Gary Johnson, the Liberal

Forum rules
Here, you can discuss your Politics. Post political memes and quotations, and discuss your Political beliefs. If you don't want to see Politics being discussed, please respect the rights of the people here to do so in peace. We respect that right, that's why this forum was created. Discussion should always be respectful of the people here and thier beliefs. Discussions will be respectful. We recognize that political discussions can sometimes become incendiary and we will step in from time to time if it does in order to cool things down. Posts that use terms and descriptions of others such as "Wing Nuts", "Libtards", "Rethuglicans", DemocRATS", and others of a demeaning nature will be deleted. Keep discussions on point, centered on facts, and based on the principal that two individuals can come to different conclusions based on the same information and can disagree, but discuss those disagreements in an agreeable manner. Please contribute to the discussion, not try to tear down an individual because he disagrees with you. Make you comments be on the post, and not the person posting.
User avatar
sarge
Reactions:
Posts: 2066
Joined: Fri Aug 14, 2015 10:14 am
Location: Houston, TX
Hammock:
Tarp:
Suspension:
Insulation:
Contact:

Re: Gary Johnson, the Liberal

#16

Post by sarge » Tue Aug 30, 2016 7:54 am

Well, if someone who is reckless, careless, and incompetent in handling classified National Security information at the Cabinet Level and then lies about it is your idea of someone who is "not perfect", but qualified to be in charge of all of the National Security Information in the country--------


You can resolve to live your life with integrity. Let your credo be this: Let the lie come into the world, let it even triumph. But not through me. ― Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
My You Tube Channel

User avatar
GregD
Reactions:
Posts: 528
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 1:12 pm
Location: Houston, TX
Hammock:
Tarp:
Suspension:
Insulation:

Re: Gary Johnson, the Liberal

#17

Post by GregD » Tue Aug 30, 2016 8:21 am

sarge wrote:Well, if someone who is reckless, careless, and incompetent in handling classified National Security information at the Cabinet Level and then lies about it is your idea of someone who is "not perfect", but qualified to be in charge of all of the National Security Information in the country--------
Fair enough, but where is the better alternative? Everyone is flawed. Do the best you can with what you got. Or wait for perfection and do nothing.

User avatar
sarge
Reactions:
Posts: 2066
Joined: Fri Aug 14, 2015 10:14 am
Location: Houston, TX
Hammock:
Tarp:
Suspension:
Insulation:
Contact:

Re: Gary Johnson, the Liberal

#18

Post by sarge » Tue Aug 30, 2016 8:47 am

I'm voting for the third name on the ballot.

1. Because I refuse to sacrifice my morals at the altar of politics.
2. In hopes that there are enough people who will do the same to throw the election into the House of Representatives so that niether of these crap sandwiches gets elected.
3. Because continuing to participate in a system that produces candidates who's main attrribute is that they don't suck as bad as the other guy is what perpetuates that system.
4. Even if it doesn't get thrown into the House, there may be enough people joining me to see that it IS possible to end this rule by elite oligarchs and a viable fifth party is formed, the other two minor parties are bolstered, and that the two major parties diminish---hopefully to wither and die.
You can resolve to live your life with integrity. Let your credo be this: Let the lie come into the world, let it even triumph. But not through me. ― Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
My You Tube Channel

User avatar
Scott
Reactions:
Posts: 351
Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2015 11:08 am
Location: Texas Lost Pines (just outside Wierd)
Hammock:
Tarp:
Suspension:
Insulation:

Re: Gary Johnson, the Liberal

#19

Post by Scott » Tue Aug 30, 2016 7:57 pm

GregD wrote:I'm OK with Hillary although she is more hawkish than I prefer. A lot of the criticisms leveled at her don't make much sense to me.
I have a lot of problems with the Clintons. I lump them together. The short version is I believe she will say what is expedient for her personal benefit or the benefit of her cause regardless of reality. I don't trust her a lick. She is hypocritical and does not see anything from a common citizen point view. How can she call Trump a racist and then turn around and call Bird her mentor?? She talks a lot, but does not DO much. I think she enabled Bill to harass and possible assault women. She is an elitist . She feels she is entitled to be president.

that could be said about a lot of politicians. She is just so much more obvious about it. If she can't see it she is incompetent, if she can see it she is dishonest. Pick one.
Texas sucede? Y'all are lucky we don't invade!

