative, I don't see what Johnson really offers other than someone who isn't Clinton or Trump. I'm fine with HRC.
     
  2. Bobbythegreat

    Bobbythegreat Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2013
    Messages:
    59,238
    Likes Received:
    21,386
    I see that as a solid argument on his part and a lot of naivete on the part of the woman giving the interview. Thinking that Taco Bell or Burger King would just decide to eat those losses with a minimum wage increase is pretty hilarious. It would certainly lead to a mix of automation eliminating jobs and an increase in prices. The notion that minimum wage increases lead to more buying power in all but the short term is kind of funny.

    I mean, that's really the problem isn't it? When people see the same issues so differently, it's hard to find middle ground.
     
  3. CCorn

    CCorn Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2010
    Messages:
    19,982
    Likes Received:
    18,112
    I'm voting for him
     
  4. sirbaihu

    sirbaihu Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2006
    Messages:
    8,517
    Likes Received:
    2,851
    "Let the market decide" is an insane argument for the average person. The market will find the lowest possible wage that can attract employees. Quality of life suffers.

    Case in point: college faculty. The trend is all toward "letting the market decide" by using part-time faculty instead of full-time faculty, because the jobs still get filled. Saves a lot of money for the school! Don't have to pay benefits to part-timers either. Meanwhile, faculty can barely survive. If faculty service quality suffers using part-timers, doesn't really matter: what, are the students gonna 1) know the difference? 2) tell their mommies? Then what? Their mommies transfer them to a different university? No, quality of the product goes down for the consumers (students and parents), quality of life for the employees goes down, and the only ones who benefit are the top-tier administrators and the institution as a whole in a financial--not educational--sense. Meanwhile, college education fees are going up and up! You'd think they'd be going down, since "the market" is driving salaries into a nose dive.
     
  5. SamFisher

    SamFisher Virtuous

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2003
    Messages:
    55,653
    Likes Received:
    31,330
    Seriously why.

    I get the legaluze it/live and let live thing.

    But libertarian economics are basically like the absolute worst possible outcome to our present status overall, and completely tone deaf to the Trump/Sanders economic populism strain.

    I would call the "low taxes and deregulate everything " a Kochligarch wet dream, but there is not enough motile semen in their shriveled old testes to remotely convey that sentiment accurately.
     
  6. CometsWin

    CometsWin Breaker Breaker One Nine

    Joined:
    May 15, 2000
    Messages:
    28,028
    Likes Received:
    13,038
    Because his policies are libertarian and resemble 19th century America. We'd like to live in the 21st century.
     
  7. dback816

    dback816 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    4,506
    Likes Received:
    160
    This is nonsense.

    He is not the most qualified man to be president.

    His policies are all over the place and so is his party.

    And you basically admitted you only want to vote for him to be a contrarian because the idea of a Madam President upsets you
     
  8. Major

    Major Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 1999
    Messages:
    40,306
    Likes Received:
    14,214
    TARP was a specific vote back in 2008 to prevent the world's financial system from failing and leading to a global depression. Clinton voted for it - as did many other Dems and GOPers. Those that didn't - on both sides - should not be in office. Period.

    She can say all she wants that she would allow banks to fail today - but (a) the system is very different post-FinReg and the consequences are reduced (no one knows by how much) and (b) if a bank failing would cause the world to end, I'm pretty certain she would vote to stop it.

    Trump is not qualified in any respect to be President, so his TARP position is sort of irrelevant.

    This is a bit of a summary of where we were in September 2008:

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/2/9/695504/-

    http://zerohedge.blogspot.com/2009/02/how-world-almost-came-to-end-at-2pm-on.html

    Everyone in Congress was briefed, if not on the specifics, then on the general place we were at and the need for TARP. It wasn't guaranteed to work, but you had 3 alternatives:

    No TARP: World ends.
    TARP fails: World ends.
    TARP succeeds: World does not end.

    The vote was an absolute 100% no-brainer (or, if not TARP, then a similar alternative - but the opponents weren't proposing an alternative).
     
    1 person likes this.
  9. Major

    Major Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 1999
    Messages:
    40,306
    Likes Received:
    14,214
    People who, today, still argue against the 2008 TARP are my issue in this case. Candidates can say what they want about a future bailout - everyone wants to oppose that in theory. But the people that are arguing that the 2008 TARP was bad, despite the benefit of hindsight and seeing that it cost nothing and saved the global economy are just pure ignorant on the point of governance - it's governing on theoretical principle with no concern for the actual real-world consequences of the people or country you are elected to lead.
     
