d2jsp
Log InRegister
d2jsp Forums > Off-Topic > General Chat > Political & Religious Debate > Gary Johnson?
1238Next
Add Reply New Topic New Poll
Member
Posts: 1,192
Joined: Jan 18 2013
Gold: 30.00
Jul 17 2016 04:49am
Whats up with this guy?
He's going to be on all 50 state electoral ballots in November along with Hilary and Trump.
Heard that he also wants to reform immigration by making it easier to become a citizen, supports internet freedom, against the war on drugs, wants government out of marriage, opposes common core, and climbed the 4 tallest mountains in the world. 2 with a broken leg.

I feel like these could all be lies? Or maybe this guy is just cool?
I dont know. Someone type words underneath here.
Member
Posts: 51,909
Joined: Jan 3 2009
Gold: 8,933.00
Member
Posts: 24,504
Joined: Mar 2 2008
Gold: 2,004.41
Jul 17 2016 05:46am
he's for white people only
Member
Posts: 24,504
Joined: Mar 2 2008
Gold: 2,004.41
Jul 17 2016 05:54am
shitposting aside
I agree with him on many aspects. He seems unprepared at times, doesn't always have a comprehensive plan on things. I've noticed a lot of people try to hit him with gotcha questions and he doesn't always refute them well.

Haven't seen him in any debates, though (yet). Only interviews and the full rogan podcast he was on. I like that you can find him talking to people online through the smaller shows/podcasts and not just major networks.

This post was edited by Sakuraba on Jul 17 2016 05:59am
Member
Posts: 33,580
Joined: May 9 2009
Gold: 3.33
Jul 17 2016 06:19am
Got a few main points against Gary:

1. Slashing federal budgets by over 40% would cause a recession and be counterproductive in the creation of a paradoxical cycle where the debt to gdp ratio actually increases as gdp falls further in relation to debt. Austerity has been proven to be detrimental time and time again, it is always chosen as an ideological choice and never as a rational economic policy.

2. He made it clear he didn't support an increase in the minimum wage quoting the same old talking point of high unemployment, when small to moderate increases have been shown to barely affect unemployment or inflation. A trade off exists, especially with more significant increases, but it's all about managing the trade off to maximise the net benefit. Over 70% of the country supports a minimum wage increase too, and as a result I think Gary would struggle in debates on this issue.

3. Gary and his running mate mention 'fiscally conservative, socially liberal' in every sentence. Yes there are some social issues that are separate from fiscal ones like gay marriage, but they are related to an extent that I think it would be dishonest to continue using the buzzword of social liberal, fiscal conservative. The most important policies are ones that are intertwined, like health care and education, which a 'social liberal' like Johnson has starkly fiscally conservative views on.

This post was edited by dro94 on Jul 17 2016 06:20am
Member
Posts: 70,459
Joined: Feb 3 2006
Gold: 28,296.01
Jul 17 2016 07:03am
Like many things on the surface lies all the appeal but when you go a little deeper it's not as pretty

As much as I support ending the drug war and staying out of people's personal lives I find that the waters are a bit too cold for me.

I would worry even more about the environment and the effects of volunteerism replacing government welfare programs.

If I were to ever vote Libertarian it would be a situation like we have now where we have 2 semi rational ex republicans at the top of the ticket and I still can't vote that way so I probably never will.

The more that I think of it the more I realize how much I actually disagree with Libertarians which is unfortunate because the good is pretty good
Member
Posts: 57,901
Joined: Dec 3 2008
Gold: 285.00
Jul 17 2016 08:45am
Quote (Beowulf @ Jul 17 2016 08:03am)
Like many things on the surface lies all the appeal but when you go a little deeper it's not as pretty

As much as I support ending the drug war and staying out of people's personal lives I find that the waters are a bit too cold for me.

I would worry even more about the environment and the effects of volunteerism replacing government welfare programs.

If I were to ever vote Libertarian it would be a situation like we have now where we have 2 semi rational ex republicans at the top of the ticket and I still can't vote that way so I probably never will.

The more that I think of it the more I realize how much I actually disagree with Libertarians which is unfortunate because the good is pretty good


A libertarian society would be very different than what we see now, that is for sure.

When people say cut welfare it is generally a racial or ideologically driven impulse to quit giving lazy people welfare checks for popping out kids. But realistically less than 1% of people are doing and and probably much less so. We all receive the benefits of the welfare system in our system of distributed justice...and the people up top receive the most in benefits but the upper, upper-middle, middle, middle-lower, lower, working/urban underclass classes all receive substantial benefit from the arrangement. This is why the vast majority of people overwhelmingly support this stuff and believe it is insane to try to anything but tighten it up.

