Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Gary Johnson Gets His Chance At Sept 22 GOP Debate  
User currently offlineAloha717200 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 4524 posts, RR: 15
Posted (3 years 2 months 4 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 1592 times:

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/g...johnson-gets-chance-230947988.html

I've heard Superfly talking about this guy but hadn't really seen him in the news until now. Sounds like a moderate, which means he has absolutely zero chance of winning the nomination. but I'm glad to see someone like Gary Johnson in the lineup as a contrast against the red meat and suspension of logic that is often present at some of these debates.

After reading a bit about Johnson I'd put him in the same league as Huntsman; a Republican that I can respect and support.

16 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 40066 posts, RR: 74
Reply 1, posted (3 years 2 months 4 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 1566 times:

Great news. I hope he does well. The press can't continue to ignore this candidate. As Obama's numbers continue to slide, it's very likely that a Republican will win next year. Its important that a moderate voice like Johnson is given the opportunity to participate in the debates. The press seems so infatuated with the silly candidates such as Michelle Bachmann, Herman Cain and even Sarah Palin who isn't even running.

Quoting Aloha717200 (Thread starter):
After reading a bit about Johnson I'd put him in the same league as Huntsman

No way. Huntsman is a prissy little Washington insider and entrenched in the establishment. Gary Johnson is a self-made man that worked his way in the private sector. Started his own construction business and has grown to over 1100 employees. He also manged to get elected to two terms as governor in a Democratic leaning state.

Quoting Aloha717200 (Thread starter):
Sounds like a moderate, which means he has absolutely zero chance of winning the nomination.

Papa Bush and Bob Dole were moderates that won the GOP nomination.



Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlineAloha717200 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 4524 posts, RR: 15
Reply 2, posted (3 years 2 months 4 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 1561 times:

Quoting Superfly (Reply 1):
No way. Huntsman is a prissy little Washington insider and entrenched in the establishment. Gary Johnson is a self-made man that worked his way in the private sector. Started his own construction business and has grown to over 1100 employees. He also manged to get elected to two terms as governor in a Democratic leaning state.

I can see what you mean, but I meant that he's a Republican that doesn't sacrifice logic for the sake of soundbytes. I like that.

Quoting Superfly (Reply 1):
Papa Bush and Bob Dole were moderates that won the GOP nomination.

Yes, but those were different times. With the Tea Party influence and voter anger this time around, no way in hell is a moderate winning the GOP nod. People are going to gravitate to the person that most strongly addresses their anger. That's why people who are far, far right of the political center are doing so well this time around, whereas in the past a candidate like Michelle Bachman would never have climbed above 1% support.


User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 40066 posts, RR: 74
Reply 3, posted (3 years 2 months 4 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 1528 times:

Quoting Aloha717200 (Reply 2):
I can see what you mean, but I meant that he's a Republican that doesn't sacrifice logic for the sake of soundbytes. I like that.

That is true. I hope that he is able to hit a few home runs in the debate. I'll be in bed sleep during the debate due to the time difference.
He isn't as charasmatic as Rick Perry and Barack Obama. Candidate Gary Johnson my have to work on his ability to connect with the voters.
I would really hate to have to vote for a Bible-thumper next election. I've never voted for a Bible-thumper in my life. However, I can't bring myself in to voting for Obama ever again. Rick Perry has his build in limitations by being a Bible-thumper and I can see him self-destructing before the Novermber 2012 elections. He is such an easy target by the Obama-loving media.



Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlineAvObserver From United States of America, joined Apr 2002, 2474 posts, RR: 9
Reply 4, posted (3 years 2 months 4 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 1522 times:

Johnson's poor ranking on illegal immigration makes him a non-starter with me. https://www.numbersusa.com/content/action/gary-johnson.html However good he may be on other issues, America needs someone who stands strong on this issue and doesn't pander to the pro-Amnesty ethnic advocacies and unscrupulous business interests who exploit illegal immigrants for cheap labor at the expense of American taxpayers and, in terms of loss of jobs, minority youth. He has almost zero chance of clinching the nomination, anyway. That said, I'll still vote for whoever gets the GOP nomination over Obama, despite having been a long-time Democrat. However bad many of the GOP candidates are on illegal immigration, none of them surpass Obama and so many in his party for sheer treason against American citizens in catering to pro-illegal alien interests over ours. I've a litany of other reasons not to vote for Obama but this one's at the top of my list. And I don't want to hear any nonsense about racism or xenophobia from anyone. This is simply about upholding the Rule Of Law to enter this country. Anyone is welcome if they obey the law but we absolutely must stop the abrogation of this law if we are to remain a sovereign nation. We can streamline the legal process, make it more fair, if we need to but we can absolutely not give in to the demands for Amnesty. We simply can't take in everyone who wants to come here and all immigration policy should be conducted to benefit the nation as a whole, not to give certain industries cheap workers or politicians cheap votes.

