Changed my mind on Gary Johnson

[g5000]

I told you. I am intimately familiar with the Libertarian belief system.

 

[TNHarley]

I thought I could deal with his immigration stances. Then, I read some comments from him from a decade or so ago and I lost touch.

Was it too much mental strain to elaborate?

My vision of the border with Mexico is that a truck from the United States going into Mexico and a truck coming from Mexico into the United States will pass each other at the border going 60 miles an hour. Yes, we should have open borders.

Q: In California, there was a backlash against illegal immigrants. Voters passed a proposition that would deny them medical & other services.
A: It wouldn't be a problem if they were legal, so the process to make them legal should be easier.
Q: Many Americans fear the flood of immigrants that would follow.
A: They would come over and take jobs that we don't want. They would become taxpayers. They're just pursuing dreams---the same dreams we all have. They work hard. What's wrong with that?
The second one wasn't really crazy, per se. However, the mindset is.

He's exactly right. I don't see the problem.

It sounds to me like what you want is protectionism as opposed to free market capitalism.

I don't have a problem with either. I think there is a time and place for both. After all, isn't the goal of protectionism to be able to compete with the free market?

Protectionism is the antonym of free markets!

The goal of protectionism is to give an unfair advantage, not to compete in a free market.

That's just globalist/corporatist rhetorical bullshit. That's like DTMB interpretation of my position on nations must mean I hate free markets....
Countries have used protectionism to build their domestic industries. Why the need to even build industry when you can import it so cheap? Why not thrive on a banana republic?
IMO protectionism is like self preservation or self development. You have to get a start before you compete with the big boys..

 

[NightFox]

It's pretty plain you didn't know what Libertarianism is.

Please feel free enlighten the rest of the class regarding the specifics of libertarianism....

I edited my post to add some examples. But here they are again: Legalize all drugs, abolish the FDA and the Fed and the FAA and the USDA and every federal agency except the Post Office, repeal all federal environmental and safety regulations, repeal federal laws banning child labor, unlimited immigration, shrink the military down to the size of a cub scout troop, and so forth.

Thanks for at least having the courage to take a stab at it , unfortunately you are way off base

Nope. I am dead-on accurate.

Looks like you don't know what Libertarianism is, either.

Gee, I guess I gave you too much credit for brains... so let me spell it out in terms that hopefully you can comprehend, the Libertarian PARTY isn't the sole representative of what libertarianism (nor is any one individual) is nor does it represent the preponderance of libertarian views. If you do actually want to have at least some understanding of the subject matter that you are pretending to have "expertise" in you'll have to spend a bit more time and effort on it than just poking around on Google for 10 minutes, you'll actually have to read some BOOKS, listen to some lectures and search about for different libertarian viewpoints and do some thinking on the subject based on what you find, you know, what intelligent people call doing some IN DEPTH RESEARCH on the subject.

Now if you're capable of understanding the difference between a school of philosophy and a political party then you'll get it , if not , there's not much hope that you'll ever be able to understand it and thus will most likely remain willfully ignorant on the subject.

 

[TNHarley]

It's pretty plain you didn't know what Libertarianism is.

Please feel free enlighten the rest of the class regarding the specifics of libertarianism....

I edited my post to add some examples. But here they are again: Legalize all drugs, abolish the FDA and the Fed and the FAA and the USDA and every federal agency except the Post Office, repeal all federal environmental and safety regulations, repeal federal laws banning child labor, unlimited immigration, shrink the military down to the size of a cub scout troop, and so forth.

Thanks for at least having the courage to take a stab at it , unfortunately you are way off base

Nope. I am dead-on accurate.

Looks like you don't know what Libertarianism is, either.

Gee, I guess I gave you too much credit for brains... so let me spell it out in terms that hopefully you can comprehend, the Libertarian PARTY isn't the sole representative of what libertarianism (nor is any one individual) is nor does it represent the preponderance of libertarian views. If you do actually want to have at least some understanding of the subject matter that you are pretending to have "expertise" in you'll have to spend a bit more time and effort on it than just poking around on Google for 10 minutes, you'll actually have to read some BOOKS, listen to some lectures and search about for different libertarian viewpoints and do some thinking on the subject based on what you find, you know, what intelligent people call doing some IN DEPTH RESEARCH on the subject.

