Johnson sees no difference between Obama and Romney

[bfdd]

http://www.examiner.com/article/johnson-sees-no-difference-between-obama-and-romney

Presidential candidate Gary Johnson just released a bold campaign video that will resonate with a lot of political independents in New Hampshire and around the country. In the advertisement, Johnson, a Libertarian former Governor from New Mexico, says Barack Obama and Mitt Romney would give America four more years of war, more debt, more taxes, bigger government, reduced privacy, and diminished personal liberty. Johnson sees little difference between the President and his Republican challenger, Mitt Romney.

The major media and the political pundits that dominate their airwaves are offering a different narrative. Corporate media outlets rely on advertising revenue for their survival, and they get a lot of it from the Republicans and the Democrats. Consequently, they like to promote simplified sound-bites from well-funded candidates that they can portray as polar opposites. However, as Johnson points out in this persuasive ad, the major candidates may actually be more alike than different.

I have to agree with him. I truly see no difference which ever candidate from the major parties gets elected.. Both are going to continue our current wars and probably get us involved in more military action, neither truly lowering military spending. One probably a little more gungho about it than the other, but it doesn't really matter we'll just march further into debt that we'll straddle future generations with. Just like the other assholes who came before us and did with us. We need to stop the cycle before it's to late and I believe Gary Johnson is the man to help right the ship.

 

[Genx87]

Bu bu bu abortion and gay marriage!

 

[Texashiker]

I agree with Johnson.

If the people want real change, then vote third party.

 

[AstroManLuca]

I agree as well. Much as people want to complain about obstructionists in Congress, the Democrats controlled both houses and the presidency for two years and only managed to pass a watered-down health care bill that definitely doesn't deserve the title of "overhaul" that it has somehow managed to receive.

Under Bush, there was obviously no hope of meaningful financial regulation or reform, nor was there any hope that the bankers most responsible for the economic crisis would ever answer for their crimes. Under Obama, nothing at all has changed, and it WON'T change. Same with Romney. Whoever is president will never enact any sort of financial reform and banks will just continue having a field day.

Honestly, I can't see any difference in the candidates except for their stance on social issues, which are really none of their business in the first place. Obama is more attractive to me in that way but it really just feels like I'm being pandered to. I mean, as much as I agree that same-sex marriage should be legal, it doesn't directly affect me, nor is it nearly as important as the economy. And since neither party is serious about actually fixing the economy, there's really no way to decide between the two.

 

[Throckmorton]

I agree as well. Much as people want to complain about obstructionists in Congress, the Democrats controlled both houses and the presidency for two years and only managed to pass a watered-down health care bill that definitely doesn't deserve the title of "overhaul" that it has somehow managed to receive.

Ever heard of the filibuster?

 

[nehalem256]

Ever heard of the filibuster?

Ever heard of a filibuster proof majority?

Something the Democrats enjoyed until they failed so miserably that Massachusetts elected a Republican senator.

 

[AstroManLuca]

Ever heard of the filibuster?

Yes.

 

[woolfe9999]

Ever heard of a filibuster proof majority?

Something the Democrats enjoyed until they failed so miserably that Massachusetts elected a Republican senator.

How is this even relevant to the thread topic? We're supposed to believe that "the two parties are the same" because the democrats couldn't get 2 senators who caucused with them to vote for the bill that the rest of them supported? I fail to understand how this relates to the topic at hand.

There was a sharp difference between what the democrats in general wanted versus what republicans in general wanted. Pulling up healthcare reform is not a very good example if you want to prove that the parties are basically the same. If they were the same, they should all have voted in lockstep for the same bill.

 

[AstroManLuca]

How is this even relevant to the thread topic? We're supposed to believe that "the two parties are the same" because the democrats couldn't get 2 senators who caucused with them to vote for the bill that the rest of them supported? I fail to understand how this relates to the topic at hand.

There was a sharp difference between what the democrats in general wanted versus what republicans in general wanted. Pulling up healthcare reform is not a very good example if you want to prove that the parties are basically the same. If they were the same, they should all have voted in lockstep for the same bill.

They still have to maintain the facade of being different.

 

[woolfe9999]

They still have to maintain the facade of being different.

So you're saying they secretly have the exact same views on everything and only pretend to disagree in public? This is a delusion of certain libertarians and self-styled independents, that the 2 parties are the same. It isn't supported by reality.

 

[bfdd]

So you're saying they secretly have the exact same views on everything and only pretend to disagree in public? This is a delusion of certain libertarians and self-styled independents, that the 2 parties are the same. It isn't supported by reality.

They aren't the same, but the end result is generally the same regardless of which you vote for. Expanded budget, more Federal control, less transparency, more bureaucracy, higher taxes, etc etc. Life is getting more and more complicated, when it should be getting easier. In that regard, they're both the same.

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

The two parties are most certainly not the same.

The Republican party has essentially fallen off a cliff and entered the realm of political lunacy. They are still relevant because a significant voting block in this country is racist, xenophobic, and hates gays. Once they die off, so will the modern day Republican party as we know it. The immigrant populations in many states are vast turning once Republican strongholds into toss-up states.

Once Texas goes, it's game over for Republicans ever winning a national election.

 

[AstroManLuca]

So you're saying they secretly have the exact same views on everything and only pretend to disagree in public? This is a delusion of certain libertarians and self-styled independents, that the 2 parties are the same. It isn't supported by reality.

No, you're right, I shouldn't have used the word facade. Because I don't think that they're secretly colluding and only pretending to disagree in public.

I do think both sides wholeheartedly believe what they are saying. At the same time, I also think they're more similar than they are different. Most of the squabbling is over minor details, and the big reforms that need to happen will never happen.

