Discussion in 'Blazers OT Forum' started by 3RA1N1AC, Jul 26, 2016.
explain why you are voting for Gary Johnson or Jill Stein.
I'm for a more limited government, non intervention, individual Liberty, fiscal responsibility, and free markets.
I haven't seen that electing either of the two major parties to office has made government popular or people feeling good about society. It's borderline insane to vote for more of the same.
Not answering the thread question, but just wanted to say that I approve of these three threads, and hope that all three generate good responses.
Gary Johnson is slightly less crazy than the Republican candidate.
Gary Johnson is significantly less truth-impaired than the Democratic candidate.
I may vote for him.
I've been very unsatisfied with both parties for years, and I'm an Independent, so it makes sense to vote for one of them.
That seems accurate to me.
For me, I'd rather have sane and truth-impaired than honestly insane. YMMV.
Still undecided, by I’m leaning towards Gary Johnson.
I agree with Johnson on most issues. The few issues I disagree with him on are mostly the social issues, such as abortion. I believe abortion is murder.
I have a hard time understanding how some voters can be for abortion, but against capitol punishment? They feel it is ok to punish the innocent, but want to save the criminals and bad people. It should be the other way around.
Anyway, there is one important issue that keeps me from committing to Gary Johnson, his hair. He has lousy hair, not presidential like. But then again, none of the candidates have presidential hair. Were fucked!
Jill Stein (or, more accurately, Green Party. Stein herself is meh-worthy.)
Gary Johnson is okay, I have my issues with some of his policies and I 100% dislike his VP selection. However, I hope in the future we see our country adopt more Libertarian policies over "Progressive" policies.
If abortion is murder, is drinking while pregnant assault? Smoking? Should we ban those too? Honest question.
If a pregnant woman overindulges in any activity that can harm her unborn child, I consider that a form of abuse. I will leave defining the difference between abuse and assault to the lawyers and the courts.
There are different gray levels of abuse/assault, depending on the amount of harm done, and for how long. But dead is dead, there are no gray areas to define.
If a women decides to have an abortion because she refuses to stop drinking, taking drugs, smoking, or any other activity that may harm the unborn child, then she is a very selfish irresponsible person. I know several women that stopped smoking when they became pregnant. They loved their unborn child more than their bad habit.
I think it is reprehensible to smoke or drink while pregnant, but should it be the governments role to outlaw them? Should women be prosecuted for having miscarriages due to irresponsible actions?
I sense a "slippery slope" argument forming here.
You are asking very good questions. However, these questions would take several books to answer. But, in general, I am for less government. My gut tells me, (from real life experiences), making more laws is not going to make all women responsible when pregnant. Nor do I believe the government would be able to enforce those laws.
I have homes in two states. I spend about two weeks each month in WA State, and the other two weeks in Idaho (on average). The two states could not be more opposite when it comes to laws and politics.
WA has some of the strictest laws of any state in the country, and making more laws daily. But, they have very poor selective enforcement of those laws. The enforcement people enforce the laws that generate income for their bureaucracy rather than finding real criminals that will cost the bureaucracy revenues.
ID has some of the fewest laws in the country, but they strongly enforce the few laws they do have. Enforcement officers in Idaho go after the criminals, not target people that will generate revenues.
In WA. if you are not wearing a seat belt while driving, it is a primary offense. They will chase you down, driving by 6 drug dealers, 2 prostitutes, and a person selling stolen goods out of his van, to give you a ticket that will cost you $124 or more.
In Idaho, if you are not wearing a seat-belt while driving, it is a secondary offense. The police can not stop you unless you are doing something else wrong, such as speeding. Then they can give you a ticket that will cost you $10 for not wearing a seat belt.
The funny thing is, the % of people that wear seat-belts in not very different in each state. It is slightly higher in states where it is a primary law, but not by much. There is always that 10-20% of people that ignore the laws no mater the amount of enforcement or penalty.
Here is a chart I found showing the numbers. Not sure how accurate this chart is since I can not find the source.
Conclusion, I feel much safer living in Idaho with fewer laws, than I do in WA with more laws. It is not the laws we have, but which laws our government leaders choose to enforce that protects people.
I'm a firm believer in classic liberal ideas (think 1st amendment, 4th amendment, etc.) and so far he's the only adult I've seen in the room.
The burden of proof is likely impossible to ascertain there. Whereas an abortion is pretty cut and dry.
is it though? sounds pretty convenient.
what about a stunt-woman who throws herself down the stairs for her job?
Well, now you're likely getting into workplace liability laws at a minimum.
When you get pregnant, lecture pregnant women about what they can and cannot do. This may come as a shock but women are not incubators and you have no right to dictate. And what has that to do with this thread? If you want restrictions on women's reproductive choices, that's the Republican platform, not any third party so far as I know.
I voted third party every year since I turned 18 in 1972. I voted for Socialist Workers Party candidates, not because I thought they would get elected but because as Eugene Debs said, better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it. But IMO a protest vote has to be enthusiastic or it is wasted. About 10 years ago the SWP pretty much withdrew from political activism. They have taken a sharp turn to the right, including supporting fracking and the Keystone XL pipeline and opposing transgender rights. Turned right on immigration and refugees. So they lost me. And the question becomes, what do I do? The Greens strike me as unserious and their candidate is an anti-vaxxer. That lets her out. Libertarians out of the question as I really like public schools and public libraries and minimum wage and anti-discrimination laws, among other things.
I'm not sure who you're talking to, but my stance is this...
My belief is that Abortion is only around for emergency situations (rape, abuse, etc). People using it for birth control are wrong and that shouldn't be allowed. I don't want to get into the particulars because that's not for me to figure out. But that's what I believe.
All the other shit you talked about, I don't know, I don't care, do what you want with your body.
Separate names with a comma.