Now if you're capable of understanding the difference between a school of philosophy and a political party then you'll get it , if not , there's not much hope that you'll ever be able to understand it and thus will most likely remain willfully ignorant on the subject.

I have heard libertarianism be described as "the ultimate group of fence sitters" because they are always battling each other lol.

 

[g5000]

It's pretty plain you didn't know what Libertarianism is.

Please feel free enlighten the rest of the class regarding the specifics of libertarianism....

I edited my post to add some examples. But here they are again: Legalize all drugs, abolish the FDA and the Fed and the FAA and the USDA and every federal agency except the Post Office, repeal all federal environmental and safety regulations, repeal federal laws banning child labor, unlimited immigration, shrink the military down to the size of a cub scout troop, and so forth.

Thanks for at least having the courage to take a stab at it , unfortunately you are way off base

Nope. I am dead-on accurate.

Looks like you don't know what Libertarianism is, either.

Gee, I guess I gave you too much credit for brains... so let me spell it out in terms that hopefully you can comprehend, the Libertarian PARTY isn't the sole representative of what libertarianism (nor is any one individual) is nor does it represent the preponderance of libertarian views. If you do actually want to have at least some understanding of the subject matter that you are pretending to have "expertise" in you'll have to spend a bit more time and effort on it than just poking around on Google for 10 minutes, you'll actually have to read some BOOKS, listen to some lectures and search about for different libertarian viewpoints and do some thinking on the subject based on what you find, you know, what intelligent people call doing some IN DEPTH RESEARCH on the subject.

Now if you're capable of understanding the difference between a school of philosophy and a political party then you'll get it , if not , there's not much hope that you'll ever be able to understand it and thus will most likely remain willfully ignorant on the subject.

Gary Johnson is the Libertarian Party candidate, fool.

Now go back and read my posts again.

This part of the conversation started when I said, "So, in short, you supported the Libertarian candidate until you found out what Libertarianism is."

Capital L. Not small l.

So like I said. If you are supporting the Libertarian Party candidate, you should know what the fuck the Libertarian Party is all about.

Thus concludes the lesson.

 

[NightFox]

Gary Johnson is the Libertarian Party candidate, fool.

No shit sherlock but that still doesn't change the fact that the Libertarian Party isn't anywhere close to being the be-all and end-all of what libertarianism represents.

This part of the conversation started when I said, "So, in short, you supported the Libertarian candidate until you found out what Libertarianism is."

Capital L. Not small l.

Uh-huh.... so we're retreating to syntactical gadgetry since you're unwilling to admit your mistake, BTW using your context there is no such thing as Libertarianism (since changing the capitalization of the word doesn't change it's meaning), there is the Libertarian Party and there is libertarianism, perhaps going forward you'll learn how to differentiate between the two and make the necessary adjustments to your syntax.

Thus concludes the lesson.

Indeed, hopefully you've learned something and won't make the same mistake again.

 

[OldLady]

It's pretty plain you didn't know what Libertarianism is.

Please feel free enlighten the rest of the class regarding the specifics of libertarianism....

I edited my post to add some examples. But here they are again: Legalize all drugs, abolish the FDA and the Fed and the FAA and the USDA and every federal agency except the Post Office, repeal all federal environmental and safety regulations, repeal federal laws banning child labor, unlimited immigration, shrink the military down to the size of a cub scout troop, and so forth.

Thanks for at least having the courage to take a stab at it , unfortunately you are way off base

Nope. I am dead-on accurate.

Looks like you don't know what Libertarianism is, either.

Gee, I guess I gave you too much credit for brains... so let me spell it out in terms that hopefully you can comprehend, the Libertarian PARTY isn't the sole representative of what libertarianism (nor is any one individual) is nor does it represent the preponderance of libertarian views. If you do actually want to have at least some understanding of the subject matter that you are pretending to have "expertise" in you'll have to spend a bit more time and effort on it than just poking around on Google for 10 minutes, you'll actually have to read some BOOKS, listen to some lectures and search about for different libertarian viewpoints and do some thinking on the subject based on what you find, you know, what intelligent people call doing some IN DEPTH RESEARCH on the subject.

Now if you're capable of understanding the difference between a school of philosophy and a political party then you'll get it , if not , there's not much hope that you'll ever be able to understand it and thus will most likely remain willfully ignorant on the subject.

