670
671

Stay classy, America. (i.redd.it)

WonderToys が 投稿

全 195 件のコメント
並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A

[–]CleverWitch 91ポイント92ポイント  (4子コメント)

You forgot to mention all of the things Hilary "couldn't recall" on the spot during her testimony.

[–]ThatisPunny 35ポイント36ポイント  (2子コメント)

Since I happen to have it on my clipboard

[–]DirectLeopard 10ポイント11ポイント  (1子コメント)

What do you mean I completed a classified information handling course? I thought C stood for Cookie!

[–]-_Lost_- 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

Well that's good enough for me

[–]DonManoloJOHNSON TIME 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

In her defense, she fainted and suffered a serious concussion. In my experience, concussions make your brain suck. Unless I've got the facts mixed up, I might cut her some slack in that one.

[–]shibesandsubgenres 21ポイント22ポイント  (21子コメント)

/u/teamgov great rebuttals towards disqualification arguments for the Governors and their surrogates

[–]afambelafonte 10ポイント11ポイント  (1子コメント)

And, as of today, there's "violated an embargo to trade with Cuba by funnelling money through fake humanitarian aid."

[–]Messerchief 12ポイント13ポイント  (2子コメント)

To be fair, it's pretty embarrasing that he couldn't name a single world leader, let alone one he liked. I get that foreign policy isn't something Libertarians particularly care about but he shouldn't be looking like an idiot and blowing what opportunities he gets. Just sad to see.

[–]jcy 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

foreign policy is one of the few areas that the president does not need congressional approval, it's absolutely vital to the job of the POTUS

[–]DaBest13 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

yeah - I agree, if he's the only "free trade" candidate he could have at least named a leader that aligns with that. I don't think it's disqualifying, but it's not a good look.

[–]CaptainGeekyPants 39ポイント40ポイント  (22子コメント)

I think the fact that Johnson is being attacked is a good thing. It gives him visibility and demonstrates that he is starting to make some people nervous.

[–]lastresort08#LetGaryDebate 32ポイント33ポイント  (12子コメント)

I don't get how "who is your favorite foreign leader?" turned into "name any foreign leader" for most of these news agencies.

There is a big difference between the two questions. Gary had to name someone who is similar to his beliefs, rather than some random leader. Again, another reason to never trust these news agencies to report the truth anymore.

[–]Deftin 12ポイント13ポイント  (0子コメント)

It's because the media is viewing him as if he were a normal politician who would just shout the first thing that came to his mind and then spin it later. Gary actually would rather be accurate the first time or wait until he had an accurate answer.

[–]flashcats 5ポイント6ポイント  (8子コメント)

Isn't that kind of an issue?

There is not a single world leader out there that he can point to and say, "See? They are doing it right!"

I think it says something when there is (as far as I know) not a single successful country that is we can say is "libertarian".

There are some examples of libertarian governments working on small scale, but I can't think of a single successful example of libertarian governments that didn't devolve into chaos.

[–]lastresort08#LetGaryDebate 7ポイント8ポイント  (1子コメント)

Not really, because there aren't many governments that work the way Libertarians want.

[–]duktalo 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

That's his point, I think. He's equating it to what people mean when they say true communism has never been tried and communist governments always suck.

[–]iwascompromisedLIVE FREE 2ポイント3ポイント  (4子コメント)

And "doing it right" is subjective to the country. What works in one country doesn't necessarily work for another. The same way what works in one state doesn't necessarily work in another state in the US.

[–]flashcats 1ポイント2ポイント  (3子コメント)

Is there any government in the world that is doing it right from a libertarian perspective?

[–]iwascompromisedLIVE FREE 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/2013/06/13/a-question-libertarians-can-answer-easily/

[–]spartan6222 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

When you do things right, people won’t be sure you’ve done anything at all.

A government that I hardly notice when not necessary.

[–]flashcats 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

That's a nice platitude, but meaningless.

[–]TBurd01 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Somalia is a Libertarian paradise, durrrr... :P

[–]MuaddibMcFly 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Have you seen the clip/read the transcript?

It's because Chris said "anyone." The problem is that in the context of the question isn't "name anyone" it's "pick your favorite from any of them."

It's analogous to asking what someone's favorite Ben & Jerry's seasonal flavor, adding that they can pick any of them, from any year.

[–]LNhart 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

I mean he could have said "Trudeau", "Putin" or "Merkel" or even "The Pope". Would that be credible? No. Now name me a Libertarian leader of a foreign nation. I cant.

[–]shibesandsubgenres 9ポイント10ポイント  (3子コメント)

that's what we said after Aleppogate, and his polls dropped

[–]shupack 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

Just because polls drop, does not mean that visibility has dropped.