  10. cml750

    cml750 Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2002
    Messages:
    5,160
    Likes Received:
    1,810
    He has no chance of winning. Anyone who votes for him is throwing their vote away. Plus he is pro baby murdering. Now if Ron Paul were running on the Libertarian ticket it might be interesting.
     
  11. tallanvor

    tallanvor Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2007
    Messages:
    15,134
    Likes Received:
    5,085
    yea the food stamp system is horrible :rolleyes:

    anyways he wanted to implement this as governor, as president he believes education is a states issue so wouldn't try to implement nationally.

    Most those nations have less people and ****tier healthcare...

    those places would be the exact opposite of libertarianism. they are dictated by massive amounts of force. Hong Kong would be a better answer.
     
  12. val_modus

    val_modus Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2010
    Messages:
    1,792
    Likes Received:
    289
    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/...use-of-the-Filibuster-Not-a-topic-of-the-News

    Republicans have shattered past filibuster records with their hold on congress. Yet both sides are to blame for the stalemate?

    How can you claim extremity when what used to be the left has gone to the corporate centrists, and the right has gone off the deep end?
     
  13. Cohete Rojo

    Cohete Rojo Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2009
    Messages:
    10,344
    Likes Received:
    1,202
    Because the Libertarian Party is a joke. That is why.
     
  14. Liberon

    Liberon Rookie

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2009
    Messages:
    8,838
    Likes Received:
    842
    Because this POS wants to take away my medications.. Other than that if he changed that one policy. Gary Johnson for President!!!!
     
  15. NewRoxFan

    NewRoxFan Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2002
    Messages:
    47,200
    Likes Received:
    44,313
    I would not vote for him base solely on many of his and the Libertarian Party positions already listed. And while I understand and can sorta appreciate the sense of humor and need for attention that led to this interview, I can't see him as a serious candidate:

    [youtube]https://youtu.be/hdkznU2IvfU[/youtube]
     
  16. Haymitch

    Haymitch Custom Title
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2005
    Messages:
    26,336
    Likes Received:
    19,299
    He'd need to be about 20 years younger.

    And he'd have no chance of getting enough votes. He's as libertarian as it gets for a politician, and that's not very popular with American voters. Peace + individual liberty? Hell no! Give me a well-run penitentiary please.
     
  17. Air Langhi

    Air Langhi Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2000
    Messages:
    21,445
    Likes Received:
    6,007
    Lets take the population of germany, france, UK, canada, and japan and you have a population the size of the US. They spend less money on healthcare and are ranked above us. Other than Japan they also take in many immigrants.

    http://thepatientfactor.com/canadia...zations-ranking-of-the-worlds-health-systems/

    Next you are going to say the rankings are flawed. By what measure would you say the US healthcare system is better than the ones I listed? People live longer in those countries than here.
     
  18. Dubious

    Dubious Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2001
    Messages:
    18,309
    Likes Received:
    5,063
    because Presidentin' is serious business 24/7/365, you can't have an ounce of silly in you
     
  19. Space Ghost

    Space Ghost Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 1999
    Messages:
    13,320
    Likes Received:
    5,193
    This is one of the saddest comments I hear made. When someone makes this comment, all I hear is 'The two party system is whats best for this country'. If this is what you believe, I respect that.

    Sans an assassination, arrest or something completely out of the blue, showing up to vote for the POTUS is a complete waste of time. If one is to pointlessly vote for the 'less of two evils', why not vote against both evils?

    Most states are going to vote Red or Blue, therefore those states votes hold very little power. The point of voting 3rd party is to continue to build support and show that the people will accept something beyond a duopoly. The goal is not to win the presidency, but to increase 3rd party power in congress.

    A two man race offers no competition.
     
  20. CCorn

    CCorn Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2010
    Messages:
    19,982
    Likes Received:
    18,112
    that's why I'm hoping he makes the debates. To show the country that there are other options.

    Is he going to win? Hell no. But if the GOP sees him finish the election with a decent percentage among groups they struggle with it may get them to consider shifting some of their terrible social stances... Which is the reason millennials and minorities won't vote for Repubs.

    And to the posters shooting him down because "libertarians are crazy", it's funny because quite a bit of the libertarian base is attacking him because he's not crazy enough.
     

Share This Page

  • About ClutchFans

    Since 1996, ClutchFans has been loud and proud covering the Houston Rockets, helping set an industry standard for team fan sites. The forums have been a home for Houston sports fans as well as basketball fanatics around the globe.

  • Support ClutchFans!

    If you find that ClutchFans is a valuable resource for you, please consider becoming a Supporting Member. Supporting Members can upload photos and attachments directly to their posts, customize their user title and more. Gold Supporters see zero ads!


    Upgrade Now