But to the unfamiliar American voter, that means you don't know just WHAT you are voting for, if you vote the Libertarian ticket. Libertarians need to brew that philosophy down into a political platform people can rely on if they are expected to vote for a Libertarian. Obviously, Johnson would choose fellow Libertarians to have around him to advise him and act in his Administration. He would not be alone.

 

[manifold]

When I vote, I show support for someone. If I don't support any of the asswipes, why would I vote for them?

Write in someone you do support.

I'm leaning toward writing in Elizabeth Warren.

 

[TNHarley]

When I vote, I show support for someone. If I don't support any of the asswipes, why would I vote for them?

Write in someone you do support.

I'm leaning toward writing in Elizabeth Warren.

I thought about it. It definitely wouldn't be for her but.. lol

 

[NightFox]

Please feel free enlighten the rest of the class regarding the specifics of libertarianism....

I edited my post to add some examples. But here they are again: Legalize all drugs, abolish the FDA and the Fed and the FAA and the USDA and every federal agency except the Post Office, repeal all federal environmental and safety regulations, repeal federal laws banning child labor, unlimited immigration, shrink the military down to the size of a cub scout troop, and so forth.

Thanks for at least having the courage to take a stab at it , unfortunately you are way off base

Nope. I am dead-on accurate.

Looks like you don't know what Libertarianism is, either.

Gee, I guess I gave you too much credit for brains... so let me spell it out in terms that hopefully you can comprehend, the Libertarian PARTY isn't the sole representative of what libertarianism (nor is any one individual) is nor does it represent the preponderance of libertarian views. If you do actually want to have at least some understanding of the subject matter that you are pretending to have "expertise" in you'll have to spend a bit more time and effort on it than just poking around on Google for 10 minutes, you'll actually have to read some BOOKS, listen to some lectures and search about for different libertarian viewpoints and do some thinking on the subject based on what you find, you know, what intelligent people call doing some IN DEPTH RESEARCH on the subject.

Now if you're capable of understanding the difference between a school of philosophy and a political party then you'll get it , if not , there's not much hope that you'll ever be able to understand it and thus will most likely remain willfully ignorant on the subject.

But to the unfamiliar American voter, that means you don't know just WHAT you are voting for, if you vote the Libertarian ticket. Libertarians need to brew that philosophy down into a political platform people can rely on if they are expected to vote for a Libertarian. Obviously, Johnson would choose fellow Libertarians to have around him to advise him and act in his Administration. He would not be alone.

I understand that, however given that libertarianism is inherently anti-authoritarian as well as (very generally speaking) having the attitude "I know what's best for me but I don't know what's best for anybody else" IMHO it doesn't lend itself well to the massive "buy votes to get into power" operation that the American Political System has become, nor would it be very successful in the current political climate even if it did. If you're interested in libertarianism study libertarianism and (if you agree with it's principles) educate others and perhaps apply the principles to specific public policy questions and advance the philosophy in that way, if you're interested in political power libertarianism probably isn't what you want (although you may or may not support the Libertarian Party, just don't get your hopes up that they'll hold any real power anytime soon).

The LP does what the LP does but as I said it doesn't represent the school of philosophy known as libertarianism anymore than a political party calling itself the Aristotelian Party would represent the end-all and be-all of Aristotelianism.

 

[emilynghiem]

I thought I could deal with his immigration stances. Then, I read some comments from him from a decade or so ago and I lost touch. I just cant do it..
Looks like I wont be voting at all.

Gary Johnson spoke out at the L convention that terrorism posed a real threat to America. He got booed by his own conventioneers. But he still got the nomination. Over the ppl there who cheered at the statement that America caused WWII. The Libertarians who put the Constitution first are not the problem but it seems they suffer as much as the D and R where personal and political agenda overrides unity on common sense and agreement on basic Constitutional principles. My way or the highway doesn't work unless you are bill Gates or Donald trump and can buy and pay ppl millions of dollars to create jobs to do things your way.

