shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,755
|
Post by shaxper on Aug 1, 2016 20:11:52 GMT -5
I'm generally not a fan of Johnson at all. I think anyone who is Pro-Bernie for any reason other than sticking it to the Democratic Party has got to be pretty averse to his Libertarian hands-off approach to government. I was never on the #FeeltheBern train, so it's down to Hillary and Gary for me. I disagree with a few of Johnson's views, such as no changes to gun control laws and no interest in environmental regulation, but I agree with him on a lot of issues, De-regulation of Wall Street? Abolishing of Department of Education? Supporting the TPP? Overturning Roe v. Wade? It's cool if you're onboard with all this, but it flies in the face of all of Hillary's stances too.
|
|
|
Post by Pharozonk on Aug 1, 2016 20:22:04 GMT -5
I was never on the #FeeltheBern train, so it's down to Hillary and Gary for me. I disagree with a few of Johnson's views, such as no changes to gun control laws and no interest in environmental regulation, but I agree with him on a lot of issues, De-regulation of Wall Street? Abolishing of Department of Education? Supporting the TPP? Overturning Roe v. Wade? It's cool if you're onboard with all this, but it flies in the face of all of Hillary's stances too. Johnson has said he's pro-choice, so him overturning Roe vs. Wade seems a bit contradictory, though I haven't seen anything from him concerning that particular case. I know you're a teacher shax, so you may have a different opinion on the Department of Education, but I haven't seen any indication that our current model of public education is particularly effective, especially after going through it for 13 years. I'll agree that a lack of oversight on corporations is a bit alarming with Johnson's platform, but I doubt Hillary is going to go against her corporate backers either.
|
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,755
|
Post by shaxper on Aug 1, 2016 20:40:44 GMT -5
De-regulation of Wall Street? Abolishing of Department of Education? Supporting the TPP? Overturning Roe v. Wade? It's cool if you're onboard with all this, but it flies in the face of all of Hillary's stances too. Johnson has said he's pro-choice, so him overturning Roe vs. Wade seems a bit contradictory, though I haven't seen anything from him concerning that particular case. Source: 2012.presidential-candidates.org/Johnson/Abortion.phpActually, I'm all for dismantling the Department of Education. I'm just pointing out that it runs in direct opposition to Hillary's stance. Yes, but Johnson is for actively lessening oversight, whereas Hillary has pledged to increase it to some extent. There's a canyon of difference there.
|
|
|
Post by Gene on Aug 1, 2016 21:46:59 GMT -5
The latest FiveThirtyEight election forecast is pretty interesting. It has Clinton taking a lot of states that Trump was walking away with just yesterday. Florida, Ohio, New Hampshire, and Nevada have all seen a drastic shift in the last 24 hours.
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Aug 2, 2016 0:01:33 GMT -5
Part of what appeals to me about Gary Johnson's platform is that he's an advocate of congressional term limits, which neither Clinton nor Trump have touched on. Congressional term limits would require a Constitutional Amendment. There isn't the political will anywhere to make that happen.
|
|
|
Post by the4thpip on Aug 2, 2016 8:20:01 GMT -5
Never in a million years would I vote for Trump. But given a choice between two distasteful candidates, I refuse to support the least distasteful one. Neither gets my vote and I'll feel better for myself after Hillary wins (I presume) and the shenanigans begin And bert, give me a little credit for making up my own mind after experiencing her entire tenure in the public eye starting in the 1990s when I was already an adult. You'are quick to brand those opposite your view as a "hater" or a believer of "hater rhetoric" but it comes off as a simple way to shut down dissent by putting the opposite view on the defensive. I've seen many comments about Trump on this thread that feels like "hater" too but of course you was silent about it since you agreed. Enough about the higher moral ground posturing. Problem is: one may be distasteful, the other is truly dangerous. You may notice distasteful things, like medicine, taste better when you hold your nose. And just like with medicine, you might regret not doing it.
|
|
|
Post by the4thpip on Aug 2, 2016 8:27:07 GMT -5
Seems to me the easiest way to unite non-Trump supporters is for Clinton to make Sanders the Secretary of Commerce and Stein the Surgeon General. Most of Bernie's issues are economic ones, and most of Stein's are (at the heart of the matter) public health related. I would not want a surgeon general who is currently trying to get the anti-vaxxer vote.
|
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,755
|
Post by shaxper on Aug 2, 2016 8:40:13 GMT -5
Seems to me the easiest way to unite non-Trump supporters is for Clinton to make Sanders the Secretary of Commerce and Stein the Surgeon General. Most of Bernie's issues are economic ones, and most of Stein's are (at the heart of the matter) public health related. I would not want a surgeon general who is currently trying to get the anti-vaxxer vote. She's clarified that she's pro-vaccine; anti-big business driving it.
