I have never heard or read the term "non-interventionist" in my entire life TBH. But after looking it up, it says that it is about having alliances with other nations but avoid wars. It seems that this doesn't mean zero intervention. It more sounds like it's about intervention through so-called diplomacy (this is certainly Bernie's take on it as far as I know). Okay.... there are people who would ONLY vote on that, domestic policy and economic system be damned? Well, good luck to them. Neither Bernie nor Johnson can suddenly deliver that to the USA, but yes, that is one of the few issue were Johnson and Bernie overlap a bit (but they aren't the same on that either FWIW).
Post edited by PJ_Soul on
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
2000- Atlanta, GA: New Orleans, LA: Memphis, TN: Nashville, TN
2003- Raleigh, NC: Charlotte, NC: Atlanta, GA
2004- Asheville, NC (hometown show)
2006- Cincinnati, OH
2008- Columbia, SC
2009- Chicago, IL x 2 / Ed Vedder- Atlanta, GA x 2
2010- Bristow, VA
2011- Alpine Valley, WI (PJ20) x 2 / Ed Vedder- Chicago, IL
2012- Atlanta, GA
2013- Charlotte, NC
2014- Cincinnati, OH
2015- New York, NY
2016- Greenville, SC: Hampton, VA:: Columbia, SC: Raleigh, NC : Lexington, KY: Philly, PA 2: (Wrigley) Chicago, IL x 2 (holy shit): Temple of the Dog- Philly, PA
I have never heard or read the term "non-interventionist" in my entire life TBH. But after looking it up, it says that it is about having alliances with other nations but avoid wars. Okay.... there are people who would ONLY vote on that, domestic policy and economic system be damned? Well, good luck to them. Neither Bernie nor Johnson can suddenly deliver that to the USA.
There are a lot of single-issue voters out there. They have a hot button issue that will get them out of their seat to vote for a candidate. That might be abortion/reproductive rights, guns, anti-war, LBGTQ equality, SCOTUS nominees, pot legalization, etc... They are likely concerned with lots of issues, but one issue will resonate with them and motivate them to take action and actually cast a vote. I can tell you I have NEVER voted for a candidate that reflected or represented all of my policy positions. But some issues are more important to me than others, so those are the issues I want to be aligned with when I'm voting for a candidate. If I disagree with them on issues that are of lesser importance or priority, that's the way it goes. If I have 2 high priority issues, and 20 low priority issues, I'd rather vote for the person who I'm aligned with on my 2 high priority issues, even though I may disagree with them on 15 of my low-priority issues.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
Well it is quite frankly shocking to me that anyone who supported Bernie would vote for a guy who put this on his own campaign website:
"Governor Johnson, who has been referred to as the ‘most fiscally conservative Governor’ in the country, was the Republican Governor of New Mexico from 1994-2003....... Not surprisingly, Governor Johnson brings a distinctly business-like mentality to governing, believing that public policy decisions should be based on costs and benefits rather than strict ideology. Johnson is best known for his veto record, having vetoed more than 750 bills during his time in office — more than all other governors combined. His use of the veto pen has since earned him the nickname “Governor Veto.” He cut taxes 14 times while never raising them. When he left office, New Mexico was one of only four states in the country with a balanced budget. Term-limited, Johnson retired from public office in 2003....... As President, Gary Johnson will move quickly and decisively to refocus U.S. efforts and resources to attack the real threats we face in a strategic, thoughtful way. The U.S. must get serious about cutting off the millions of dollars that are flowing into the violent extremists’ coffers every day. Relationships with strategic allies must be repaired and reinforced. And the simplistic options of “more boots on the ground” and dropping more bombs must be replaced with strategies that will isolate and ultimately neuter those violent extremist groups."
Post edited by PJ_Soul on
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Well, again it depends on what motivated someone to support Bernie in the first place. We know from polling that Johnson has taken a few percentage points away from Clinton, and a few away from Trump. We also know from polling that Johnson picked up some Bernie supporters who absolutely won't vote for either Hillary or Donald. I agree that they are vastly different in their economic policies. But they overlap on a number of social issues and foreign policy issues (which Clinton and Trump might not). So you might think it is nuts for a Bernie supporter to now support Johnson, but it is happening at some level.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
for sure johnson is going to take away votes from both trump and clinton ... but one would think stein would gain the most from disenfranchised sanders supporters ...
You must be new to US politics. Google is your friend.
It was a joke. He is so miniscule.
He seems like a guy with an average build and smarts, so I'm not sure he's minuscule, but I know Trump and probably his supporters often concern themselves with the size of ones hands.
Oh, if you're referencing the level of his support, that is a result of our two party system. When he was an R he had a machine behind him which allowed for bigger spending and a broader reach.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
Just an aside: why do people refer to it as a "two party system". It's actually not a system. If it were, more than two parties wouldn't even be an option.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Just an aside: why do people refer to it as a "two party system". It's actually not a system. If it were, more than two parties wouldn't even be an option.
Because of the way our process for voting for President works, the electoral college actually casts the votes and I believe all but two states have a winner take all system in place. So it is very difficult for a 3rd party to have much of an impact. System may have been a poorly chosen word on my part.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
Just an aside: why do people refer to it as a "two party system". It's actually not a system. If it were, more than two parties wouldn't even be an option.
Because of the way our process for voting for President works, the electoral college actually casts the votes and I believe all but two states have a winner take all system in place. So it is very difficult for a 3rd party to have much of an impact. System may have been a poorly chosen word on my part.
No, I didn't mean that it was a poor choice on your part. It's a commonly used term now. I'm just questioning the term itself. I feel like it's misleading. And the reason I brought it up now is because just yesterday someone told me that he thought it wasn't even legal or possible in the US for there to be more than two parties, since it's a "two party system". Yeah, he needs to read about politics more, lol, but he's right in that the term is very misleading.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
some article about some guy in san fran having his rent increased 400% without advanced notice by his landlord ... there is a rent board but they won't hear his case for a few months so, he's on the hook ... that's the "free market" at work there ... that's what it means to live in world without a social infrastructure and regulation ...
some article about some guy in san fran having his rent increased 400% without advanced notice by his landlord ... there is a rent board but they won't hear his case for a few months so, he's on the hook ... that's the "free market" at work there ... that's what it means to live in world without a social infrastructure and regulation ...
Wtf? There aren't annual rent increase caps in the US??
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
0
Options
hedonist
standing on the edge of forever Posts: 24,524
some article about some guy in san fran having his rent increased 400% without advanced notice by his landlord ... there is a rent board but they won't hear his case for a few months so, he's on the hook ... that's the "free market" at work there ... that's what it means to live in world without a social infrastructure and regulation ...
Wtf? There aren't annual rent increase caps in the US??
I would imagine the landlord (and renter) have to abide by the terms of the lease agreement they signed.
That's how it typically works.
0
Options
F Me In The Brain
this knows everybody from other commets Posts: 30,659
some article about some guy in san fran having his rent increased 400% without advanced notice by his landlord ... there is a rent board but they won't hear his case for a few months so, he's on the hook ... that's the "free market" at work there ... that's what it means to live in world without a social infrastructure and regulation ...
Wtf? There aren't annual rent increase caps in the US??
I would imagine the landlord (and renter) have to abide by the terms of the lease agreement they signed.
That's how it typically works.
Dropping knowledge there, Hedo.
Voting Johnson and I don't agree with everything he stands for, but I cannot in good conscience vote for DJT and I strongly dislike HRC, even though she is the most 'right' democratic candidate.
Either vote Johnson, write in my own name, or don't vote. (And I do not believe in 'not voting.')
I know it's not really a scientific analysis, but several of my Facebook friends that used to support Bernie are now pushing Gary Johnson... I think this movement is about not supporting corrupt politicians and the vast majority of Bernie supporters that I have had discussions with think Hillary fits that bill. Many of them do not identify with Democrats even though Bernie chose that as his platform. Libertarian candidates appeal to liberals and conservatives in several ways. For example, legalization of marijuana is very libertarian. While it and socialism are definitely in conflict, Bernie aligned himself with the philosophy that corrupt politicians are a huge problem and need to have their power taken away. I think most libertarians align with that philosophy as well. I do not see many Bernie supporters aligning with Hillary's personality if nothing else, voters are finicky.