Which side of the issues are you on that Gary Johnson lost you? If you take the best of all the parties then subtract or correct the flaws, we'd have a pretty good toolbox of what we need to fix got ourselves. The true meaning of free choice, prison reform and inclusion of diversity equally that Democrats promise but don't deliver because of corruption to exploit the vote for money and power in conflict with these very principles, the concept of rule of law and limited govt. From constitutionalists. And fiscal conservatives that the GOP and Libertarians take to opposite extremes of tyranny by the religious right vs anarchy level of rejecting all govt from the independents and progressives. From the Greens we have a focus on environmental restoration and self built sustainable coops and currency, but the consensus based policies only works in small groups and blocks collective influence because of the same division and obstruction other parties can't resolve either. If we all helped each other think outside our boxes and corners we paint ourselves into, we could together solve all problems by delegating and focusing on what each group does best and offers to the whole. The Greens may have to moderate between the various parties, and the Libertarians make sure proposed reforms work to enforce the Constitutional structure and process. The Democrats ensure including the extremes of minorities bullied by the right wing conservatives, while the GOP represents corporate interests on the other extreme that don't believe taxpayers should be punished by the left for making more money or forced to fund social programs thru got better manages thru volunteer charities and free market business. Why not take the best of each party, that the public agrees on, and keep the worst parts out of govt. By listening to when ppl object and refuse to pay for that policy.

We'd all be investing in solving problems ourselves if the parties got together and agreed to keep private agenda out of govt and only fund where we agree on public policy.

 

[emilynghiem]

When I vote, I show support for someone. If I don't support any of the asswipes, why would I vote for them?

Write in someone you do support.

I'm leaning toward writing in Elizabeth Warren.

I thought about it. It definitely wouldn't be for her but.. lol

I live in Texas that generally votes for all the electoral votes to go to the GOP. I vote Green when I can because they have the best policies on conflict resolution to make decisions by consensus of the members represented, and include support for candidates of other parties if that's the best option. This time I may support Libertarian if that would make more difference with my vote than voting Green to help them get on the ballot. Maybe L and G should merge parties with the Tea Party Vet Party and Constitution Party to have more United influence than dividing and competing for votes where none of them gets enough of what they need that way. The Christian Party had a split from the Constitution party but should technically be on the same page if they put God first but put the Constitution first when it comes to govt and public policy, and resolve any conflicts preventing that from being one in agreement. If these parties can't unite without losing member representation, the next option is forming a Senate between them to issue joint statements in agreement of what they support, oppose, and where they differ and don't agree and why so they can retain their individual beliefs but still have collective voice of their populations combined. Similar to having distinct sovereign states that retain rights for their members, while unionizing under one Constitution to protect the rights of individuals with collective influence and resources as a whole that is greater than the sum of the parts.

 

[The Rabbi]

I thought I could deal with his immigration stances. Then, I read some comments from him from a decade or so ago and I lost touch. I just cant do it..
Looks like I wont be voting at all.

Yet you can't say what they are?

Isn't that informational... thanks for the private thoughts.

open borders and shit. I guess its typical libertarian rhetoric, but that shit was crazy.
"I want to be able to see an American truck going across the border meeting a Mexican truck going across the border at 60MPH and waving at each other" or something like that. Just one example.

Yeah. Because fuck liberty

 

[Pogo]

When he was a republican Johnson made sense but when he jumped to the pot head party and became CEO of "Cannibis Sativa" he lost all credibility as far as I'm concerned.

Why?

Apparently the poster forgot. "uhh.... what were we talking about, man?"

 

[emilynghiem]

RE: To clarify this reply is in response to
A. RE: When he was a republican Johnson made sense but when he jumped to the pot head party and became CEO of "Cannibis Sativa" he lost all credibility as far as I'm concerned.
B. someone asking WHY
C. reference to forgetting what was being discussed
D. the overall issue in the OP that something is lacking or amiss with Gary Johnson and/or Libertarian politics

My replies in this thread, taken TOGETHER, intended to address
1. both the original issue of Gary Johnson and Libertarians and what weaknesses
or divisions are seen as either causing or compounding problems
2. the problems in general with parties that aren't solving the problems by getting divided over them

I was in NO WAY trying to avoid or digress, I was participating and posting with the intention
of not only discussing the problems facing GJ and L party, but solutions we can work toward.

Sorry to Pogo if this was not clear.
I guess you have to read all the threads together to see that I am trying to address
both the original topic and the greater context of where party politics is heading.

When he was a republican Johnson made sense but when he jumped to the pot head party and became CEO of "Cannibis Sativa" he lost all credibility as far as I'm concerned.

Why?

Apparently the poster forgot. "uhh.... what were we talking about, man?"

