Is [Gary Johnson] the Sanest Man Running for President? - Page 3

Quote:

Originally Posted by jazzguru 

 

To use your analogy, from my perspective the people running out of the burning building (voting for Romney out of fear of Obama) are too busy looking back at the fire to see that they are running strait into another building that was just prepped for demolition.

I'll bite...  :)

Here in Fort Worth, Tx we have a 40 story hi-rise in downtown that got hit by a tornado several years ago.  The building was still structurally sound, but the exterior glass was extremely expensive and the building owner decided to bring down the building.  The building was actually prepped for implosion, and I believe it was mere hours before it was brought down someone stepped up and purchased the building.  It has since been renovated and looks great.

My point is that I would rather take my chances in a building that may very well explode in the near future rather than stand around in a burning building scratching myself.  I actually agree with you that if the Republicans don't make some MAJOR changes and fix some serious problems we are only putting off the inevitable.  This should actually be encouraging for you, because if the Republicans do get in there and blow it a lot more people are going to be looking for a third option as opposed to having another 4 years of Obama after which time the country immediately turns to the Republicans for rescue thus delaying your next shot at the big white house.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jazzguru 

 

I don't trust the Republicans any more than I trust the Democrats, which is not at all.

 

Their hypocrisy and corruption was on full display in their state and national conventions.

 

I don't want those kinds of people in government.

Sorry, but those are generally the kinds of people who are in government regardless of the political party or lack thereof.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jazzguru 

 

They're in government because we keep putting them there. It's time to stop.

If only it were that easy.  The first thing that comes to mind here is the quote from Lord Acton in the late 1800's when he wrote, "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men."  There are definitely exceptions to the rule, hence the second part of the quote that is often omitted. 

I have two solutions to the problem you have identified, and each of these have about the same odds of being implemented as GJ being elected President of the United States, or for that matter Queen of England which is only remotely less probable. 

The first idea is what I call the Scum Bag Test.  This would be an infallible psychological test to weed out corrupt individuals from ever holding office.  Whenever someone attempts to run for office they must first pass the Scum Bag Test or sorry, no dice.  This would also happen whenever they run for re-election to catch those who have been corrupted by the power.

The second idea is only slightly more likely as it doesn't involve some mythical test that can never exist.  This would be to put say 100 of the best, brightest individuals in the country into a room and pick the one who least wantes to be President.  I kind of like this idea actually.  :)

Keep fighting against math.  You fight against science, so you might as well fight against math, too.

What is your solution in putting the right politician to serve the people?
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by jazzguru 

 

Interesting ideas, but I think I have a better one: legalize the Constitution.

 

If we must have government at all, it should be limited. Then you don't have to worry so much about Scum Bags using it to force you to do what they want.

 

The only difference between Romney and Obama is in which ways they want to use government to make everyone do what they want. They would both fail your Scum Bag Test.

I never said they wouldn't.

I totally agree with your assessment on the limited government.  How do you propose we get there?  The third party route is pretty much a deadend.  We have tried that path before and it has never gotten anywhere.  I keep looking back to Ross Perot, and all that really got us was Clinton who really wasn't that bad of a President, at least he was WAY better than what we are stuck with at the moment.  My contention isn't that we don't need change, and drastic change at that.  My arguement is that I don't think the third party route is the way to effect this change.  Your cartoon demonstrates my point perfectly in the fact that the "End Evil" box has no line.  I think Ron Paul realizes this and hence why he was trying to work within the framework of the Republican party.  I think his weakness is his absolutist rhetoric.  That and of course his foreign policy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jazzguru 

 

A third party winning is not unprecedented in history (see Abraham Lincoln), but it was arguably easier then than now, as the 2 major parties have essentially colluded to exclude all 3rd party challenges.

 

I think Ron Paul is and always has been about spreading the message of liberty to as many people as possible. It's never been about him, and it wasn't so much about working within the Republican Party as using it as a platform to draw attention to the message. Besides, we saw the fraud and corruption the establishment Republicans engaged in when Ron Paul supporters tried to work within the party.

 

What you call Ron Paul's weakness is actually his greatest strength: his ability to tell the truth about what needs to be done to restore the republic. He tells the truth about the negative repercussions of our meddlesome, interventionist foreign policy. That appeals to more people than you want to admit. His campaigns have resulted in the growth of the liberty movement, especially among my generation (30 year olds) and younger. It was because of Ron Paul that I discovered libertarianism, voluntarism, agorism, anarchism, the non-aggression principle, classical liberalism, and other liberty-centered philosophies.

 

I am hopeful that the younger generations will play an important part in breaking the stranglehold the 2 party system currently has on our country.

 

Referring to that cartoon, I do have the courage to change to the "End Evil" line. If enough of us do so, we might have a chance of saving our country. Have the courage to join us.

