Gary Supports a Smoking Ban in Private Restaurants

[Natural Citizen]

Your sobs are not even worth addressing at this point.

Heh. Well. Take a poll. LOL.

 

[osan]

Your sobs are not even worth addressing at this point.

Sobs? Your response is textbook of the variety offered where there is nothing else to offer. I think the questions are valid, yet you appear to be deflecting. Why?

 

[undergroundrr]

I totally understand an uncompromising libertarian of a certain slant (probably paleo) not wanting to vote for or support Gary Johnson on principle.

It's a little harder to understand why they don't exhibit the same level of violent repugnance for trumplary. Supposedly it's because Johnson calls himself a libertarian. "trump will be trump." "Clinton will be Clinton."

Due in large part to the Kristol/McMullin incursion, at this point it doesn't look like Johnson will make the debates, so it doesn't matter much. In terms of electoral causation it never really mattered what anybody on RPF thought anyway.

In fact, after the Nazi cake thing it seems like many decided GJ was an establishment plant. These are some of the same people who say the establishment is run by Jews. How does that make sense? Gary just made Elie Wiesel bake a cake for Goebbels at gunpoint using the full armed forces of the federal government, including all our nuclear capabilities. He should appeal to stormfronters more than neocons.

I think it was euphemia who implicated Johnson is running for president on the LP ticket so he can line his pockets. Not sure how this works. Do LP candidates get some kind of special access to graft opportunities. It seems to me they get 1% of the vote and then get made fun of for 4 years. wash, rinse, repeat. Maybe he could springboard it to a book deal? I don't get it. I conclude Johnson is doing this because he really cares about freedom, perhaps not the tidy, thoroughly buttressed freedom derived from certain tracts, but definitely freedom.

He went for it this time. He fought pretty hard for the candidacy against some passionate competition. He picked a running mate who could help get the job done, make money and attract centers of influence instead of somebody who would make ancaps nod their heads in approval. Oh well, I think it's probably over, so NC, euphemia, osan, don't worry yourselves. The danger has passed thanks to Bill Kristol. Enjoy.

 

[silverhandorder]

While Trump and Hillary are stuck in a titanic battle Gary is talking about smokes in restaurants.

 

[jllundqu]

As easy as saying "This is a smoking establishment do you have a problem with that?" Yes = no hire. No = hire.

Why is this such a freaking hard concept for some to grasp???

//close thread//

 

[euphemia]

I see Johnson saying he *opposed* a lot of things, but I don't see him sharing a plan by which he would *repeal* them. And then there is that whole gun thing. He said he would force Americans to run businesses the way he wants. He agrees with some gun control. He agrees with some wars. He thinks the EPA is a legitimate use of government, which is a further abridgement of rights. He has no plan to repeal Obamacare, and he hasn't said anything about the transfer from the fed to states and communities with regard to education. He has not said parents have the right to determine their children's educational pathway.

I keep waiting for him to say liberty stuff, but he just keeps talking socialism.

 

[undergroundrr]

I keep waiting for him to say liberty stuff, but he just keeps talking socialism.

Something tells me you're not poring through Gary Johnson interviews so that you can post his "liberty stuff" to RPF.

 

[euphemia]

I totally understand an uncompromising libertarian of a certain slant (probably paleo) not wanting to vote for or support Gary Johnson on principle.

It's a little harder to understand why they don't exhibit the same level of violent repugnance for trumplary. Supposedly it's because Johnson calls himself a libertarian. "trump will be trump." "Clinton will be Clinton."

Because those discussions were had months ago when there was still something of a choice on the Republican side. That's why I have stopped talking about it. I have been one of the few people here who actually know a little of Sanders' history, and if he had just said, "Let me tell you my story: I am a Jewish man who grew up in Brooklyn. There were places I was not allowed to live, and places I could not go. People called me names and bullied me in locker rooms. Then I went to the University of Chicago and I saw that black people were treated the same way I was treated in Brooklyn. I decided to do something about it. I was arrested for being part of a demonstration....." That story might have swayed people a little bit, and he might have won the nomination. But he did not do that.

During that time, the Republicans were duking it out, and the more Bernie talked, and the more we heard about superdelegates, the more it looked like Hillary would win the nomination. I think some people started looking at the array of Republican candidates to try to figure out who could beat Hillary.

So this has never been much of an idealogical election cycle. It has been more about personalities and power. I'm done talking about those things.

 

[euphemia]

Something tells me you're not poring through Gary Johnson interviews so that you can post his "liberty stuff" to RPF.

I really am not. I am familiar with his sketchy investments, and he takes the opposite view on the liberty issues most important to me. I did watch a libertarian debate, and I didn't think any of them had a real liberty platform. I have lost interest and hope in the Libertarian party. They are basically warmed-over socialists who want to extend some entitlements to special groups and put the rest of us in jail.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

Osan,

You are given a magic button.

