Here's your guy Raptor

[homersapien 11,812]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/gary-johnson-climate-change-planets_us_57e7d871e4b08d73b831cf55?section=us_politics

At least regarding the subject of global warming.

He sounds exactly like you.  It's uncanny.  

[AURaptor 1,137]

He's not wrong 

[quietfan 233]

The Huffington Post article links to this article which is much more detailed regarding Johnson's stance. (More details, but I know some will immediate dismiss it because it's Mother Jones.  I guess I can't begrudge them that right since I am automatically skeptical--although not preemptively dismissive--of anything I see on Fox News or Breitbart...):

http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2016/09/gary-johnson-climate-change

From this, it's hard to say exactly where Johnson stands on a carbon tax.  Is he against it or is he open to it (as he said in his August LA Times interview)?

While I am very libertarian when it comes to personal conduct and lifestyle choices, I can't vote Libertarian because I very much believe in government taking an active role in many things...including environmental protection, health care, business and banking regulation, and a socioeconomic safety net for the poor..

 

[AURaptor 1,137]

... but you're a Libertarian.

 

 

OK

[quietfan 233]

24 minutes ago, AURaptor said:

... but you're a Libertarian.

OK

Never claimed to be a Libertarian.  Actually, I just said I could not vote Libertarian because I'm not libertarian on many issues.

However, I have strong libertarian leanings as far as the government trying telling an individual what gender he/she can marry or what gender to identify as, what books/films/drugs he/she may enjoy in the privacy of their home, what religion he/she should or should not follow, or what a woman may do with her own body.

I think all of us support liberty...as we understand it.  It is the philosophical stance of the Declaration of Independence and the legal stance of the Constitution.  But what distinguishes the Libertarian Party as an organization is their official support of minimalist government.  I'm not a fan of minimalist government because I think the government should play an active role in many areas, including but not necessarily limited to defending our rights, protecting the environment and safety in the work place, and promoting legal and economic justice for all. 

[AURaptor 1,137]

 

"  While  I am very  libertarian…"

 I know you said more than that, but I just find it funny that you make such a line of demarcation between your personal conduct and your political views. It just struck me as curious is all. 

[Grumps 3,706]

53 minutes ago, quietfan said:

Never claimed to be a Libertarian.  Actually, I just said I could not vote Libertarian because I'm not libertarian on many issues.

However, I have strong libertarian leanings as far as the government trying telling an individual what gender he/she can marry or what gender to identify as, what books/films/drugs he/she may enjoy in the privacy of their home, what religion he/she should or should not follow, or what a woman may do with her own body.

I think all of us support liberty...as we understand it.  It is the philosophical stance of the Declaration of Independence and the legal stance of the Constitution.  But what distinguishes the Libertarian Party as an organization is their official support of minimalist government.  I'm not a fan of minimalist government because I think the government should play an active role in many areas, including but not necessarily limited to defending our rights, protecting the environment and safety in the work place, and promoting legal and economic justice for all. 

I am certainly in favor of a minimalist government. The question is: What is minimalist? Is it the minimum amount of intervention to protect our Constitutionally guaranteed rights or is the minimum amount of intervention to make us all act like "they" want us to act? And is the opposite of "minimalist" government a "maximalist" government? That seems to be where we are headed.

[homersapien 11,812]

4 hours ago, AURaptor said:

He's not wrong 

Just irrelevant.    

“In billions of years, the sun is going to actually grow and encompass the Earth, right? So global warming is in our future,” Johnson, who opposes environmental regulation, said at the time. 

And that is long-term. I mean the plate tectonics, uh, at one point, Africa and South America separated and I am talking now about the Earth and the fact that we have existed for billions of years and will going forward.

 

[AURaptor 1,137]

Again. He's not wrong. Not sure what you find laugh worthy, but to each their own. I strongly disagree with him on some issues but still considered voting Libertarian...until " what's Aleppo ? ". 

 

 

[quietfan 233]

1 hour ago, AURaptor said:

 

"  While  I am very  libertarian…"

 I know you said more than that, but I just find it funny that you make such a line of demarcation between your personal conduct and your political views. It just struck me as curious is all. 

And I am completely comfortable with you finding it odd or curious as long as you understood my comments.  ...i.e, not asking you to agree, just listen.  

[homersapien 11,812]

1 hour ago, AURaptor said:

Again. He's not wrong. Not sure what you find laugh worthy, but to each their own. I strongly disagree with him on some issues but still considered voting Libertarian...until " what's Aleppo ? ". 

 

 

The idea that plate tectonics and solar life cycle are somehow relevant to anthropogenic global warming.   

[AURaptor 1,137]

 I think his point is that AGW is insignificant when compared to those other things.

 Then you have Al Gore ,who believes that the interior of the earth is several million degrees. No wonder we have global warming 

 

 

[homersapien 11,812]

1 minute ago, AURaptor said:

 I think his point is that AGW is insignificant when compared to those other things.

 Then you have Al Gore ,who believes that the interior of the earth is several million degrees. No wonder we have global warming 

 

 

Insignificant compared to our sun going nova?   Well duuuuh!  That's true for anything concerning earth.  But when will that happen?