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Aug 2, 2016 9:58:58 GMT -5
I would not want a surgeon general who is currently trying to get the anti-vaxxer vote. She's clarified that she's pro-vaccine; anti-big business driving it. She panders to anyone who she thinks will vote for her...so it's just a matter of time. The latest is about the "dangers" of WiFi. And if she's not pandering she's the Ben Carson of the Left. Anti-Science on the left is just as disturbing as anti-science on the right.
|
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,755
|
Post by shaxper on Aug 2, 2016 10:02:07 GMT -5
She's clarified that she's pro-vaccine; anti-big business driving it. She panders to anyone who she thinks will vote for her...so it's just a matter of time. The latest is about the "dangers" of WiFi. And if she's not pandering she's the Ben Carson of the Left. Anti-Science on the left is just as disturbing as anti-science on the right. I'm not sure a concern over wi-fi signals qualifies her as being anti-science or comparable to Ben Carson. Just because it's been deemed safe by the fed doesn't mean it's an open and shut case. We still haven't proven the cell phone safety issue conclusively after all these years.
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Aug 2, 2016 10:05:01 GMT -5
And if she's not pandering she's the Ben Carson of the Left. Ouch! That's gotta hurt! Very true. I spend more time fighting "alternative" science (left-leaning) than creationism (right-leaning) nowadays.
|
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,755
|
Post by shaxper on Aug 2, 2016 10:09:19 GMT -5
Very true. I spend more time fighting "alternative" science (left-leaning) than creationism (right-leaning) nowadays. I agree that alternative science is a real concern that I spend a lot of time combating in my own life, but the basis of it has merit, even if most conclusions drawn from it are not. Unlike Right-Wing anti-science, which is based on a very specific interpretation of a very specific theology, alternate science is based on the assumption that the government and big business don't always have our best interests at heart when they declare something as being safe. I can't disagree with that. Thus, when Stein speaks to that concern, I don't think she's wrong, even when the people listening to her are largely off their rockers.
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Aug 2, 2016 10:16:53 GMT -5
She panders to anyone who she thinks will vote for her...so it's just a matter of time. The latest is about the "dangers" of WiFi. And if she's not pandering she's the Ben Carson of the Left. Anti-Science on the left is just as disturbing as anti-science on the right. I'm not sure a concern over wi-fi signals qualifies her as being anti-science or comparable to Ben Carson. Just because it's been deemed safe by the fed doesn't mean it's an open and shut case. We still haven't proven the cell phone safety issue conclusively after all these years. They've also been deemed safe by the World Health Organization. There's been no clear evidence that cell phones are dangerous over multiple scientific studies. The worst that has been found is some statistically significant associations in certain subgroups. Saying that children shouldn't be around radiofrequency fields is the height of uninformed pandering. She doesn't say, we need more research, she says “We should not be exposing, especially, kids’ brains to that,”. And her responses to the vaccine issue is to hem and haw and put out half-assed answers that PANDER to the anti-vaxxers. Stein is dangerous. Luckily she has absolutely ZERO chance of being elected. And we have another danger who actually, inexplicably does have a chance.
|
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,755
|
Post by shaxper on Aug 2, 2016 10:21:25 GMT -5
I'm not sure a concern over wi-fi signals qualifies her as being anti-science or comparable to Ben Carson. Just because it's been deemed safe by the fed doesn't mean it's an open and shut case. We still haven't proven the cell phone safety issue conclusively after all these years. They've also been deemed safe by the World Health Organization. There's been no clear evidence that cell phones are dangerous over multiple scientific studies. The worst that has been found is some statistically significant associations in certain subgroups. Saying that children shouldn't be around radiofrequency fields is the height of uninformed pandering. She doesn't say, we need more research, she says “We should not be exposing, especially, kids’ brains to that,”. And her responses to the vaccine issue is to hem and haw and put out half-assed answers that PANDER to the anti-vaxxers. Stein is dangerous. Luckily she has absolutely ZERO chance of being elected. And we have another danger who actually, inexplicably does have a chance. There has been some evidence of cell phones causing radiation, but they have not conclusively repeated those results in other trials. As for the rest, yes, I see the pandering now, and yes it concerns me. I'm not a Stein fan; my original post was an attempt at a compromise to unite the divided Democratic party. I see your point though that she could be dangerous as Surgeon General.
|
|
|
Post by dupersuper on Aug 2, 2016 21:00:14 GMT -5
|
|