A good reference would be the elections of 1912 followed by reconvergence in 1916
You read my mind. OMG.
A good reference would be the elections of 1912 followed by reconvergence in 1916
This is one of my problems with Johnson/Weld and even libertarians in general. They sometimes support insane ideas to the point where they contradict their own beliefs. So who is going to pay for the heroin testing? It's not like the junkies can afford it. They likely had to steal something from someone else to pay for it. So then they'd have to steal more to pay for the testing? Oh, wait. <gasp/> you mean Johnson wants you and me to pay for the testing? Is he ****ing nuts? Well, yes, he is.At times, it feels as if Johnson gets distracted by shiny ideas. During an interview, Johnson was checking all the right boxes until he told me he thought a city might prevent overdose deaths by opening "a satellite office that you could come in and test your heroin before you took it." You mean private companies could do the testing? I interjected. Yes, he answered. Too bad we didn't get into the dubious advisability -- as in: utter insanity -- of clinics telling junkies they can use a certain batch of heroin.
About the Bernie bots. I'd love if Johnson could convince them to switch their mindset from "income equality" to "opportunity equality". But it's not simply a matter of modifying how they look at things. Their whole world view is based on equalizing outcomes. It's like asking a leopard to switch to stripes.Shapiro is not out to enforce Libertarian purity. I think he'd like to see what I want to see -- a smart focus on more freedom and less government. That means Weld moving closer to Johnson, not vice versa. That means more talk from both men about cutting government spending by 10 to 20 percent and more of Johnson urging Bernie Sanders' supporters to focus on "opportunity equality" in lieu of "income inequality," and more shout-outs for the sharing economy.
About the Bernie bots. I'd love if Johnson could convince them to switch their mindset from "income equality" to "opportunity equality". But it's not simply a matter of modifying how they look at things. Their whole world view is based on equalizing outcomes. It's like asking a leopard to switch to stripes.
Not all of them. The problem of income equality is absolutely real, especially the increasing wealth inequality. Sanders and his supporters in general have the wrong idea of the cause (in my view) and the wrong idea that they can fix it by taxing the upper middle class (which will really just be the middle class including them). But some of them realize the problem of inequality by cronyism and giving money to the banksters. And many of them recognize how corrupt Hillary is. Whether they agree with Johnson or not, there are Sanders supporters more likely to vote for Johnson than for Clinton.
A bit long, but a really good interview with Penn Jillette on the election.
[video=youtube_share;D3JX4m4nJKw]http://youtu.be/D3JX4m4nJKw[/video]
No one will claim that Johnson is perfect or even close. Our current D/R offerings are proof of that.Of all the people that call themselves libertarian, is it really necessary to promote clowns like this to the second highest office in the land?
Bill Weld Doesn't Understand Guns Or Due Process, Supports Terrorist Watchlist Bans - Liberty Viral
No one will claim that Johnson is perfect or even close. Our current D/R offerings are proof of that.
A bit long, but a really good interview with Penn Jillette on the election.
[video=youtube_share;D3JX4m4nJKw]http://youtu.be/D3JX4m4nJKw[/video]
Unfortunately, based on the positions I've heard him tout the most--his priorities, his seeming affinity towards the democrats, plus the priorities of the democrats themselves, and the spinelessness of the republicans, a Gary Johnson administration would likely net out, in my view, very little than a Clinton administration. That is, very little to show in the area of fiscal restraint while expanding social justice warrior priorities...meh, you guys can have him.
There's a little selection bias there, you know all his positions but because the media and those on this forum prefer to focus on truly minute social justice issues you pretend like his positions on economic policy aren't vastly superior to those of Trump and Clinton. We're willing to gloss over sane ideas about fiscal and foreign policies based on the 3 nazis who'll want personalized birthday cakes this year? Give me a break.
I'd whole heartedly support that actual former carnival barker for president. A great listen.
We all have our biases, apparently. You have your priorities and I have mine. You're willing to give a pass to a bigot, I'm not.