That's why it's so funny - we should ignore something happening now because in 5 billion years our sun will go nova?  

And really, Al Gore?  Again?  What Al Gore might say has nothing to do with determining the scientific validity of AGW.  It's a diversion.  

Thanks for the laugh.

[AURaptor 1,137]

AlGore is a joke & he's the pied  piper of AGW disaster hysteria. 

[icanthearyou 4,468]

3 hours ago, Grumps said:

I am certainly in favor of a minimalist government. The question is: What is minimalist? Is it the minimum amount of intervention to protect our Constitutionally guaranteed rights or is the minimum amount of intervention to make us all act like "they" want us to act? And is the opposite of "minimalist" government a "maximalist" government? That seems to be where we are headed.

I have little respect for the argument of maximum/minimum government.  It seems that only plays to the political extremes.  The extremes seem to be defined by those who knowingly or, unwittingly, play into the hands of special interests.

IMHO, the size of government that serves us best becomes moot if, we promote democracy and the idea that our government is a government of, by, for the people, all of the people.  I think we need to stop looking at the answers to our problems as being convenient to our ideology and, look at what is efficient and practical for the betterment of our society, our country.

The real question in my mind, in regard to your post is, who is "they" and, how do "they want us to act"?  Again, if we are the government and, we are truly practicing democracy, should there be a "they"?  By default, shouldn't that be WE?  Perhaps that simple bit of ideology is really what is most important?  Perhaps our most pressing problem is to restore our government to a government of the people, and not necessarily, and merely a function of size?

Perhaps, in spite of all of the rhetoric, BOTH parties promote more and more legislation and consequently more government?  Perhaps, it isn't government growing for the sake of government itself but rather, government growing because BOTH parties are fueled by the money garnered through the sale of legislation?  Does that explain why the budget and, debt, increase regardless of which party controls the White House, Congress?

In my mind, this is the folly of modern "conservatism".  It has been sold out as a dogmatic (and too often disingenuous) ideology and, has given up on the practical, rational, intellectual, and human qualities required for efficient/effective governing.  

I don't believe our government is too big, or too small to efficiently, effectively govern.  I believe our government has become too corrupted by power and money to efficiently/effectively govern.

Trump versus Clinton, need I say more?  We will not have the right size government until, we effectively, fundamentally, restore our government to being OUR government.  Right now, the parties, the special interests are the government, not the people.  The problem isn't as much scale.  It's more fundamental, more profound.

 

 

[Grumps 3,706]

1 hour ago, icanthearyou said:

I have little respect for the argument of maximum/minimum government.  It seems that only plays to the political extremes.  The extremes seem to be defined by those who knowingly or, unwittingly, play into the hands of special interests.

IMHO, the size of government that serves us best becomes moot if, we promote democracy and the idea that our government is a government of, by, for the people, all of the people.  I think we need to stop looking at the answers to our problems as being convenient to our ideology and, look at what is efficient and practical for the betterment of our society, our country.

The real question in my mind, in regard to your post is, who is "they" and, how do "they want us to act"?  Again, if we are the government and, we are truly practicing democracy, should there be a "they"?  By default, shouldn't that be WE?  Perhaps that simple bit of ideology is really what is most important?  Perhaps our most pressing problem is to restore our government to a government of the people, and not necessarily, and merely a function of size?

Perhaps, in spite of all of the rhetoric, BOTH parties promote more and more legislation and consequently more government?  Perhaps, it isn't government growing for the sake of government itself but rather, government growing because BOTH parties are fueled by the money garnered through the sale of legislation?  Does that explain why the budget and, debt, increase regardless of which party controls the White House, Congress?

In my mind, this is the folly of modern "conservatism".  It has been sold out as a dogmatic (and too often disingenuous) ideology and, has given up on the practical, rational, intellectual, and human qualities required for efficient/effective governing.  

I don't believe our government is too big, or too small to efficiently, effectively govern.  I believe our government has become too corrupted by power and money to efficiently/effectively govern.

Trump versus Clinton, need I say more?  We will not have the right size government until, we effectively, fundamentally, restore our government to being OUR government.  Right now, the parties, the special interests are the government, not the people.  The problem isn't as much scale.  It's more fundamental, more profound.

 

 

I completely agree that corruption is them problem. I completely agree that neither party or candidate is the answer. Unfortunately, I think the government will be corrupt no matter its size. At least if it is smaller it will cost less to run. I also think that if the states had more power relative to the federal government that the people would be more likely to be run by the people.

[icanthearyou 4,468]

26 minutes ago, Grumps said:

I completely agree that corruption is them problem. I completely agree that neither party or candidate is the answer. Unfortunately, I think the government will be corrupt no matter its size. At least if it is smaller it will cost less to run. I also think that if the states had more power relative to the federal government that the people would be more likely to be run by the people.

While I understand, I still have to wonder how practical/rational that thinking is.  It is sort of like killing the patient in order to cure his cancer.  

Is there any evidence to support the idea that government on the state level is less (or more) corrupt.  