A couple things...  The first is that you refer to our "meddlesome, interventionist foreign policy".  The US is a player in a world market upon a world stage.  The US has a vested interest in what happens in various areas around the world.  In being able to protect and support those interests we need to be able to respond with aid and force when necessary to a variety of situations which can and do arise.  Yes, I agree that the US is doing TO much, but Ron Paul would have us swing to far in the other direction.

Yes, I agree that Ron Paul is very effective at sounding the trumpet on the dangers of the deficit and national debt.  I think that Romney/Ryan are playing much this same tune.  Now, how much progress they can make in 4 or 8 years to correcting this remains to be seen.  Even if Ron Paul were elected though, other than throwing our foreign policy into utter chaos as President he wouldn't be able to single handedly make the kind of dramatic and sweeping changes that he espouses.  Once again, I refer to just how practical it is to change the course of this behemoth over a specific period of time.  I think we could make SERIOUS progress over the course of a decade but I think Ron Paul wants to do that in a year or less and I'm afraid of the ramifications of that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jazzguru 

Quote:

Originally Posted by svnipp 

 

A couple things...  The first is that you refer to our "meddlesome, interventionist foreign policy".  The US is a player in a world market upon a world stage.  The US has a vested interest in what happens in various areas around the world.  In being able to protect and support those interests we need to be able to respond with aid and force when necessary to a variety of situations which can and do arise.  Yes, I agree that the US is doing TO much, but Ron Paul would have us swing to far in the other direction.

 

Yes, I agree that Ron Paul is very effective at sounding the trumpet on the dangers of the deficit and national debt.  I think that Romney/Ryan are playing much this same tune.  Now, how much progress they can make in 4 or 8 years to correcting this remains to be seen.  Even if Ron Paul were elected though, other than throwing our foreign policy into utter chaos as President he wouldn't be able to single handedly make the kind of dramatic and sweeping changes that he espouses.  Once again, I refer to just how practical it is to change the course of this behemoth over a specific period of time.  I think we could make SERIOUS progress over the course of a decade but I think Ron Paul wants to do that in a year or less and I'm afraid of the ramifications of that.

 

Short term pain for long term gain.

 

Very rarely does an alcoholic wean himself off of alcohol over a long period of time. And meanwhile, he is still doing irreparable damage to his body. Better to stop immediately and let the recovery/healing process begin. Yes, it is painful and very difficult, but the long term gain always  outweighs any short term suffering.

 

You think the world would descend into chaos without 900 U.S. military bases around the world? I think the world IS descending into chaos and those 900 bases are likely doing more to cause it than prevent it.

 

We are past the point where we could wait a decade for things to start turning around. One or two years may be all we have left before we pass the point of no return.

As always Jazz, we are in agreement about the solution. I think we are only every in disagreement about the starting point.

You are right that it is better for an alcoholic to go cold turkey. It is much harder to slowly reduce his consumption and somehow remain strong enough to not go to that prior level of destructive drinking.

We are in agreement on all those points.

The point remains that the alcoholic in question is still currently in the bar, is several sheets to the wind and is ordering the next round.

Would such a guy respond to an appeal to quit outright at that stage or would our appeal be better made if we could get his ASS out of the bar first?

I'm all forgetting him into a program to end his drinking. FIRST I have to get him out of the bar.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jazzguru 

 

Short term pain for long term gain.

 

Very rarely does an alcoholic wean himself off of alcohol over a long period of time. And meanwhile, he is still doing irreparable damage to his body. Better to stop immediately and let the recovery/healing process begin. Yes, it is painful and very difficult, but the long term gain always  outweighs any short term suffering.

 

You think the world would descend into chaos without 900 U.S. military bases around the world? I think the world IS descending into chaos and those 900 bases are likely doing more to cause it than prevent it.

 

We are past the point where we could wait a decade for things to start turning around. One or two years may be all we have left before we pass the point of no return.

Even if I agreed with you on your analogy concerning short term it's just not going to happen until it lands on our face and starts to wiggle.  That is the nature of government and societies.  Just look at Greece and Spain as an example.  The writing is on the wall there and still the populace is fighting it tooth and nail in the streets.  Unfortunately, if we are indeed on the verge of financial calamity, I'm afraid the axe is going to have to fall before we as a society at large are will to actually acknowledge it and take action about it.  At least when given the choice between staying the course we are on now or the absolutely drastic cuts that Paul is proposing.  I believe that Romney/Ryan is at least a nudge in the right direction, and maybe they can lead us to a lesser height over some water rather than the 1000' drop to the rocks below that we are facing right now.

Well, I believe you exaggerated our military presence worldwide just a bit.  By my count we have about 80 US military bases outside of the US.  Remeber that several of these bases are in allied countries and the cost to maintain them is not significantly more than maintaining those same bases here in the US.  Yes, some of these bases are a source of tension with the local populations, but a lot of these bases are also a benefit to the local population economies as well as security.  I would say that the majority of our bases are viewed as a benefit to the local communities in which they are located.