User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8948 posts, RR: 24
Reply 5, posted (3 years 2 months 4 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 1510 times:

Quoting AvObserver (Reply 4):
Johnson's poor ranking on illegal immigration makes him a non-starter with me. https://www.numbersusa.com/content/action/gary-johnson.html

Not so fast. There is amnesty, and then there is amnesty. If I understand Johnson, he is offering amnesty in terms of legalization - you get a work permit. No "path to Citizenship". No Green Card. I think this is sensible, in that there is no way in hell that you are going to round them all up and put them on (get the calculator out...) about 300,000 buses. But those people who came here illegally should never, EVER have a "Path to Citizenship". And neither should their children - the Constitution needs to be amended about that. If someone wants to become a US citizen, they should enter the country legally - full stop, end of discussion, no argument.

Johnson does sound a little mealy-mouthed on the issue however. "I think we need to recognize that the government's the reason they're here illegally, they've made it impossible to get a work visa." Oh really? Funny how I must have missed seeing government soldiers forcing people to cross the border at gunpoint. They crossed the border illegally, knowing it was illegal, and by their own free will.

I look forward to Johnson's performance. Immigration isn't the only issue.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineAloha717200 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 4524 posts, RR: 15
Reply 6, posted (3 years 2 months 4 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 1499 times:

As a person who is engaged to someone from another country and watched several friends in the same kind of relationship attempt to get their loved one into this country, I can say first hand that the government process of LEGAL immigration is indeed convoluted and discouraging. The paperwork is endless, the fees are steep, and different agencies do not talk to each other, forcing you to pay to transfer paperwork each and every time. It can take years, there are a series of nervewracking interviews at embassies and government offices as they try to "prove" whether your relationship is legitimate or simply a marriage of convenience, and a change of status from within the USA is severely frowned upon, forcing the person to leave the country to make any change to their status. One of my friends married a girl from Venezuela and they haven't seen each other in three years because the government won't let her back in until he has $18,000 in his bank account.

If you marry another American, no one bats an eye. No one seems to care how much money you do or don't make, how long you've been together or what you've done together. You go to the courthouse, get your marriage license and off you go to get married. But if you want to marry someone who came from another country, you get the government of the United States stepping in and "deciding" whether you actually do love that person or not, whether you're fit to marry them or they fit to marry you, where you can live and how much money you need to be earning. Legitimate relationships get strained to the breaking point quite often as a result of this immense bureaucracy and it needs reform. It really does.

I agree with the government making sure that we're not letting anyone unsavory into the country under false premises, but what they need to do is streamline the process. If someone married someone else and has been married for YEARS while trying to get their partner into the country, I think that should count towards expediting the process. In fact, I think anyone that already married their partner in another country and applies for their partner to enter the USA deserves an expedited process.

I've been with my fiancee for almost three years now. By the time we marry it'll be four years. I think that should also count for something. And I don't think the government should tell me that I have to be earning a certain level of income each year in order to marry the person I love when the government doesn't give a rat's about how much income I make if I want to marry a fellow American. But I also understand the logic: They don't want foreigners coming in and overloading the welfare system. I get that, but in that case make it so that the immigrant is not eligible for welfare until completing a work program and becoming gainfully employed, the way people who apply for welfare in most states must go through a work program to continue receiving benefits. Don't say that we can't get married because we aren't "well off" financially.


Immigration reform has to be handled with care. It's too easy to focus on the US/Mexico border and forget that there are people of all nationalities who all have legitimate reasons to want to live in the United States as well, and they all get swept up in the same net if we use draconian rules to try to stem the tide of illegal immigration from Mexico. I firmly believe that the enourmous bureaucratic mess that is the immigration process serves in a large way to cause people to give up on the legal way and simply move here illegally. My fiancee found it ironic. She said "It's interesting that it's easier to come to America and live a full life there as an illegal immigrant than to go through the legal process. The legal process makes you want to bash your head against a wall or look for another country to live in instead."

Likewise, if I want to move to the UK I have a hell of a time getting approved because I'm not in a career that England has especially high demand for. England will let people from all over the Euro zone in on relaxed immigration rules, but anyone from beyond the Euro zone faces a steep challenge. The logic here was to stem the tide of immigration from the Middle East. Unfortunately, they focused so hard on that that Americans got swept up in the net. Since my degree is not considered in especially high demand in the UK, I'll have to try and convince the british government to let me in on the basis of my relationship with my Fiancee alone. That itself is a tall order. And if I don't have a degree they want, they at least want to see me have an income of 40K a year, or move to England as a student, provided that I pay my own way for schools that, after the conversion rate, equate to double the cost of American universities.

