flacaltenn
Diamond Member
"Richmond Times-Dispatch endorses Gary Johnson for president"
Disagree.
Johnson is inconsistent and fundamentally wrong on most of the issues.
He claims to acknowledge a woman’s right to privacy and to be an advocate of environmental protection, yet would appoint to the Supreme Court reactionary conservative ideologues hostile to that very right and hostile to environmental protection jurisprudence.
He supports the wrongheaded notion of ‘term limits’ and says he’d veto any spending measure that fails to ‘balance’ the budget – which is extreme, reckless, and irresponsible, particular during an economic downturn.
Like most libertarians Johnson is a naïve, sophomoric utopian who has no business being president.
Really? You know who his Sup Ct would be? Or who his Atty Gen will be?
More spending is USUALLY ALWAYS the wrong answer when there are 4 or 6 REDUNDANT agencies who have NEVER had their budgets cut.
Well we know his philosophy of government is fundamentally different from mine.
He's a nice enough guy no doubt but government has a job to do and anyone who is president should understand that and not pretend that "small government" is desirable.
It's not the physical size of govt that's in question. . It's the SCOPE of govt and the perverse incentives that they have to perform. There is virtually NOTHING that they cannot meddle in now. Which creates the lobby and influence problems. They need to be out of the business of picking winners and losers in the marketplace. And spend more time ensuring health, safety and justice. Things like fair election processes and borders. Congress has lost control of oversight and ethics and managing the beast. Agencies that screw up --- get more money.
There is PLENTY of room for reform and better management. NOBODY is really doing that job anymore.
most so-called libertarians don't believe in any government except for putting the brakes on reproductive choice and marriage equality. johnson is different in that regard but the pretend libertarians don't like him for that.
and the radical right wants to starve the federal government until you can drown it in a bathtub (see, grover norquist)
i don't have a problem with the scope of government. we live in a complex society the idea that privatization of government services is good isn't something i agree with.
so i stand by what i said.
Where TF are you getting this Jillian? Read my post above about running an openly gay man in the 70s. In Cali, my LParty chapter prez was a famous SFran Tranny entertainer.
"don't believe in ANY Government"? That's flat wrong. We love the Constitution and the legal system. We are NOT anarchists.
What "brakes on reproductive choice". Johnson just put his ass on line defending Planned Parenthood. Perhaps a bit more than I am really comfortable with.
But that's a great example. Why should ONE private organization be the MAJOR RECIPIENT of fed funds for women's health? Are they the ONLY game in town? Is it SAFE to put all that in one basket?
The answer is -- they are the major benefactor because they launder money to the DNC. THeir mass mailings read like letters from Nancy Pelosi. In fact -- sometimes they ARE from Nancy Pelosi. That's way too cozy a relationship when the PURPOSE IS to see women in clinics. And attend to their health. And funding in that market needs to be opened up and broadened to include other service providers and encourage parity...
It was disappointing that you know so little about LParty -- yet have such strong opinions.