There is a difference between opposing drug wars because of "Constitutional limits on govt
and promoting better solutions to drug problems that are more ethical and effective"
vs. either giving in to the pot agenda or appearing to do so
where the motivation is not from Constitutional govt but
from "wanting to smoke pot." That is not respected by people generally
unless they are part of the crowd that "wants to smoke pot" and is okay with that basis.

Even the valid arguments for medicinal use of marijuana
are tainted by this agenda of people "wanting to smoke pot."

This conflicting motivation is similar to people clouding the
issue of LGBT policies because of "agenda by progray or
pedophile interests" or "agenda by anti-gay Christian bias"

When it isn't based purely on Constitutional arguments that are neutral,
people either gain or lose credibility if they are seen as being motivated by agenda for or against.
The people who agree with that agenda see it as making that person credible or viable.
The people who disagree with that agenda see it as making that person a liability with no credibility.

 

[Pogo]

When he was a republican Johnson made sense but when he jumped to the pot head party and became CEO of "Cannibis Sativa" he lost all credibility as far as I'm concerned.

Why?

Apparently the poster forgot. "uhh.... what were we talking about, man?"

There is a difference between opposing drug wars because of "Constitutional limits on govt
and promoting better solutions to drug problems that are more ethical and effective"
vs. either giving in to the pot agenda or appearing to do so
where the motivation is not from Constitutional govt but
from "wanting to smoke pot." That is not respected by people generally
unless they are part of the crowd that "wants to smoke pot" and is okay with that basis.

Even the valid arguments for medicinal use of marijuana
are tainted by this agenda of people "wanting to smoke pot."

This conflicting motivation is similar to people clouding the
issue of LGBT policies because of "agenda by progray or
pedophile interests" or "agenda by anti-gay Christian bias"

When it isn't based purely on Constitutional arguments that are neutral,
people either gain or lose credibility if they are seen as being motivated by agenda for or against.
The people who agree with that agenda see it as making that person credible or viable.
The people who disagree with that agenda see it as making that person a liability with no credibility.

That's uhh.... an interesting onslaught of words Emily but it's got nothing to do with my calling out a poster who ran away from his own point.

Perhaps you'd care to address a post that was actually made to you -- like this one:

Thank you cereal_killer and imawhosure
Yes you both sound like what my bf says about Trump:
That he "out-Democrats the Democrats"

That makes no sense. Rump is sui generis.

 

[emilynghiem]

When he was a republican Johnson made sense but when he jumped to the pot head party and became CEO of "Cannibis Sativa" he lost all credibility as far as I'm concerned.

Why?

Apparently the poster forgot. "uhh.... what were we talking about, man?"

There is a difference between opposing drug wars because of "Constitutional limits on govt
and promoting better solutions to drug problems that are more ethical and effective"
vs. either giving in to the pot agenda or appearing to do so
where the motivation is not from Constitutional govt but
from "wanting to smoke pot." That is not respected by people generally
unless they are part of the crowd that "wants to smoke pot" and is okay with that basis.

Even the valid arguments for medicinal use of marijuana
are tainted by this agenda of people "wanting to smoke pot."

This conflicting motivation is similar to people clouding the
issue of LGBT policies because of "agenda by progray or
pedophile interests" or "agenda by anti-gay Christian bias"

When it isn't based purely on Constitutional arguments that are neutral,
people either gain or lose credibility if they are seen as being motivated by agenda for or against.
The people who agree with that agenda see it as making that person credible or viable.
The people who disagree with that agenda see it as making that person a liability with no credibility.

That's uhh.... an interesting onslaught of words Emily but it's got nothing to do with my calling out a poster who ran away from his own point.

Perhaps you'd care to address a post that was actually made to you -- like this one:

Thank you cereal_killer and imawhosure
Yes you both sound like what my bf says about Trump:
That he "out-Democrats the Democrats"

That makes no sense. Rump is sui generis.

I can do both. In my last two posts, I was addressing what was wrong with Gary Johnson and the L party. I answered BOTH SPECIFICALLY, ie particular things that went on with GJ and the L convention. AND I related this to other parties: that they go through the same thing as the D and R party right now. So I think that has EVERYTHING to do with BOTH THE OP/BOTH POSTS I replied to, and "party politics in general" (and why people gave up on GJ and the L party, and also why both the Republicans and Democrats are splitting) They get divided over AGENDA and lost sight of the Constitutional principles that can be enforced consistently. Where everyone can keep their own agenda to their own groups, and ALSO enforce unified policies in public and with govt. We can have both, if we organize and respect each others beliefs under respective parties. Anything other that than, anytime any group or leader pushes just THEIR party beliefs or agenda on others, then people fight and divide, start bullying and competing. So the key is to do the opposite and start organizing people by parties equally.

Is it because I am proposing a Solution
that this isn't recognized as 'bitching about the problem like everyone else."

1. why do you think that has nothing to do with both the OP and the POST I REPLIED TO
2. Why is your reference to your post from another thread on Donald Trump
"more relevant to the OP on GJ and the LP" than MY responses that were
directly to the OP on GJ/LP and the POST on GJ and the drug issue dividing people politically?

Pogo are you saying that "your comments and link to DT"
are "more on topic" than my reply specifically addressing GJ, the L party, and drug issues in the message I was replying to?
=======================================================
3. as for Donald Trump I don't think him "being in a class by himself"
goes against ANYTHING I posted that he is "outDemocrating the Democrats"
I thought what you posted was also consistent with what I said.
If you think that there is a conflict, please explain!
I had no problem with that, which you stated, or the assessment that the reason the media cannot beat this guy is he IS the product of media celebrity hood! What's wrong with all of the above being equally true? Oh, is it against the rules that we can't have people AGREEING with each other? And just saying it different ways?

He holds press conferences at a higher rate and even when he spouts pure nonsense,
any press even bad press is good press. He knows that and he plays the media game.
He tells the reporters that they are SLEAZE for changing whatever angle they are going to spin on things, and then redirects the attention and speech to wherever he wants to take it, knowing they are going to do this.

So all that is consistent with what you posted Pogo

Wherever you are coming from, I don't have problems that you do
"asserting" that you think I didn't respond to the OP who "had more problems with GJ than he could justify support for" when I felt I DID answer and speak to that issue; and your "asserting" that your comment was somehow against anything I said and I needed to reply to it? Or it was avoiding some issue?

No, what you said about Trump is consistent. It doesn't conflict with what I said, nor what
I said with your comment. I have no problem with that, and sorry you see it otherwise.

I don't get where there is a problem there.

I am as all inclusive as you can be. I include working with Dems and Liberals, pro and anti gay,
prochoice and prolife, people who believe in limited govt and people who believe in establishing equal rights and access by using govt as the central equalizer, people for Christianity and churches and people against religion, people for atheism and secular humanism and people against. Even though I am not for legalizing pot/prostitution but only for decriminalizing the parts that allow people to get help instead of feeding a prison system that makes criminal situations worse; I will still work with people for and against the death penalty or for and against alternative and restorative justice approaches.

So if anyone like you has a problem with me and thinks I am excluding or neglecting something to 'avoid' it,
that's your fear and division you are projecting onto me. I commit to working with everyone and every viewpoint, and find this is only limited by people who are AFRAID to go there. So in order to justify avoiding or rejecting something, they have to find "something wrong" with X person in order to project blame onto them.

I wasn't trying to avoid anything Pogo
and should be insulted you would assume the worst about me.
I'll just blame the miscommunication on the "online format and culture" here
and not take it personally since I know you to be above petty nitpicking.

If you get intense about something, there is a point you feel is important.

I'm sorry you don't think anything I posted about Gary Johnson or the L party
is important, relevant, or concerns the OP. I am working right now trying to
bring together some independent L types on solutions, so unlike you or
the original poster, I am actually TRYING to find a way to resolve the issues
affecting the divide between the L party and the rest of the political parties and followings.

So I think to solve these problems, what I am doing is quite relevant
and sorry you judge that as somehow insignificant.

Again instead of taking insult at your insinuation my reply bears no value,
I will keep working on solving these problems. I am working with the head of
the Constitution society and website in Austin, on mirroring and expanding the site
to set up a team to organize a Federal Review and Grievance Process for
Constitutional complaints, compliance and corrections between citizens and govt.

Pogo what are you doing to solve the divide over the Constitution
that is fractioning people by party? Who are you to criticize what
I posted if you are doing nothing to try to unite the different parties
and address and CORRECT the problems causing the divides?

