Gary Johnson Thread

[LeafByNiggle]

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.

Yes, she is doing that. And that is not the same thing as forcing abortion on those employees. If you wanted to say Hillary is for forcing employers to pay benefits to employees who avail themselves of abortion services, why not just say that and be more accurate? In China they actually do force abortion on women, so it is a real thing. But it isn’t happening here and no one is suggesting that it happen here.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

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.

Well, that doesn’t even make logical sense. Even the evil Mafia occasionally donated to good causes. It doesn’t make those causes evil.

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.”

It doesn’t have to be the “one and only” reason, but it had better be one of the reasons, or else you would have a hard time using the PP donation as evidence that PP expects favorable abortion policy treatment.

 

[Stylteralmaldo]

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

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

In case people become misinformed, according to what you just quoted from his web site (bolded for emphasis):

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.

No libertarian rights for the unborn apparently.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

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.

Actually she did.

When President Bill Clinton told hospitals that they would not be reimbursed for services given to midicare and medicaid patients, if they did not also provide abortion services.

At the Cairo-5 summit, she told 3rd world nations the United States would not give aid if they continued to keep abortion illegal.

Jim

 

[JimR-OCDS]

In case people become misinformed, according to what you just quoted from his web site (bolded for emphasis):

No libertarian rights for the unborn apparently.

Recognizes those rights according to the SCOTUS.

It’s established law, regardless that we don’t like it.

Jim

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Actually she did.

When President Bill Clinton told hospitals that they would not be reimbursed for services given to midicare and medicaid patients, if they did not also provide abortion services.

At the Cairo-5 summit, she told 3rd world nations the United States would not give aid if they continued to keep abortion illegal.

Jim

That is not forcing any women to have an abortion. That’s what “forcing an abortion on someone” means. The most you can say is that she wants to force companies to pay for women who choose abortion, which is bad enough. I don’t know why anyone needs to make it sound even worse.

 

[SuperLuigi]

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.

I don’t support Trump out of fear, I support Trump because regarding the non-negotiables, he will be under more pressure to follow the GOP platform than his Democrat opponent. I have no illusions that Trump is a Cruz or Santorum conservative, but I do know he’ll need to answer to non-negotiable voters first in 2020 whereas his Democratic opponent will not.

The fact is the Supreme Court is up for grabs, and I know for a fact that if we get liberal justices we could lose religious freedom for many Catholics for a generation, and I’m sure that should that happen, I will be seeing and getting the same messages I did during the American gay “marriage” turmoil of “how could this happen” or “I never thought this could happen in my state/country, even though I voted for it”.

Really, for some folks it’s rinse/wash/repeat with these excuses until there isn’t a country left, even when the consequences are in plain sight.

As far as the libertarian candidate is concerned, he simply cannot win. And really, a lot of his support is because people are so dissatisfied with the two major candidates, not so much because they believe in all these libertine principles. If there is a libertarian with the capital, I would encourage them to poll their supporters. I bet they’d be amazed at the lack of knowledge these voters have on their presidential candidate’s policies.

 

[SuperLuigi]

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

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

It’s true that we don’t exactly know for sure what we will get out of Trump, but I do know he will be answering to the pro-lifers should he (hopefully) win. The other major candidate who can win will not need to by any means.

This is quite serious as the Supreme Court is up for grabs. And those who live in blue states but like GOP governors stomping out reckless spending by liberal legislatures would do well to listen because potentially the Courts could undo anything they propose along the lines of property taxes and health care access.

There’s much less wiggle room to work with now than there was in 2008. And even in 2012 the not-Romneys who insisted they couldn’t vote for him never came back and defended their decision and that it was worth it even with all the damage that’s been done since.

I suspect more of the same if the Democrat nominee wins.

 

[ProVobis]

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 was as I understand it Justice Scalia’s position as well.

This is definitely not Hilary’s position and I doubt if Trump has even thought about it. However, I doubt if he’ll bring the entire federal government to ensure every woman doesn’t commit abortion anytime after having sex. I mean if you’re going to bring the government into the picture, how else are you going to do it?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Which was as I understand it Justice Scalia’s position as well.

But it is not Gary Johnson’s position either, as I said here. Johnson is for letting the individual person decide - not the state. That’s what the party platform says, and I haven’t seen Gary Johnson disavow that official party platform.

 

[CrossofChrist]

It’s true that we don’t exactly know for sure what we will get out of Trump, but I do know he will be answering to the pro-lifers should he (hopefully) win.

While Clinton clearly has to answer to PP supporters, I’m not convinced Trump feels the need to answer to pro-lifers. He won the Republican primaries being apathetic about the issue of abortion. If he becomes president and does nothing for the pro-life cause, it would not be surprising to hear people still make the case to vote for him for a second term because the Democrats are worse. And at that point the pro-life movement would decline in relevance at the national level.

 

[Stylteralmaldo]

Recognizes those rights according to the SCOTUS.

It’s established law, regardless that we don’t like it.

Jim

It “is best left to women and families” according to Gary Johnson. He’s okay with the law even though you or I don’t like it. But Gary Johnson, according to what you quoted from his website, actually believes it should be law.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

That is not forcing any women to have an abortion. That’s what “forcing an abortion on someone” means. The most you can say is that she wants to force companies to pay for women who choose abortion, which is bad enough. I don’t know why anyone needs to make it sound even worse.

I didn’t say she forces women to have abortions, but forces abortions on others by forcing them to directly support abortion.

Jim

 

[JimR-OCDS]

It “is best left to women and families” according to Gary Johnson. He’s okay with the law even though you or I don’t like it. But Gary Johnson, according to what you quoted from his website, actually believes it should be law.

And this position is different than Trump and Hillary’s in what way ?

Jim

 

[LeafByNiggle]

And this position is different than Trump and Hillary’s in what way ?

Jim

It isn’t different. That’s the point. Gary Johnson is not where to run to find a more pro-life candidate. He is neither worse nor better in that regard. The only reason to turn to Gary Johnson is if you believe in the Libertarian philosophy.

 

[Stylteralmaldo]

And this position is different than Trump and Hillary’s in what way ?

Jim

I didn’t. They are all anti-life.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

It isn’t different. That’s the point. Gary Johnson is not where to run to find a more pro-life candidate. He is neither worse nor better in that regard. The only reason to turn to Gary Johnson is if you believe in the Libertarian philosophy.

There isn’t a pro-life Candidate running.

John’s position’s look more like Reagan’s than the Libertarian’s like Ron Paul.

Anyway, we’re going to have to get use to saying, “Madam President Hillary Clinton.”

Jim

 

[JimR-OCDS]

I didn’t. They are all anti-life.

That’s an extreme judgment of Johnson.

Jim

 

[ProVobis]

But it is not Gary Johnson’s position either, as I said here. Johnson is for letting the individual person decide - not the state. That’s what the party platform says, and I haven’t seen Gary Johnson disavow that official party platform.

Okay, but for the record, Gary Johnson is running for a federal position. Just as Scalia, he should disavow himself with how Texas, for example, penalizes its abortionists or not. It becomes a 10th amendment issue.

 

[Maxirad]

Check this out.