Speaking of changing political affiliations

[vraiblonde]

Gary Johnson got the nod for the Libertarians, so now I have some incentive to register with a political party. I realize I can vote for him anyway, but it will look good if people start registering Libertarian in the wake of his nomination.

I understand Johnson is not going to win, and that our next Prez will be either Obama or Romney. But, like flaking off the GOP, it will be a symbol and a small statement.

So I think I'm going to go ahead and do it! I've always been more in line with them anyway.

 

[Misfit]

Advocates for Self Government

 

[Vince]

I like his stand on gun control. He's pro gun and pro concealed carry.

 

[Hank]

it will be a symbol and a small statement.

That's why I will vote for him and why I voted for Nader.... I don't care whether people think it's a throwaway vote or not... The more people on board, the stronger the statement...

 

[Misfit]

Green Party of the United States | About

 

[Larry Gude]

So I think I'm going to go ahead and do it! I've always been more in line with them anyway.

Yes and no. I don't think the Libertarians are much on public executions for jay walking and tall grass...

 

[SamSpade]

So I think I'm going to go ahead and do it! I've always been more in line with them anyway.

:shrug:

In 1980, I wrote in Nixon pretty much for the same reason. It didn't change anything, although it did get mentioned on a local radio station the next day.

 

[bcp]

Gary Johnson got the nod for the Libertarians, so now I have some incentive to register with a political party. I realize I can vote for him anyway, but it will look good if people start registering Libertarian in the wake of his nomination.

I understand Johnson is not going to win, and that our next Prez will be either Obama or Romney. But, like flaking off the GOP, it will be a symbol and a small statement.

So I think I'm going to go ahead and do it! I've always been more in line with them anyway.

Reject auto and banking bailouts, state bailouts, corporate welfare, cap-and-trade, card check, and the mountain of regulation that protects special interests rather than benefiting consumers or the economy.
Restrict Federal Reserve policy to maintaining price stability, not bailing out financial firms or propping up the housing sector.
Eliminate government support of Fannie and Freddie.
Reduce or eliminate federal involvement in education; let states expand successful reforms such as vouchers and charter schools.
Legalize, tax, and regulate marijuana, rather than wasting money on an expensive and futile prohibition.
Eliminate needless barriers to free trade and make it easier for would-be legal immigrants to apply for work visas.

To totally eliminate government support of Fannie and Freddie right now would be a total crash in the economy as the notes were sold off without any backing.

He is very weak on protecting the borders and limiting immigration, His theory is to just make everyone legal as the walk across the border. I have to disagree with this. We need to shut the border and limit immingration to only those people that bring advanced skills.

I to a large extent agree with his theory to restrict the government to only those responsibilities that are outlined in the constitution, however doing so would put millions out of work at a very fast rate. And, combine that with his theory of the federal goverment being out of social services, it might fix the federal budget, but it is going to transfer the obligations over to state.

For legal marijuana, Properly done and regulated, (oh wait, he said no government regulation,) and taxed it would be no worse than drinking.
It will cause other problems that drinking does not, example would be that I can get drunk off my ass sitting next to you, and you wont be affected, but if I torch up next to you, you could end up with a contact high.

Government out of marriage. I agree, leave the marriage and gay thing up to the individual states based on constituents desires.

He is for abortion for any reason. Right on up till the baby is born. I dont agree at all.

against torture of enemies. I dont agree
Give terrorists same legal rights as citizens, I dont agree

abolish the IRS and establish a fair taxed based on purchases vs income.
Might work out well, Im all for it but he would never be able to convince congress to give up their perks that they get from big business and rich people.


Overall, I dont think I can support him.
Although, I certainly would go his direction before voting for obama.

 

[ylexot]

He is very weak on protecting the borders and limiting immigration, His theory is to just make everyone legal as the walk across the border. I have to disagree with this. We need to shut the border and limit immingration to only those people that bring advanced skills.

That's a very slanted and unfair summary of his position...
Immigration

 

[ylexot]

He is for abortion for any reason. Right on up till the baby is born. I dont agree at all.

This is just a false statement.
Civil Liberties

Life is precious and must be protected. A woman should be allowed to make her own decisions during pregnancy until the point of viability of a fetus.

Of course, I contend that the President has no control over the issue, so picking a President based on that issue is

 

[bcp]

That's a very slanted and unfair summary of his position...
Immigration

There should be a two-year grace period for illegal immigrants to attain work visas so they can continue contributing to America and begin taking part in American society openly.
Immigrants with temporary work visas should have access to the normal procedures for gaining permanent status and citizenship, and should be able to bring their families to the U.S. after demonstrating ability to support them financially.

Bring their families? like, only wife and 50 kids? aunts ? uncles" granparents? if Pedro brings his wife, can she now bring her parents, siblings and their offspring too? How can you agree with this without any answers? sounds like open the floodgate to me.

But wait, further down he says this.

Impose and enforce sanctions on employers for noncompliance with immigration laws.

So a two year grace period for an illegal to come in and prove he can support his family, but impose sanctions on those that hire them?
This sound just a bit F-ed up to you? I guess the only way is for them to come in, apply for social assistance, then when they get it, bring the hood with them?

 

[ylexot]

Bring their families? like, only wife and 50 kids? aunts ? uncles" granparents? if Pedro brings his wife, can she now bring her parents, siblings and their offspring too? How can you agree with this without any answers? sounds like open the floodgate to me.

I would assume that means spouse and children.

So a two year grace period for an illegal to come in and prove he can support his family, but impose sanctions on those that hire them?
This sound just a bit F-ed up to you? I guess the only way is for them to come in, apply for social assistance, then when they get it, bring the hood with them?

If they are here on a work visa, they are not illegal. That's the two year grace period. Employers are free to hire them.

 

[vraiblonde]

until the point of viability of a fetus.

And if they hit 21 and still haven't proven viability, then.... :shrug:



BCP, if the jobs dry up, the illegals will dry up. That's the only reason they come here.

As far as the economy, I've said numerous times that it's gotten too far out of control and we're going to have to burn it to the ground and start over. Gary Johnson's ideas are a step in the right direction; the alternative is to keep going back.

Being neither here nor there, Johnson is better than Romney or Obama on any issue, and I'm fed up with the two-party system of no choices. Time for some new blood and I'm happy to help.

 

[thatguy]

Wirelessly posted

until the point of viability of a fetus.

And if they hit 21 and still haven't proven viability, then.... :shrug:



BCP, if the jobs dry up, the illegals will dry up. That's the only reason they come here.

As far as the economy, I've said numerous times that it's gotten too far out of control and we're going to have to burn it to the ground and start over. Gary Johnson's ideas are a step in the right direction; the alternative is to keep going back.

Being neither here nor there, Johnson is better than Romney or Obama on any issue, and I'm fed up with the two-party system of no choices. Time for some new blood and I'm happy to help.

You might want to reconsider, I have been saying that Johnson was the best choice for marylanders since he was at the first debate. :shocker:

 

[bcp]

I would assume that means spouse and children.


If they are here on a work visa, they are not illegal. That's the two year grace period. Employers are free to hire them.

There should be a two-year grace period for illegal immigrants to attain work visas

Then, If they are not illegal, why did he specifically say a two year grace period for Illegals? To me that means, sneak across the border, then be granted two free years to get the visa or go back home.
However in that time, since they dont have a visa, they cant be legally hired.

If they had a visa that they obtained before they crossed the border, there would be no reason to specify illegal.

 

[bcp]

This is just a false statement.
Civil Liberties


Of course, I contend that the President has no control over the issue, so picking a President based on that issue is

your last sentence sort of touched on why I dont agree with your first.

WE ARE A NATION OF MANY PEOPLES and beliefs. The only way to respect all citizens is to allow each to make personal decisions themselves.

Life is precious and must be protected. A woman should be allowed to make her own decisions during pregnancy until the point of viability of a fetus.

First he says allow each citizen to make personal decisions themselves.
He thinks government should not have a decision in this, but he turns around and gives guidelines for it? who is going to make sure those rules are followed? another government agency? the doctor?
Who, do I just have to find the right doctor to have the baby aborted at any time?
What about a baby that is premature and cant live without a bit of special care. Its really not viable without the care, so is it ok to let it die after being born premo? even though it would be ok after a month in Baby ICU?

To me he just seems to be trying to double talk the issues so each person can find the right answer in what he says.

At least obama said he was going to screw up the economy. He was at least honest about that.

 

[2ndAmendment]

How about getting the feds out of the personal lives of people? Let the states deal with personal things and with the feds out of it, no homogeneous mandates on the states. Better yet, keep the states out of it too and let it get down to the county or township. So people can vote with their feet as was done years ago.

 

[Tilted]

I wish Ron Paul would drop his association with the Republican Party and throw in with the Libertarian Party. A Libertarian is what he really is, at least more so than a Republican. I think this is the way that he could make the greatest difference for U.S. politics going forward.

He's attracted a lot of attention and his basic message has inspired a significant number of people, particularly young people. I think he could move a lot of those young voters and soon-to-be voters out of the grips of the two major parties and into the up-for-grabs pool of voters that both the Republicans and Democrats have to fight for - the pool that neither party can take for granted. He can do this before those young voters fall into the partisan trap and start to define themselves as either Republicans or Democrats - before they become partisan for the sake of being partisan, invested in one team or the other just because it's the team they chose early on. Mr. Paul could give a significant boost to the Libertarian Party and help build it toward eventually being a viable alternative to the status quo. Even if it wouldn't threaten the collective power of the two majority parties, it could help pull those parties toward (what I consider) more desirable ideological positions. Make both of them have to fight for those young voters by being more Libertarian - more respectful of the cause of liberty - more accepting of Constitutionally limited government - more interested in smaller government, whether it be with regard to fiscal issues or personal social issues.

Mr. Paul probably isn't ever going to get the Republican nomination and he isn't going to get elected to a higher office than he already holds (though I guess the Senate isn't out of the question). But his message matters and has influenced some people - the best way for him to cash in those chips, to make that influence matter, might be to join the Libertarian Party and take a generation of young people with him - not so that they'll be lifelong Libertarians, but so that they might not be lifelong grunts in the Republican or Democrat armies.