The same solutions I've found appeal to the Trump supporters,
the Sanders supporters, the Greens and Libertarians. Is that
just too unifying for you to comprehend? Do you only understand
posts that divide bully and pick people apart by partisan agenda?
And you can't handle replies that talk about solving problems and bringing unity?

Is that is what is wrong with my posts? They aren't hostile enough to be
against you and what you post, but they don't tow the liberal media bias
or Democratic party line to fit in that box. Is that what's wrong with my posts?

Sorry Pogo
I thought I was contributing something of content.
I will try not to take insult, but will let you know it
is completely insulting that I am doing so much work
and investing so much of my own money, time, energy
and sacrifice of the other commitments I struggle to juggle,
to FIX these problems and let people know where these efforts stand.

While you stand back and criticize what you don't know enough about.
From anyone else I would take that personally Pogo
Since I know you are a nice "user friendly" reasonable person
who isn't trying to pick a fight, I will write this off as the usual online "talking past each other" problem
because we're not in the same space, and you can't see from your side
of the computer all the work I'm doing to address these issues
and people who actually have solutions to them but aren't being heard and getting them out there.

Sorry you can't see this, I think you'd be amazed
at the people on the verge of putting together real solutions
that far outweigh the symptoms of the problems we debate
and discuss online. Those are like the tip of the iceberg.
I'm talking about how to deal with the entire iceberg and glaciers,
oceans and water cycles and systems affected.

 

[Pogo]

Wow Emily. SMH....

This isn't anywhere remotely vaguely fractionally within the slightest whisper of the complexity you wish to take it to.

ONE: The poster --- not you, another poster --- posted this:

When he was a republican [sic] Johnson made sense but when he jumped to the pot head party and became CEO of "Cannibis Sativa" he lost all credibility as far as I'm concerned.​

TWO -- I asked him why he posted that.

THREE -- he, having no answer, ran away.

THAT'S IT.
As in THE END. WAITER, CHECK PLEASE. DONE. FINITO. FAT LADY SINGS, EXUENT AND FADE TO BLACK.

 

[emilynghiem]

Wow Emily. SMH....

This isn't anywhere remotely vaguely fractionally within the slightest whisper of the complexity you wish to take it to.

ONE: The poster --- not you, another poster --- posted this:

When he was a republican [sic] Johnson made sense but when he jumped to the pot head party and became CEO of "Cannibis Sativa" he lost all credibility as far as I'm concerned.​

TWO -- I asked him why he posted that.

THREE -- he, having no answer, ran away.

THAT'S IT.
As in THE END. WAITER, CHECK PLEASE. DONE. FINITO. FAT LADY SINGS, EXUENT AND FADE TO BLACK.

Where did you get someone ran away just because they didn't reply.
I don't see that you tagged him. What if he is working on something else right now.
People have a life. I don't finish all the convo's or threads where I started discussing things with people either.

Why did YOU assume the worst about him (that he ran away?)
or about me as if you can assume and read "what it means if I don't reply to everything you post"

If you are assuming your own conjectures about people,
how are WE supposed to be responsible for YOU and what you judge about us?

Why are we "guilty of whatever assessment you make in your mind"
until proven innocent? Is that what you think people do to you? Do you agree to be treated this way?

Where is the "due process" in this system of assuming
things "convenient for you" just because people don't answer your posts?

Whatever system this is sounds DANGEROUS Pogo
If you judge me by what I don't answer, instead of reading what I do write about my
values and standards of law, then we're really in trouble. There is no hope for humanity
if we go around judging people by what we make up in our heads to "fill in gaps".

No wonder America is such a mess. If this is how we use our media,
maybe we deserve these messes of our own making.

Sorry Pogo but that's not my way.
Even if people don't post on here what they are thinking,
I know that is constantly in process of changing, and we are all challenging people to rethink things; in particular I tend to work toward inclusion and agreed solutions. So of course that approach pushes to expand on where politics is right now, to INCLUDE each other's points, not EXCLUDE and REJECT as happens now.

Half the changes they will go through, they won't verbalize.
The really deep changes they may keep private between them and God.

I don't think it is fair or accurate of you to judge people that way.
If you want an answer from me, either tag me, or create a thread addressed
to me and PM me to make sure I see it. That's a crazy to assume that
if you get no reply then it means X Y Z!