Pressing this button will have the following effects:

• the Fed will be abolished and the US will return to the gold standard
• federal spending will be cut by 43%
• all current US wars will end and no new wars will be started
• the PATRIOT Act will be repealed
• the federal war on drugs will end
• the Civil Rights Act will be extended to gays

Do you press the button?

Without understanding the radiating effects, nope. Unlike many people, I am not THAT KIND of sucker. I am, unfortunately, a great big sucker for little girls. I have no power over them.

Your question presupposes the tacit "rightness" of the top five bullets. They certainly SEEM desirable, but unlike Faust I am leery of selling my soul to the devil.

Are you saying that you wouldn't push the button even if the final effect (CRA extended to gays) were removed?

 

[undergroundrr]

During that time, the Republicans were duking it out, and the more Bernie talked, and the more we heard about superdelegates, the more it looked like Hillary would win the nomination. I think some people started looking at the array of Republican candidates to try to figure out who could be Hillary.

I get it. Well, there are four choices now that affect election outcome.

1. Vote for Hillary. Fascism for at least 4 years.
2. Vote for trump. Fascism for probably a lot longer than that.
3. Vote for Johnson. Raise the profile of the LP a smidge.
4. Vote for McMullin. Sink the LP, help out the neocons.

If the CP were actually trying, I'd say voting for Castle is a fifth option. As it is, a Castle vote is equivalent to writing in Ron Paul, Vermin Supreme or Giant Meteor.

 

[euphemia]

I would not. I don't think Johnson can do any of that. He was not able to advance liberty in New Mexico with such a small population, so it is doubtful he will be able to do it in Washington. He has expressed in an interest in expanding some government and taking away individual rights. It doesn't matter how much of my own money I get to keep when I face the threat of government because I value my Constitutional freedoms.

 

[osan]

Are you saying that you wouldn't push the button even if the final effect (CRA extended to gays) were removed?

My words were clear.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

My words were clear.

No, not really, that's why I asked for a clarification.

You implied that even the libertarian reforms listed might have unintended bad consequences, and that you'd therefore not support them.

That being quite insane, I couldn't believe that's what you actually meant, hence the request for clarification.

 

[NotAnIllegalImmigrant]

I get it. Well, there are four choices now that affect election outcome.

1. Vote for Hillary. Fascism for at least 4 years.

Hillary is guaranteed 8 years in office if she wins.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

Hillary is guaranteed 8 years in office if she wins.

I believe that Hillary will probably be permanently hospitalized with some neurological disease (maybe Parkinson's?) within 3 years. So I do not believe she is guaranteed 8 years in office. She will probably be dead in 5 to 6 years.

 

[P3ter_Griffin]

Sobs? Your response is textbook of the variety offered where there is nothing else to offer. I think the questions are valid, yet you appear to be deflecting. Why?

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz


Is this ultra principled candidate you are waiting for a labor protectionist?

And I would set in place strict and non-negotiable controls on immigration. There would be no H1B nonsense. No wandering across the border. No hiring ditch diggers from Turkey because nobody in country is willing to do it for 10 francs/hour. If the market demand is that high, employers would be required to meet the labor demand in the honest way by raising wages and perhaps prices, rather than scraping the barrel of shit holes like Turkey. If digging ditches is that important, people will pay to have them dug. Otherwise, the ditch digging businesses will become extinct and the diggers will have to find other ways to occupy themselves. There are no guarantees in this life.

could be a trump slogan, 'no guarantees!'.

 

[osan]

No, not really, that's why I asked for a clarification.

You implied that even the libertarian reforms listed might have unintended bad consequences, and that you'd therefore not support them.

That is not what I wrote. I wrote that I would not support anything I did not sufficiently understand. My precise words were:

Without understanding the radiating effects, nope.

For Christ's sake... you'd think I was writing in Greek. In fact, lets try some Greek:

Χωρίς την κατανόηση των ακτινοβολεί επιπτώσεις, όχι

That being quite insane, I couldn't believe that's what you actually meant, hence the request for clarification.

I would say you need to get into a better habit of reading what is written and paying some attention to it. I was not vague in the least.

 

[osan]

Your apparently gratuitous use of "fascism" doesn't help you here in the least.

Given that strong nationalism is a key element of fascism, your assertion regarding Clinton passes no muster. Given the key element of racism, I would say that at best you have not made your case with respect to Trump.

As for point 3, do you mean to imply that "rais[ing] the LP profile a smidge" would be the defining characteristic and result of a Johnson presidency? Seems you are setting your sights pretty damned low.

I cannot speak to point the fourth because I have no idea who that is.

I get it. Well, there are four choices now that affect election outcome.

1. Vote for Hillary. Fascism for at least 4 years.
2. Vote for trump. Fascism for probably a lot longer than that.
3. Vote for Johnson. Raise the profile of the LP a smidge.
4. Vote for McMullin. Sink the LP, help out the neocons.

If the CP were actually trying, I'd say voting for Castle is a fifth option. As it is, a Castle vote is equivalent to writing in Ron Paul, Vermin Supreme or Giant Meteor.