Gary Johnson Thread

[LeafByNiggle]

It looks to me like the way you restated Abyssinia’s posts actually changed their meaning, making it look like they were circular reasoning when, in fact, they were not. The two posts you quoted were really just saying the same thing, from different angles; they didn’t attempt to “prove” each other.

Here’s what I think is an accurate summary to represent Abyssinia’s point:

Premise 1: Planned Parenthood is a major provider of abortions and makes a great deal of money selling them.

Premise 2: Planned Parenthood predominantly donates to Democratic candidates, and especially Hillary Clinton.

Premise 3: When organizations donate to a candidate, it means they hope or know that that candidate will support increased legislation to favor said organizations.

I accept Premise 1 and 2, but I do not accept Premise 3 when applied to PP, which is why I challenged that premise in post #67. The reason I do not accept it is because there can be other goals of those in PP besides wanting favorable abortion policy. Once you move Premise 3 from the category of premises to the category of claims, it then becomes necessary to prove, or at least support, that claim, which is what Abyssinia attempted to do in post #69. And that’s is where the reasoning became circular.

The same argument works in the inverse for Trump. Has PP donated any money to him during this election? And if they have, is it at all comparable to Hillary?

The argument is even more flawed in the case of non-donations to Trump. There can be lots of reasons for a sane person not to want Trump as president, besides the fact that he does not support your favorite cause.

If not, it means that PP has less or no hope/knowledge that Trump will support legal changes which will increase/favor abortion.

Or…, it could mean the PP does not want to see America destroyed, which would hurt PP and everyone else.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Do you have an answer to my posts?

What was your question ?

Jim

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

It’s probably not their only issue of concern, but it’s probably their predominant concern and issue, especially considering all the money Planned Parenthood makes from abortion… if more restrictions comes into effect, that could hurt them financially, so obviously they want politicians in place who will work to protect what makes Planned Parenthood money. Also, I suspect if you check out Planned Parenthood Action Fund etc. material that they are using for campaigns, I bet the issue of abortion will be the most featured issue, although the word “abortion” probably won’t be heard or seen.

What percent of Planned Parenthood’s revenues is from abortion? It is actually only about 15%.

This is the issue. One of those two “morally corrupt candidates” is going to be president of the United States. Barring an assassination.

You have the opportunity to influence the balance. So the question is: Do you really believe that the moral problems which Trump and Hillary are on such even ground that they are essentially identical candidates? If you do believe this, then this is where we must disagree, especially since there is so much evidence which shows Hillary’s behavior, and relatively less that shows Trump’s.

As Dinesh D’Sousa said: “I fear Trump because I do not know what he will do; I fear Hillary because I know exactly what she will do.”

I’m not advocating for the lesser of two evils here. I have seen Trump hold certain positions which I do find favorable, and I certainly trust him over Hillary to nominate Supreme Court justices who will not completely support the liberal progressive agenda.

Yes, there are problems with Trump. But in a time like this, we have no time to pay attention to his problems. The more voters decide not to vote for him because their conscience doesn’t allow them, the more likely we’ll come to see the utter destruction of the American Way.

One more observation regarding conscience: I can say conclusively that it is not immoral to vote for a candidate who has moral issues, provided the circumstances are such that there is good reason for voting for that candidate. So you, by voting third party to vindicate your conscience, are not actually doing so for a moral reason, but in order to “make a point”.

I pray that few people in this nation feel the need to “make a point” with their vote.

Gary Johnson is actually pulling more of his support from Hillary Clinton than Donald Trump so it isn’t going to result in a Clinton presidency if some Republicans vote for Johnson instead of Trump.

 

[ProVobis]

I’m not advocating for the lesser of two evils here.

Okay, but for the record Cicero stated “Primum, minima de malis.” which, roughly translated means “Of evils choose the least.” (not lesser of two evils).

If the least evil is not voting at all, so be it.

 

[Millie123]

This is the issue. One of those two “morally corrupt candidates” is going to be president of the United States. Barring an assassination.

