you just asked and answered your own question
and quoted youself.
you just asked and answered your own question
and quoted youself.
Your statement was:
So I provided you the details... looks like a resounding successful politician. Cut the state government, cut taxes, and the state did better than ever.why not shine Gary Johnsons platform under the same light?
There are no studies available because , why waste the time. His policies are either an extension of (R) or unworkable.
Well... I mean... you don't know that because the people you are referencing haven't been POTUS.Originally Posted by 57Brave
Edit: As for the governor of Michigan, that's broadest paint brush stroke I have ever seen. It's basically saying a qualification for being governance is that you can't be successful
Last edited by chop2chip; 03-03-2016 at 12:38 PM.
Any time someone approached him about legislation for some purpose, his first response always was to ask if government should be involved in that to begin with."
-------------------
I wish I'd watch a debate and hear SOMEONE say this
no what I am saying is one does not predict the other.
Harry Truman was a horrible business man that went on to become a successful pol.
George Romney was a successful business man before becoming a successful pol
Governance requires a far different skill set than number crunching
....
Mark Cuban is a successful NBA owner after success in business
Donald Sterling was a horrible NBA owner after success in the business world
,,,,,
The Governor of Michigan is a prime example of how success in business does not always translate to aptitude for governance
Last edited by 57Brave; 03-03-2016 at 12:59 PM.
The best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is to make sure he doesn’t get a gun.
You asked to look at Gary Johnson's platform.
How does it look?
50-50.
I agree with a number of his stances but there are a number where I just can't go
Plus, he is a niche candidate (like Sanders and Trump to a degree) and will never be electable on the national stage.
This is a big country
The best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is to make sure he doesn’t get a gun.
You don't know if it does or does not predict the other. Citing specific examples isn't good science.
How do we even measure good governance anyways? If we can't even agree on that, then how the hell are we supposed to measure whether someone is good at it or not?
As always, it's a matter of degrees.
not poisoning the citizenry by short cutting the processes in the name of economic efficiency.
Would be a start
otherwise, we agree. I think it foolish to access candidates on campaign jargon. Witness Obama and GITMO. I think Sanders math questions on par with how you going to close GITMO
I favor the goals Sanders has set out, how we reach them is to be settled, but his vision is close to mine. On that basis I would vote for him
Temperament, how do they respond to crisis during the campaign, do they start accusing their opponents of peeing their pants or engage them eye to eye.
Does their campaign seem un organized, how do they spend their war chest
That is really all we have to go on
Last edited by 57Brave; 03-03-2016 at 04:49 PM.
The best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is to make sure he doesn’t get a gun.
easy answer to the main question in the subject?
cause they have never had an actual liberal in the white house that pushes for liberal ideas (at least in a while)
they settle for middle of the road moderate liberals or moderate republicans that run as democrats. pretty much always something moderate though
that's why. even if the numbers don't match up for this or that right now. they would rather give it a shot and see if it can work
would be my guess
"For there is always light, if only we are brave enough to see it. If only we are brave enough to be it." Amanda Gorman
"When Fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross"
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote