I Would Like To Punch Him In The Face !

[cristinew]

. Where do you get this bull crap?

Right out of tRumps mouth,

 

He never said to punch someone in the face. Where do you get this bull crap?

[phaquetoo]

Greg you should pay attention to your candidate ,

Shitis all fuckedup man!

[cristinew]

I post facts never a lie, I back up what i say, Crickets from Gregrx

[Highlander]

 

. Where do you get this bull crap?

Right out of tRumps mouth,

 

 

If crap comes out of his mouth, his mouth must be....?

[AmishRnot4ganja]

I still expect that when this is all over, Hillary will be giving Donald a big hug and saying "Thank you. I couldn't have done it without your help."

 

Trump is playing the Republicans like a Stradivarius violin. And he's good at it. I don't know whether or not this will wake up some Republicans, but I do know that this will change the Republican party forever.

[Wild Bill]

I would love to vote for him, Im actualy thinking of not voting for pres,  I dont like my choices, and johnson cant win if no one knows he is running!

 

so yea the few that know he is running are waisting their vote, just like I did when I voted for perrot!

 

I would love to see some one other than a rep or dem be our next pres!

 

Not voting is wasting your vote. If your candidate doesn't win it doesn't mean your vote is wasted, it just means more people voted for another candidate.

 

Collusion by the media keeps new ideas out of the minds of the general public. Johnson's name wasn't included in the national polls so he couldn't get the 15% needed to get in the debates. The polls now include Johnson's name so hopefully he will be included in the debates.

 

If he is then people will be able to hear reasoned arguments regarding what government should be rather than just name calling between Clinton and Trump.

 

If you would love to see someone other than a Republican or Democrat as our next president then your only option is to vote third party.

 

If everyone who said they can't win voted for them they would win in a landslide.

[phaquetoo]

Not voting is wasting your vote. If your candidate doesn't win it doesn't mean your vote is wasted, it just means more people voted for another candidate.

 

Collusion by the media keeps new ideas out of the minds of the general public. Johnson's name wasn't included in the national polls so he couldn't get the 15% needed to get in the debates. The polls now include Johnson's name so hopefully he will be included in the debates.

 

If he is then people will be able to hear reasoned arguments regarding what government should be rather than just name calling between Clinton and Trump.

 

If you would love to see someone other than a Republican or Democrat as our next president then your only option is to vote third party.

 

If everyone who said they can't win voted for them they would win in a landslide.

 

 

But is Johnson really better on our issue than Trump? To me, Johnson is just another private prison Republican, from a policy perspective. He is financially backed by those people, but then talks about cannabis edible business all the time. It seems deceptive to me.

 

Are you sure you are really on the same page with Johnson?

 

I just wonder, for all of us that understand the political system to be awash in corporate money to the exclusion of all or most other influence, how could you think that the third parties aren't also bought and paid for?

Im not wishy washy!  I most def will vote, but I was thinking of not waisting my time, but it is my right and privealige to vote and I will!

 

I agree with what both of you are saying!

 

Its realy the most frustrating president election I have been legal to vote for!  It sucks!

 

I honestly dont think I would be saying that if a dif rep and dem were up there, but who knows,  I do know Im not Happy with my rep and dem choice,

 

I would like to see several political party's in the primarys and in every election,  Even though there are other party's they dont get their message out, they dont get press,  Im pretty sure if I wanted press I could get it lol!

 

Peace

[+washtenaut]

I agree with that Zap, but you can't really blame campaign money for Trump's success

[Wild Bill]

But is Johnson really better on our issue than Trump? To me, Johnson is just another private prison Republican, from a policy perspective.

 

Decide for yourself. this is from the Libertarian Party Platform.

 

The prescribed role of government is to protect the rights of every individual including the right to life, liberty and property. Criminal laws should be limited in their application to violations of the rights of others through force or fraud, or to deliberate actions that place others involuntarily at significant risk of harm. Therefore, we favor the repeal of all laws creating “crimes” without victims, such as the use of drugs for medicinal or recreational purposes. We support restitution to the victim to the fullest degree possible at the expense of the criminal or the negligent wrongdoer. The constitutional rights of the criminally accused, including due process, a speedy trial, legal counsel, trial by jury, and the legal presumption of innocence until proven guilty, must be preserved. We assert the common-law right of juries to judge not only the facts but also the justice of the law.

 

Here are some Gary Johnson quotes going back several years. I think this is better than Trumps position.

 

 

Click here for 16 full quotes on Drugs OR other candidates on Drugs OR background on Drugs.