You have the opportunity to influence the balance. So the question is: Do you really believe that the moral problems which Trump and Hillary are on such even ground that they are essentially identical candidates? If you do believe this, then this is where we must disagree, especially since there is so much evidence which shows Hillary’s behavior, and relatively less that shows Trump’s.

As Dinesh D’Sousa said: “I fear Trump because I do not know what he will do; I fear Hillary because I know exactly what she will do.”

I’m not advocating for the lesser of two evils here. I have seen Trump hold certain positions which I do find favorable, and I certainly trust him over Hillary to nominate Supreme Court justices who will not completely support the liberal progressive agenda.

Yes, there are problems with Trump. But in a time like this, we have no time to pay attention to his problems. The more voters decide not to vote for him because their conscience doesn’t allow them, the more likely we’ll come to see the utter destruction of the American Way.

One more observation regarding conscience: I can say conclusively that it is not immoral to vote for a candidate who has moral issues, provided the circumstances are such that there is good reason for voting for that candidate. So you, by voting third party to vindicate your conscience, are not actually doing so for a moral reason, but in order to “make a point”.

I pray that few people in this nation feel the need to “make a point” with their vote.

I think that you have a misunderstanding about how our President’s are elected. Our presidents are not elected by popular vote, they are elected by an electoral college. Which means that on a national level our votes do not count, they count on a state level, because that will influence how each states electoral college will vote.

In my state of Idaho Trump is leading Clinton in the state polls by 21 points.
realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/id/idaho_trump_vs_clinton_vs_johnson_vs_stein-6016.html Which means that it is nearly a given that Donald Trump will get all 4 of my states electoral votes. I find both of these candidates to be repugnant. Voting for them violates my conscience. And seeing how statistically speaking Trump is going to be winning my states electoral votes. For people in my position, in the solid Red states like Idaho…what is the point of me violating my conscience and voting for Trump? It’s illogical to me.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

I think that you have a misunderstanding about how our President’s are elected. Our presidents are not elected by popular vote, they are elected by an electoral college. Which means that on a national level our votes do not count, they count on a state level, because that will influence how each states electoral college will vote.

In my state of Idaho Trump is leading Clinton in the state polls by 21 points.
realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/id/idaho_trump_vs_clinton_vs_johnson_vs_stein-6016.html Which means that it is nearly a given that Donald Trump will get all 4 of my states electoral votes. I find both of these candidates to be repugnant. Voting for them violates my conscience. And seeing how statistically speaking Trump is going to be winning my states electoral votes. For people in my position, in the solid Red states like Idaho…what is the point of me violating my conscience and voting for Trump? It’s illogical to me.

In my state, Massachusetts, Hillary will win even if she’s shown on TV wearing an orange jump suit, sitting behind bars on the day of the election.

Jim

 

[ProVobis]

Therefore…the libertarians are not really running on a “protection of life platform”, are they?

That’s an interesting question, as Ron Paul et al who ran as libertarians never were considered pro-abortion candidates. In fact Ron Paul clarified his own position as being anti-violence and killing a fetus involved violence of the worst kind. He also wrote one or two “Sanctity of Life” bills which never made it to the Republican House floor.

But the wording does appear to make the position contradictory, and I can’t explain it. The protection of life, however, is definitely stressed.

(1) the right to life—accordingly we support the prohibition of the initiation of physical force against others;

People should not be forced to sacrifice their lives and property for the benefit of others.

No individual, group, or government may initiate force against any other individual, group, or government.

Individuals own their bodies and have rights over them that other individuals, groups, and governments may not violate.

Compare these statements to whatever the Democratic or Republican Party platforms state.

 

[chero23]

Here’s the thing, though. Gary Johnson is actually going to be on ALL 50 state’s ballots, and if he can reach 15% (which he’s very close to) he can participate in debates.

Also, as a Libertarian he is of the opinion that the government should not interfere and that things should be left to the states. So I would think if any issue of abortion were to come across his desk he would make sure that it was left to each state to decide. He is by no means a perfect candidate, but he is certainly better than Hillary and Trump. And for a third party candidate, he has the best shot of winning.

So -we can vote for either of the main two out of fear that the other one is going to win. Or we can all hope that everyone is willing to try voting Gary Johnson, and do the same. I know I’m going to! And I know a lot of my (Republican & Democrat) friends are doing the same.

He is having a 15 for 15 on the 15th right now on his website. He wants to get the support to get in the debates. I do believe he will get in, even if he squeaks out a 15%. But once he gets there, with HRC and Trump going the way they are, I do belive Johnson will come close to 22-24% nationwide come November 1st

 

[chero23]

What is the point of voting third party when your vote will essentially have zero effect on the outcome of the election?

You might just as well dump medicine down your sink and hope it reaches children in Africa to help them.

I do believe Trump and HRC will lose support. Stein will pick up 3-4% nationwide. Johnson might get 25%, and others might get 2%, some states might be closer than we think.

Johnson is doing well in Utah and he has the most support from 18-25 group at 34%.

 

[chero23]

Interestingly, it appears Gary Johnson is taking an “even” amount of support from between Trump and Clinton or taking more support away from Hilary Clinton than Donald Trump: hotair.com/archives/2016/08/02/polls-show-gary-johnson-taking-more-support-from-clinton-not-trump/

That is true. I do believe he’s taking 4% from HRC and 2-3% from Trump. I do believe once Labor Day comes around and he gets into the debates (which I hope he does) he will take support from both. I’m not saying he will take half of the support from each, but he will get support.

 

[jediliz]

Did anyone actually read the link I posted from ontheissues website? He’s not personally pro life. He believes in abortion until viability.

Not good.

 

[Stylteralmaldo]

Did anyone actually read the link I posted from ontheissues website? He’s not personally pro life. He believes in abortion until viability.

Not good.

This is what I’ve been trying to get through to people. Gary Johnson is not pro-life. His ‘personally opposed’ position holds about as much water as any Democrat who claims to be ‘personally opposed’ yet still does nothing to further the cause of life.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

In case people become misinformed, here’s Gary Johnson’s position according to his webstie; (Bold is my emphasis)

Governor Johnson’s approach to governing is based on a belief that individuals should be allowed to make their own choices in their personal lives. Abortion is a deeply personal choice.

Gary Johnson has the utmost respect for the deeply-held convictions of those on both sides of the abortion issue. It is an intensely personal question, and one that government is ill-equipped to answer.

On a personal level, Gary Johnson believes in the sanctity of the life of the unborn. As Governor, he supported efforts to ban late-term abortions.

However, Gov. Johnson recognizes that the right of a woman to choose is the law of the land, and has been for several decades. That right must be respected and despite his personal aversion to abortion, he believes that such a very personal and individual decision is best left to women and families, not the government. He feels that each woman must be allowed to make decisions about her own health and well-being and that the government should not be in the business of second guessing these difficult decisions.

Gov. Johnson feels strongly that women seeking to exercise their legal right must not be subjected to prosecution or denied access to health services by politicians in Washington, or anywhere else.

Appreciate Life. Respect Choice. Stay Out of Personal Decisions.

Now go look at the two leading candidates and compare their positions on abortion.

Trump will be difficult to tell, Hillary, we know is pro-abortion to the point of advocating and forcing it on to others.

Jim

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Hillary, we know is pro-abortion to the point of advocating and forcing it on to others.

Jim

That is an exaggeration. She has never forced someone to have an abortion who did not want to have it, or even expressed a desired to force anyone to have an abortion. In that sense she is like Johnson.

I can’t help but think that Gary Johnson is getting such a favorable reception because of his politically libertarian views, and people are bending over backwards to cast his abortion views in the most favorable light.

 

[dshix]

I accept Premise 1 and 2, but I do not accept Premise 3 when applied to PP, which is why I challenged that premise in post #67. The reason I do not accept it is because there can be other goals of those in PP besides wanting favorable abortion policy. Once you move Premise 3 from the category of premises to the category of claims, it then becomes necessary to prove, or at least support, that claim, which is what Abyssinia attempted to do in post #69. And that’s is where the reasoning became circular.

The argument is even more flawed in the case of non-donations to Trump. There can be lots of reasons for a sane person not to want Trump as president, besides the fact that he does not support your favorite cause.

