Was that for me, Denny? I am aware. But IMO it's not enough to just condemn bigotry or say there should be no laws regarding treatment. A start, not enough. Because in most states if I apply for a job they can legally ask me if I'm gay and refuse to hire me no matter how qualified I am. So at times intervention is needed, like employment nondiscrimination laws. And you can say marriage is personal but in reality marriage was an option for straights if they wanted while gay couples had no such option. I'm glad to see the denunciation of bigotry. You vote your conscience, good on you. I vote in part conscience, in part practicality. Long live democracy.
Whoever refuses to hire you loses. Whoever hires you wins. If some company refuses to hire anyone due to prejudice, boycott them. I'll join you. You cannot legislate prejudice away. It only makes it hidden and insidious, which is worse. Given the government's track record on gay rights, I don't see that pulling the lever for the status quo makes any sense at all. http://reason.com/blog/2015/06/23/uniquely-nasty-govt-gay-cruelty Documentary Uniquely Nasty Chronicles the Government's Long and Cruel War Against Gay Rights For decades, the feds would actively try to destroy the lives of homosexuals. The years between 1950 and 1980 were a notably harsh period for gays in American society. The federal government viewed gays, especially gay men, in the same way it viewed communists: as huge threats who could destroy American society. (The LP ran the first openly gay person for president in 1980).
The two parties write the rules so no 3rd party gets any money. That's why you don't want the government controlling free speech. They will decide who gets to speak at all.
Why would I vote for W? I don't think he was as bad as many do, but I don't think he was all that good either. Well, he was fine when he was reading to kids in schools and hosting little league at the white house. Unfortunately, he spent money like a drunk sailor. Except a drunk sailor has to stop when his wallet is empty.
As far as the person who I like the most, it's certainly Gary Johnson. I also would love to see a shakeup in the 2 party system. However, I just have extreme fundamental problems with libertarianism that will keep me from voting for him. I wish the Dems could get someone half as honest as their candidate.
I have also heard Gary Johnson speak several times recently, in interviews, in the libertarian debates and on podcasts, and in all of them he repeated many of the exact same sentences. He is just as rehearsed as Hillary and has in my opinion some dangerous positions especially with regards to public education, scientific funding and taxation strategies that will increase the burden on the lower and middle class. As I stated earlier, I am fundamentally opposed to the L platform, so it's no wonder I don't value his plans. On the other hand, I do like views on govt and drug policy and a few other topics of personal freedom. But I also believe the role of government is to protect those who are in historically abused groups like blacks, hispanics or the LBGT amongst us. I do believe his heart is in the right place, but his policies aren't. Just my two cents.
It's great that "conservatives" don't like him. The article talks about 7% increases in spending during his tenure. Yet... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Johnson During his tenure as governor, Johnson became known for his low-taxlibertarian views, adhering to policies of tax and bureaucracy reduction supported by a cost–benefit analysis rationale. He cut the 10% annual growth in the budget: in part, due to his use of the gubernatorial veto 200 times during his first six months in office.[2] Johnson set state and national records for his use of veto and line-item veto powers:[2] estimated to have been more than the other 49 contemporary governors combined,[4][5] which gained him the nicknames "Veto Johnson" and "Governor Veto".[6][7] It's a start. This site says government increased by 5% during his tenure. Even better. https://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=210816 Well, no. Yes, the budget rose 5% per year during his time in office. Unfortunately that's a roughly 50% increase in the size of the State Government during those eight years.
And then here's another article from the same site, from 7 hours ago: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/435804/gary-johnson-donald-trump-hillary-clinton-election-2016 Spending increased under Johnson, but there’s more to the story. ... With so many Democrats in the legislature, Johnson’s main impact was in vetoing an astonishing 739 bills over his eight years in office. Nonetheless, Johnson’s agenda was stymied in other ways by the partisan makeup of his state’s legislature. Every year Johnson proposed school-choice vouchers and every year the Democrats in the legislature killed them.
FiveThirtyEight: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features...-johnson-hes-pulling-10-vs-trump-and-clinton/ Pay Attention To Libertarian Gary Johnson; He’s Pulling 10 Percent vs. Trump And Clinton A Morning Consult survey published Tuesday and found Clinton getting 38 percent of the vote, Trump 35 and Johnson 10, with 17 percent undecided. A Fox News poll conducted from May 14-17 showed Trump leading over Clinton, 42 percent to 39 percent, but Johnson at 10 percent as well. Lest you think this is some fluky May development, a Monmouth University survey conducted in mid-March — while the political universe was still busy wringing its hands over the Republican nomination — found that in a three-way race, Clinton would get 42 percent, Trump 34 percent and Johnson 11 percent. Given that Trump and Clinton are sporting historically high negative ratings, Johnson’s polling makes a fair bit of sense; Gary Johnson is neither Donald Trump nor Hillary Clinton. He might not win a state, but he could make some noise.
