A Comparison Of The Presidential Candidates Messages Following The Pulse Shooting

gary facebook

A lot of being said these past few days since the Pulse Shooting occurred, and specifically, this post will look at what the top 3 Presidential candidates are saying, by looking at Facebook posts (official statements).

Gary Johnson (L):

gary facebookgary twitter

Donald Trump ®:

trump 1trump 2

For more fear mongering, see his Twitter feed: [Link]

Hillary Clinton (D):

clinton 1

For more fear mongering, see her Twitter feed: [Link]

TL;DR THERE IS ONLY ONE PERSON WHO CARES ABOUT NOT JUMPING TO CONCLUSIONS, ACTUALLY GRIEVING ABOUT THE SITUATION, AND ISN’T USING THE SHOOTING FOR HIS/HER AGENDA. THAT MAN IS GARY JOHNSON.

Also, there isn’t any fear mongering in his Twitter feed. Literally, you can look. He’s not calling for a ban on Muslim immigration (like Trump) or calling for a heavier restrictions on guns (like Clinton). He’s being this called a decent human being.

Quick Thought On Voting Third Party

LP-Logo

I’ve often heard a simple argument about voting for a third party, and I’d like to take some time to address that, in more than one way.

The argument usually is like this:

“I don’t want to waste my vote on a third party with no chance of winning.”

This is a common objection I hear to voting for a third party candidate like Gary Johnson. I find issue with it though, in a few areas.

#1: Third Parties Have Won

There was once a party called the Whig Party. Eventually, the Whig Party kicked the bucket, after a third party had finally beaten them into irrelevance. That third party’s name was the Republican Party.

#2: Muh Fear Mongering

Saying that a third party has no chance is not exactly a good line of reasoning to go with, especially with this election, and how nothing seems normal. Neither of the two major party candidates is really satisfying the members of their party, or the general electorate. Most (around 99%) of people know who Trump and Clinton are. Yet, many do not know who Gary Johnson is, and there is still several months to the election. With access to debates, higher poll numbers, and probably the biggest Libertarian campaign in the party’s history at foot, I’d expect Gary to be quite competitive for the White House.

#3: The Current Two Party’s Nominees

If your argument is that Trump will be worse than Hillary, or that Hillary will be worse than Trump, I’m here to tell you that they will be both equally terrible. But, you do NOT have to support a terrible, hated candidate. This election is like nothing we have seen before. Both parties are in major trouble, with at least one possibly dying. Give Gary Johnson a chance, and if given said chance and elected, I believe you’ll like the results.

Discussing Healthcare and Rights

tumblr_np0slkEYoL1sipw2xo1_540
I used this meme back last year in a post on whether people have a right to healthcare or not. Of course, I argued that people did not, as it does not naturally exist, and is the produc of other people’s labor. Still, many think they’re entitled to it, and for free as well. Recently, I responded to a few comments on this, and I will go ahead and post those below.

The first set are the criticisms that the Rand Paul argument received:

#1 – officermilky

Call me naive, but wouldn’t he be paid through taxes? He wouldn’t be working for free. The argument to that, of course, would be “robbing peter to pay paul” but healthcare would be taxes that, you know, a society would all agree to go in on because they democratically believe it’s the right thing to do?

I’m not even saying that’s a perfect solution to everything, but the Rand caption seems faulty.

#2 – ramblingferret

Yes just like in Canada and Europe we round up doctors and force them to work against there will. Like my poor shrink who works 8-5 with Wednesdays off.

#3 – sweertomato

And now, here is how I responded to each one of them:

@officermilky He would be paid under a market wage that he would have regularly earned, due to government price setting (both on goods and wages). Your main mistake is that you will not have all of society agreeing to this universal healthcare plan. You would only need 50% +1 to make this happen, and that doesn’t sound in any way like it “society would all agree to go in” with this, as you say. THAT WOULD BE THE CASE.

@ramblingferret You mention Canada’s system, and I’d be a bit careful with that. They tried to first off ban private insurance, which was ruled unconstitutional. Canadian healthcare wait times are far longer than American wait times.

canada healthcare times

In addition to this, Canada’s system is lagging in adopting to new technology and practices to improve the quality and speed of care. And I’d be even more careful to use Canada’s system, since it’s projected to eat up 97% of government revenues over time. If that’s something America should copy, I’d be skeptical. And if you still don’t believe I should be skeptical, I would ask the 40,000+ Canadians who sought medical treatment outside Canada due to these problems, and more.

@sweer-tomato You mention that it would be free. About that…

Inigo+Montoya+from+The+Princess+Bride+_5eb38f6e2f66bcfb3c178e52e0882339.jpg

And if that is the route you wish to take (in saying that universal healthcare is free), then this also applies:

giphy

Weird how neither me nor Rand actually said the “ and saying oh “Survival of the fittest” if you get seriously ill / injured you deserve to die is the most barbaric and jackass thing you can say.” I honestly wonder where this even comes from, but I don’t think I care.

Now, under the current ACA, quality of care has gone down, and prices have gone up (especially when you’re not subsidised, like regular people with their own healthcare or through their business). Under the universal system, the costs become simply unseen by the everyday taxpayer, but is still felt on April 15, and don’t think for a second this is going to be in any way cheap, especially for people who are poor or have pre-existing conditions. Not when the plan require a bunch of crap that a) shouldnt be part of health insurance, and b) is mandated by government fiat.

And let’s chat about government mandated bull. I’ve yet to hear someone explain logically how the government can require health insurers to cover something, and the health insurers won’t raise their prices. The health insurers know they can simply jack up their prices all they want, because it’s now mandated that “x” service be covered. You wanna know why healthcare costs keep going up? It ain’t corporate greed that is the main problem. I’ll tell you that.

And let’s talk about 2016. If you’d like to see more poor people, go ahead, enact your universal healhcare system. Bernie’s plan sure ain’t cheap, since you’d have to come up with $3.2 trillion in new tax revenue per year (equalling $32 trillion in total, more than his original projections were) over the next decade to pay for just the healthcare costs. Since the Sander’s plan already boasts of tax hikes on the wealthy (aka the one’s who currently pay the majority of taxes), where is the rest of the money coming from? Hint hint, he will HAVE look lower. But don’t worry, you might be audited by the IRS after not paying taxes because you can’t afford them, but you’ll have healthcare still… that is, as long as they haven’t cut you off.

It’s 2016: let people actually keep their money for a change and get the damn government out of healthcare, so people can afford it and not go broke should something bad happen.


All in all, I haven’t done a good rebuttal like this in a while, and I probably could have done tons better, but this still came out good, and still hasn’t been rebutted by any of these three posters. I’m not expecting it to, but hey, we shall see.

Could I Vote For Gary Johnson?

william weld

Could I vote for Gary Johnson? Probably. There is, however, a situation in which I simply cannot vote for Gary. For me to not vote for Gary would mean that there would need to be one thing that would happen, and that thing is William Weld being made the Vice Presidential nominee.

Hear me out, no one is perfect. Gary isn’t perfect. Austin isn’t perfect. John isn’t perfect. I get it; perfection is an unobtainable ideal. But, there has to be a line drawn where we do NOT pass for choosing someone to be part of the standard-bearer ticket, who will represent the party. And in an election year like this, where the Libertarian Party is getting tons of press, and it’s candidates are becoming known to the general people instead of just the few who looked deeper for another option, it’s going to be important that we have two people who can represent the party and the ideology well. This is why I cannot support Johnson/Weld.

Has any looked at Weld’s time as Governor? I’m honestly concerned that people who are supporting both Johnson and Weld are ignoring the record of Weld. It’s not a Libertarian-friendly one. Not even close. He may CAMPAIGN as a good guy, but his time in office is far different.

I have to give Jason Stapleton a lot of credit for doing the research on Weld, and it’s not like there’s a lot for a Governor who was in office back in the early to mid 90’s. But, Stapleton brought up both history and current recent statements that should concern any libertarian considering the Johnson/Weld ticket.

//embeds.audioboom.com/boos/4619574-an-in-depth-look-at-bill-weld/embed/v4?eid=AQAAAB6_R1c2fUYA

Now, the description is probably a better summary than anything I could even think of:

Since the announcement by the Johnson campaign that Bill Weld would be Gary’s VP running mate controversy has been swirling. Some say Weld is an excellent choice who’s going to have the connections to raise money and grab disenfranchised Republicans. Others say Weld is a poison on the message and isn’t even libertarian.

Throughout the debates Gary Johnson has made some, shall I say “less than libertarian” comments on a range of topics and that has caused me to question what Johnson really believes.

With the decision to partner with Weld, I grew more skeptical of Johnson and what his real principles are. So I decide to dig into the background of Gov. Weld and see I could determine what drives his decisions, and he holds as first principles.

I’ve tried to be fair although I admit I came into this with some skepticism. What I found did not make me happy and in today’s episode, I’m going to make a case against both Gov. Weld and Gov. Johnson. With this incredible opportunity, I think it is a bad idea to allow either of these men to represent the libertarian ideal to the masses.

Utah Fails To Learn What “Small Government” Is

Utah Senator Todd Weiler has proposed a bill to rid the state of porn by adding Internet filters and anti-porn software on all cell phones and requiring citizens to opt-in before viewing porn online. It’s to save the children, he says. Weiler successfully pushed an anti-porn resolution through the state senate earlier this year, declaring…

via Utah representatives want to install porn blockers on all cellphones — TechCrunch

Right now,  I’m reminde of The Simpsons episode where the one lady screams “Will someone please think of the children!”

That is exactly what this guy is doing, and he’s using that exact thing I’ve mentioned to pass this authoritarian power-grab onto people. Now, call me crazy, but that’s how you grow government, and it shouldn’t be a surprise that this guy is a Republican. It MAKES PERFECT SENSE.

This is part of the reason why I am a libertarian: I do no like authoritarianism on either side, or of either variety. I  don’t like it from the left when they want control of my economic freedoms, nor when the right when they want contro of my personal freedoms.

The only thing I see this doing is being  massive invasion of privacy, and sending more people into using TOR, which is a good/bad idea (for various other reasons).

Overall, good job Utah for really getting your priorities straight.

John McAfee Goes Up Against Trump & Clinton

I love John McAfee. There, I said it. Seriously, I have a bromance for this guy. This wonderful tech genius is making me really love him more and more with everything his campaign releases, from his campaign ads to his graphics and so on.

In one of his more recent ones, he decided to compar himself against Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, and his does a terrific job of making the two authoritarian psychopaths look almost the exact same, and shows the alternative that he is offering to the American people, should he be the Libertarian nominee.

Without further ado, here it is.

static1.squarespace.commstiffanymadison@gmail.comcarl saganmstiffanymadison@gmail.commstiffanymadison@gmail.commcafee patriot acttsamcafee tsaencryptionmcafee encryptionstatic1.squarespace.commcafee compares donald hillarywarmcafee warwar spending chartmcafee unitydownload

Source: [X]

Rand Paul vs. Tax Treaties

rand-paul-marijuana

“I’m calling on the Senate, in particular Sen. Rand Paul, who’s been a little quirky on this issue, to stop blocking the implementation of tax treaties that have been pending for years,”

Someone sounds a little upset. These are the words of President Obama, who was talking about tax treaties that he’s really wanted to be passed in the Senate. The reason why he wants these treaties put through? So he can stop “tax evasion”, a problem which he is looking to address.

Now, on the surface, this doesn’t look like it should be much of an issue. You need to understand that nothing in Washington is simple though. What these tax treaties would do is allow for law enforcement to basically act as if it were unbound by the 4th Amendment, and become almost NSA-like, since it would have the power to allow law enforcement to see what you’re doing, when you’re doing it, and what comes in and goes out. Yes, this can all be seen from bank activity. Scary, isn’t it?

So what about tax cheats? To be honest, these are the symptom of a much larger problem: a tax system not many know how to properly navigate, and many would like to just avoid all together, seeing as how there is no hope in trying to figure it out while keeping their costs low. And compliance? Haha, that’s a funny one.

2 of these treaties are with Switzerland and Luxembourg, two of the wealthiest nations on the planet, and since they see a lot of monetary traffic, the White House feels like it would be wise to have access to their records, so they can be used in tax investigations by the IRS if needed.

Going further into some research, I can across this gem over at Accounting Today:

Of the eight treaties, seven of them are bilateral agreements with various countries to facilitate cooperation to avoid double taxation and to lower compliance costs. Regrettably, these agreements also unnecessarily change the standard for providing personal financial information to law enforcement agencies from probable cause of criminal behavior, such as fraud—which Paul correctly regards as the only constitutionally permissible standard under the Fourth Amendment—to what amounts to wholesale bulk collection on the pattern of the NSA’s violations of email and phone privacy.

This is Paul’s only concern with these seven bilateral treaties. A simple amendment could conform them to constitutional standards and they could move forward expeditiously.

However, that reasonable solution is not acceptable to Secretary Jack Lew’s Treasury Department. That’s because the Department also insists on using the treaties as a Trojan Horse for one of the most dangerous and dysfunctional laws enacted under the presidency of Barack Obama: the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act, or FATCA. 

FATCA, which few Americans have ever heard of, was passed by a Democrat-controlled Congress in 2010, supposedly as a weapon against “fatcat” offshore tax evasion. Disdaining the constitutional path of investigating individuals who are suspected of wrongdoing and securing a warrant for accessing their private records, FATCA takes the NSA approach: to require all non-U.S. banks to hand over information on U.S. private persons (not corporations, by the way) absent any requirement of reasonable suspicion, due process, or a court order. If banks fail to do so, they face crippling sanctions that essentially shut them out of the American market. FATCA has led many foreign banks to deny services to Americans rather than deal with the burdens and crushing compliance costs, thus impeding U.S. business and export opportunities and risking economic harm.

*bolding is my own*

Now you see why Obama wants these treaties passed in Congress, don’t you? There’s always another reason than just something like “tax evasion”. There’s always something more to it.

Rand Paul is right to be in opposition to these, and the thing is, is that these cannot pass while there is still opposition to them. Meaning, that as long as Rand keeps saying “I object”, then these cannot move on at all. They’ll just continue to sit around and collect dust.