[–]flashcats 6ポイント7ポイント  (0子コメント)

True.

OJ's visibility increased after the double murders.

[–]CaptainGeekyPants 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

I'm admittedly a bit of a casual supporter, so I did not know that. I will stick with it means that some people consider him some kind of threat. (Give me my silver lining!)

[–]Jorgwalther 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

"Will somebody please attack me?

               -Sleepy Doctor

[–]Demoserth 14ポイント15ポイント  (1子コメント)

Actually I think the main thing that will disqualify Gary Johnson from being president is that he won't get enough electoral votes in a presidential election.

[–]deltadawn6 4ポイント5ポイント  (1子コメント)

I think that he blundered twice...and it makes him look weak. I realize its not fair, but to mess up on two international questions...makes it look like he only is strong on domestic issues.

[–]DarmokNJelad-Tanagra 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Having zero knowledge of the wider world is not a blunder... it's a deficiency.

It's totally fair to discount him as a candidate.

[–]Trump_is_Christ 3ポイント4ポイント  (13子コメント)

Is there such thing as "legal murder" duh fuck is dis dude talkin about?

[–]WonderToys[S] -4ポイント-3ポイント  (12子コメント)

War.

Duh fuck is dis dude talkin about?

[–]Trump_is_Christ 4ポイント5ポイント  (11子コメント)

Murder- "the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another" so its always a crime, so the "illegal" part is redundant and makes this look like it was written by a middle schooler

[–]WonderToys[S] -3ポイント-2ポイント  (10子コメント)

Incorrect. War can be legal, and war is murder. So you now have to reconcile that in your pretty little head. Does that make war illegal? And if so, why do you support it? Does that make murder legal? If so, why do you support it?

[–]Trump_is_Christ 3ポイント4ポイント  (9子コメント)

That isn't incorrect, thats the dictionary definition😂

[–]WonderToys[S] -3ポイント-2ポイント  (8子コメント)

If life is this simple for you, I'm envious.

[–]Trump_is_Christ 5ポイント6ポイント  (7子コメント)

That isnt simple, you're just wrong on the main point and thus the rest of the argument is irrelevant if its foundation is a pile of shit

[–]WonderToys[S] -3ポイント-2ポイント  (6子コメント)

So your contention is that... War is not legal? Or that war is not murder?

[–]Trump_is_Christ 3ポイント4ポイント  (5子コメント)

Bruh i dont know what youre on about, i just said that saying illegal murder is redundant and youre off on who knows what tangent

[–]WonderToys[S] -4ポイント-3ポイント  (4子コメント)

"Bruh", you're the one who's missing my whole point. It was a point about killing terrorist families during war time.. hence the illegal part.

[–]GiantDoucheOfficial 7ポイント8ポイント  (1子コメント)

1 and 2 for trump and 2 and 3 for clinton are conjecture...

These are cherry picked random things.

Im a gary supporter but this just makes us look stupid. What idiots are upvoting this trash?

[–]WonderToys[S] -5ポイント-4ポイント  (0子コメント)

You know what makes us look stupid? When all your points have been explained in the comments below.

Those points are a representation of how the media has portrayed the candidates to the American people.

[–]Mohlemite 18ポイント19ポイント  (11子コメント)

From the outside (not a Gary Johnson supporter) looking in, it was funny that Gary Johnson was being so heavily criticized on items relating to foreign policy when he, as a libertarian, leans more toward an isolationist stance.

[–]CleverWitch 17ポイント18ポイント  (5子コメント)

Technically, he's not actually very isolationist, given his strong stance on immigration, free trade, etc. but I take your point. I think the real defense is that he was referring to Vincente Fox and just couldn't think of his name.

Any chance we can convert you? ;) Since you seem to be a reasonable human being.

[–]Mohlemite 9ポイント10ポイント  (4子コメント)

I'm not particularly excited about any of the candidates but I want to see the country move in a better direction. I see two attainable ways to facilitate that:

  1. Elect Trump and hope that he puts an end to corruption in politics

  2. Get a third party enough votes to qualify for federal funding upping their chance of success in future elections

If possible, I'd like to see both. I plan to vote Trump but if polls on Election Day make it look like he doesn't need my help, I'll be happy to vote Johnson. In the meantime, I'll upvote any Gary Johnson posts to help support his campaign.

[–]fyzbo 16ポイント17ポイント  (1子コメント)

Well I have good news for you. It seems that a vote for Johnson IS a vote for Trump. At least if you listen to our president or the media. :-)

[–]Mohlemite 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

Haha, I saw that one. Best of both worlds for some of us

[–]TheLAriver 9ポイント10ポイント  (1子コメント)

  1. Elect Trump and hope that he puts an end to corruption in politics

Considering his history of corruption in business and tax evasion and proud admission that he contributed to corruption in politics through contributions, why would you ever expect him to put an end to it?