EDIT:

They aren't the same, but the end result is generally the same regardless of which you vote for. Expanded budget, more Federal control, less transparency, more bureaucracy, higher taxes, etc etc. Life is getting more and more complicated, when it should be getting easier. In that regard, they're both the same.

Yeah, what he said. That's kind of what I was getting at but I wasn't sure how to say it.

Essentially, both sides have been corrupted by corporate money. It comes from different corporations but the end result is the same.

 

[nehalem256]

The Republican party has essentially fallen off a cliff and entered the realm of political lunacy.

Then clearly the Republican and Democratic Party are the same since the Democratic party went into the land of political lunacy when they started worshiping the right of pregnant teenagers to make decisions about their body as well as claiming that women are men's equals while at the same time passing and advocating for a host of laws to protect women.

 

[Lemon law]

I agree with Johnson.

If the people want real change, then vote third party.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree with TexasHiker, vote for the green party and accept no inferior Fibertarian substitute!

 

[CitizenKain]

Then clearly the Republican and Democratic Party are the same since the Democratic party went into the land of political lunacy when they started worshiping the right of pregnant teenagers to make decisions about their body as well as claiming that women are men's equals while at the same time passing and advocating for a host of laws to protect women.

Not seeing a single bad thing there.

It was a lot better of a system when men would beat women with impunity and could molest their daughters and force the kid to bring the baby to term. That's nehalem256's America.

 

[berzerker60]

The only significant difference between Obama and Romney in my perspective is that one will be an ineffective negotiator caving in to most of the demands of the radical Republican House and the other will rubber-stamp their craziest dreams. I guess I'd prefer the former.

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

Some folks can't tell the difference between the Chinese and the Japanese either, but that doesnt mean they are the same.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

It was a lot better of a system when men would beat women with impunity and could molest their daughters and force the kid to bring the baby to term. That's nehalem256's America.

Does this guy ever post in a thread without bringing up his hatred of the fairer sex?

It's disturbing.

 

[nehalem256]

Not seeing a single bad thing there.

It was a lot better of a system when men would beat women with impunity and could molest their daughters and force the kid to bring the baby to term. That's nehalem256's America.

Because clearly it is only men who are abusive :

http://csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm

This bibliography examines 286 scholarly investigations: 221 empirical studies and 65 reviews and/or analyses, which demonstrate that women are as physically aggressive, or more aggressive, than men in their relationships with their spouses or male partners. The aggregate sample size in the reviewed studies exceeds 371,600.

or how about http://www.pandys.org/articles/lesbiandomesticviolence.html

Perhaps surprisingly, statistics have shown that lesbian people experience domestic violence at a very similar rate to that of heterosexual women (Waldner-Haygrud, 1997; AVP, 1992). It has been estimated that between 17-45% of lesbians have been the victim of at least one act of violence perpetrated by a female partner (Burke et al, 1999; Lie et al, 1991), and that 30% of lesbians have reported sexual assault / rape by another woman (Renzetti, 1992). Considering the lack of discussion that takes place regarding lesbian domestic violence and sexual assault, I find these figures staggering.

But how is this possible if there are no men in lesbian relationships

And I have never advocated for child abuse.

It would seem you are a citizen of land of political lunacy

 

[nehalem256]

Does this guy ever post in a thread without bringing up his hatred of the fairer sex?

It's disturbing.

Pointing out that it is double think to claim that women are equal to men, but need special laws to protect them is not "hating" women.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Pointing out that it is double think to claim that women are equal to men, but need special laws to protect them is not "hating" women.

Bringing up women's rights and your opposition to same in nearly every thread you post in, usually when the subject hasn't been mentioned before, is rather strong evidence of hating women.

You're obssessed -- and not in a good way.

 

[nehalem256]

Bringing up women's rights and your opposition to same in nearly every thread you post in, usually when the subject hasn't been mentioned before, is rather strong evidence of hating women.

You're obssessed -- and not in a good way.

Creating special laws to protect women has nothing to do with women's rights. But please do continue to point out left-wing lunacy.

 

[woolfe9999]

No, you're right, I shouldn't have used the word facade. Because I don't think that they're secretly colluding and only pretending to disagree in public.

I do think both sides wholeheartedly believe what they are saying. At the same time, I also think they're more similar than they are different. Most of the squabbling is over minor details, and the big reforms that need to happen will never happen.

No, they are squabbling over vastly more than just minor details. The ACA is a 2000 page piece of legislation which imposed hundreds of regulations on health insurance, numerous changes to health care delivery, adds some new taxes, cuts Medicare, requires that people buy insurance, etc. etc. Passing or not passing such a bill is hardly a difference over minor or trivial issues.

You are mistaking the result of political process involving compromise for the two parties being largely similar. They are not. Even with the process moving most legislative results toward the middle, the outcomes are still not the same. We'd never have had the ACA without Obama and the dems being in power. Add that's just one large example.

 

[woolfe9999]

They aren't the same, but the end result is generally the same regardless of which you vote for. Expanded budget, more Federal control, less transparency, more bureaucracy, higher taxes, etc etc. Life is getting more and more complicated, when it should be getting easier. In that regard, they're both the same.

We haven't moved toward higher taxes. We've moved toward lower taxes. As for transparency, no it isn't getting any worse. Might not be getting any better, but it isn't worse. More government control? Explain how it is that we deregulated the financial sector in the 1980's and 1990's, and now even with Dodd-Frank, it's nowhere close to the amount of government control over this massive portion of our economy that existed for a half century.

I understand that this alleged movement toward more and more oppressive government is an article of faith among libertarians. But faith is not evidence. In 1800, the U.S. Congress passed a law which made it a crime to criticize the then sitting POTUS John Adams. Such a law would be struck down immediately today. We are not moving in the direction you think we are, not overall.

- wolf