[quietfan 233]

25 minutes ago, icanthearyou said:

While I understand, I still have to wonder how practical/rational that thinking is.  It is sort of like killing the patient in order to cure his cancer.  

Is there any evidence to support the idea that government on the state level is less (or more) corrupt.  

For that matter, is there any evidence that government is more corrupt than the private sector?  At least in principle, government does not have the profit motive that private industry has when providing equivalent services.

[icanthearyou 4,468]

2 hours ago, quietfan said:

For that matter, is there any evidence that government is more corrupt than the private sector?  At least in principle, government does not have the profit motive that private industry has when providing equivalent services.

I think this principle has been undermined.  The federal government employs fewer people than it did fifty years ago, even though it has grown exponentially.  So, as functions are contracted out, profit motive is introduced and, some more corruption as well.

Perhaps, profit motive is helping drive the growth of government?  Perhaps, the inefficiency is by design?

[Auburn85 434]

1 hour ago, quietfan said:

For that matter, is there any evidence that government is more corrupt than the private sector?  At least in principle, government does not have the profit motive that private industry has when providing equivalent services.

I don't have any evidence, but it made me think of crony capitalism with a mix of both private and public. I personally don't like the relationship between Amazon and the U.S. Postal Service because it's so slanted in favor of Amazon. The tax payers subsidize loses for the post office(which is another subject to talk about since they are still having to pay retirement funding light years in advance). Amazon piggy backs onto the post office to help delver their products without paying little to nothing for the post office services.

 

The bailing out of the banks using taxpayers as collateral to bailout private banks. And now we see the banks are bigger now than they were pre-crash. Slaps on the wrists in fines towards massive profits with no real repercussions, while the little people took it on the chin of losing their homes, jobs, and well being. Yet, the little people were good enough to be used as collateral to bail them out.

 

Look at the recent finding at Wells Fargo and the phony multiple accounts created. I do not agree with the solutions of Elizabeth Warren, but the clip of her going after the Wells Fargo CEO is great. She sort of hits on the points of crony capitalism because the lower level employees got fired. The CEO reaped the benefits of a higher stock price because of phony accounts, and Wells Fargo ultimately gets a speeding ticket fine towards the path of higher profits.

Look at the energy industry. Subsidies for the ethanol industry. Yet, the average taxpayer sees no benefit. In fact, as a result food prices have increased.

Subsidizing green energy companies. Some end up going bankrupt.

 

Companies like Halliburton profiting off of war and death and injury. Our Military Industrial Complex is so entangled with our economy that our GDP takes a hit if we are not in a constant,hot, perpetual war.

 

 

 

 

[icanthearyou 4,468]

27 minutes ago, Auburn85 said:

I don't have any evidence, but it made me think of crony capitalism with a mix of both private and public. I personally don't like the relationship between Amazon and the U.S. Postal Service because it's so slanted in favor of Amazon. The tax payers subsidize loses for the post office(which is another subject to talk about since they are still having to pay retirement funding light years in advance). Amazon piggy backs onto the post office to help delver their products without paying little to nothing for the post office services.

 

The bailing out of the banks using taxpayers as collateral to bailout private banks. And now we see the banks are bigger now than they were pre-crash. Slaps on the wrists in fines towards massive profits with no real repercussions, while the little people took it on the chin of losing their homes, jobs, and well being. Yet, the little people were good enough to be used as collateral to bail them out.

 

Look at the recent finding at Wells Fargo and the phony multiple accounts created. I do not agree with the solutions of Elizabeth Warren, but the clip of her going after the Wells Fargo CEO is great. She sort of hits on the points of crony capitalism because the lower level employees got fired. The CEO reaped the benefits of a higher stock price because of phony accounts, and Wells Fargo ultimately gets a speeding ticket fine towards the path of higher profits.

Look at the energy industry. Subsidies for the ethanol industry. Yet, the average taxpayer sees no benefit. In fact, as a result food prices have increased.

Subsidizing green energy companies. Some end up going bankrupt.

 

Companies like Halliburton profiting off of war and death and injury. Our Military Industrial Complex is so entangled with our economy that our GDP takes a hit if we are not in a constant,hot, perpetual war.

 

 

 

 

There's gold in that there government!  You just have to get in there an do some lobbying, bribing, mining,,,,whatever.

I don't see either party doing anything to change this.

[Grumps 3,706]

5 hours ago, icanthearyou said:

While I understand, I still have to wonder how practical/rational that thinking is.  It is sort of like killing the patient in order to cure his cancer.  

Is there any evidence to support the idea that government on the state level is less (or more) corrupt.  

I believe that better decisions are made when the person who makes them are close to the situation. That may or may not be rational. I don't know how that is related to cancer.

[homersapien 11,812]

9 hours ago, AURaptor said:

AlGore is a joke & he's the pied  piper of AGW disaster hysteria. 

No wonder you're a Trumpett, ever trying to portray the argument in personal terms.

[homersapien 11,812]

4 hours ago, Auburn85 said:

...... I do not agree with the solutions of Elizabeth Warren, .....

Why?

[AURaptor 1,137]

13 hours ago, homersapien said:

No wonder you're a Trumpett, ever trying to portray the argument in personal terms.

Lying weasel