Showing posts with label third party. Show all posts
Showing posts with label third party. Show all posts

Thursday, October 20, 2016

last nights debate, third party responses, and fact checking, Part 1

So last night was the final debate before the election. For those that are interested, I am posting segments of it here, along with responses from third party candidates as the debate occurred.(Included are Gary Johnson, Jill Stein, Evan Mcmullin, and Darrell Castle, as they had concurrent responses on twitter as the debate occurred) I will try to keep most of my commentary to a minimum in this post, but will do some relevant fact checking so you don't have to.

Part 1: SCOTUS and the constitution, Second Amendment, Abortion







SCOTUS and Constitutional interpretation, 3rd party responses:








SCOTUS and the Constitution, some commentary and fact checks:

Trump is using fear tactics regarding the 2nd amendment here, yet has made several anti 2A statements in the past, including recent and continued support of "no fly no buy", a violation of the 2nd and 5th amendments. He talks a decent game on constitutional issues, but it doesn't stand up to scrutiny. See my previous discussion Donald Trump vs the Constitution. 

Second Amendment and Gun Rights, 3rd party responses

 






Commentary and Fact Checks:

Hillary loves to throw around that 33,000 a year statistic. But it's a misrepresentation, and it's a deceptive use of statistics.

Comprehensive background checks...so, kinda a system like this?
But those loopholes! I can go online and just buy a gun and avoid all that! No...no you can't. And the gun show loophole? Again, it's not quite what Clinton and others would have you think it is.

Would have also liked to see the moderator ask Trump about his change of mind regarding an assault weapons ban, which before running for office he supported.

As to Trump's comment regarding judges and the second amendment, if you appoint strict constitutionalist judges, does that point need to be clarified? Isn't it included?

Abortion issues, 3rd party responses:










  Fact checks and commentary:

Evan McMullin actually made one of my points for me above, that Donald Trump is not consistently pro life and is not dependable on the issue.

My main takeaway from this portion was how little discussion there was of the implications of the 10th amendment here, and of state laws on the matter. Trump did mention that if Roe vs Wade were overturned it would go to the states, but that was the extent of the conversation. However, coming at it from a constitutional perspective, it is in fact a state issue.

Also, as Johnson pointed out above, Roe vs Wade is not the law of the land regarding abortion, but Casey vs Planned Parenthood. Under Casey vs Planned Parenthood, Hillary's justifications for late term abortions are invalid.

Final note, on the issue of abortion rights, Clinton is rabidly all about individual rights and how the government shouldn't be involved, an argument I can to a degree understand, if she consistently applied it on other positions. But she doesn't, and in this instance, it still doesn't apply, because under the 10th amendment, states can still regulate it, the federal government cannot.

Final comment from me, I have a breakdown of each candidates positions and backgrounds on my blog already if you'd like to check it out


Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Saturday, October 15, 2016

3rd Party Presidential candidates, a comparison

I've seen several comparision posts for presidential candidates going around, but they all compare the top two and maybe Johnson or Stein, and none of them really seem to actually address anything at all in depth. I decided to put one together of the alternative candidates running. In the interest of space and clarity, I did not include the "top two". Even still, each of these issues mentioned are often more complex than the snippets included here, so I do encourage you to research them further. All information I used is either from the respective candidates campaign sites, or from ontheissues.org I tried my best to not favor any one candidate, but to share what they have said on each subject. I know there are also many other issues than the ones mentioned here. In the interest of full disclosure, my preferred candidate is Gary Johnson. That said, I hope this helps you decide on a candidate that more aligns with your perspectives. Unlike many of my other posts, I did my best here to remain objective and not steer towards any particular candidate.