• States are finally seeing the failure of the War on Drugs. (Jan 2016)
• Why do we tell adults what they can put in their bodies? (Jan 2016)
• People 95% positive on legalizing; incumbents 100% negative. (Aug 2012)
• Marijuana is safer than alcohol. (Aug 2012)
• 75% of border violence with Mexico is due to drugs. (Jun 2011)
• Marijuana is safer than alcohol. (Jun 2011)
• Legalize marijuana instead of 1.8 million arrests and $70B. (May 2011)
• Harm-reduction: health issue rather than criminal issue. (May 2011)
• Drug policy today parallels Prohibition in the 1920's. (May 2011)
• Other governors privately support ending drug war. (Oct 2002)
• War on Drugs is a miserable failure; $6M for treatment. (Apr 2001)
• Drug use is up despite $30B spending on War on Drugs. (Jan 2001)
• Prescriptions for heroin & methadone at local pharmacy. (Jan 2001)
• Allow medical marijuana and needle exchanges. (Jan 2001)
• More federal funding for all aspects of Drug War. (Aug 2000)
• States should make drug policy, not feds. (Aug 2001)

[Wild Bill]

Libertarians in general want to privatize most government services. Ideally government should only defend our borders and maintain a court system.

 

As far who funds him, does that supercede the fact that he opposes the war on drugs while the other candidates support it?

[t-pain]

private police would at least be held accountable , not being able to hide behind sheild laws, and such.

 

government immunity? gone.

 

but i agree with you zap, libertarian is much different than what we have right now...

 

 

although corporations pretty much own us right now anyway. look at fracking. i think the oil, gas and coal companies spent millions to scare people away from frikken windmills and solar panels.

 

so now we get flaming tap water from fracking, "clean coal", and bp oil spill disaster.

[t-pain]

i misread your original argument.

 

yeah i dont think they'd be able to replace the EPA with a private corp and hold it accountable at all.

 

nor road builders, bridges, water depts, infrastructure of any kind. it would all be toll roads and such.

 

thats why i'm not a libertarian.

[phaquetoo]

Is he no longer a fan of private prisons? Why should we trust the people who are funding/running his campaign after seeing their history?

 

 

 

Decide for yourself. this is from the Libertarian Party Platform.

 

 

Here are some Gary Johnson quotes going back several years. I think this is better than Trumps position.

 

 

Click here for 16 full quotes on Drugs OR other candidates on Drugs OR background on Drugs.

• States are finally seeing the failure of the War on Drugs. (Jan 2016)
• Why do we tell adults what they can put in their bodies? (Jan 2016)
• People 95% positive on legalizing; incumbents 100% negative. (Aug 2012)
• Marijuana is safer than alcohol. (Aug 2012)
• 75% of border violence with Mexico is due to drugs. (Jun 2011)
• Marijuana is safer than alcohol. (Jun 2011)
• Legalize marijuana instead of 1.8 million arrests and $70B. (May 2011)
• Harm-reduction: health issue rather than criminal issue. (May 2011)
• Drug policy today parallels Prohibition in the 1920's. (May 2011)
• Other governors privately support ending drug war. (Oct 2002)
• War on Drugs is a miserable failure; $6M for treatment. (Apr 2001)
• Drug use is up despite $30B spending on War on Drugs. (Jan 2001)
• Prescriptions for heroin & methadone at local pharmacy. (Jan 2001)
• Allow medical marijuana and needle exchanges. (Jan 2001)
• More federal funding for all aspects of Drug War. (Aug 2000)
• States should make drug policy, not feds. (Aug 2001)

 

 

 

Libertarians in general want to privatize most government services. Ideally government should only defend our borders and maintain a court system.

 

As far who funds him, does that supercede the fact that he opposes the war on drugs while the other candidates support it?

 

 

I don't know. Why do you trust them more than the Democrats and Republicans? Are they not the third step down from the top in a system that is excessively warped by monetary influence? Have the Libertarians done great things in lower offices or are they basically regular politicians? I don't know, I'm asking.

 

I've read Gary Johnson supported private prisons as Governor. That is very hard for me to understand.

 

 

I've been looking at this a bit more, and I may be having a fundamental problem with the Libertarian platform itself.

 

I just can't see how handing over certain current government functions to American corporations can possibly benefit the public. You said public courts but not police, for instance. Private police? Private prisons have been terrible. I'd think private police would be disastrous!

 

 

private police would at least be held accountable , not being able to hide behind sheild laws, and such.

 

government immunity? gone.

 

but i agree with you zap, libertarian is much different than what we have right now...

 

 

although corporations pretty much own us right now anyway. look at fracking. i think the oil, gas and coal companies spent millions to scare people away from frikken windmills and solar panels.

 

so now we get flaming tap water from fracking, "clean coal", and bp oil spill disaster.

 

 

I just don't see the logic in this at all. The only chance in hell we have of holding any of these functions accountable is if they are public. Look at our issue as a case study. We can hold the public entities accountable for the MMMA, but a private corporation? How would you do it?

 

How would a private citizen hold the police corporation accountable? Makes no sense.

 

 

i misread your original argument.

 

yeah i dont think they'd be able to replace the EPA with a private corp and hold it accountable at all.

 

nor road builders, bridges, water depts, infrastructure of any kind. it would all be toll roads and such.

 

thats why i'm not a libertarian.

I will reply to all of these posts   when im not medicated

 

Peace

[cristinew]

  Trump loves the Private Prisons  they do much better  FOR SLAVE LABOR,

[bax]

just to play devils advocate for the libertarians though, assuming gary wins the election, with the house and senate majority full of republicans and democrats and like 3 independents...

 

there is no way gary johnson would be able to implement a libertarian agenda, unless the repubs and democrats go along with it. and i doubt they would.

 

much like republicans hate obamacare, and democrats hate trump's wall.

 

no matter who gets into president office, they have to deal with congress.

 

so in the real world that we live in , it would be in our best interest to elect someone who would be better on marijuana.

 

multiple senators and reps have already stated they would stonewall clinton.

multiple senators and reps have already stated they would stonewall trump.

 

in this reality, we can pick any president we want. and hope that the votes are there for marijuana, as they have been close before in the senate and house.

 

remember, the senate still have to approve of supreme court justice nominees as well. thats why we dont have "justice harriet miers".

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsuccessful_nominations_to_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States

 

and thats also why we arent getting justice Merrick Garland

Edited August 12, 2016 by bax

[dutchfarm]

i misread your original argument.

 

yeah i dont think they'd be able to replace the EPA with a private corp and hold it accountable at all.

 

nor road builders, bridges, water depts, infrastructure of any kind. it would all be toll roads and such.

 

thats why i'm not a libertarian.

I also misunderstood what I read, my brother was in a private prison in FL and what he described was third world environment!!

                                             Farmer Brown

[AmishRnot4ganja]

I just don't see the logic in this at all. The only chance in hell we have of holding any of these functions accountable is if they are public. Look at our issue as a case study. We can hold the public entities accountable for the MMMA, but a private corporation? How would you do it?

 

How would a private citizen hold the police corporation accountable? Makes no sense.

 

We would have to have publicly funded police to oversee the private ones.

 

This "privatization" crap is so ridiculous. John Engler privatized the liquor distribution system in Michigan for no other reason than to privatize it. He gave the business to one of his supporters. A multi-million dollar windfall for the recipient. Michigan was making money off the business before the stooge Engler gave it away!

 

I can only assume that the people who buy into this twisted logic are too stupid to think out the consequences for themselves.

 

 

My only hope at this point is that Trump fractures the Republican party so badly that they will never be able to put it back together again.

 

Go Donald Trump!!!

[phaquetoo]

We would have to have publicly funded police to oversee the private ones.

 

This "privatization" crap is so ridiculous. John Engler privatized the liquor distribution system in Michigan for no other reason than to privatize it. He gave the business to one of his supporters. A multi-million dollar windfall for the recipient. Michigan was making money off the business before the stooge Engler gave it away!

 

I can only assume that the people who buy into this twisted logic are too stupid to think out the consequences for themselves.

 

 

My only hope at this point is that Trump fractures the Republican party so badly that they will never be able to put it back together again.

 

Go Donald Trump!!!

what is the difference between our liquir control than say pennsylvania's?  in PA you have to get your beer from one place and your liquir from another, just like canada, in MI I can buy beer, liquir at the same place, dont both states put the price on the product!

 

Im asking what is the dif,  I dont mean anything bad by this question, I would love to hear what the difference is between MI and PA, even ohio had 3.2 beer for 18 yr olds when I was younger, they sold real beer to 21 and over,  when I was 18 they changed the drinking law to 19, I got to drink for 6 months and they raised it to 21 lol!

 

Is PA the same as canada? is MI dif than PA and canada?

 

Peace

[Restorium2]

what is the difference between our liquir control than say pennsylvania's?  in PA you have to get your beer from one place and your liquir from another, just like canada, in MI I can buy beer, liquir at the same place, dont both states put the price on the product!