Protecting the borders is an important task. But we have to remember we are dealing with human beings. There needs to be common sense, and I want a candidate that would approach this issue with the realization that these ARE people. I don't want kids separated from their parents, and I don't want kids that spent their entire lives in America and know nothing else to be forced to live in Mexico, which would be, to them, a foreign nation. What I do think would be a good compromise would be that any child under the age of 5 can't count as an "anchor baby". So that parents who move here illegally and have a child can't use that as an excuse to skirt the law, and the infant is young enough that a move back to mexico would not be psychologically scarring. But after the age of 5, the kid has begun to make friends and be a part of the school system and I think it would be inhumane to thrust them into another country that they've never known.

Why do we always have to jump to extremes? Why can't we meet half way and consider the human experience in our policy rather than acting as if the human experience doesn't count. We are, after all, human. Humans wrote the laws, and so humans should consider how human beings experience the laws while enforcing those laws. When we stop doing that, we lose our humanity.

[Edited 2011-09-22 07:48:03]

User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8948 posts, RR: 24
Reply 7, posted (3 years 2 months 4 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 1491 times:

Quoting Aloha717200 (Reply 6):

I agree with the government making sure that we're not letting anyone unsavory into the country under false premises, but what they need to do is streamline the process.

I understand your frustration - my wife is a foreigner and we had to jump through a lot of hoops to get her in. It took 6-8 months if I recall.

But don't you think that a lot of that is the government's convoluted sense of priorities? Immigration is a problem, so they apply the throttle on the legal immigration (because they can easily do so) but ignore the illegal immigration? If we can get the borders under control, THEN you can relax the requirements on the legal side.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineAloha717200 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 4524 posts, RR: 15
Reply 8, posted (3 years 2 months 4 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 1479 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 7):
But don't you think that a lot of that is the government's convoluted sense of priorities? Immigration is a problem, so they apply the throttle on the legal immigration (because they can easily do so) but ignore the illegal immigration? If we can get the borders under control, THEN you can relax the requirements on the legal side.

I agree 100%. The UK made the same mistake. They aren't fixing the problem at its root, in fact they're making the problem worse because the harder it is for someone to immigrate legally, the more they will consider attempting to do so illegally.


User currently offlineConfuscius From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 3875 posts, RR: 1
Reply 9, posted (3 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 1451 times:

I'm glad the GOP invited Gary Johnson. However, the most qualified candidate has not been invited, former New York gubernatorial candidate Jimmy McMillan.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x4o-TeMHys0



Ain't I a stinker?
User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8468 posts, RR: 9
Reply 10, posted (3 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 1440 times:

Quoting Aloha717200 (Reply 2):
Yes, but those were different times.

And maybe they will come back at some point. There is no way that conservatives can be successful long term simply because they do not deliver a decent quality of life for the Middle Class. The core issue for the conservatives is lower taxes for big money. That doesn't go far for the rest of the country.

Quoting AvObserver (Reply 4):
America needs someone who stands strong on this issue and doesn't pander to the pro-Amnesty ethnic advocacies and unscrupulous business interests who exploit illegal immigrants for cheap labor at the expense of American taxpayers and, in terms of loss of jobs, minority youth.

The reality is that the WASPs are seeing their majority shrink. They still have the political power, but that is changing.

This nation has historically shown great growth from immigration and that is going to be the cornerstone again at some point in the future.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 5):
If I understand Johnson, he is offering amnesty in terms of legalization - you get a work permit. No "path to Citizenship". No Green Card. I think this is sensible,

BINGO!

At some point this country needs to realize that Hispanic migration is a fact of life and THEN we need to understand that the issue today is to ensure they pay their taxes. No calls for citizenship (the country is too red neck for that), but a work permit that allows for legal work as long as taxes are paid.

Quoting Aloha717200 (Reply 6):
But if you want to marry someone who came from another country, you get the government of the United States stepping in and "deciding" whether you actually do love that person or not, whether you're fit to marry them or they fit to marry you, where you can live and how much money you need to be earning.

I'm married to an Australian lass and we had no problems with immigration. Married 40+ years ago and the processor her getting her "green card" was actually pretty simple. I was in the Navy at the time and used the documents in my file to help a steward get the documents to get HIS wife a green card.

When we moved to Australia for 8 years there was not an issue with my getting residency, nor was there a problem for the wife when we moved back to take care of my Dad, who was in his last year of fighting cancer.


User currently offlinedxing From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (3 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 1353 times:

Well he probably had the best line in the last debate...“My next-door neighbor's two dogs have created more shovel-ready jobs than this current administration,” Classic!!!!

[Edited 2011-09-24 08:42:06]

User currently offlinetugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5770 posts, RR: 10
Reply 12, posted (3 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days ago) and read 1307 times:

Quoting Superfly (Reply 1):
it's very likely that a Republican will win next year.

Only if we present a good candidate that the majority will vote for. There is some hope there though as the more extreme candidates appear to be loosing steam. One thing I can't do is vote for Republican's that respects their religion more than the Constitution and disregards the rights of the American public. But there is hope, I'll keep my fingers crossed.

Quoting dxing (Reply 11):
Well he probably had the best line in the last debate...“My next-door neighbor's two dogs have created more shovel-ready jobs than this current administration,” Classic!!!!

This is what concerns me about the current state of the Republican party. Why would you call that "the best line"? What does it do? How does it help the nation, the debate, or the tone of politics? It is a dumb one-liner, a wanna-be stand up comedian type line. It is wholly worthless as statement of value.

And that is "the best line"? Nuts to that. Give me substance, give me ideas, valuable ideas that will help the nation out of the mess it is in.

Tugg



I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlinedxing From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (3 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 1292 times:

Quoting tugger (Reply 12):
How does it help the nation, the debate, or the tone of politics?

Sorta like a President saying "They can come along, they just have to sit in back!"?

It was a good tag line, to the point and accurately summed up the shovel ready jobs portion of the stimulus bill. No different than the past, "There you go again", "Where's the beef", among others.


User currently offlineWarRI1 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 9290 posts, RR: 12
Reply 14, posted (3 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 1260 times:

Quoting tugger (Reply 12):
One thing I can't do is vote for Republican's that respects their religion more than the Constitution and disregards the rights of the American public. But there is hope, I'll keep my fingers crossed.

Whoa! What kind of principles are those? They are certainly old fashioned, certainly correct, certainly they show a level of common sense that is not apparent these days. I commend you on that reply and the thought behind it. I certainly hope there is a Republican cannidate out there, who can meet those expectations, just in case he wins. so far, Nada!!! Not in this bunch.



It is better to die on your feet, than live on your knees.
User currently offlineltbewr From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 13195 posts, RR: 15
Reply 15, posted (3 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 1247 times:

To me, Gary Johnson is best known for his beliefs as to decrimilization of and even making buying and selling small quanties of pot legal, appealing to the libertarian wing of the Republicans. New Mexico also had too many business unfriendly laws that he cut down, appealing to the more moderate small business voters, farmers, ranchers, and many fiscal conservative Republicans., it is a state that relies on a lot of Federal money, has a less hostile attitude vs. Arizona as to illegal Mexicans in his state as well as a very high percentage of those within it's borders of Native Americans. I don't think Johnson is fond of the Evangelical Christian side of he Republicans. To me, he might be better as a VP canidate.

User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 40066 posts, RR: 74
Reply 16, posted (3 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 1232 times:

Quoting Aloha717200 (Reply 6):
As a person who is engaged to someone from another country and watched several friends in the same kind of relationship attempt to get their loved one into this country,

What happened to the cute redhead?

Quoting dxing (Reply 11):
Well he probably had the best line in the last debate...“My next-door neighbor's two dogs have created more shovel-ready jobs than this current administration,” Classic!!!!

That was awesome!  
Very accurate assesment too.

Quoting dxing (Reply 13):
It was a good tag line, to the point and accurately summed up the shovel ready jobs portion of the stimulus bill. No different than the past, "There you go again", "Where's the beef", among others.

  
Exactly!



Bring back the Concorde
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Did Obama "Miss His Chance"? posted Wed Sep 8 2010 17:33:45 by Ken777
Iraqi Shoe Thrower...Gets His. posted Wed Dec 2 2009 12:57:58 by AGM100
Hero Cop Finally Gets His Dues posted Sat Aug 29 2009 10:07:41 by KSYR
Vatican 2.0: Pope Gets His Own YouTube Channel posted Sat Jan 24 2009 05:43:59 by MadameConcorde
GOP Debate Tonight In FL, Who Won? posted Thu Jan 24 2008 20:37:23 by EvilForce
Dog Gets His Revenge On Vick posted Wed Aug 29 2007 17:45:56 by TZ757300
Transcript Of GOP Debate posted Fri May 4 2007 18:47:04 by Cfalk
Kaddyuk Gets His Mouth Full posted Fri Feb 2 2007 08:32:16 by UTA_flyinghigh
9V Will Be Showing His Ass At Tesco posted Tue Oct 31 2006 18:35:25 by Cosec59
Fall YYZ Meet: Sept 22-24, 2006 posted Fri Jul 7 2006 04:50:03 by WhyWhyZed