Or…, it could mean the PP does not want to see America destroyed, which would hurt PP and everyone else.

This is interesting. Of course I can agree that there may be other reasons for PP donating to Hillary, but I don’t really see how that matters. I think the only point Abyssinia was making was 1) PP donates to Hillary, 2) PP is evil, 3) therefore just one more reason against Hillary.

I don’t think it was intended as a conclusive statement that “The one and only reason why PP would donate to Hillary and not Trump is abortion.”

What was your question ?

Jim

I didn’t ask a question; I made a series of statements contrary to your posts which I wished to see your argument against. I’m interested in dialogue, and if you don’t say anything back, dialogue doesn’t exist.

Okay, but for the record Cicero stated “Primum, minima de malis.” which, roughly translated means “Of evils choose the least.” (not lesser of two evils).

If the least evil is not voting at all, so be it.

To be clear: the reason I said “I’m not advocating for the lesser of two evils here.” is because that is a flawed moral principle.
The correct moral principle is to advocate for the greatest good. It is actually wrong to advocate for the lesser of two evils, because by doing so, a person actually advocates evil, which is morally wrong.

Therefore, of the three options: vote for Trump, vote for Hillary, or don’t vote at all, I judge the one which brings about the greatest good is the first. I judge this because 1) either Trump or Hillary will be president, 2) I believe Hillary has potential to be devastating for the country and Trump has potential to bring about at least some good, and 3) by failing to vote at all I am not causing any good.

I think that you have a misunderstanding about how our President’s are elected. Our presidents are not elected by popular vote, they are elected by an electoral college. Which means that on a national level our votes do not count, they count on a state level, because that will influence how each states electoral college will vote.

In my state of Idaho Trump is leading Clinton in the state polls by 21 points.
realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/id/idaho_trump_vs_clinton_vs_johnson_vs_stein-6016.html Which means that it is nearly a given that Donald Trump will get all 4 of my states electoral votes. I find both of these candidates to be repugnant. Voting for them violates my conscience. And seeing how statistically speaking Trump is going to be winning my states electoral votes. For people in my position, in the solid Red states like Idaho…what is the point of me violating my conscience and voting for Trump? It’s illogical to me.

Good post. I actually am aware of the things you have said (and I have often ranted at length not on this forum about the problems with our voting system).

This means, as you correctly state, that depending on where a person lives, their vote may not make any difference whatsoever. Therefore there isn’t much point in voting, but that aside, why not vote anyway? Because it’s inconvenient? That’s a rather lame reason if you ask me.

The other reason: conscience. I spoke at length about this in my post #74 in this thread. (please read if you want to understand my position)

I’ll summarize what I said there:
The conscience is the spiritual function which enables us to feel guilt or joy at the morality or immorality of our own actions, and uses the information which we have to make judgements whether an action is good or evil.
The effects of the conscience often manifest as emotions, but those emotions themselves are not the conscience.
Therefore, something is only “against your conscience” if that thing is actually a sin; NOT if it is merely vile to your emotions.
It is not sinful to vote for Trump as an effort to maximize the good, therefore it is not against your conscience.

All that said: if you can mathematically, conclusively see that your vote will be futile because of your location, and you really dislike Trump, I can see why you wouldn’t vote at all. I have no argument to say why you must.

 

[dshix]

That is an exaggeration. She has never forced someone to have an abortion who did not want to have it, or even expressed a desired to force anyone to have an abortion. In that sense she is like Johnson.

No, it is not an exaggeration. You are looking at it only on the top layer: of course Hillary hasn’t personally forced an individual to have an abortion; few people have.

What she has done is support legislation which forces businesses to provide contraceptive or abortion benefits to employees (in places where this hasn’t happened already, she’ll make sure it does) and forced healthcare agencies to provide certain anti-life services even if it violates their conscience.

Some of these things may not be abortion itself, but they are all leading in that direction. Ultimately, the problem is wider than the procedure of abortion itself; it includes contraception, in-vitro, sterilization. All of this is one huge problem of sexual “liberation”: the sexual revolution.