IssueGary JohnsonJill SteinEvan McMullinDarrell CastleChris Keniston
AbortionState issue, supports parental notification, supports counseling, opposes government funding, opposes insurance mandate, up to the States per 10th amendment, individual decision.Pro choice, healthcare is a right, abortion and birth control fall under healthcare"Our respect for life is the most important measure of our humanity. From conception to death - and any time in between - life is precious and we have a responsibility to protect it. A culture that subsidizes abortion on demand runs counter to the fundamental American belief in the potential of every person"right to life under 5th and 14th amendments, "1. Veto and refuse to spend every penny of funding for Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers. 2. Recommend to Congress, and work to convince Congress, to take away the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction over such matters."No official position, personally pro life, social issues are not constitutionally federal matters
IssueGary JohnsonJill SteinEvan McMullinDarrell CastleChris Keniston
Firearms/2A issuesSupports concealed carry, Supports gun rights, armed law abiding citizens reduces crime, opposes "no fly no buy" and other federal lists as violations of right to due process Favorable of Australia style gun control, wants increased regulation, increased focus on mental health"As president, Evan McMullin will never infringe upon the rights of law-abiding gun-owners. Instead, he will respect the founding spirit of our country by ensuring that Americans have the ability to defend their families and enjoy their sporting traditions without government interference." Favors use of watch lists, but states due process concerns must be addressed"The Constitution Party stands opposed to his efforts to disarm the American people, whatever the president’s motives may be. The Constitution Party opposes what the government usually refers to as “gun control” – and that is gun or ammunition confiscation, gun or ammunition registration and the restriction of semi-automatic firearms with high-capacity magazines. We in the Constitution Party understand that armed people are free while disarmed people are slaves"Per the constitution "Shall not be infringed"
IssueGary JohnsonJill SteinEvan McMullinDarrell CastleChris Keniston
healthcarefavors free market solutions, state issue, federal government should not be involvedhealthcare is a right, supports single payer universal healthcare"ObamaCare has failed American families, driving up costs and reducing access to far too many. With competition, deregulation and innovation we can build a modern health care system that delivers accessible, affordable and high-quality care. Vulnerable populations, including patients with preexisting conditions, should be protected. Real healthcare reform means putting patients, families, and doctors at the heart of health care."" If the supply of medical care is controlled by the federal government, then officers of that government will determine which demand is satisfied. The result will be the rationing of services, higher costs, poorer results – and the power of life and death transferred from caring physicians to unaccountable political overseers. We denounce any civil government entity using age or any other personal characteristic to: preclude people and insurance firms from freely contracting for medical coverage"constitutionally not a federal issue
IssueGary JohnsonJill SteinEvan McMullinDarrell CastleChris Keniston
taxeseliminate the IRS, completely redo tax code, favors the fair taxIncrease taxes on the "rich", increase inheritance tax "aristocracy tax""make the tax code fairer and simpler, helping to spur business innovation, especially the growth of small businesses, which are the country’s most important job creators. Small businesses should pay closer to 25 percent of their profits in taxes, whereas now there are many that must pay almost 40 percent. Right now America also has the highest corporate tax rate – 35 percent.....it should be substantially lower. Income tax rates also need to come down, especially for the middle-class; once the economy starts growing again at an acceptable rate, high-earners should also get a break.""I have proposed a taxing system whereby taxes would be apportioned to the states as the census dictates. If my state of Tennessee had two percent of the nation’s population, for example, it would be liable for two percent of the budget. It would be incumbent upon the representatives from Tennessee to help hold down Federal spending. The Federal Government would be encouraged to spend less not more. The states would be empowered and Washington would be dis-empowered. Washington’s hold over the states would be broken and the states would be sovereign again – Washington would have to ask the states for money. States would be free to collect their revenue as they see fit. Alaska might tax its natural resources and Florida might tax tourism. In Nevada, it would obviously be gambling. Since people could keep their income the economy would explode with growth."eliminate the income tax, replace it with a consumption tax or possibly a flat tax
IssueGary JohnsonJill SteinEvan McMullinDarrell CastleChris Keniston
tradeSupports free trade, considers tariffs and other restrictions "protectionism", "skeptical" of trade agreements but would sign NPPOpposes trade deals including NPP. "To stop the outsourcing of our jobs, it's very clear we need to stop expanding the free trade agreements that send our jobs overseas and which also undermine wages here at home by effectively threatening workers that if they don't drop their wages and their benefits, that their jobs are gone. We saw the first free trade agreement, NAFTA, enacted under Bill Clinton, a Democrat. We saw it carried out under George Bush, but then we saw Barack Obama expand three free trade agreements and is now negotiating a secret free trade agreement, the Trans-Pacific Partnership, that will continue to offshore jobs, undermine wages, and, as well, this time compromise American sovereignty with an international corporate board that can rule on our laws and regulations and say whether or not they pass muster. This is an absolute outrage against American sovereignty, democracy and our economy."Supports trade agreements, including TPP, "Evan believes that trade is an engine of prosperity and that well-designed trade agreements can help our economy grow even more."Opposes TPP and other trade agreements as attacks on national sovereigntyvacate existing trade agreements, impose penalties to make overseas manufacturing "less attractive"