My argument is not that we wait a decade before we start turning things around.  I hope that Romney/Ryan can begin improving our situation next year, and my hope is that over the next decade we can eliminate the deficit.  I kow that their current plans don't do that but hey, I can hope that economic growth is better then they estimate.

Quote:

Originally Posted by trumptman 

 

 

As always Jazz, we are in agreement about the solution. I think we are only every in disagreement about the starting point.

 

You are right that it is better for an alcoholic to go cold turkey. It is much harder to slowly reduce his consumption and somehow remain strong enough to not go to that prior level of destructive drinking.

 

We are in agreement on all those points.

 

The point remains that the alcoholic in question is still currently in the bar, is several sheets to the wind and is ordering the next round.

 

Would such a guy respond to an appeal to quit outright at that stage or would our appeal be better made if we could get his ASS out of the bar first?

 

I'm all forgetting him into a program to end his drinking. FIRST I have to get him out of the bar.

Nicely put.  The other issue if we want to keep on with the alcoholic analogy is that he has got to want help first.  If he is not willing to go into a program nobody can force him to and even if they could there is no way it would be successful.

If we can get America out of the bar maybe then we can have the discussion about getting us out of the bottle.  Personally, one good way to do this is point out to the American population just how much government we could afford if we weren't paying somewhere around $400 billion annually just on the interest on the debt.  That is over half the cost of Social Security or the DoD, or almost 80% of the cost of MediCare.  Suffice to say that the interest on the national credit card is enormous and if we can get the US out of the bar, then we might have some success in opening people's eyes as to just how much money we are squandering by spendingso far beyond our ability to afford.

Yes, if we can reform MediCare, Social Security, reduce/eliminate some departments where the Fed has no business in the first place, and yes reduce our military spending we would be MUCH better off.  Without the interest on the debt and reducing the size and scope of government I could see our Federal income tax rate being reduced by 50% or more.  Unfortunately, I just don't have faith in our elected officials to actually make this happen. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by jazzguru 

Trumpt, you and I have discussed this at length and I totally understand where you're coming from.

 

The problem is, from my perspective, neither Obama nor Romney will even get the alcoholic out of the bar. They're going to buy him a light beer and call that "progress" because it's not as bad as the hard liquor he'd been drinking before.

 

Ron Paul and now Gary Johnson are the only ones proposing we get the guy out of the bar. Cutting 1 trillion in government spending (not future spending, current spending) in the first year in office is the equivalent of getting the alcoholic out of the bar. That's only the beginning of what needs to be done to restore the republic.

If they can't get elected, then they aren't getting the guy out of the bar. Simple enough. I'm saying this as someone who is actively investigating casting my vote FOR Gary Johnson here in California in hopes it can help the Libertarian Party for future elections by helping them qualify for federal matching funds. (In fact with California +17 for Barack Obama, I'm pretty well decided to cast my vote in that direction.)

Quote:

Originally Posted by svnipp 

Nicely put.  The other issue if we want to keep on with the alcoholic analogy is that he has got to want help first.  If he is not willing to go into a program nobody can force him to and even if they could there is no way it would be successful.

 

If we can get America out of the bar maybe then we can have the discussion about getting us out of the bottle.  Personally, one good way to do this is point out to the American population just how much government we could afford if we weren't paying somewhere around $400 billion annually just on the interest on the debt.  That is over half the cost of Social Security or the DoD, or almost 80% of the cost of MediCare.  Suffice to say that the interest on the national credit card is enormous and if we can get the US out of the bar, then we might have some success in opening people's eyes as to just how much money we are squandering by spendingso far beyond our ability to afford.

 

Yes, if we can reform MediCare, Social Security, reduce/eliminate some departments where the Fed has no business in the first place, and yes reduce our military spending we would be MUCH better off.  Without the interest on the debt and reducing the size and scope of government I could see our Federal income tax rate being reduced by 50% or more.  Unfortunately, I just don't have faith in our elected officials to actually make this happen. 

Well in the discussions we've all shared on these boards, I've talked about the Libertarian Party and really ALL third parties needing to build from the bottom up. No one is going to give them the presidency. No Congress is going to work with them when the only thing they can bring to the table is themselves and principles which are nice, but don't pay the bills and often would cause members of other parties to slit their own throats with regard to re-election. Why do we talk about Ron Paul and Gary Johnson....because they GOT elected. I'm sure there are other politicians and candidates out there even more wonderful than them. Why don't we talk about them.... they didn't get elected.

It all comes down to getting to 50+1. That is what gets you out of the bar. That is what gets you into power. Principles without power are pointless.