Hey Mick you better run for cover man. Thems fightin words days before this Presidential election. Seriously, there are really only about three or four over the top Trump haters.
And they work like a little hit team. While you are responding to one of the Ttrumpmania outpatients two or three others jump on you simultaneously. They’ve actually driven posters from this site.
They really don’t get the fact that this is all in fun here on T Nation. At best we might influence a 10 or 12 people. I’ve told them repeatedly that this is a bodybuilding site. Most don’t want to get into a brawl over Trump/Clinton. But…they persist. And I find it amusing.
Right, and I understand that logic even if I disagree with it. I’m not looking to fight with you, I’ve appreciated all the posts and opinions you’ve had over the years I’ve been here and actually glad you’re back and posting. I really actually wanted to know how you felt about the thought that all 3 candidates are very similar socially. You had said you don’t think any socially conservative voters will even consider Johnson–I tend to agree with that idea but floated the thought that in real terms I don’t see much difference in the 3 candidates socially except with the War on Drugs. So, I was asking a couple things:
What you think about the analysis that all 3 candidates very similar socially (mind I am not talking about immigration, which one could argue do interface with social issues. I am talking about social issue stances only). I do not see very large social differences and I was wondering what you think others see in that area.
Related but not quite the same, why do you think no conservative voters will even consider Johnson on grounds of policy or other issues given that there is no “true” social conservative candidate in the race–not electoral math, but the other items. Not even vote for him, I only mean consider him seriously in terms of experience and policy.
Why do you think Trump and Hillary are presidential timbre but Johnson is not? He has accomplished much in his career and life and he does not act any more immature than Trump has.
Not at all man. You’ve always been level-headed. As for name calling I generally agree with you, with a few notable exceptions. Zeb is not someone I admire or get along with and I do not care what he thinks of me. As for others however, I agree. Politics is very divisive in general and this election is the worst in modern history I think for that.
One other thing, I don’t see it that way–or at least not in the beginning. Now probably yes. Also, I called this mess back when Trump first became a nominee so I will gladly take the moniker of anti-Trump OG. No bandwagon here.
Not particularly. But then I never said Trump was an ineffective marketer or said his ramblings were ineffective in getting through the primary. I will thank you not to put words in my mouth. Policy yes absolutely ineffective at articulating anything meaningful, but his strategy such as it was worked to get the nomination. But you posted your comment as a snide insult to Johnson, not an honest question. You know you did too. Consider that previous reply my rejoinder to you. 1000% growth might not win the white house but it is effective messaging and marketing regardless. He has grown his personal popularity, his party’s visibility, and his candidacy’s visibility and poll numbers from essentially non-existent. Trump had hundreds of millions of free media advertising, a major party platform and primary debates, and all the rest of his media resources. He didn’t start from scratch he started from 3rd base. I won’t say–and haven’t said–that he is an ineffective marketer because he did what he needed to do. But he had resources to start with that Johnson only dreams he had.
Bull, you are the first, no wait someone else has that position. You are usually the second or third guy to pile on anyone who dares claim he is voting for Trump.
You don’t realize it because you do not have something called “self-awareness”.
I think that is one of the problems for the voters. I don’t think he cares, as you might have guessed I am firmly in the camp of “Trump will do whatever Trump wants and damn the sorry voters who believed him”. Cynical perhaps, but not without a large quantity of circumstantial evidence over decades, as well as some of his more memorable quotes on his thoughts about Republican voter base. [quote=“Mick28, post:2138, topic:218984”]
I don’t think it is about acting immature. Trump is a showman, as was PT Barnum. I honestly don’t think Trump would have captured the republican nomination had he not been that showman. Was he ready for prime time? A resounding no! But if you notice he has been more reserved as of late. I think that has been helping his poll numbers. [/quote]
I think you’re right about both those things, but I do believe that there is a line between “showman” and “immature” which the Donald has stepped on and over repeatedly as I see it.
I agree here. This is not where I share ground with those that believe Trump is bad at business. I do NOT like his ethical practices and litigiousness. But again, entrepreneurship is by definition a high risk endeavor and yes he has promoted himself very successfully. That is why I believe he is a success, but not the genious Trump supporters seem to crow about him being. He book was ghost written. He’s had many failures and also very much bad ethical business practices in my view. He has been successful at promoting ala showmanship, but not as much with substance. His real estate buildings though are a plus I agree. Some iconic buildings in New York.