IssueGary JohnsonJill SteinEvan McMullinDarrell CastleChris Keniston
immigration and border security2 term governor of a border state, opposes mass deportation, focus on keeping criminals out, create a path to easier work visas and welcome those who want to work "Having served as Governor of a border state, Gary Johnson understands immigration. He understands that a robust flow of labor, regulated not by politics, but by the marketplace, is essential. He understands that a bigger fence will only produce taller ladders and deeper tunnels, and that the flow of illegal immigrants across the border is not a consequence of too little security, but rather a legal immigration system that simply doesn't work. Militarizing the border, bigger fences, and other punitive measures espoused by too many politicians are all simplistic "solutions" to a problem caused by artificial quotas, bureaucratic incompetence and the shameful failure of Congress to actually put in place an immigration system that matches reality.""Obama's recent night raids and deportations of Central American families and children are inhumane and morally reprehensible. Deportation of these vulnerable, abused refugees is morally abhorrent. We are all immigrants in this country--with the exception of native Americans. The diversity of multicultural immigrant America has always been the core strength of our nation. Our 12 million undocumented immigrants are hardworking, tax-paying community residents who take the hardest and worst paid jobs. They should be celebrated, not intimidated with the threat of deportation. It's time to create a welcoming path to citizenship and put an immediate end to the shameful era of deportations and detentions. Fundamentally, the immigration crisis must be resolved by ending the harmful US policies (including drug wars, predatory trade agreements, and political and military interventions) that are turning whole populations into refugees to start with.""The path to reform begins with securing our borders. Once they are secured, there should be a process of earned legalization for the illegal immigrants who are already here. There is simply no efficient way to deport 11 million individuals; doing so would break apart families and likely cost $100 billion. Furthermore, legalization is not amnesty. While addressing illegal immigration, it is vital to remember that legal immigration is one of America’s greatest strengths. Immigrants and their children have a long record of hard work, starting businesses, and creating jobs. Still, we need to reform the legal immigration system so that it prioritizes American interests and security, including the protection of workers from low-wage, low-skill competition."According to the Constitution Party’s platform, its members oppose illegal immigration and amnesty of any sort, including proposals that would provide some sort of pathway to citizenship for those who are in the U.S. illegally.Reform and streamline the immigration process, current process is a "bureaucratic quagmire, encourage input from states, immediate moratorium on deportation of immigrants awaiting citizenship by marriage
IssueGary JohnsonJill SteinEvan McMullinDarrell CastleChris Keniston
foreign policyavoid foreign entanglements, cut foreign aid that does not directly serve national interest, remain in the UN and NATO but cease interference in foreign affairs. "American foreign policy should seek an America at peace with the world. Our foreign policy should emphasize defense against attack from abroad and enhance the likelihood of peace by avoiding foreign entanglements. We would end the current U.S. government policy of foreign intervention, including military and economic aid. We recognize the right of all people to resist tyranny and defend themselves and their rights. We condemn the use of force, and especially the use of terrorism, against the innocent, regardless of whether such acts are committed by governments or by political or revolutionary groups."End overseas meddling, US is member of world community, not world cop, end foreign aid to countries with "humanitarian abuses", focus on human rights, international law, and diplomacy, end support for Israel, refers to Israel/Palestine as "apartheid occupation""Evan McMullin will continue this tradition of leadership that has made America the world’s indispensable nation.""Opposing brutal dictatorships and speaking out on behalf of democracy and human rights are also essential to American leadership. Other nations follow our lead because they understand that we pursue the collective good, not just our own narrow self-interest. While American soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines and intelligence officers have borne the cost of this leadership, the pursuit of common interests has enabled us to build a network of democratic allies across the globe."Withdraw from the UN, opposes a "globalist agenda", "I believe in a strong defense, but I believe in a ‘mind your own business’ type of government as the Constitution requires us to do,"pursue a policy of non-interference, continued, conditional participation in the UN, overseas actions must be constitutional
IssueGary JohnsonJill SteinEvan McMullinDarrell CastleChris Keniston
Ballot AccessAll 50 states(including DC)on the ballot in 44 states (and DC), Write in for Georgia, North Carolina, and Indiana, not on the ballot in Nevada, South Dakota, or Oklahoma.On the ballot in 11 states, write in brings total to 34 states, click here for full list on the ballot in 24 states, write in for 18 states, 3 states pending write in access, click here for map and state party listballot access in Colorado and Louisiana, Write in status confirmed or pending in 27 states, click here for list

Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , ,

Friday, October 14, 2016

Who is Evan McMullin

Some of you may be asking the same question lately, who exactly is Evan McMullin? What is his background, his positions? I had the same question tonight after a friend mentioned he was supporting him. I've heard the name, and snippets here and there, but don't know much about him, so I decided to check him out, and share what I found.

 Background:

 He was born in Provo Utah in 1976, and grew up near Seattle. He holds a bachelors in international law and diplomacy from Brigham-Young, and a masters in business administration from the University of Pennsylvania.

in 2001 he worked in Amman Jordan as a Volunteer Refugee Resettlement Officer for the UN, and worked for the CIA from 2001 to 2011, serving overseas in counter intelligence and intelligence operations in the Middle East, North Africa, and South Asia. in 2011 he started work at Goldman Sachs, and in 2013 became a senior adviser to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs for national security matters, and most recently, in 2015, worked as chief policy director of the House Republican Conference, a position he resigned to run for President.

In May of 2016, he presented a TEDx talk to the London Business School "Why saying 'never again' to genocide is not enough"



 Political Stances

 Here is his Issues page if you would like to check out what he has to say directly.
Overall, he appears to be a solid small government conservative, as well as being pro-life. However, I do have some personal concerns.

He would continue federal involvement in education, while he rightly critiques common core, and talks about state and local governments leading the way, which is good, and expanding choices and encouraging states to support homeschooling, also good, constitutionally, education is entirely a state and local issue. Better than Trump or Clinton for sure, and scaling back federal meddling is definitely a positive step, it isn't a step far enough.

His foreign policy, while this is certainly an area where, of the candidates running, he has perhaps the most extensive direct experience, I get the impression of reading his views on our role in the world, that while he rightly condemns the irrational policies of Trump, his only real critique of Clinton on foreign policy is that she is not trustworthy. I get the impression that he would continue foreign interventions. I understand defending our interests and national security, but many of the issues he discusses, while noble, seem to allude that he would continue our role as world police, meddling in sovereign affairs overseas, including increasing our military presence in the Baltics to counter Russia. On foreign policy, I would class him as a hawk for sure. I'm all for a strong military and protecting our interests, but I do not support an aggressive and confrontational foreign policy, that is part of what has gotten us to where we are now.

On healthcare, he starts well with repealing Obamacare, but then he talks about giving a tax credit to uninsured families, as well as other federal entitlement programs. The federal government shouldn't be involved in healthcare, and, while some of his ideas may well be interesting to see tried on a state level, I can't support a candidate who would involve the federal government in healthcare matters when there is no constitutional place for federal involvement.

On energy policies, he would eliminate federal subsidies. A great start for sure, however, he would push through the Keystone pipeline and other pipeline projects. My greatest concern here is encroachment on native lands, which he makes no mention of, however, overall, I like what he has to say regarding energy policy and the environment.

On poverty issues, he again has some interesting ideas, but again, they are ideas that, constitutionally, should occur on the state level. While he mentions encouraging states to lead the way, he discusses various tax credits and programs that, while again, are noble ideas that could indeed work well as state programs, have no place as federal programs.

Overall, he has several good ideas, and is a step ahead of Trump and Clinton for certain. I like several of his policy ideas, and think he would certainly be an improvement if he were to become president. Were he running for state office, I would seriously consider giving him my vote. However, as a presidential candidate, while he is certainly a step towards returning to constitutional limits, he would continue to involve the federal government in constitutionally state issues, admittedly in a reformed and more limited way, but still overstepping constitutional bounds. His foreign policy is also to interventionist for my preferences, although it is certainly preferable to Trump's. I'd say on foreign policy matters, he would closely compare to that of George W. Bush, although I do get the impression that he would allow military leaders more discretion, which, if you are going to have a hawkish policy, is important to having a successful one.

 Ballot Access

 Due to his late announcement in August, he does have limited ballot access. He is on the ballot in 11 states:


  • Arkansas
  • Colorado
  • Idaho
  • Iowa
  • Kentucky
  • Louisiana
  • Minnesota
  • New Mexico
  • South Carolina
  • Utah
  • Virginia
And has write in status in

  • Alabama
  • Alaska
  • Arizona
  • Delaware
  • Georgia
  • Illinois
  • Maine
  • Maryland
  • Massachusetts
  • Michigan
  • Montana
  • Nebraska
  • New Hampshire
  • New Jersey
  • Ohio
  • Oregon
  • Pennsylvania
  • Rhode Island
  • Tennessee
  • Texas
  • Vermont
  • West Virginia
  • Wisconsin
The above list is from his website, and efforts in some states are still ongoing. Per his website the campaign hopes to have at least write in status in 40-45 states. Some polling data seems to show he has turned Utah into a 4 way race with a very possible chance of winning the state, giving him the same potential as Johnson of becoming the next president if the election is thrown to the house.

Overall, he is certainly an interesting and thought provoking candidate. I will not be supporting him due to the reasons I stated above, however, I will say he would certainly be a better choice than Clinton or Trump. As I have made clear in the past, Johnson is my first choice, and Keniston would be my second, were I rating candidates in order of my own preference, I'd put McMullin at 3rd choice. An interesting Republican, but still essentially a Republican.
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)