User avatar
BillyBob66
Reactions:
Posts: 717
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2015 10:43 am
Location: Tupelo, MS
Hammock: Claytor/JRB/HH/SB
Tarp: JRB 11X10
Suspension: CinchBuckle/WS/TriG
Insulation: HHSS,P.Pod,MWUQ,Yeti

Re: Gary Johnson, the Liberal

#20

Post by BillyBob66 » Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:10 pm

sarge wrote:I'm voting for the third name on the ballot.

1. Because I refuse to sacrifice my morals at the altar of politics.
2. In hopes that there are enough people who will do the same to throw the election into the House of Representatives so that niether of these crap sandwiches gets elected.
3. Because continuing to participate in a system that produces candidates who's main attrribute is that they don't suck as bad as the other guy is what perpetuates that system.
4. Even if it doesn't get thrown into the House, there may be enough people joining me to see that it IS possible to end this rule by elite oligarchs and a viable fifth party is formed, the other two minor parties are bolstered, and that the two major parties diminish---hopefully to wither and die.
I agree that for many years now it has pretty much been a case of voting for the guy who doesn't suck as much as the other guy. And that sucks.

So, you are voting for Castle? I would probably much rather go that route if we could get him elected. But he will probably end up with 3%. Or, if he ends up with 15%, it will be like with Perot, he will take votes from Trump leading to Clinton. I doubt he will take votes from Clinton.

As far as Trump vs Clinton, I admit I can not get excited about Trump, but his claimed positions on a some positions are the opposite of Clintons. And I don't like her positions on anything. Assuming you are also against almost anything Clinton is for(might be wrong I realize), then do you refuse to vote for Trump- with his positions which are opposite Clintons- because you don't believe a word he says?( for example: immigration: opposites. Abortion: opposites) But you don't believe Trump, hence no real difference? Or is it something else?
Rom8:21the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption23..but..we ourselves, having the first fruits of the Spirit.. groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body

User avatar
GregD
Reactions:
Posts: 528
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 1:12 pm
Location: Houston, TX
Hammock:
Tarp:
Suspension:
Insulation:

Re: Gary Johnson, the Liberal

#21

Post by GregD » Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:41 pm

Scott wrote:
GregD wrote:I'm OK with Hillary although she is more hawkish than I prefer. A lot of the criticisms leveled at her don't make much sense to me.
I have a lot of problems with the Clintons. I lump them together. The short version is I believe she will say what is expedient for her personal benefit or the benefit of her cause regardless of reality. I don't trust her a lick. She is hypocritical and does not see anything from a common citizen point view. How can she call Trump a racist and then turn around and call Bird her mentor?? She talks a lot, but does not DO much. I think she enabled Bill to harass and possible assault women. She is an elitist . She feels she is entitled to be president.

that could be said about a lot of politicians. She is just so much more obvious about it. If she can't see it she is incompetent, if she can see it she is dishonest. Pick one.
While possible, it strikes me as unlikely that a woman would facilitate her husband's dalliances with other women. I think the responsibility for Bill's behavior stops at Bill and I'm willing to cut her lots of slack on how she handled the humiliation he put her through. Byrd's racist activities were in the 40's and he publicly expressed regret for them. It seems to me to be quite a stretch to paint her with that brush because of her interactions with Byrd in what, the 80's or 90's? And from what I hear she is known to be a person that works hard for the causes important to her.

On the other hand I also feel her elitist and entitled vibe. And she has made a number of bad calls on policy over the years, but to her credit she has owned up to some of them.

