Re: Decision 2016
 

I'm asking because I am genuinely curious here: Who in this thread, if I asked you in person yesterday about Aleppo, could actually have given me a correct answer? What if I asked about the Syrian refugee crisis? I guarantee you'd have more people answer the second question. Next, the interviewer was just talking about Ralph Nader, and completely switched topics on Johnson. In a spoken interview 'Allepo' is entirely out of the blue. He made Johnson completely switch directions on a dime, and deserves the opportunity to get his bearings and respond to the topic.
I'm sorry Dad_Scaper, but you are in the wrong here. Johnson gave a decent response to the Syrian issue, which you may feel free to agree or disagree with. You act as though knowing a keyword the instant it is mentioned is more important than knowing the actual topic.

Can you honestly say there is anything in his follow up that you disagree with?

Re: Decision 2016
 

Pin a medal on him, Nukatha. I don't care. I know libertarianism has superficial appeal, but I don't think it survives a serious scratch of the surface. His idea of campaign finance reform is unlimited campaign contributions, but it all has to be transparent? What about when the contributions come in from Good Guy, Inc., but the money went to GGI from Bad Guy, LLC? It all sounds so naïve to me. La, that's just my two cents. Do what you want.

My only hope is that he does more damage to Trump than he is doing to Clinton.

Re: Decision 2016
 

That's all I ask. Those criticisms you just mentioned are actual criticisms of his policies. But today's interview misstep is, and ought to be, a non-issue.

Re: Decision 2016
 

No. It is most certainly *not* a non-issue. I have bigger problems with him, but his unfamiliarity with current world events is a mark against him. How big a mark? Different people can evaluate differently.

Re: Decision 2016
 

Here is my campaign reform.
All donations over $100 is public knowledge and taxed 500%.

Anonymous donations can be made but are taxed at 10,000%.

Re: Decision 2016
 

Imagine, if you will, Good Guy, Inc.

GGI is a public policy group set up by a group of investors. The leadership of GGI, officially, is various perfectly respectable people. When GGI gives money to a cause, its name appears on that money, and perhaps the names of its leadership appears on that money, for that cause.

Is your transparency satisfied? I expect so.

Now imagine that the investors are Bad Guys. The money they use to set up GGI is drug money. Or imagine, instead, that the original investors were squeaky clean but Bad Guys come along and give GGI money afterward, earmarked for particular causes.

GGI then gives money to political campaigns. Congratulations, it was transparent. Except that really, it wasn't.

Re: Decision 2016
 

It does seem odd that Advertisements (that are not subject to Truth in Advertising Regulations) and direct campaign contributions are allowed at all.

If only there was some way to have a Platform that anyone can access inexpensively that could list the candidates and their actual position on the various Topics in both regular English and political/economic detail. You could even let the Candidates write their own words and explain their stance directly with the electorate and answer questions.

That would be a technological marvel.

Re: Decision 2016
 

In my system all donations must be made by individuals.
If you want to hide then you can as long as you are willing to pay 100 times in taxes.

This would allow for all(well a good chunk) of those wasted dollars to do some actual good, well unless we give it to Iran. :)

Did anyone know about all the bombs in Laos? That is incredible.

Re: Decision 2016
 

Really?

Ok. Imagine, if you will, a *person* named Good Guy Ink. Good Guy Ink is perfectly respectable, as far as a person can tell. Now let us further imagine that another guy, Bad Guy Llc, loans or gives Good Guy Ink a sum of money, with the understanding that the money will be given to a political cause.

There. Good Guy Ink gave the money. An individual.

Re: Decision 2016
 

At 10,000% tax, I am fine with it.

Re: Decision 2016
 

I don't think you understand. It's not "anonymous." You aren't getting your 10,000%. The money is from Good Guy.

Unless, of course, you are peeking behind the curtain, to find out where Good Guy got the money. At which point you are engaging in regulation, which is precisely what you said you were not going to do.

edit: You see, Tornado, the world is a complicated place. Nothing is easy, not a goddamned thing. A person who tells you that complicated things are simple and, even worse, that the person is the master of those simple things, is selling you a crock of nonsense. That person is not to be trusted. I'll take someone who acknowledges that we face serious, complex problems, thank you very much, and not someone who communicates best in 140 character bursts.

edit 2:

Re: Decision 2016
 

Ahhhh. Now I get you.
Agreed.

That means 10,000% tax on all donations over $100, all anonymous.

So now you counter with finding enough stooges to each donate $100 each correct?