[–]demonsoliloquy 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Because he tells it like it is man

[–]DietMTNDew8and88I Volunteered! 39ポイント40ポイント  (4子コメント)

Wrong, he's a NON-INTERVENTIONIST, there's a difference you know

[–]Mohlemite 8ポイント9ポイント  (3子コメント)

Okay. That's a fair distinction to make and that sounds like a good balance to strike between isolationism and our current policy. After all, history has shown that Isolationist America still managed to get pulled into wars time and time again.

[–]DietMTNDew8and88I Volunteered! 10ポイント11ポイント  (2子コメント)

Gary supports a JUDICIOUS use of our military, if we get attacked, we attack back swiftly

[–]Somf_plz 2ポイント3ポイント  (4子コメント)

Hey guys please don't ban me for asking a question but i thought stop & frisk wasnt ruled unconstitutional? and when did trump call for the murder of innocent lives?

[–]WonderToys[S] -2ポイント-1ポイント  (3子コメント)

I'm going to stop repeating myself -

The points were taken from the media. I agree some of them are incorrect interpretations, or overstated. But the whole idea wasn't to be completely accurate.. it was to highlight the double standard in how the media reports things and the way Americans see things.

But, to answer your question: He called for the murder of suspected terrorist family members. Those family members are most likely innocent. He also admitted to avoiding taxes (which is legal), which the media turned into tax evasion.

Also, you'll never be banned from here for merely asking a question.. or even holding a dissenting view.

[–]Somf_plz 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

ok thx

[–]Stiikmann 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

He actually didn't call for the murder of families of terrorists, his words were "take them out," when asked to clarify, he said that we "have to go after them," talking about general Pershing in the Philippines fighting radical Islam, where they would go to the families of suspected terrorists and question them about information, supposedly it was very effective. Stop and frisk is both constitutional and effective, and he never "evaded" taxes, just avoided them, which has a real legal difference.

[–]Somf_plz 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

right, theres lots of stuff to rip trump on idk why they chose these

[–]TheShoahMustGoOn 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

Things that disqualify Gary Johnson from being president:

1-∞) He's at like 3%

[–]Gogjgo 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

Id add to trump: has hannity on speed dial

To clinton: already lied to ALL AMERICANS anout her emails and its coverups

[–]Aragorn527 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

Speaking as a young adult who hasn't made up his mind: the reason I don't want to vote for Johnson isn't because of those reasons (though forgetting about Syria certainly doesn't help). For me it's the fact that he would approve TPP. That's a huge deal to me. I guess I would add that he's not a Libertarian in every sense of the word but that's not a bad thing, depending on your view.

Edit: even I'm smart enough to see that the two party system needs to be abolished though. It needs to go, we can't have such an extreme election ever again.

[–]jim_okc 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Edit: even I'm smart enough to see that the two party system needs to be abolished though. It needs to go, we can't have such an extreme election ever again.

When you have elections by which the winner(s) get everything and the loser(s) get nothing, there will always be a tendency toward two competing factions, each trying to piece together a larger coalition than the other.

That is how our elections work, so we will always have 2 major parties regardless of the political sentiments of the electorate.

The two party system is a natural result of the way our elections work. Third parties have a role within this system, but it's not really to win elections.

[–]wimmywhamwamwozzle 4ポイント5ポイント  (2子コメント)

Im almost positive this is /u/WonderToys first election. Almost none of these points have any real evidence behind them, and some of them are just him obviously not understanding basic concepts (tax evasion? are you retarded? Have you ever paid taxes before?)

[–]WonderToys[S] -4ポイント-3ポイント  (1子コメント)

Im almost positive this is /u/WonderToys first election.

Been voting far longer than you, judging by your response. You obviously took no time to read my comments here, and are just reacting like the good little solider you are.

I presented the candidates the same way the media presents the candidates. You're choosing to shoot the messenger. Makes you feel strong though, I bet.. calling people retarded on the internet.

[–]therinlahhan 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

As a libertarian, I will say Trump definitely did not admit to tax evasion. Reducing your tax burden as much as legally possible should be every libertarian's goal. Why would you want to give money to our government to squander?

[–]iTotzke 2ポイント3ポイント  (7子コメント)

Source on Tax evasion? Paying no taxes sounds like a fault of government but I think you aren't obligated to pay more than what the government says you owe.

[–]WonderToys[S] -3ポイント-2ポイント  (6子コメント)

He bragged, during the debates, about paying NO taxes. Said it made him a good business man.

The media turned that into tax evasion.

[–]iTotzke 3ポイント4ポイント  (5子コメント)

Paying no taxes is not tax evasion. Tax evasion is "the illegal nonpayment or underpayment of tax." There are legal ways to pay no tax. He said it was smart.

[–]WonderToys[S] -4ポイント-3ポイント  (4子コメント)

The media turned that into tax evasion.

And then see my comment above -- the points were taken from the media, to highlight their double standard (and the double standard many Americans hold).

People are told Donald Trump evaded taxes, and is still a good candidate. Whether that's true or not, that's the narrative the media is running with.

[–]MrAnonymousHimself 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

People need to read your comments more before commenting. I understand their initial reactions, but I am only responding now because I read a good deal of yours and others comments.

[–]iTotzke 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

I asked for a source. You said the debates. I just assumed you meant the debates were the source. Saying "the media" isn't helpful either.

[–]WonderToys[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

The media has portrayed his comments about "smart business" as tax evasion. That's the best I can give while working, don't have time to dig direct sources right now.

My facebook feed is filled with links to articles with comments like "Do we really need someone who evades taxes to be president?!" and "Clinton pays her taxes, she doesn't illegally avoid them".

Again, as I've said -- those points may all be 100% incorrect, but that wasn't my goal. I presented the candidates the same way the media presents them (with my own spin on Johnson, obviously.. I'm not without fault)

[–]iTotzke 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

The people who will call it tax evasion are going to be people not voting for trump. I just don't like seeing "our memes" having errors.

[–]WonderToys[S] -1ポイント0ポイント  (1子コメント)

I'm actually surprised there are so many people here nitpicking the points I chose.

They were all points raised by the media, taken from words the candidates have said or the things they've done. They can all be sourced to what they've said/their record, correct interpretation or not.

The point was to show how the media perpetuates a double standard, and many in America buy it hook line and sinker.

[–]ioudas210 -3ポイント-2ポイント  (0子コメント)

disqualify" Johnson. Leaves a bad impression right from the beginning, and if that's the problems his supporters are willing to admit to, it raises the question if there's more.

You did a great job. there are tons of trolls and newbies. You hit the mark. Anyone who nit picks probably is a fucking idiot .

[–]LoyolaProp1 4ポイント5ポイント  (7子コメント)

Sorry, but Trump not paying tax and evading his taxes are two totally different things. He did not admit to tax evasion, he insinuated that he did not pay any tax. That can happen with a multitude of legal ways (which is the real problem).

The other two points for him are fair game. I just think you should swap out #1.

[–]logged_n_2_say 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

my wife and i have donated to johnson's campaign but i agree that point 1 on trump is false.

[–]WonderToys[S] -4ポイント-3ポイント  (5子コメント)

See here: https://www.reddit.com/r/GaryJohnson/comments/552dku/stay_classy_america/d872255

[–]logged_n_2_say 3ポイント4ポイント  (4子コメント)

he has not admitted to tax evasion though

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2016/09/26/donald-trump-on-not-paying-taxes-that-makes-me-smart/

"evasion" implies illegality. paying no taxes can be perfectly legal under the current tax code.

[–]WonderToys[S] -3ポイント-2ポイント  (3子コメント)

Holy shit people. This is getting really old.

The media claimed he admitted to tax evasion, yet the media and the American people are still pushing Trump as a "viable" candidate (by giving him air time, inviting him on shows, etc etc). Whether the tax evasion is true or not, the media is telling people it's true, while still pushing him as a true candidate.

But they are not doing the same for Johnson. They are telling everybody those situations disqualify Johnson while also misrepresenting the situations.

This post was never about being "right" or "wrong".. it was about the sheer double standards of our Media and those who buy into partisan politics.

[–]logged_n_2_say 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

no a big deal here friend, it's ok.

i cant find a reputable american source that doesnt know the difference in tax evasion and tax avoidance, so not sure where you're getting the "evasion" part from.

switching gears to your other point, which i wasnt trying to comment on: if i try to be unbiased, the media would much rather push gary johnson if he got ratings.

[–]WonderToys[S] -3ポイント-2ポイント  (1子コメント)

i cant find a reputable american source that doesnt know the difference in tax evasion and tax avoidance, so not sure where you're getting the "evasion" part from.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyphillipserb/2016/07/28/trump-kids-named-but-not-charged-in-250-million-tax-evasion-case/#11856f532fa0

Among just one of the many, and it's even an older one :P Here's an article saying why it's wrong (with links to more articles about the same incident)

http://moneymorning.com/2016/07/20/heres-how-the-media-is-getting-the-donald-trump-tax-evasion-scandal-dead-wrong/

So while it's not directly related to the tax avoidance (I am in the middle of work so don't have time to google those right now), it's certainly "reputable" media accusing Trump of tax evasion :)

[–]logged_n_2_say 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

you realize neither of those are saying he admitted to evasion, though?

that's a totally different type of thing. again, not a big deal and i'm sorry for the downvotes, but it's just a small correction.

[–]TheLAriver 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

2) Made a pathetic attempt to dismiss climate change by suggesting that everything's pointless because the planet won't last billions of years.

Then why even run, Gary?

[–]popups4life 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Clinton laughed and celebrated the assassination of the leader of a foreign country but somehow she isn't a warmonger....

[–]carlius 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Don't forget that Gary Johnson doesn't have a chance of winning under things that disqualify him. How many of us haven't heard that as a reason we shouldn't consider him?

[–]cam2kx 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Remember when howard dean screamed "beeyah!" And got kicked out of the election? Stay classy America.

[–]DaBest13 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

I mean there is no way around it, the gaffs do make Gary look bad, and justifiably so....Clinton and Trump's gaffs make them look bad too, and I do agree their problems are bigger.

that being said, I agree although these things are concerning they aren't disqualifies. Gary's ability to name names doesn't really have any effect on his overarching message/policy... he should be able to answer questions like this, and I wish he could, but his inability to do these things doesn't really change anything about his policy, and his policy is one I favor over Clinton and Trump so he still has my vote.

The final silver lining.... Weld is clearly the "brain" of the ticket, and the proposition of joint Pres and VP staffs can put my mind at ease.

[–]Dr_Turkey 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

And both of them want the government to be able to take away a citizen's constitutionally defended right without due process

[–]xMEDICx 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

I'm saving this post for the next time my roommate has a smug look on his face for loving Clinton

[–]B1gWh17 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Well look guys, the Sun's going to blow up anyway in like 2 billion years. Why worry about regulating emissions on the only planet we know that has life on it in the entire universe?

[–]mattjovander 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Thank you.

[–]SyanWilmont 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

I know brain farts can happen to the best of us but it is disappointing to see Johnson fumble again right after the debates where he could've had an opportunity to gather more support.

[–]Hoobacious 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

Tax evasion and tax avoidance are different things. Evading tax is illegally not paying what you have to, avoiding tax is manipulating legalities wherever possible to minimise what you pay. Trump has involvement in the latter and not the former.

We should be above slandering.

Edit: I now see that the OP seems to have a strong and objectively incorrect stance on these definitions.

[–]WonderToys[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Edit: I now see that the OP seems to have a strong and objectively incorrect stance on these definitions.

Strong and objectively incorrect? I believe I've stated numerous times that the media has misinterpreted things.

Still doesn't change the fact that I'm presenting the view the media is presenting. If you'd like me to change it to represent things better, talk to the media.

I took a very deliberate approach here, something that seems to be going far too many people's heads.

[–]arguing-on-reddit 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

This is really trying to downplay the absurdity of his "gobbled up by the sun" comment, imo.

[–]WonderToys[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

No, it's the media blowing out of proportion something he said 5 years ago and mixing and matching other things to craft a narrative.

http://www.snopes.com/gary-johnson-forget-global-warming/

[–]thisishowibowl 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Can you explain the "helped rig the primary in her favor"

How's so ? I'm very curious about this.

[–]bethecorreiasbidet 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

"Doesn't look up to any current foreign leader"

You should probably change that to "can't name a single foreign leader," because that's what actually happened.

[–]ReginaldLADOOJohnson/Weld 2016 0ポイント1ポイント  (4子コメント)

When did he talk about the earth being gobbled by the sun? lol

[–]cobolNoFun 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

it was a off hand joke made a long time ago.

[–]TheLAriver -2ポイント-1ポイント  (2子コメント)

It was his excuse for not wanting to fund action against climate change.

[–]ReginaldLADOOJohnson/Weld 2016 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

Seriously?

[–]WonderToys[S] 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

No, not seriously. Johnson is actually pro-EPA which pisses a lot of orthodox Libertarians off.

He made a joke one time about the sun engulfing the earth. He also said something recently about looking into colonizing mars in the future.

Both are factual statements, twisted by the media to try and paint Johnson in a bad light. It's the product of Clinton using millions of dollars to attack a "nobody, non-threat, not serious, laughable" candidate.

[–]TotesMessenger 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

I'm a bot, bleep, bloop. Someone has linked to this thread from another place on reddit:

If you follow any of the above links, please respect the rules of reddit and don't vote in the other threads. (Info / Contact)

[–]runhomejack1399 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

It's not happening guys.

[–]Agastopia 0ポイント1ポイント  (9子コメント)

helped rig the primary

There's so much to complain about Hillary I don't know why people on Reddit keep pushing this totally false narrative

[–]Lutya 1ポイント2ポイント  (8子コメント)

Can you tell me why you believe it's a false narrative?

[–]Agastopia 1ポイント2ポイント  (7子コメント)

Because it didn't happen, no matter how much Reddit wants to believe it did. Surely there'd be tons of proof if it had been done.

[–]Lutya 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

So no evidence it didn't happen. You've heard "where there's smoke there's fire" right? Hiring Debbie Wasserman Shultz AFTER the scandal was a pretty big smoke signal.

[–]Agastopia 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

She hired the head of the party she belongs to, to a job on her campaign. That's proof of rigging the primaries?

[–]WonderToys[S] -1ポイント0ポイント  (4子コメント)

So the belief is the party acted without Clinton's knowledge? Or is it that the emails are fake?

I can't keep up with the excuses people make for Clinton these days.

[–]Agastopia 0ポイント1ポイント  (3子コメント)

Show the email where they speak about rigging the primaries.

[–]WonderToys[S] -1ポイント0ポイント  (2子コメント)

Ah, right.. there's no email that says word for word "We're going to rig the primaries for Hillary, and she knows all about it."

You got me. The DNC and Hillary Clinton are totally innocent. There's smoke, but clearly there's no fire. For the first time in the history for the world, there's smoke without fire.

You win!

[–]Agastopia -2ポイント-1ポイント  (1子コメント)

Images like yours are far more effective when it's not baseless conspiracy theories.

[–]WonderToys[S] -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

I already said you win! Nobody spelled it out in plain English for all the simple minded folk out there. You got me. Smoke following fire is just a wild right wing conspiracy. I get it!

[–]buuun 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

Two things:

1) Might want to reconsider starting the list with things that'd "disqualify" Johnson. Leaves a bad impression right from the beginning, and if that's the problems his supporters are willing to admit to, it raises the question if there's more.

2) End on a high note. The important question is: Why should I vote Johnson?

[–]WonderToys[S] 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

See my comment - the whole point was to highlight the pure double standard in the media and by those who are blinded by partisan politics.

[–]Bossman1086I Voted Johnson/Gray! 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

The important question is: Why should I vote Johnson?

If you're seriously asking - He's honest - admits his mistakes and learns from them. Doesn't try to pander to people even if they disagree.

He's not as polarizing as Trump and Clinton (who are historically disliked). He is fiscally conservative and socially tolerant (supports woman's right to choose, ending the drug war, prison reform, LGBT rights, etc while wanting to balance the budget).

Then there's his foreign policy - not wanting to continue the nation building and regime change policies that got us into the messes we're in now overseas. Still wants to keep our military strong so we can defend ourselves and honor any treaties and alliances we have (e.g. NATO), but doesn't want to get involved without Congress declaring war beyond that.

He's against government spying programs and said he would pardon Edward Snowden if elected. He strongly believes that US citizens should have a right to privacy from the government.

After all of that, he has experience. Both him and his running mate were both successful two term governors (New Mexico and Massachusetts) and helped grow the economy and create jobs while in office.

[–]BlackbeltJones 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Unfortunately Gary Johnson is spending what little airtime he's allotted distancing himself from voters, never redeeming himself, and occasionally appearing like an all-around space cadet.

[–]aliens_300c -2ポイント-1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Keeping Score -

Debated

Hillary: 1 Trump: 1 Gary: 0

It's over time to pack it in guys.

[–]cashcow1 -1ポイント0ポイント  (2子コメント)

A couple of the attacks on Trump are incorrect.

He admitted to tax avoidance, which is legal (trust me, I'm an accountant).

And the Supreme Court has said investigatory stops including a frisk are legal, Terry v. Ohio. I don't think this is a good policy, but the Supreme Court has signed off on it.

[–]WonderToys[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

See here: https://www.reddit.com/r/GaryJohnson/comments/552dku/stay_classy_america/d872255

[–]cashcow1 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Facts matter. There are reasons to disagree with Trump, but he did not engage in tax evasion, and he was correct about stop-and-frisk.

[–]BorinToReadIt -1ポイント0ポイント  (1子コメント)

Trump admitted to tax evasion? I was under the impression that he admitted to tax avoidance, which is legal. Evasion is breaking tax law, avoidance is using current laws to reduce tax liability.

[–]SoundOfDrums -1ポイント0ポイント  (3子コメント)

Christ this is sad.

Trump didn't admit to tax evasion, he admitted to taking advantage of the broken system.

He called for the legal murder of innocent lives.

And stop and frisk works when it's the legal version, based on probably cause.

Not a fan of Trump, but you don't need to lie or mis-state things to attack him.

[–]WonderToys[S] -4ポイント-3ポイント  (2子コメント)

You need to read comments before reacting. I've addressed this a good 10 times in the thread already.

[–]SoundOfDrums 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

So you posted information that is wrong, and acknowledge that, and that's the defense? That's pretty special.

[–]WonderToys[S] -2ポイント-1ポイント  (0子コメント)

I posted sourceable information with a goal to prove my hypothesis -- that the American media holds a double standard, and many people blindly follow it.

You're choosing to ignore that point, and that's your right :)

[–]Stiikmann -3ポイント-2ポイント  (17子コメント)

For Donald Trump, all those points are wrong. 1) it's not tax evasion (which is illegal) it's tax loopholes. Everything he did to avoid paying taxes is within the law. And it's strange people voting for the libertarian candidate would be upset someone doesn't want to pay taxes.

2) he's never called for the murder of innocent people, good try though.

3) stop and frisks laws are legal. They are still in place in many cities today. Go ahead and look up Terry vs Ohio, the Supreme Court case in which the Supreme Court sided with the police that stop and frisk is within constitutional rights.

Before you go and make these claims, do a little bit of research first before you make a fool out of yourself.

Stay classy r/garyjohnson

[–]leglesslegolegolas 4ポイント5ポイント  (3子コメント)

Everything he did to avoid paying taxes is within the law.

We don't actually know this. The fact that he's been under constant audit for the past fifteen years, and the fact that he refuses to release his returns, could indicate that he's not only taking advantage of tax laws, he may actually be breaking them.

[–]Stiikmann 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

If 15 years of audits don't find a crime, then it's safe to assume there isn't a crime. How he could be breaking the law for 15 years while being investigated the entire time suggests he's doing it legally. And the audit in itself has been used as a political tool for decades.

[–]leglesslegolegolas 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

The audits are still ongoing.

[–]Stiikmann -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

True, my point is just if they have been doing it for 15 years, and still haven't found anything, it's likely because nothing is there.

[–]WonderToys[S] -1ポイント0ポイント  (12子コメント)

Before you go and make these claims, do a little bit of research first before you make a fool out of yourself.

Says the person who hasn't read this thread before commenting.

Stay classy, /u/Stiikmann

[–]Stiikmann -2ポイント-1ポイント  (11子コメント)

I read the rest, all I keep seeing is "trump didn't evade taxes, he just didn't pay them." Okay, so point 1 has been taken down by others in the thread, I correct points 2 and 3. Good try :)

[–]WonderToys[S] -1ポイント0ポイント  (10子コメント)

You clearly didn't read my posts on this matter. This is about how the media portrays the candidates, and how the American people react to it.

Are you claiming the points I listed aren't the talking points used by the media?

[–]Stiikmann 0ポイント1ポイント  (9子コメント)

Talking points by the media = qualifications for president?

[–]WonderToys[S] -2ポイント-1ポイント  (8子コメント)

Woooosh.

That's my point. These are how the media presents the candidates to the American people.

[–]Stiikmann 0ポイント1ポイント  (7子コメント)

If anything, this is who you present them. If you wanted to say this is an attack on how the media has made each candidate look. But you didn't, you said "stay classy America"

[–]WonderToys[S] -3ポイント-2ポイント  (6子コメント)

Because it's not America who consumes the media, and the media isn't American. Got it :)

[–]harveyspecterrr 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

You are an American, therefore inherently at fault

[–]WonderToys[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Never claimed otherwise. We're all guilty of bias and double standards. The difference is some of us realize and admit it.

[–]Stiikmann 0ポイント1ポイント  (3子コメント)

the media is far from representative of America or Americans, and what you're saying is extremely stereotypical. Through the same logic, we can assume every imam of Islam, who dictates the laws of the religion, is representative of all Muslims. So when one imam says rape is allowed, all Muslims are rapists.

[–]WonderToys[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

The media is absolutely representative of the people my post was targeting. You're picking on "Stay classy, America" without realizing the meme that it is. First heard by me in 2004 when the people in Yankee Stadium started to, basically, riot because of a call on the field.

Thus was born "Stay classy, New York". Clearly not representative of all New Yorkers, but instead directed at a specific group of people in New York.

Why do I have to explain this?

[–]mracidglee -4ポイント-3ポイント  (9子コメント)

What's the source of "helped rig a primary"? I haven't seen hard evidence that the H team helped the DNC.

[–]Aragorn527 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

Hard evidence: in the emails, my friend. It is plainly written for all to see. Though many prefer to cover their eyes.

[–]Agastopia -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

Oh awesome! OP deflected since he couldn't find any evidence to back up his claims, can you link me the emails which prove the rigging?

[–]WonderToys[S] 3ポイント4ポイント  (1子コメント)

You don't honestly believe the party acted without Clinton's knowledge, do you?

[–]mracidglee 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

I sure as hell don't, but I think it's better to stick to hard evidence, like the FBI's harsh characterization of her e-mail practices, or the e-mail (was it an e-mail) where Huma says she doesn't even know her own password.

EDIT: Or, you know, this.

[–]Lutya 0ポイント1ポイント  (4子コメント)

Hiring Debbie Wasserman Schultz was either because Debbie blackmailed Clinton or it was pre-negotiated to reassure Debbie was safe if she got caught. Hiring Debbie made it look like Clinton was in on it. A really stupid stupid move that cost her voters - including me. Why would she have done that if she didn't have to?

[–]mracidglee -1ポイント0ポイント  (3子コメント)

I agree, but it's not hard evidence.

[–]Lutya -2ポイント-1ポイント  (2子コメント)

No, but coupled with a lot of other stuff we know about Clinton, it's the likeliest scenario. Considering even the FBI couldn't drum up enough hard evidence to convict Clinton, I'm not going to hold my breath for hard evidence in this. I'm going to make my decisions based on the information available.

[–]iTotzke 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

I don't think it was "could or couldn't" get enough evidence. It seems like they didn't try very hard.

Comey became FBI director on September 4, 2013 by appointment of president Obama. Obama endorsed Clinton during the investigation.

They didn't ask anything related to intent - which is the technicality that got her off (she lacked intent). Also, it was unprecedented that they recommend no charges.

Comey announced that despite “evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information,” including evidence that Clinton and her team were “extremely careless,” he would not recommend that Clinton be prosecuted because, he said, the FBI had not uncovered sufficient evidence of intent to convince a reasonable prosecutor to pursue the charges.

Even with the recent update of stonetear, FBI Director James Comey said he’s not going to reopen the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s emails. He also refused to say if he’s investigating whether Mrs. Clinton lied in her testimony to Congress about her emails.

The thing that bothers me is that it seems like Hillary Clinton has a great memory and can site many accurate facts during a debate but the fbi noted that Hillary "could not recall" 39 times.

Hillary Clinton 2006 (or before) ,stopped using her email because of "how many times" she has been investigated

[–]Gogjgo 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Couldn't drum up enough evidence?? Hahahhahahahhahahahahahahaha

[–]PresidentChaos -2ポイント-1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Except Clinton didn't do any of those things. Shitservatives simply keep repeating the debunked accusations, to brainwash the low information rubes, by repetition. When will you ever learn?

[–]BestSexIveEverHad -3ポイント-2ポイント  (1子コメント)

So the media elites (who most people can't stand) try to take out Gary Johnson as a favor to Hillary, and your response is to insult Americans' class?

The media giveth, and the media taketh away. They gave him favorable exposure and lobbed softballs when they thought he was pulling votes from Trump. When Hillary began to struggle in the polls and it appeared that Johnson was pulling more votes from her than Trump, the media decided to take him down.

Americans aren't the ones insinuating that Johnson's problems are from marijuana use. That's the media. You can tell 1) and 3) were orchestrated hits because all of the Hillary-supporting media outlets, from the NYT to NPR, used the same talking points. Normal people don't attribute a gaffe to past marijuana use - they don't know and they don't care. No mainstream media outlet attributed Obama's gaffes to past marijuana/cocaine use. Suddenly all these media outlets are talking about Aleppo again and claiming Johnson's use of medicinal marijuana to alleviate pain from bone fractures 8-11 years ago could affect his fitness to be president? That doesn't happen organically. We know from the DNC leaks that the media takes orders from Hillary's campaign. Hillary's been trying to cast herself as the 'serious' candidate. This shameful smear about his medical marijuana usage is a dead giveaway: the Clinton camp tried to bring Obama's cocaine use in 2008. The foreign policy gotchas from the media and the attempt to cast Johnson as the non-serious druggie candidate who is only supported by young privileged white males has Hillary's fingerprints all over it. It's an attempt to destroy Johnson's credibility mixed with identity politics. It's no accident that all these attacks are coming from MSNBC, Morning Joe, Chris Matthews, Joy Ann Reid, former Gawker writers - all in the bag for Hillary. It's the same playbook they've been using to attack Trump all year.

[–]TheLAriver 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

"The media" is a loose collection of multiple corporations staffed by people. Many of them are Americans.