Once again agree. I hate her, but that doesn’t mean she’s dumb. She’s a fucking shark. In all ways. I do agree she would be an improvement of Obama for precisely the reasons you mention and I think much like Bill she is not as left as Obama, but much more pragmatic about politics. Certainly left. No doubt about that. But whereas Obama is a hard ideologue, HRC is very Machiavellian. Yes that scares me. But also yes that is better than what we had if we have to give a left sider the POTUS.
[quote]Gary Johnson was the Governor of a small state with a population of about 2 million people. He did have some success fiscally, but I dislike his left wing approach to social issues. Also, I cannot put my finger on it but he seems flaky to me. I know some will read this and claim that I should be more concerned about Trump but as I said I believe him to be a showman. Johnson on the other hand does not appear to me to be particularly clever or knowledgable. Keep in mind I am very biased as I have stated I dislike his social agenda.
[/quote]
This is where we disagree. I don’t mind you disliking his social stances, and as you said I suspect the deal killer is the war on drugs, much like one of the Achilles’ Heels Ron Paul faced (although he had many more than Johnson). I disagree that he is not knowledgeable. The only person in this race with foreign policy experience is HRC. Trump and Johnson are both novices and don’t know anything compared to her–whether you like her outcomes or not is not the point. She’s had decades of confidential briefings to amass knowledge of the inner workings, and that is something all new candidates will give up to an incumbent or veteran. But that is different than being knowledgeable in a general sense on foreign relations or government policy in general. Johnson I feel is much better at this than Trump.
However, the big seller for me is that Johnson is much more level headed and less egotistical that Trump. These are inherent advantages when learning or sober judgment is called for, or acknowledging mistakes and improving. That his Aleppo stumble is actually a plus for me: he is honest enough to say ‘yep, I bought it. I was thinking something different, and I’ll probably misunderstand a couple more things before this election is over’. Someone like that is–given inexperience in both Trump and himself–much more likely to make quick strides in knowledge and application. I despise somebody trying to worm out of something we all know was said or done, or just blankly saying “no I never said that America”. Trump shares too much with Putin in terms of egotism failings and not enough with him in terms of his pragmatic decades long experience with FP and intelligence gathering. Those make Putin more effective in spite of his clear egotism and other failings than Trump would be in my view.
For these reasons I think Johnson is a wash against Trump in experience level at worst and an improvement upon Trump at best being that he was governor, has held elected office and dealt with issues in addition to business success (from scratch mind you lol). In his likelihood of improving against his baseline and becoming good in geopolitics I place him above Trump because he is willing to listen and admit mistakes–and that is a requisite factor for improving in a fundamental way. All Trump has shown me is a guy who will rant and rave or blankly deny “No I never said that” when we all know he did. In other words Trump also insults my intelligence.
As far as social issues go I see none of them as conservative. Therefore I am most likely to go with the one that actually, seriously speaking, champions individual liberty over either of the two gov’t largesse and intrusion candidates. Particularly given Trumps very outright statements against what I consider fundamentals to this country. The chances for Johnson to end the war on drugs are nonexistent, but the chances that he improves the state of our individual rights more than HRC or the Donald are much greater because he actually believes in them. I am prepared to give up a number of conflicts with him in order to have a legitimate chance of improving privacy and individual rights. No candidate will agree with people 100% because the nature of political parties is such that you give up ideological purity in all detail for collective bargaining power. The fundamentals are most important and on those Johnson has a clear advantage against the other two.
The irony of you – a racist, alt-right, loser-MRA piece of shit supporting a babbling, illiterate muppet for president – posting a video accusing a candidate of being “a complete idiot” is Earthshaking. Earthshaking.
I don’t disagree, and anyone who knows my stances on this site knows full well my disagreements with libertarianism. But for years the capital-L Libertarian Party has been fringe and laughed off and unserious - then Johnson, a former successfulbRepublican governor, made his candidacy a place where conservatives can go, even if they aren’t, as I am not, in complete agreement on the issues.
If social conservatives are wary of Johnson, that’s fine and I get that, but they should be just as wary with Trump (as Aragorn has noted).
I don’t love Johnson - but I’m damn happy he provides a smart alternative to both Trump and Hillary, neither of whom I will vote for in 2016.
When people say “timber”, I read them to mean qualifications, experience, and/or gravitas - I want to make sure I understand you correctly: you think Johnson isn’t presidential timber, but Trump is?
Thanks. You seem like you have a lot of experience and deep understanding of the issues facing my country, so I’ll make a note to consider your respected advice.