 

Im asking what is the dif,  I dont mean anything bad by this question, I would love to hear what the difference is between MI and PA, even ohio had 3.2 beer for 18 yr olds when I was younger, they sold real beer to 21 and over,  when I was 18 they changed the drinking law to 19, I got to drink for 6 months and they raised it to 21 lol!

 

Is PA the same as canada? is MI dif than PA and canada?

 

Peace

It's the State Legislatures pretending they are doing something, changing little things back and forth. Like our idiots stressing you don't need a helmit on a motorcycle but you do need a seat belt in a car. They just flail around and try to attract attention to their work that really isn't work. They dig a hole one cycle and fill it in the next. 

[Wild Bill]

Police are included as an arm of the court so they wouldn't be privatized. Almost everything else could be.

 

Examples would be Fedex instead of the post office, private garbage collection (which many towns have now) etc.

 

Johnson and Weld were both Republican governors in Democrat states and were both re-elected so they work well in bi-partisan situations. The plan if elected is to appoint the best and brightest from all sources, Republican, Democrat and of course Libertarians for cabinet posts and the like to try to cut down on partisan bickering.

 

Right now the litmus test is who the idea came from. If it came form the Dems then the Repubs won't vote for it and vice versa.

 

If the label is removed from the idea then maybe compromise will come easier.

 

The Libertarian Party was started in 1971 by young Republicans who liked the fiscally conservative ideas of the Republicans but hated the extremes of the Nixon Whitehouse. They wanted something that was economically conservative but socially liberal. It has been described as leftists who went so far to the left that they met themselves on the right.

 

The driving philosophy is "Who owns you", who has the right to tell you how to live your life, who you should marry, what you should eat drink or out in your body? Are you the property of the government or do you think you should be able to make those decisions for yourself as a responsible adult.

 

They also feel strongly about personal responsibility. Every time you ask the government to do something for you it makes you indebted to them. They "protect" you from whatever perceived danger you are in be it drug abuse, gay marriage or gun violence but whenever they do you give up a little more of your personal freedom.

 

Most of the problems of society could be worked better and easier without the intervention of the government.

 

The current crop is a little too watered down for my taste but it is still a platform that is heads and shoulders better than the other two. There is no perfection is politics, all you can do is try to find something closer to your beliefs.

 

At least I can say I'm voting FOR someone and not AGAINST someone else.

 

Read the platform, listen to what they have to say and make an informed decision. Take a look at all three party positions and see which makes more sense to you and vote for that one.

 

"That government is best which governs least" - Thoreau

 

edited to add:

 

Current "privatization" efforts are actually crony capitalism, "Here we'll fix it so they have to buy it from you!"

 

Privatization should be where several companies provide a service (like Fedex or UPS) and you have a choice about who you choose to perform the service. Non-private would be like the Post Office model where all communication is done through government channels.

Edited August 13, 2016 by Wild Bill

[Wild Bill]

what is the difference between our liquir control than say pennsylvania's?  in PA you have to get your beer from one place and your liquir from another, just like canada, in MI I can buy beer, liquir at the same place, dont both states put the price on the product!

 

Pennsylvania and Canada are State controlled systems. The State buys the alcohol from the wholesaler and then sells it retail to the public. They are the only source of legal alcohol

 

Michigan used to use this model until Engler "privatized" it, meaning he turned all retail functions over to a private company owned by his political buddies. They are the only source of legal alcohol.

 

In a true privatized system there would be competition between a variety of companies for both wholesale and retail sales. No one entity would monopolize alcohol and whichever business did the best job of supplying alcohol at the best price would ultimately make the most money. 

 

Ideally you could set up a still in your backyard and brew your own. What business is it of the government what you do on your own property?

Edited August 14, 2016 by Wild Bill

[Highlander]

The problem with sort of privatization is that many people get left out of basic services. Without the rural electrification act, many areas of the country would probably still be without electricity. If we eliminated the postal service people in low population areas would struggle, especially older folks who don't get out much, don't use the Internet much and have poor internet acces to begin with. And/or prices for such services would be extremely high for those who can least afford it. Everyone would pay private school rates for college, well not everyone, because many won't be able to afford it.

 

The poorest citizens would lose access to public transportation. Look at our banking system and grocery stores as examples. Right now, there are very few banks in the city of flint. So many people rely on party stores to cash their checks and pay a huge premium to do so. There is only one grocery store in the city of flint. And several grocery stores just outside the city have closed in recent years. People find themselves more or less doing their grocery shopping at convenience stores, where they pay inflated prices for low quality food. Take away flint's bus system and the situation will only get worse.

 

Public transportation and other such systems give people in poor communities a chance to make it out. People have access to more jobs and education opportunities. Replacing public transportation with private would result in the businesses who run the system to either increase prices or eliminate services in poor areas altogether.