 

[Jake_Parker]

That is an exaggeration. She has never forced someone to have an abortion who did not want to have it, or even expressed a desired to force anyone to have an abortion. In that sense she is like Johnson.

I can’t help but think that Gary Johnson is getting such a favorable reception because of his politically libertarian views, and people are bending over backwards to cast his abortion views in the most favorable light.

I am not disagreeing that their views are essentially the same, of course there are some minor differences. But putting that aside, I’m going to address the bold part of what you said above.

Yes. That is precisely why I believe most people are interested in Gary Johnson. He is Libertarian, which means he will likely leave the abortion issue to each state to decide. Which won’t get rid of it, but should still make an impact. Also, there are A LOT of people that do no like or trust Hillary (or Trump), so of course they will choose Gary Johnson even for those reasons.

 

[CrossofChrist]

That is an exaggeration. She has never forced someone to have an abortion who did not want to have it, or even expressed a desired to force anyone to have an abortion.

But she is supportive of the government using taxpayer $$$ to fund abortions, and is supportive of Obama’s contraception mandate.

I can’t help but think that Gary Johnson is getting such a favorable reception because of his politically libertarian views

I think it is rather because he is not Clinton or Trump.

 

[Millie123]

Good post. I actually am aware of the things you have said (and I have often ranted at length not on this forum about the problems with our voting system).

This means, as you correctly state, that depending on where a person lives, their vote may not make any difference whatsoever. Therefore there isn’t much point in voting, but that aside, why not vote anyway? Because it’s inconvenient? That’s a rather lame reason if you ask me.

The other reason: conscience. I spoke at length about this in my post #74 in this thread. (please read if you want to understand my position)

I’ll summarize what I said there:
The conscience is the spiritual function which enables us to feel guilt or joy at the morality or immorality of our own actions, and uses the information which we have to make judgements whether an action is good or evil.
The effects of the conscience often manifest as emotions, but those emotions themselves are not the conscience.
Therefore, something is only “against your conscience” if that thing is actually a sin; NOT if it is merely vile to your emotions.
It is not sinful to vote for Trump as an effort to maximize the good, therefore it is not against your conscience.

All that said: if you can mathematically, conclusively see that your vote will be futile because of your location, and you really dislike Trump, I can see why you wouldn’t vote at all. I have no argument to say why you must.

Few things I want to be clear about. I am definitely voting but, for a third party candidate.

Yes, Trump and Clinton both violate my conscience…my vote is an affirmation of who I want to be as my president. Looking specifically at Trump, I can’t give him this affirmation. I dont support him in anything that he proposes, from his theories about fighting Isis, to his immigration reform, to his economic policies, to his lifestyle, his repetitive lies, and regarding his stance on abortion I just don’t believe anything he says (and ditto all of the above regarding Clinton).I can not in anyway give those people my affirmation to be my president…that would be a dishonest vote, a lie on my part, it is against my conscience. My vote is No…no, no, no I cant give either of them my affirmation for president.

As I point out my state is going to Trump. As Jim OCDS points out his state, Massachusetts, is going to Clinton. Clinton is 30 points above Trump in his state, and there is nothing logically he can do to change that. I feel that many of the pro-trump supporters are asking people like me to bend my conscience to their will…what is wrong with me voting third party candidate, or even Jim for that matter, hes in the exactly the same position as I am in.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Yes. That is precisely why I believe most people are interested in Gary Johnson. He is Libertarian, which means he will likely leave the abortion issue to each state to decide.

I think you are misstating the Libertarian philosophy. You are pretending it the same as the “states’ rights” philosophy. It is not. It is a philosophy that says that **all **levels of government - federal, state, and local - should keep their hands off of individual liberties, which Libertarians interpret very broadly. Looking again at the party platform statement on abortion, we see:

Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.

[My bolding]. Note that it says “each person”, not “each state” or “each locality” or “each community”. It clearly says “each person”. It also says “government should be kept out”, not “federal government should be kept out”. So Libertarians are not going to be content with letting state or local government get involved with abortion restrictions of any kind. That is what the party platform says.