If we cut welfare altogether then everybody would be able to do substantially less in their life, on a day to day basis. People would be less safe, they would less healthy, there would be less food, it would be lower quality, roads would be really shitty for the most part. Homelessness would be much worse of a problem, and there would be nothing stopping families at risk from falling into poverty during economic downturns either, no safety net. People are going to say churches and private charities etc, but those are band-aids on cancer and people who say that tend not to understand how charity and human services actually works.

Americans would be very different too. It would no doubt make individuals stronger in ways, but we would be like Mexico in the end....shitty government, shitty water, going somewhere else with a higher standard of living to live, perhaps Canada where they aren't dumb enough to throw out their high quality of life to be ideologically pure.

Quote (dro94 @ Jul 17 2016 07:19am)
Got a few main points against Gary:

1. Slashing federal budgets by over 40% would cause a recession and be counterproductive in the creation of a paradoxical cycle where the debt to gdp ratio actually increases as gdp falls further in relation to debt. Austerity has been proven to be detrimental time and time again, it is always chosen as an ideological choice and never as a rational economic policy.

2. He made it clear he didn't support an increase in the minimum wage quoting the same old talking point of high unemployment, when small to moderate increases have been shown to barely affect unemployment or inflation. A trade off exists, especially with more significant increases, but it's all about managing the trade off to maximise the net benefit. Over 70% of the country supports a minimum wage increase too, and as a result I think Gary would struggle in debates on this issue.

3. Gary and his running mate mention 'fiscally conservative, socially liberal' in every sentence. Yes there are some social issues that are separate from fiscal ones like gay marriage, but they are related to an extent that I think it would be dishonest to continue using the buzzword of social liberal, fiscal conservative. The most important policies are ones that are intertwined, like health care and education, which a 'social liberal' like Johnson has starkly fiscally conservative views on.


These are all very good points and I couldn't have said them better. Especially in 1 with austerity being a choice driven by ideology rather than rational economic analysis.

And economics is social, this is true. People like him like to conveniently think you can make economic decisions with no moral implications and capitalism pretends that but it isn't true. All human life is social, and free trade as a right tends to nullify all other rights.
Member
Posts: 33,580
Joined: May 9 2009
Gold: 3.33
Jul 17 2016 08:52am
Quote (Skinned @ Jul 17 2016 03:45pm)
These are all very good points and I couldn't have said them better. Especially in 1 with austerity being a choice driven by ideology rather than rational economic analysis.

And economics is social, this is true. People like him like to conveniently think you can make economic decisions with no moral implications and capitalism pretends that but it isn't true. All human life is social, and free trade as a right tends to nullify all other rights.


Yeah, the whole 'living within our means' is bullshit. Small to moderate amounts of debt is fine, without debt we'd have a hard time getting our governments to do long term investment...which is already difficult because they only conveniently plan for the next 4-8 years.

Without debt we wouldn't have fiat currency, and the libertarians think fiat currency linked to a gold standard is a compromise in which governments can accrue some level of debt whilst having 'sound money'.

As a Keynesian man you know as good as anyone that a government surplus means a lack of investment in the private sector, but the electorate (mostly) don't.
Member
Posts: 65,875
Joined: May 17 2005
Gold: 17,384.69
Jul 17 2016 12:14pm
well look like that guy is for the freedom of everything anyway, he's just a votes grabber.
hopefully he's for free education too ? till you can pay for it
Member
Posts: 28,172
Joined: Mar 2 2009
Gold: 0.00
Jul 17 2016 01:24pm
Quote (dro94 @ Jul 17 2016 09:52am)
Yeah, the whole 'living within our means' is bullshit. Small to moderate amounts of debt is fine, without debt we'd have a hard time getting our governments to do long term investment...which is already difficult because they only conveniently plan for the next 4-8 years.

Without debt we wouldn't have fiat currency, and the libertarians think fiat currency linked to a gold standard is a compromise in which governments can accrue some level of debt whilst having 'sound money'.

As a Keynesian man you know as good as anyone that a government surplus means a lack of investment in the private sector, but the electorate (mostly) don't.


Small to moderates amounts of debt don't exist in the US currently, only excessively large. The debt may not prove to be a problem in the near future, but if it continues to grow at the current rate it could bring about a situation where we need severe tax hikes to pay for the interest, we default or we resort to massive amounts of QE and likely large amounts of inflation to go with it.
Quote (Saucisson6000 @ Jul 17 2016 01:14pm)
well look like that guy is for the freedom of everything anyway, he's just a votes grabber.
hopefully he's for free education too ? till you can pay for it



Did you not just describe a loan?
Go Back To Political & Religious Debate Topic List
1238Next
Add Reply New Topic New Poll