Support NeoGAF

[DontBeThatGuy]

Don't the Democrats have a lot more work to on all of the above issues?

Dems and Libertarians/Republicans are at opposite ends of the spectrum concerning just about all of those, and would actually nominate justices that would properly address these things, instead of leaving these incredibly important matters up to some really shitty states, and/or letting the 'free-market' sort it all out.

 

[Joni]

Nonsense, I linked what his web site says, his supreme court picks are most definitely not comparable to Trump. On a woman's right to choose (pro-choice), on the 4th amendment (anti-patriot act), on same sex marriage(for marriage equality), on voting rights (against voter ID laws), on war (anti-war/believes the decision to go to war should be decided by congress), on essentially everything. The one thing Trump is right on is his criticism of citizens united

Gary Johnson would be my favorite candidate on supreme court picks, Sanders would be my favorite on healthcare and education.

It is a direct quote from his own 2012 campaign site. He ran on an anti-Roe vs. Wade, constitutionalist program. He is pro-abortion but wants to let the states decide. He repeated his constitutionalist view in July 2016. That is the guy you want to elect. It means you are thinking women's rights should be set back in half the country. Own up to that if you want to vote Johnson.

 

[KRod-57]

It is a direct quote from his own 2012 campaign site. He ran on an anti-Roe vs. Wade, constitutionalist program. He is pro-abortion but wants to let the states decide. He repeated his constitutionalist view in July 2016. That is the guy you want to elect. It means you are thinking women's rights should be set back in half the country. Own up to that if you want to vote Johnson.

Abortions is probably the question Gary Johnson is asked about the most, and in every given instance to date he has answered that abortion should be legal until viability of the fetuss, meaning he is opposed to late term abortions. However, he has also answered that the federal government should stay out of determining the legality of said late term abortions, and that they should be determined at the state level (which is the current status of abortions, a woman's right to have an abortion is protected by the federal government until the 23rd week, after that it is left to the states to determine the legality of the abortion). The only instance Gary Johnson has EVER said that abortions should be left to the states has been in reference to late term abortions.

I can understand how that can be misconstrued into him saying that abortions should be left to the states by a secondhand report on his position, but that has never been a part of his platform. Once again, you can read his official platform in the link I provided, and I should note the link I provided is not a secondhand source describing his positions. His positions are as he describes them, not how you describe them. This isn't up for debate, his official position is this:

"Gov. Johnson recognizes that the right of a woman to choose is the law of the land, and has been for several decades. That right must be respected and despite his personal aversion to abortion, he believes that such a very personal and individual decision is best left to women and families, not the government"

Here he is describing this position in 2011 BTW -> https://youtu.be/z0Kq4hbMtS0?t=74

enough said

 

[Joni]

Abortions is probably the question Gary Johnson is asked about the most, and in every given instance to date he has answered that abortion should be legal until viability of the fetuss, meaning he is opposed to late term abortions. However, he has also answered that the federal government should stay out of determining the legality of said late term abortions, and that they should be determined at the state level (which is the current status of abortions, a woman's right to have an abortion is protected by the federal government until the 23rd week, after that it is left to the states to determine the legality of the abortion). The only instance Gary Johnson has EVER said that abortions should be left to the states has been in reference to late term abortions.

I can understand how that can be misconstrued into him saying that abortions should be left to the states by a secondhand report on his position, but that has never been a part of his platform. Once again, you can read his official platform in the link I provided, and I should note the link I provided is not a secondhand source describing his positions. His positions are as he describes them, not how you describe them. This isn't up for debate, his official position is this:

"Gov. Johnson recognizes that the right of a woman to choose is the law of the land, and has been for several decades. That right must be respected and despite his personal aversion to abortion, he believes that such a very personal and individual decision is best left to women and families, not the government"

Here he is describing this position in 2011 BTW -> https://youtu.be/z0Kq4hbMtS0?t=74

enough said

With the overturning of Roe vs Wade, laws regarding abortion would be decided by the individual states.

Enough said about the guy that is clearly wanting to reverse this right from the federal government to the states. That will be great for Texas and the likes.

 

[KRod-57]

Enough said about the guy that is clearly wanting to reverse this right from the federal government to the states. That will be great for Texas and the likes.

First of all, the current legal status of abortions is not Roe v Wade, it is Casey v Planned Parenthood.

Second, Johnson has already answered that his platform has no plans on altering the law of the land established under Casey v Planned Parenthood.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lBNvyX9xEtI


What you are describing Gary Johnson's position on abortions to be, and what Gary Johnson is describing his position on abortions to be are clearly two different things. He plainly says he is not looking to change the law of the land on abortions in anyway, and even makes direct reference to the supreme court ruling that established said law.

This isn't a matter of opinion, that's the official platform of his campaign.. to maintain the current federal law on abortions

 

[Joni]

What you are describing Gary Johnson's position on abortions to be, and what Gary Johnson is describing his position on abortions to be are clearly two different things.

Strange, because I'm using his own 2012 campaign site and other interviews he has delivered since. And that is just one single social issue that pops up alerts on how he should stay countries away from a presidency.

 

[Roberto Larcos]

Strange, because I'm using his own 2012 campaign site and other interviews he has delivered since. And that is just one single social issue that pops up alerts on how he should stay countries away from a presidency.

So you're using information you know to be outdated? Clever boy.

Before you go to the polls, you should know that Hillary Clinton (like her predecessor Barrack Obama) is anti-gay marriage, and Donald Trump is actually a Democrat.

 

[KRod-57]

Strange, because I'm using his own 2012 campaign site and other interviews he has delivered since. And that is just one single social issue that pops up alerts on how he should stay countries away from a presidency.

You clearly are not using his positions described by himself in interviews. I just provided you two interviews of him in 2011 and 2016 saying he supports the law of the land on abortions (Casey v Planned Parenthood) and has no plans on changing it.

You're basically describing what I did and taking credit for doing it yourself. Please link me to where on his campaign site he says he wants to change the law of the land on abortions, or to an interview where he has said he wants to change said law

Because I literally just did that showing him SUPPORTING the current federal law an abortions

 

[Joni]

You clearly are not using his positions described by himself in interviews.

He repeated his constitutionalist view in July 2016

So you're using information you know to be outdated? Clever boy.

Before you go to the pills, you should know that Hillary Clinton (like her predecesso Barrack Obama) is anti-gay marriage, and Donald Trump is actually a Democrat.

Considering how many people attack Clinton for stuff she said 20 years ago, stuff Johnson said 4 years ago is fair game because that is the type of person you are supporting.

 

[Roberto Larcos]

Considering how many people attack Clinton for stuff she said 20 years ago, stuff Johnson said 4 years ago is fair game because that is the type of person you are supporting.

So I take it you're not supporting none of Clinton / Trump / Stein this cycle, or indeed anyone that has ever changed their position on any issue whatsoever?

I also hope you've never changed your mind on any issue at all ever, otherwise you'll be just like the rest of us mere mortals. Unclean!

 

[KRod-57]

Considering how many people attack Clinton for stuff she said 20 years ago, stuff Johnson said 4 years ago is fair game because that is the type of person you are supporting.

It's not hard to provide a link.. watch, I'll do it

Here is Gary Johnson's web site describing him as supporting the current law of the land on abortions -> https://www.johnsonweld.com/abortion

Here is Gary Johnson in an interview from 2011 saying he supports the current law of the land on abortions -> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0Kq4hbMtS0&feature=youtu.be&t=74

And here is Gary Johnson in an interview in 2016 saying he supports the current law of the land on abortions -> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lBNvyX9xEtI

Now which source should I use to determine Gary Johnson's position on abortions, Gary Johnson himself, or you? hmm... that's a tough one, but I think I'm going to go with Gary Johnson's description of his positions over your description of his positions.

 

[Joni]

So I take it you're not supporting none of Clinton / Trump / Stein this cycle, or indeed anyone that has ever changed their position on any issue whatsoever?

I'm thinking there is a clear difference between an evolving opinion and a complete flip-flop on such a vital issue in just a short time, especially when he still supports the constitutional approach that would destroy it. It would be like Trump claiming he is pro-migration while still wanting to undo any protections.

It's not hard to provide a link.. watch, I'll do it

I put the site name on the last page.
https://web.archive.org/web/20120519220157/http://ouramericainitiative.com/issues/abortion

 

[KRod-57]

I put the site name on the last page.
https://web.archive.org/web/20120519220157/http://ouramericainitiative.com/issues/abortion

Oh that's funny, because you said you were using interviews of Gary Johnson, and his official campaign web site as a source.. you didn't provide any of those.. that was me who did that

 

[Joni]

Oh that's funny, because you said you were using interviews of Gary Johnson, and his official campaign web site as a source.. your didn't provide any of those.. that was me who did that

"The Our America Initiative is a 501(c)(4) political advocacy committee formed by Gary Johnson"

As for "Really, there are going to be no litmus test. You're going to appoint good people, and you're going appoint people that look at the Constitution of original intent."
http://reason.com/archives/2016/07/25/libertarians-pitch-trump-hillary-bernie/3
Which as I said before, was the problem.

And even without all that, there are enough red flags to stay away from him and that entire party.

 

[KRod-57]

"The Our America Initiative is a 501(c)(4) political advocacy committee formed by Gary Johnson"

As for "Really, there are going to be no litmus test. You're going to appoint good people, and you're going appoint people that look at the Constitution of original intent."
http://reason.com/archives/2016/07/25/libertarians-pitch-trump-hillary-bernie/3
Which as I said before, was the problem.

Oh look, it's another source that isn't Gary Johnson describing his positions as being against the current law of the land on abortions. It's odd isn't it? I was able to provide three sources from 2011 and 2016 of him describing his position as SUPPORTING the current law of the land on abortions

This is really weird, why would there only be existing interviews of him describing the exact opposite of his position on abortions and not his actual position? probably because what you're describing is not his actual position at all.. I don't know

 

[Joni]

Oh look, it's another source that isn't Gary Johnson describing his positions as being against the current law of the land on abortions.

Indeed. It is simply a site he founded listing at that time his messages. He stepped down to focus on his 2016 presidential campaign.

 

[KRod-57]

Indeed. It is simply a site he founded listing at that time his messages. He stepped down to focus on his 2016 presidential campaign.

Once again, do you have a link to his web site, or a link to an interview where he describes his position as being AGAINST the current law of the land on abortions?

Because I've literally provided both showing him SUPPORTING the current law of the land on abortions. I link them, and every time you ignore them as if they do not exist. One of my links BTW was an interview from 2011

 

[Roberto Larcos]

Once again, do you have a link to his web site, or a link to an interview where he describes his position as being AGAINST the current law of the land on abortions?

Because I've literally provided both showing him SUPPORTING the current law of the land on abortions. I link them, and every time you ignore them as if they do not exist. One one of my links BTW was an interview from 2011

You're talking to a brick wall.

 

[Joni]

Once again, do you have a link to his web site, or a link to an interview where he describes his position as being AGAINST the current law of the land on abortions?

Because I've literally provided both showing him SUPPORTING the current law of the land on abortions. I link them, and every time you ignore them as if they do not exist. One of my links BTW was an interview from 2011

You quoted my post with his Our American Initiative page where it said Roe v Wade overreached the Federal Government's reach and that it should be returned to the states.

 

[KRod-57]

You quoted my post with his Our American Initiative page where it said Roe v Wade overreached the Federal Government's reach and that it should be returned to the states.

Actually, that link made no mentioning of Gary Johnson or his position on abortions. Furthermore, the current law of the land is (again) Casey v Planned Parenthood and NOT Roe v Wade

You claimed that your sources were his official web site, and interviews he gave.. yet you have no links from his web site, nor any interviews he has given...

Here's a clue, he described in 2011 that he supports the current law of the land on abortions, he described again in 2016 that he supports the current law of the land on abortions, and his official campaign web site describes him as supporting the current law of the land on abortions (I provided the source on all three)

Conclusion: He supports the current law of the land on abortions. Period

 

[Joni]

Actually, that link made no mentioning of Gary Johnson or his position on abortions. Furthermore, the current law of the land is (again) Casey v Planned Parenthood and NOT Roe v Wade

That link offered his position, as it was his site on his issues. The thing is even listed on his LinkedIn page. The fact that it talked about Roe v Wade instead of Planned Parenthood v Casey is on Johnson. If a site he founded/was chairman of, isn't good enough then I can indeed not do better.

You claimed that your sources were his official web site, and interviews he gave.. yet you have no links from his web site, nor any interviews he has given...

I gave the link to the archived version.

 

[KRod-57]

That link offered his position, as it was his site on his issues. The fact that it talked about Roe v Wade instead of Planned Parenthood v Casey is on Johnson.


I gave the link to the archived version.

You provided a link that was not his web site, nor had his name or positions is what you did. You also provided no interviews of him describing his position as being against the current law of the land on abortions (despite you claiming you had both)

I provided a link from both, and both of them showed he supports the current law of the land on abortions. End of story

 

[prag16]

You provided a link that was not his web site, nor had his name or positions is what you did. You also provided no interviews of him describing his position as being against the current law of the land on abortions (despite you claiming you had both)

I provided a link from both, and both of them showed he supports the current law of the land on abortions. End of story

Don't bother. He has an agenda and a narrative he's pushing. He doesn't care about the truth.

 

[Blader]

I'm a right-leaning libertarian, and this is exactly why I'm happy to vote for Gary Johnson this year. The Republican Party is going to get shellacked in a few months, and in the aftermath, they're going to have to do some soul-searching. If the Libertarians pull in 5% or 7% or 10% of the vote, maybe that drags the GOP away from people like Trump and more toward people like me.

Also, I would appreciate the irony of the Libertarian party receiving federal matching funds in 2020.

They did the soul-searching already, four years ago (and eight years ago). Most of the party doesn't want to hear it or act on it. When you consider how well they did in 2010 and 2014, how they control a majority of Congress and a majority of governorships and state legislatures, there's not a lot of motivation to heed that soul-searching. And if Trump loses, they'll chalk up the loss to Trump being Trump, not because he was a natural outgrowth of their rhetoric the last several years. The GOP will probably have another great mid-term year in 2018, which will put them back on pace to elect a typically far-right candidate for president in 2020. That party ain't moving anywhere, and feasibly can't, until there's a massive generational shift in their base.

 

[YaBish]

I think it's pretty clear by now that a lot of people #FeelTheJohnson.

 

[Joni]

You provided a link that was not his web site, nor had his name or positions is what you did.

Don't bother. He has an agenda and a narrative he's pushing. He doesn't care about the truth.

Explain me how it was not his site when he claims he founded it and only left it three months ago to focus on his campaign. It was even used to sue for his participation in the debates in 2012, a lawsuit that again mentions him.

The page also lines up perfectly with the position you posted. It states that women should have the decision.

Life is precious and needs to be protected. Deciding to have an abortion is a very difficult decision. We believe that ultimately it is a woman’s right to make such a decision during the early stage of pregnancy.

But he follows it up with Roe v. Wade should be overturned as he is a constitutionalist. He is still one, he is still advocating for them to be on the Supreme Court unlike his vice-president pick.

Judges should be appointed who will interpret the Constitution according to its original meaning. Any court decision that does not follow this original meaning of the Constitution should be revisited. That is particularly true of decisions such as Roe vs. Wade, which have expanded the reach of the Federal government into areas of society never envisioned in the Constitution. With the overturning of Roe vs Wade, laws regarding abortion would be decided by the individual states.

He can be pro-life and still fuck over women in half the states, like I have been saying. And even if he makes an exception for this, unless overruled by pro-constitutionalists supreme court judges you know, it is still dangerous to hand such things back to the states.

 

[Roberto Larcos]

Don't bother. He has an agenda and a narrative he's pushing. He doesn't care about the truth.

Advice that anyone considering commenting should heed.

 

[Erevador]

Gary wrote a thoughtful new piece on his immigration thoughts on CNN.

 

[KRod-57]

Explain me how it was not his site when he claims he founded it and only left it three months ago to focus on his campaign. It was even used to sue for his participation in the debates in 2012, a lawsuit that again mentions him.

The page also lines up perfectly with the position you posted. It states that women should have the decision.



But he follows it up with Roe v. Wade should be overturned as he is a constitutionalist. He is still one, he is still advocating for them to be on the Supreme Court unlike his vice-president pick.



He can be pro-life and still fuck over women in half the states, like I have been saying. And even if he makes an exception for this, unless overruled by pro-constitutionalists supreme court judges you know, it is still dangerous to hand such things back to the states.

It's not his campaign site because it's not his campaign site.. that's pretty self explanatory. You said in post #206 of this thread that you were using his "campaign site and other interviews he has delivered" as a source

You have neither.. meanwhile I have linked you to his official campaign website, an interview from 2016, and an interview from 2011, all of which showing him supporting the law of the land on abortions. In the 2011 interview he is even being pressured on his pro-choice stance, but is reluctant to compromise. I quite literally provided video of Johnson himself describing his position form 2011 to 2016, where as you can only provide sources written by other people, and claim those are his actual campaign positions by association (despite you claiming you have interviews and his campaign website as a source).

It's nonsensical, no rational person would look at this conversation and conclude that you've provided a source that is Gary Johnson describing his positions as being against the law of the land on abortions. I certainly provided sources of him describing his positions as supporting the law of the land on abortions (one of which goes back to when he was a Republican candidate in 2011)

 

[Erevador]

Mitt Romney tweets that he wants Gary Johnson in the debates.

He should come out and endorse him. This would be the moment to do it. He's a great appreciator of Bill Weld, and really his own sentiments deep down are much closer to Johnson/Weld than anyone else running.

Interesting to see him speaking publicly on it though.

 

[excelsiorlef]

Mitt Romney tweets that he wants Gary Johnson in the debates.

He should come out and endorse him. This would be the moment to do it. He's a great appreciator of Bill Weld, and really his own sentiments deep down are much closer to Johnson/Weld than anyone else running.

Interesting to see him speaking publicly on it though.

Good for Mitt Romney. Johnson still has no business being in the debates.

 

[Supast4r]

I don't like Johnson or Stein at all, and Hillary is better than both in my opinion, but if a third party actually wins a state this year, would this potentially open any kind of floodgate for third parties to be in future elections?

I hate the very idea of libertarian "fuck you I got mine" politics.

 

[excelsiorlef]

I don't like Johnson or Stein at all, and Hillary is better than both in my opinion, but if a third party actually wins a state this year, would this potentially open any kind of floodgate for third parties to be in future elections?

No.

And it's not going to happen this year either.

 

[Toxi]

I don't like Johnson or Stein at all, and Hillary is better than both in my opinion, but if a third party actually wins a state this year, would this potentially open any kind of floodgate for third parties to be in future elections?

American Independent Party won 45 electoral votes in 1968.

Didn't amount to shit.

 

[Beer Monkey]

American Independent Party won 45 electoral votes in 1968.

Didn't amount to shit.

That was just because of southern racism.

Even the best case scenario for Johnson has him pulling a Perot and still getting zero EV.

 

[LiveFromKyoto]

American Independent Party won 45 electoral votes in 1968.

Didn't amount to shit.

This is a different era though. This is the era of the customized micro-targeted i-me niche everything. I really don't think a two party system is sustainable given that type of thinking doesn't work anywhere else anymore either.

 

[excelsiorlef]

This is a different era though. This is the era of the customized micro-targeted i-me niche everything. I really don't think a two party system is sustainable given that type of thinking doesn't work anywhere else anymore either.

Based on what? Not fading means staying at high single digit instead of not falling to lower single digits.

He's still not even close to debate inclusion.

Two party system is basically entrenched because of the Constitution election rules

 

[Bonen no Max'd]

This is a different era though. This is the era of the customized micro-targeted i-me niche everything. I really don't think a two party system is sustainable given that type of thinking doesn't work anywhere else anymore either.

The AIP was a party for racist Southern whites who felt betrayed by Democrats. They did the same thing in 48 for Thurmond.

Regional parties aren't new and ultimately will just be absorbed into one of the two major parties. AIP voters became Republicans, Farmer-Labor and Progressive voters became Democrats, Perot pulled a lot of support from both parties but they went back after he lost.

There isn't going to be a real viable third party without serious constitutional changes.

 

[Maledict]

This is a different era though. This is the era of the customized micro-targeted i-me niche everything. I really don't think a two party system is sustainable given that type of thinking doesn't work anywhere else anymore either.

No. I know I'm repeating myself (again!), but the reason you have two parties goes beyond messaging or party ideologies. Your entire system is set up to produce two parties, and it's been shown that mathematically you will always end up with two parties in a first past the post, electoral college system. If a third party becomes larger than one of the main parties it will just replace that party. It's not possible to have more than two main parties in your system.

It doesn't matter who you vote for, without electoral change you are stuck with two. It's not something you can fix with a simple vote. Voting third party has only one effect - it helps the party you hate the most.

 

[Roberto Larcos]

That was just because of southern racism.

Even the best case scenario for Johnson has him pulling a Perot and still getting zero EV.

If Romney backs him, that could very well change.

 

[IrishNinja]

If Romney backs him, that could very well change.

i really feel like some of ya'll put too much onto what Romney can and can't do; not only did he get clapped up by a large margin when he ran, he & his party couldn't even stop trump from being their candidate.