A Gary Johnson Presidency

Tom Kalbfus · 2016-05-30 07:53:54

Libertarians name former Republican governor as presidential pick
Brian Knowlton
•
May 29, 2016
https://www.yahoo.com/news/libertarians … 04065.html

As a Libertarian, Johnson advocates eliminating the income tax and abolishing the Internal Revenue Service.
A self-made businessman who worked as New Mexico governor to lower taxes and reduce bureaucracy, he pushed for the legalization of marijuana.

What does this suggest about what sort of Space Policy Gary Johnson would have if elected President?
I'll tell you one thing, Hillary Clinton reeks of Establishment, if you want to know what a Hilary Clinton Space Policy would look like, look no further than the Bill Clinton Presidency!

GW Johnson · 2016-05-30 11:14:50

He's a third-party runner who was looking for a third party, as near as I can tell from what I read.

In the past I have discounted the chances of third parties. This year not so much. Both of the mainstream parties seem to have selected extremely unpopular choices. Third parties are usually just spoilers for the Republicans, but this year could be a little different because of voter dissatisfaction with these choices.

Trump has already clinched his nomination, so whatever coalescing of Republicans will take place around him has already started. I do predict some fireworks at the GOP convention over him, but not enough to take it away from him. I've already said elsewhere that I think space will suffer from a Trump presidency, with the possible exception of a relatively-useless moon shot.

Clinton has not quite clinched hers, so that coalescing process has yet to start, so no one should let the current disarray fool them. The Democrats will have a very fought-over convention. Not so much over Clinton's nomination, but over party platform. That's what Sanders really brings. The party might unify better and get all fired up if Sanders were to be Clinton's VP. He would tend to keep her a tad more honest. That might well be a winning ticket come November. As far as Clinton's effect on space might be, she'll not help or hurt. She'll mostly neglect it. That's what establishment politicians generally do. And don't be fooled, Sanders is also an establishment politician. He's served a long time in the senate, both as a Democrat, and as an independent.

I don't know much about the Libertarians, but what I have read ranges from extreme to bizarre. Johnson is a former Republican governor, but from a poor and federally-neglected state, since that first atom bomb test. He's certainly not a right-winger/tea party favorite, although his anti-IRS sounds vaguely tea party. I would not care to guess what a Johnson presidency might bring, much less his effect on space.

GW

Terraformer · 2016-05-30 16:16:21

Congratulations on winning the nomination

Didn't they nominate him last election, though?

On the other hand, he needs to be (more) popular with Congress (than Trump or Clinton), not with the electorate as much, since that's his most realistic path to the White House - an election with no clear majority, and with him coming third.

Tom Kalbfus · 2016-05-30 17:44:28

GW Johnson wrote:

He's a third-party runner who was looking for a third party, as near as I can tell from what I read.
In the past I have discounted the chances of third parties. This year not so much. Both of the mainstream parties seem to have selected extremely unpopular choices. Third parties are usually just spoilers for the Republicans, but this year could be a little different because of voter dissatisfaction with these choices.
Trump has already clinched his nomination, so whatever coalescing of Republicans will take place around him has already started. I do predict some fireworks at the GOP convention over him, but not enough to take it away from him. I've already said elsewhere that I think space will suffer from a Trump presidency, with the possible exception of a relatively-useless moon shot.
Clinton has not quite clinched hers, so that coalescing process has yet to start, so no one should let the current disarray fool them. The Democrats will have a very fought-over convention. Not so much over Clinton's nomination, but over party platform. That's what Sanders really brings. The party might unify better and get all fired up if Sanders were to be Clinton's VP. He would tend to keep her a tad more honest. That might well be a winning ticket come November. As far as Clinton's effect on space might be, she'll not help or hurt. She'll mostly neglect it. That's what establishment politicians generally do. And don't be fooled, Sanders is also an establishment politician. He's served a long time in the senate, both as a Democrat, and as an independent.
I don't know much about the Libertarians, but what I have read ranges from extreme to bizarre. Johnson is a former Republican governor, but from a poor and federally-neglected state, since that first atom bomb test. He's certainly not a right-winger/tea party favorite, although his anti-IRS sounds vaguely tea party. I would not care to guess what a Johnson presidency might bring, much less his effect on space.
GW

So you wouldn't vote for him just because he might be a relative of yours?
Seriously though, I think if Clinton has some legal problems, and Sanders doesn't make it, Gary Johnson might become the defacto Democratic Party choice because of his liberal social policy positions. Trump meanwhile is pretending to be a conservative.

Tom Kalbfus · 2016-05-30 17:52:19

Terraformer wrote:

Congratulations on winning the nomination
Didn't they nominate him last election, though?
On the other hand, he needs to be (more) popular with Congress (than Trump or Clinton), not with the electorate as much, since that's his most realistic path to the White House - an election with no clear majority, and with him coming third.

How do you know Hillary won't come in third? I think the Democratic Party deserves to be a Third Party because they nominated such a lousy candidate. You really think the Democrats are mostly establishment types that want to give jobs to Democratic Politicians? That is what Hillary amounts to, she is as Establishment as they come, with a husband who already has been President. So you betting that the Democrat rank and file want to keep the Presidency within a single family? I wonder if they will vote for Chelsea Clinton a third time around, what do you think? It really is unprecedented to have a second political dynasty in the White House after such a short span of time since the Bush Dynasty. Maybe the American People grow tired of having a President who's a blood relative or married to the previous president. I think Hillary Clinton will eliminate herself and leave the field to Gary Johnson and Donald Trump, I think this may help the Libertarian Party to become the second party and relegate the Democratic Party to Third Party status, too many Euro-Socialists in that party anyway, time to "lower the lifeboats" and "abandon ship."

Terraformer · 2016-05-31 07:04:46

No. I think most people vote the same every time, whether that be Republican or Democrat, and I think more than a third of the voters will vote Democrat. I can't see either of them bombing into third place this year, though I think there's a real possibility that a third party could have a strong showing.

Yes, I'm demeaning most voters, by saying that they'd vote for a donkey or an elephant if it had a D or an R by it's name. Whatever, it's true.

Tom Kalbfus · 2016-05-31 07:48:42

Terraformer wrote:

No. I think most people vote the same every time, whether that be Republican or Democrat, and I think more than a third of the voters will vote Democrat. I can't see either of them bombing into third place this year, though I think there's a real possibility that a third party could have a strong showing.
Yes, I'm demeaning most voters, by saying that they'd vote for a donkey or an elephant if it had a D or an R by it's name. Whatever, it's true.

Well if you don't believe in the voters, that means you have no faith in democracy, so what form of despotic government do you want to replace it with? Would you accept direct rule by the military, or do you have some other arrangement in mind? I really think if the average voter is as dumb and stupid as you suggest, direct rule by the Military could not be much worse. What do you think?

Terraformer · 2016-05-31 11:29:55

Lacking democracy =/= despotism. You can have democratic despotism, if the majority want to screw over the rest.

Tom Kalbfus · 2016-05-31 13:03:04

Terraformer wrote:

Lacking democracy =/= despotism. You can have democratic despotism, if the majority want to screw over the rest.

A major example of that would be the graduated income tax. You think its unfair that rich people pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes than do poor people? Well the Poor outnumber the rich, they have more votes, and they decided to tax the rich more so it can be spent on themselves, that is the tyranny of the majority, this sort of tyranny undermines the economy, because if done too much it prevents poor people from getting rich, because the moment they, do the rest of the people who did not get rich, vote to take it all away from him and evenly distribute it.

Anyway I don't see a lot of choices besides democracy, anything that isn't a democracy is in some way shape or form, a government that simply rules because it can, it has an armed force that follows orders, and so such a government does what it wants, and not necessarily in the best interest of the people.

If the people aren't in charge of the government, who is, the queen, a general, a dictator, take your pick? A despot by definition rules without the consent of the governed. Doesn't necessarily mean he or she is cruel, its just that the despot isn't answerable to the people, and there is nothing that makes him or her answerable, no elections, that is despotism.

Last edited by Tom Kalbfus (2016-05-31 13:03:24)

Tom Kalbfus · 2016-06-10 00:33:08

The more I learn about Gary Johnson, the less I like him, he smoked Marijuana and he runs a company that sells the stuff! Drug addiction is not freedom!

RobertDyck · 2016-06-10 09:05:37

Political crap. Marijuana is less addictive than tobacco, it's as difficult to get addicted to marijuana as alcohol. In the 1920s when Congress first created drug laws, marijuana was not included. A businessman named William Randolph Hurst owned a company that made paper from trees, but really cheap crap newsprint that turns yellow. Hemp was used to make acid free paper, necessary for books that don't turn yellow and crumble. The Declaration of Independence was printed on hemp paper. William Randolph Hurst wanted his competition killed. He spent years and gobs of cash to get Congress to add marijuana to the drug bill, and got them to claim hemp is the same as marijuana. I don't do marijuana, never have, never will, but if you believe in freedom, why make marijuana illegal?

GW Johnson · 2016-06-10 09:48:54

I don't know much about the former NM governor. Certainly not enough to vote for him. From what I read, the Libertarian Party he's running with, tends to get hung up too easily on crackpot ideas. That doesn't really count against him, but lack of knowledge on which to base trust does.

Marijuana smoke gives me truly severe hay fever. My sinuses slam violent shut when I smell it in the air. Never used the stuff, never will, myself. But RobertDyck is correct: tobacco is far more addictive, and a proven public health threat. So, why is marijuana illegal? His story about Hearst is just stupid enough to be true. That's the idiot way our politics works, as addicted to big money as it is. Generally speaking, an awfully lot of these decisions make little or no sense. Putting marijauna/hemp on the prohibited list with heroin was certainly lacking in any common sense.

Hemp is a variety of the same basic marijuana plant. They are about as different as different varieties of roses. Hemp typically has less concentrated THC in it, the active ingredient that gets you high. The very best ropes (the giant hawsers they tow and tie-up ships with) are hemp. That plant fiber is an incredibly good raw material for rope. During WW2, hemp/marijuana was grown by the square mile for making rope for USN. The THC content is not zero, workers in those factories rolled cigars from the floor sweepings. That is where the phrase "smoking rope" really came from.

I actually think hemp/marijuana ought to be used as a farm crop again. The fiber is quite useful, and you can squeeze out the oils to make useful drugs from the active stuff, and biodiesel out of the rest. Seems stupid not to use it.

GW

Last edited by GW Johnson (2016-06-10 09:49:20)

Tom Kalbfus · 2016-06-10 21:07:17

If Marijuana wasn't addictive, there would be no reason to grow it. How come people don't grow dandelions to smoke? How come people don't smoke crab grass? How come people don't smoke maple leaves?

RobertDyck · 2016-06-10 21:12:28

Tom, you know better. I will say: "Read what I wrote." But I doubt you're as stupid as your last post implies. You're trying to win an argument by playing stupid. But this is a forum of intelligent, informed people. Here you don't win by being stupid.

Tom Kalbfus · 2016-06-10 21:17:14

RobertDyck wrote:

Tom, you know better. I will say: "Read what I wrote." But I doubt you're as stupid as your last post implies. You're trying to win an argument by playing stupid. But this is a forum of intelligent, informed people. Here you don't win by being stupid.

I call it using logic, you argue that Marijuana should be legal because its not as addictive as tobacco, but I listed a number of things that aren't addictive, and people are free to smoke crab grass, maple leaves and dandelions, so why don't they, they are nonaddictive?

Mars_B4_Moon · 2022-04-22 13:49:40

Third Party Democrat, Third Party Republican what would it bring?

Some claim Trump was an outsider among Republicans seen as many wanted another Bush to win.

Fifty-three years later, as a result of a huge effort to privatize space exploration, I am concerned that Nasa has become little more than an ATM machine to fuel a space race not between the US and other countries, but between the two wealthiest men in America – Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos, who are worth more than $450bn combined.

New Op-Ed by Bernie Sanders

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr … ie-sanders

Last edited by Mars_B4_Moon (2022-04-22 13:50:25)

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2016-05-30 07:53:54

A Gary Johnson Presidency

#2 2016-05-30 11:14:50

Re: A Gary Johnson Presidency

#3 2016-05-30 16:16:21

Re: A Gary Johnson Presidency

#4 2016-05-30 17:44:28

Re: A Gary Johnson Presidency

#5 2016-05-30 17:52:19

Re: A Gary Johnson Presidency

#6 2016-05-31 07:04:46

Re: A Gary Johnson Presidency

#7 2016-05-31 07:48:42

Re: A Gary Johnson Presidency

#8 2016-05-31 11:29:55

Re: A Gary Johnson Presidency

#9 2016-05-31 13:03:04

Re: A Gary Johnson Presidency

#10 2016-06-10 00:33:08

Re: A Gary Johnson Presidency

#11 2016-06-10 09:05:37

Re: A Gary Johnson Presidency

#12 2016-06-10 09:48:54

Re: A Gary Johnson Presidency

#13 2016-06-10 21:07:17

Re: A Gary Johnson Presidency

#14 2016-06-10 21:12:28

Re: A Gary Johnson Presidency

#15 2016-06-10 21:17:14

Re: A Gary Johnson Presidency

#16 2022-04-22 13:49:40

Re: A Gary Johnson Presidency

Board footer