User avatar
sarge
Reactions:
Posts: 2066
Joined: Fri Aug 14, 2015 10:14 am
Location: Houston, TX
Hammock:
Tarp:
Suspension:
Insulation:
Contact:

Re: Gary Johnson, the Liberal

#22

Post by sarge » Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:55 pm

GregD wrote:
Scott wrote:
GregD wrote:I'm OK with Hillary although she is more hawkish than I prefer. A lot of the criticisms leveled at her don't make much sense to me.
I have a lot of problems with the Clintons. I lump them together. The short version is I believe she will say what is expedient for her personal benefit or the benefit of her cause regardless of reality. I don't trust her a lick. She is hypocritical and does not see anything from a common citizen point view. How can she call Trump a racist and then turn around and call Bird her mentor?? She talks a lot, but does not DO much. I think she enabled Bill to harass and possible assault women. She is an elitist . She feels she is entitled to be president.

that could be said about a lot of politicians. She is just so much more obvious about it. If she can't see it she is incompetent, if she can see it she is dishonest. Pick one.
While possible, it strikes me as unlikely that a woman would facilitate her husband's dalliances with other women. I think the responsibility for Bill's behavior stops at Bill and I'm willing to cut her lots of slack on how she handled the humiliation he put her through. Byrd's racist activities were in the 40's and he publicly expressed regret for them. It seems to me to be quite a stretch to paint her with that brush because of her interactions with Byrd in what, the 80's or 90's? And from what I hear she is known to be a person that works hard for the causes important to her.

On the other hand I also feel her elitist and entitled vibe. And she has made a number of bad calls on policy over the years, but to her credit she has owned up to some of them.
There's a good deal of difference between a facilitator and an enabler. The word "enabler" refers to one half of co-dependent dysfunctional relationship between two people.
For the enabler a codependent relationship fulfills a strong drive to feel needed. Some enablers always need to be in a relationship because they feel lost or lonely when they’re by themselves. Codependents are often inherently afraid of being rejected or abandoned, even if they can function on their own, and in these cases the enabling behavior is a way to mitigate fears of abandonment. Codependent enablers often lack in self-worth and define their worth through another's eyes, thoughts, or views of them. They need other people to validate them to feel okay about themselves and without this, they are unable to find their own worth or identity. For some, the codependent relationship will satisfy the need to feel competent and low self-esteem is boosted by comparing oneself to the dysfunctional partner.

For the enabled person the dependence on the enabler is equally profound. In a codependent relationship, their poor functioning essentially brings them much needed love, care, and concern from an enabler and they are accepted as they are with their addiction, or poor mental or physical health. The enabler's consistent support reduces the outside pressures on the enabled person to mature, or advance their life skills or confidence. And, due to their below average functioning, the enabled person may have few relationships as close as their relationship with the enabler. This makes them highly dependent on the enabler to satisfy needs normally met by multiple close relationships.

It is this high degree of mutual, unhealthy dependence on the part of both the enabler and the enabled that makes the relationship codependent and resistant to change. It is often very hard for either person to end a relationship even when the relationship is painful or abusive. It is not unusual for one or both to feel trapped.
What is a dysfunctional relationship?
A dysfunctional relationship is one where two people make an emotional “contract” and agree to meet each other’s needs in what end up being self-destructive ways:

Example 1: I feel unable to take care of myself, you feel inadequate. If you take care of me, I’ll make you feel better about yourself. I’ll give up my independence, let you run my life, and remain loyal to you. In return, you meet all of my emotional and dependency needs. This can be a dependent woman who needs a husband to protect and provide for her, or an emotionally cut-off man who finds a “mothering” wife to anticipate his emotional needs. In a healthy relationship, both partners help the other to learn to do the things they can’t, instead of doing these things for them.
Example 2: I have a lot of “emotional problems” because I basically feel very bad about myself, but I don’t like thinking about it. You have “commitment issues,” and want to have a relationship without feeling any vulnerability. We pair up, and I hit you with all my emotional needs. You can’t handle it, distance, and then have an affair. I get to play the martyr and feel morally superior, and say that you are the sole cause of all the problems in our relationship. In return, I’m emotionally cold and critical of everything you do, and you can justify sleeping with others to feel loved because I’m so mean. We each get one thing we want (feeling better about ourselves and having relationships without vulnerability) but each do this in a way that harms us.
Given both of thier public histories, I'd say the word "enabler" is spot on.
You can resolve to live your life with integrity. Let your credo be this: Let the lie come into the world, let it even triumph. But not through me. ― Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
My You Tube Channel

User avatar
Scott
Reactions:
Posts: 351
Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2015 11:08 am
Location: Texas Lost Pines (just outside Wierd)
Hammock:
Tarp:
Suspension:
Insulation:

Re: Gary Johnson, the Liberal

#23

Post by Scott » Wed Aug 31, 2016 5:49 am

On the clintons my FEEL is that his she rode his charisma and he rode her very good political gaming to a common goal of power. I think their relationship devolved into her allowing him to be with other women. Since it was not just a couple of them, at some point she signed off on it.

As for Byrd, yes, people change. From what I saw he never denounced the KKK, he regretted being in it because it did not give the political advantage he thought it would in the south. He was always a segregationist. The only reason I bring it up is because of her attacks on Trump about people who support him, not people who he supports.

I am no lover of Trump either. He is a bag of cats, no question.
Texas sucede? Y'all are lucky we don't invade!

User avatar
Scott
Reactions:
Posts: 351
Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2015 11:08 am
Location: Texas Lost Pines (just outside Wierd)
Hammock:
Tarp:
Suspension:
Insulation:

Re: Gary Johnson, the Liberal

#24

Post by Scott » Wed Aug 31, 2016 5:57 am

And as to her hypocrisy and willingness to ignore her own roles, take the Iraq war. She demonized Bush for getting us in, but she had the same intel and voted FOR it because in that moment it was politically expedient. Then when it was not popular, she changed her mind and went after him. I have never seen any integrity come out of her, only self promotion.
Texas sucede? Y'all are lucky we don't invade!

User avatar
sarge
Reactions:
Posts: 2066
Joined: Fri Aug 14, 2015 10:14 am
Location: Houston, TX
Hammock:
Tarp:
Suspension:
Insulation:
Contact:

Re: Gary Johnson, the Liberal

#25

Post by sarge » Wed Aug 31, 2016 6:57 am

Here's how you know that the Democrats are the real extremist fanatics: A high percentage of Republicans won't be voting for Trump (I'm one), because we know he's an elitist oligarch running more to enrich himself and preserve the Establishment's hold on power. Democrats know the same thing about Hillary, with all the corruption added in, and will vote for her anyway. Extremist fanatics don't make qualitative judgements. They believe more in the party than the candidate, the party and the candidates know that they can get away with any kind of corruption as long as the right words come out of thier mouths.
You can resolve to live your life with integrity. Let your credo be this: Let the lie come into the world, let it even triumph. But not through me. ― Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
My You Tube Channel

User avatar
BillyBob66
Reactions:
Posts: 717
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2015 10:43 am
Location: Tupelo, MS
Hammock: Claytor/JRB/HH/SB
Tarp: JRB 11X10
Suspension: CinchBuckle/WS/TriG
Insulation: HHSS,P.Pod,MWUQ,Yeti

Re: Gary Johnson, the Liberal

#26

Post by BillyBob66 » Wed Aug 31, 2016 8:33 am

sarge wrote:Here's how you know that the Democrats are the real extremist fanatics: A high percentage of Republicans won't be voting for Trump (I'm one), because we know he's an elitist oligarch running more to enrich himself and preserve the Establishment's hold on power. Democrats know the same thing about Hillary, with all the corruption added in, and will vote for her anyway. Extremist fanatics don't make qualitative judgements. They believe more in the party than the candidate, the party and the candidates know that they can get away with any kind of corruption as long as the right words come out of thier mouths.
Hey Sarge,
Just a comment from one who will probably end up voting for Trump (unless something changes, and it may well) because I feel for me to do otherwise- like not voting or voting for neither- will from a practical point be supporting Clinton. Similar to what happened with Ross Perot. I think Perot took a lot more votes from Republicans than he did from Bill Clinton. Republicans pretty well suck IMO, many traitors to conservative values among them, about the only thing worse is a Dem. But regardless of which party either are in:

1: Trump claims he wants to stop both illegal immigration(and decrease legal?) and the current legal and active importation of Muslims at least temporarily. Clinton wants all she can get of both, as most go straight to some form of welfare and most- or their children- will become future Dem voters. ( although that might be a toss up for Muslims, since their stand on issues like homosexuality should make them hate Dems, but OTOH Dems want to bring them in and don't want anyone criticizing them, so ? Regardless, Dems want to bring them in )

2: Trump claims to have changed his mind about abortion due to some personal event, and is totally against it except maybe in a few specific circumstances. Clinton of course- like Obama ad many Dems- is for 100% unlimited abortion rights. If the woman suddenly decides she wants it, end of discussion, for any reason.

I'm sure there are a few other extreme differences on issues. So unless Trump is a complete liar and yet another in a long line of Republican traitors to the conservative cause- and he may well be- there are vast differences in the claimed positions of each candidate, regardless of which party they belong to.

So, you say you are Republican, and will not be voting for Trump. That will probably help Clinton in her battle against Trump, one less vote for her main opponent. Being a Republican, does that mean you think more like Trump on the above listed issues than like Clinton? If so, then voting for Trump would not be a case of an extremist fanatic voting for the party regardless, but a matter of deciding based on vast differences on issues. Unless, of course, you simply believe Trump is lying about all of that. Something I am not sure about myself. But is that why you refuse to vote for Trump, because you think he is lying about his view on those issues? Because based on what each candidate says, the differences are huuuuuge.

I have been betrayed by so many Republicans over so many years, that I would be thrilled if Trump- or preferably some one else who makes similar statements on issues - belonged to a third party, and yet was still giving Clinton such a run for her money. If someone had a chance, I would without hesitation dump the Republican party. Who are famous for saying very conservative things to get elected and then stabbing the conservatives in the back once they are in office. Obama has pretty much had his way for 8 years, whether or not Republicans had the majority. Trump talks a good game also, though I'm afraid he also says some stupid things and has many other problems. But even while lying during the campaigns, no one else has ever dared to stand up and say the things he says, and America has obviously strongly responded in his favor.
Rom8:21the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption23..but..we ourselves, having the first fruits of the Spirit.. groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body

User avatar
GregD
Reactions:
Posts: 528
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 1:12 pm
Location: Houston, TX
Hammock:
Tarp:
Suspension:
Insulation:

Re: Gary Johnson, the Liberal

#27

Post by GregD » Wed Aug 31, 2016 9:36 am

sarge wrote:Here's how you know that the Democrats are the real extremist fanatics: A high percentage of Republicans won't be voting for Trump (I'm one), because we know he's an elitist oligarch running more to enrich himself and preserve the Establishment's hold on power. Democrats know the same thing about Hillary, with all the corruption added in, and will vote for her anyway. Extremist fanatics don't make qualitative judgements. They believe more in the party than the candidate, the party and the candidates know that they can get away with any kind of corruption as long as the right words come out of thier mouths.
I'm planning on voting for Hillary. Does that mean I fit your definition of extremist fanatic? The people that know me well would be quite surprised, I think, to learn that I am actually an extremist fanatic.

Those are people on the other side of the "political divide" from you. Complicated, messy, people. A group of distinct individuals. Some of them, if you got to know them, you'd probably like a lot. Some of them, no doubt, you'd have no use for especially after you got to know them.

The whole point of politics is to resolve conflicts with a minimum of collateral damage; to work together in spite of our differences.