No Bernie's philosophy was that corporations and money were corrupting politicians (government). Big difference. Bernie believes in government and wants to improve it. The libertarian party wants to diminish government because they don't believe in it. Anyone who supported Bernie and is going to Trump or Johnson is a very confused voter.
I know it's not really a scientific analysis, but several of my Facebook friends that used to support Bernie are now pushing Gary Johnson... I think this movement is about not supporting corrupt politicians and the vast majority of Bernie supporters that I have had discussions with think Hillary fits that bill. Many of them do not identify with Democrats even though Bernie chose that as his platform. Libertarian candidates appeal to liberals and conservatives in several ways. For example, legalization of marijuana is very libertarian. While it and socialism are definitely in conflict, Bernie aligned himself with the philosophy that corrupt politicians are a huge problem and need to have their power taken away. I think most libertarians align with that philosophy as well. I do not see many Bernie supporters aligning with Hillary's personality if nothing else, voters are finicky.
No Bernie's philosophy was that corporations and money were corrupting politicians (government). Big difference. Bernie believes in government and wants to improve it. The libertarian party wants to diminish government because they don't believe in it. Anyone who supported Bernie and is going to Trump or Johnson is a very confused voter.
I'm confused because I pick person over party? I can't understand how anyone can believe Hillary is more progressive than Gary, I'm sorry. Last time I checked, it was the libertarian who is anti war, pro marijuana and anti Monsanto.
I know it's not really a scientific analysis, but several of my Facebook friends that used to support Bernie are now pushing Gary Johnson... I think this movement is about not supporting corrupt politicians and the vast majority of Bernie supporters that I have had discussions with think Hillary fits that bill. Many of them do not identify with Democrats even though Bernie chose that as his platform. Libertarian candidates appeal to liberals and conservatives in several ways. For example, legalization of marijuana is very libertarian. While it and socialism are definitely in conflict, Bernie aligned himself with the philosophy that corrupt politicians are a huge problem and need to have their power taken away. I think most libertarians align with that philosophy as well. I do not see many Bernie supporters aligning with Hillary's personality if nothing else, voters are finicky.
No Bernie's philosophy was that corporations and money were corrupting politicians (government). Big difference. Bernie believes in government and wants to improve it. The libertarian party wants to diminish government because they don't believe in it. Anyone who supported Bernie and is going to Trump or Johnson is a very confused voter.
I'm confused because I pick person over party? I can't understand how anyone can believe Hillary is more progressive than Gary, I'm sorry. Last time I checked, it was the libertarian who is anti war, pro marijuana and anti Monsanto.
Exactly. The confused voter is the one who votes for a candidate based on party rather than position on issues and previous record. There are plenty of progressive voters who aren't confused and will vote for Johnson over Clinton. There are also conservatives who are not confused and will vote Clinton over Trump. It should be a vote about position on issues that are most important to the voter, rather than what letter is next to their name on the ballot.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
I know it's not really a scientific analysis, but several of my Facebook friends that used to support Bernie are now pushing Gary Johnson... I think this movement is about not supporting corrupt politicians and the vast majority of Bernie supporters that I have had discussions with think Hillary fits that bill. Many of them do not identify with Democrats even though Bernie chose that as his platform. Libertarian candidates appeal to liberals and conservatives in several ways. For example, legalization of marijuana is very libertarian. While it and socialism are definitely in conflict, Bernie aligned himself with the philosophy that corrupt politicians are a huge problem and need to have their power taken away. I think most libertarians align with that philosophy as well. I do not see many Bernie supporters aligning with Hillary's personality if nothing else, voters are finicky.
No Bernie's philosophy was that corporations and money were corrupting politicians (government). Big difference. Bernie believes in government and wants to improve it. The libertarian party wants to diminish government because they don't believe in it. Anyone who supported Bernie and is going to Trump or Johnson is a very confused voter.
I'm confused because I pick person over party? I can't understand how anyone can believe Hillary is more progressive than Gary, I'm sorry. Last time I checked, it was the libertarian who is anti war, pro marijuana and anti Monsanto.
Exactly. The confused voter is the one who votes for a candidate based on party rather than position on issues and previous record. There are plenty of progressive voters who aren't confused and will vote for Johnson over Clinton. There are also conservatives who are not confused and will vote Clinton over Trump. It should be a vote about position on issues that are most important to the voter, rather than what letter is next to their name on the ballot.
Exactly! There are so many voters out there that vote specifically on certain issues and do not necessarily agree with a candidate's overall philosophy. Marijuana, gay marriage, Monsanto, war are just some of the issues that drive people to vote for certain candidates. Those that do not dig in and research could very well care less whether their candidate of choice is a Libertarian or Socialist...they just have no clue what that means. But if someone says "legalize marijuana", everyone knows what that means. One of my friends posted on Facebook that "Bernie supporting Clinton is like George Washington bowing down to the Queen of England". I doubt that he is the only Bernie supporter out there that holds such animosity towards the "Clinton Machine". Seems to be like more and more people are prioritizing making a statement against the status quo than voting for the lesser of two evils...which is a sign of progress in my opinion.
some article about some guy in san fran having his rent increased 400% without advanced notice by his landlord ... there is a rent board but they won't hear his case for a few months so, he's on the hook ... that's the "free market" at work there ... that's what it means to live in world without a social infrastructure and regulation ...
San Francisco has rent control. Must be more to the story.
Polling at 13%. Almost to the 15% he needs to be at to get invited to the debates in the fall. It would still take a miracle, but he's the only one I could stomach voting for.
Polling at 13%. Almost to the 15% he needs to be at to get invited to the debates in the fall. It would still take a miracle, but he's the only one I could stomach voting for.
I really hope he hits that 15% threshold. It would be refreshing to have him there so we could have 2 of the 3 candidates actually discuss policy issues. I also want Johnson there to talk about foreign policy and use of force, and weed legalization.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
Polling at 13%. Almost to the 15% he needs to be at to get invited to the debates in the fall. It would still take a miracle, but he's the only one I could stomach voting for.
I really hope he hits that 15% threshold. It would be refreshing to have him there so we could have 2 of the 3 candidates actually discuss policy issues. I also want Johnson there to talk about foreign policy and use of force, and weed legalization.
It is REALLY fucked up that 5% or 10% or 14.9% of the country can support a candidate and that candidate still can't participate in the debates. Who in the hell approved that stupid rule??
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Polling at 13%. Almost to the 15% he needs to be at to get invited to the debates in the fall. It would still take a miracle, but he's the only one I could stomach voting for.
I really hope he hits that 15% threshold. It would be refreshing to have him there so we could have 2 of the 3 candidates actually discuss policy issues. I also want Johnson there to talk about foreign policy and use of force, and weed legalization.
It is REALLY fucked up that 5% or 10% or 14.9% of the country can support a candidate and that candidate still can't participate in the debates. Who in the hell approved that stupid rule??
The 2 major parties made that rule, of course! It keeps the hard questions from being asked, and makes sure that we only hear mainstream, establishment positions on issues. For a quick overview of the Commission on Presidential Debates who produces and sponsors the debates check out this article:
"The CPD has moderated the 1988, 1992, 1996, 2000, 2004, 2008, and 2012 debates. Prior to this, the League of Women Voters moderated the 1976, 1980, 1984 debates before it withdrew from the position as debate moderator with this statement after the 1988 Presidential debates: "the demands of the two campaign organizations would perpetrate a fraud on the American voter." The Commission was then taken over by the Democratic and Republican parties forming today's version of the CPD.
In 2000, the CPD established a rule that for a party to be included in the national debates it must garner at least 15% support across five national polls.[5] This rule is considered controversial[6] as Americans tune into the televised national debates and hear only the opinions of the two main parties instead of the opinions of the multiple other U.S. parties, including three others considered "major" for having organization in a majority of the states and a couple dozen others considered "minor"."
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
I've been trying to convince people that don't like trump or Clinton to vote for johnson. They all say the same thing: "who?" I tell them it's irrelevant who the candidate is. Just get more parties involved. Especially if you're not going to vote for the other 2 assholes.
will myself to find a home, a home within myself we will find a way, we will find our place
I've been trying to convince people that don't like trump or Clinton to vote for johnson. They all say the same thing: "who?" I tell them it's irrelevant who the candidate is. Just get more parties involved. Especially if you're not going to vote for the other 2 assholes.
Are you kidding?
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Comments
livefootsteps.org/user/?usr=446
1995- New Orleans, LA : New Orleans, LA
1996- Charleston, SC
1998- Atlanta, GA: Birmingham, AL: Greenville, SC: Knoxville, TN
2000- Atlanta, GA: New Orleans, LA: Memphis, TN: Nashville, TN
2003- Raleigh, NC: Charlotte, NC: Atlanta, GA
2004- Asheville, NC (hometown show)
2006- Cincinnati, OH
2008- Columbia, SC
2009- Chicago, IL x 2 / Ed Vedder- Atlanta, GA x 2
2010- Bristow, VA
2011- Alpine Valley, WI (PJ20) x 2 / Ed Vedder- Chicago, IL
2012- Atlanta, GA
2013- Charlotte, NC
2014- Cincinnati, OH
2015- New York, NY
2016- Greenville, SC: Hampton, VA:: Columbia, SC: Raleigh, NC : Lexington, KY: Philly, PA 2: (Wrigley) Chicago, IL x 2 (holy shit): Temple of the Dog- Philly, PA
2017- ED VED- Louisville, KY
2018- Chicago, IL x2, Boston, MA x2
2020- Nashville, TN
2022- Smashville
2023- Austin, TX x2
2024- Baltimore
"Governor Johnson, who has been referred to as the ‘most fiscally conservative Governor’ in the country, was the Republican Governor of New Mexico from 1994-2003....... Not surprisingly, Governor Johnson brings a distinctly business-like mentality to governing, believing that public policy decisions should be based on costs and benefits rather than strict ideology. Johnson is best known for his veto record, having vetoed more than 750 bills during his time in office — more than all other governors combined. His use of the veto pen has since earned him the nickname “Governor Veto.” He cut taxes 14 times while never raising them. When he left office, New Mexico was one of only four states in the country with a balanced budget. Term-limited, Johnson retired from public office in 2003.......
As President, Gary Johnson will move quickly and decisively to refocus U.S. efforts and resources to attack the real threats we face in a strategic, thoughtful way. The U.S. must get serious about cutting off the millions of dollars that are flowing into the violent extremists’ coffers every day. Relationships with strategic allies must be repaired and reinforced. And the simplistic options of “more boots on the ground” and dropping more bombs must be replaced with strategies that will isolate and ultimately neuter those violent extremist groups."
He is so miniscule.
Oh, if you're referencing the level of his support, that is a result of our two party system. When he was an R he had a machine behind him which allowed for bigger spending and a broader reach.
That's how it typically works.
Voting Johnson and I don't agree with everything he stands for, but I cannot in good conscience vote for DJT and I strongly dislike HRC, even though she is the most 'right' democratic candidate.
Either vote Johnson, write in my own name, or don't vote. (And I do not believe in 'not voting.')
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commission_on_Presidential_Debates
"The CPD has moderated the 1988, 1992, 1996, 2000, 2004, 2008, and 2012 debates. Prior to this, the League of Women Voters moderated the 1976, 1980, 1984 debates before it withdrew from the position as debate moderator with this statement after the 1988 Presidential debates: "the demands of the two campaign organizations would perpetrate a fraud on the American voter." The Commission was then taken over by the Democratic and Republican parties forming today's version of the CPD.
In 2000, the CPD established a rule that for a party to be included in the national debates it must garner at least 15% support across five national polls.[5] This rule is considered controversial[6] as Americans tune into the televised national debates and hear only the opinions of the two main parties instead of the opinions of the multiple other U.S. parties, including three others considered "major" for having organization in a majority of the states and a couple dozen others considered "minor"."
we will find a way, we will find our place