[Wild Bill]

The problem with sort of privatization is that many people get left out of basic services. Without the rural electrification act, many areas of the country would probably still be without electricity. If we eliminated the postal service people in low population areas would struggle, especially older folks who don't get out much, don't use the Internet much and have poor internet acces to begin with. And/or prices for such services would be extremely high for those who can least afford it.

 

Is an electrical grid even necessary any more? If the power companies and the State didn't have a strangle hold on new technology every home could have a solar or wind generator, have very cheap power and not have to rely on a power company. (BTW, I tried to answer this post yesterday but just as I got ready to hit the add reply button my power went out)

 

Everyone would pay private school rates for college, well not everyone, because many won't be able to afford it.

 

Would all scholarships suddenly end? And as far as that goes when did a college education become a basic right?

Another part of the Libertarian platform is the elimination of the income tax. They would replace it with some sort of consumption tax, like sales tax. If you didn't have to give a third of your money to the government do you think you might be able to afford more things?

 

The poorest citizens would lose access to public transportation. Look at our banking system and grocery stores as examples. Right now, there are very few banks in the city of flint. So many people rely on party stores to cash their checks and pay a huge premium to do so. There is only one grocery store in the city of flint. And several grocery stores just outside the city have closed in recent years. People find themselves more or less doing their grocery shopping at convenience stores, where they pay inflated prices for low quality food. Take away flint's bus system and the situation will only get worse.

 

I spent most of my life in Detroit so I am familiar with lack of transportation in low income areas. Do you really think it would be worse if private companies took it over than it is right now?

If public transit ended there would be someone who would pick up the slack, assuming they weren't stifled by government interference. Private services like Uber would no doubt increase if there was more of a demand. There is nothing to stop someone from starting a privately owned bus line.

 

Public transportation and other such systems give people in poor communities a chance to make it out. People have access to more jobs and education opportunities. Replacing public transportation with private would result in the businesses who run the system to either increase prices or eliminate services in poor areas altogether.

 

Why would you assume the private sector couldn't perform the service cheaper and more efficiently than the government? The government has no incentive to provide good services, they get paid no matter what and since they monopolize said services they don't care whether the customer is happy or not. A private company wouldn't last in business if they displayed the disregard for their customers that you get from government employees.

Edited August 14, 2016 by Wild Bill

[Highlander]

Bill, your response didn't address the lack of banks and grocery stores in the inner city. For-profit business enterprises have very few options for inner city folks because the profit just isn't there. The same phenomenon applies to other services, primarily transportation and postal-type services.

 

You can send a first class letter from Miami to Ankorage via USPS for less than 50 cents. The cheapest available option via UPS or FEDEX is about $40.

 

If UPS and FEDEX could make a profit delivering simple letter packages they would be doing it already. But they can't compete with USPS on simple letter delivery so they don't even try. If you privatize letter delivery in the U.S., it would be cost prohibitive to send any letter anywhere. How can a for-profit company possibly compete with a cost of under 50 cents to send a letter from anywhere to anywhere in the USA?

 

Now look at public transportation, especially in the inner cities. City buses in the U.S. are subsidized at a rate of approximately 19 cents per passenger mile. The Mass Transit Authority (MTA) in Genesee County offers door-to-door transportation for elderly and disabled people from anywhere to anywhere in the county for a maximum rate of $3.50 per person.

 

Look at it this way - if private business enterprises could make a buck providing transportation to disadvantaged folks, they would already be doing it! Uber isn't going to fill the void. Try your own experiment/test. Look to Uber to find a ride from the corner of Martin Luther King Blvd. and Pierson Road in Flint to the corner of Carpenter Road and Saginaw Street. Then look for a ride from downtown Fenton to downtown Grand Blanc. The former is a much shorter ride than the latter. See how many drivers are even willing to take the Flint job. Then compare the costs.

 

So, let me ask you this - if we eliminated government-run transportation systems in the U.S., do you really think that a private business enterprise would step in and fill the void.

 

Edited to ask a better question.

 

You said: "There is nothing to stop someone from starting a privately owned bus line."

 

You're 100% correct. There is nothing to stop someone from starting a privately owned bus line. So why has no one done it?

Edited August 14, 2016 by Highlander

[Wild Bill]

We have a fundamental difference in what we think the government should do. I personally don't want any government at all. The whole concept is totally evil as far as I'm concerned

 

But we're stuck with it under threat of violence, so as far as I'm concerned all the government should be responsible for is defending the borders and a court system.

 

Everything you mentioned would be better served by the private sector.