User avatar
sarge
Reactions:
Posts: 2066
Joined: Fri Aug 14, 2015 10:14 am
Location: Houston, TX
Hammock:
Tarp:
Suspension:
Insulation:
Contact:

Re: Gary Johnson, the Liberal

#28

Post by sarge » Wed Aug 31, 2016 10:25 am

It seems that in the Democrat Party, the whole point is to elect the most corrupt among the leadership than can be found.
You can resolve to live your life with integrity. Let your credo be this: Let the lie come into the world, let it even triumph. But not through me. ― Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
My You Tube Channel

User avatar
BillyBob66
Reactions:
Posts: 717
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2015 10:43 am
Location: Tupelo, MS
Hammock: Claytor/JRB/HH/SB
Tarp: JRB 11X10
Suspension: CinchBuckle/WS/TriG
Insulation: HHSS,P.Pod,MWUQ,Yeti

Re: Gary Johnson, the Liberal

#29

Post by BillyBob66 » Wed Aug 31, 2016 10:29 am

GregD wrote:
sarge wrote:Here's how you know that the Democrats are the real extremist fanatics: A high percentage of Republicans won't be voting for Trump (I'm one), because we know he's an elitist oligarch running more to enrich himself and preserve the Establishment's hold on power. Democrats know the same thing about Hillary, with all the corruption added in, and will vote for her anyway. Extremist fanatics don't make qualitative judgements. They believe more in the party than the candidate, the party and the candidates know that they can get away with any kind of corruption as long as the right words come out of thier mouths.
I'm planning on voting for Hillary. Does that mean I fit your definition of extremist fanatic? The people that know me well would be quite surprised, I think, to learn that I am actually an extremist fanatic.

Those are people on the other side of the "political divide" from you. Complicated, messy, people. A group of distinct individuals. Some of them, if you got to know them, you'd probably like a lot. Some of them, no doubt, you'd have no use for especially after you got to know them.

The whole point of politics is to resolve conflicts with a minimum of collateral damage; to work together in spite of our differences.
I'm sure he will answer for himself shortly, but didn't he define(for his purposes) extremist fanatic as "Democrats know the same thing about Hillary, with all the corruption added in, and will vote for her anyway. Extremist fanatics don't make qualitative judgements. They believe more in the party than the candidate, the party and the candidates know that they can get away with any kind of corruption as long as the right words come out of thier mouths."?

Is that you? I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say that you might be voting for Clinton just because you(like Clinton) are extremely wrong about various issues, just as you are so wrong about so many other issues. You may well, probably do, simply believe in what she believes in. But I would not say anything negative about you such as calling you a fanatic extremist as defined by Sarge's post. Though you might be, are you? :mrgreen:
Rom8:21the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption23..but..we ourselves, having the first fruits of the Spirit.. groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body

kev137
Reactions:
Posts: 129
Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2016 5:05 am
Location: St Augustine fl
Hammock: diy HyperD 1.6oz
Tarp: Warbonnet Mamajamba
Suspension: Whoopie slings tree
Insulation: DIY climashield/ Snu

Re: Gary Johnson, the Liberal

#30

Post by kev137 » Thu Sep 01, 2016 4:37 am

Even if my vote for a third party candidate increases the chances that Clinton will get elected I'm still doing it. I refuse to be held hostage by the notion that I must " chose the lesser of two evils". That apathetic reasoning is what has led our nation to the sad choices we have in the upcoming election. Two party politics have also led us down this particular smelly path as well. People no longer vote on a candidate but on principles espoused by the parties , ie guns or abortion. A politician no longer needs to make intelligent well thought out statements or have integrity. As long as they aren't the other party they will get the vote.

On a side note, my mother who is a life long republican, and has voted that way no matter what for almost 50 years, will not be voting for Trump this year. For the first time since she was old enough to vote she will abstain because of the choice she has been given. Sad but true.
" No sympathy for the devil. You buy the ticket, you take the ride", Hunter S. Thompson

Post Reply

Return to “Politics”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest