epistemologue Posted August 8, 2016 Report Share Posted August 8, 2016 It looks like an independent Republican is entering the race: https://www.evanmcmullin.com/ A few issues that concern me so far: "Vulnerable populations, including patients with preexisting conditions, should be protected." - how should they be "protected"? "While America is a compassionate nation, more government programs aren’t the single answer to addressing the least fortunate. Those who can work should have to opportunity to work, and those who need the training and education to become productive should receive it." - recieve it, from whom? "Once our borders are secure, we can begin a national debate on developing a system where law-abiding people can seek a path to legal residence and in some cases citizenship." - amnesty for illegals? Everything else looks pretty good. What do you guys think? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reidy Posted August 9, 2016 Report Share Posted August 9, 2016 If either of the majors had a better position than McMullin's I'd say his position is a bad one, but as thing stand I could overlook these. He's evasive on abortion. He's right that government shouldn't subsidize abortion (or any other medical procedure), but he doesn't quite say whether he wants to outlaw it or not. He seems to want to let both prohibitionists and non-prohibitionists read their own position into his statement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
epistemologue Posted August 9, 2016 Author Report Share Posted August 9, 2016 1 hour ago, Reidy said: If either of the majors had a better position than McMullin's I'd say his position is a bad one, but as thing stand I could overlook these. He's evasive on abortion. He's right that government shouldn't subsidize abortion (or any other medical procedure), but he doesn't quite say whether he wants to outlaw it or not. He seems to want to let both prohibitionists and non-prohibitionists read their own position into his statement. What's wrong with outlawing abortion? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reidy Posted August 9, 2016 Report Share Posted August 9, 2016 (edited) I retired from that one decades ago. Edited August 9, 2016 by Reidy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dream_weaver Posted August 9, 2016 Report Share Posted August 9, 2016 1 hour ago, epistemologue said: What's wrong with outlawing abortion? The short of it is captured in this Ayn Rand Lexicon entry. As a stand alone topic, it has been broached several times on this forum. (Search topic results.) As far as elections go, the field has essentially been declared by the national parties to be betwixt Hillary Clinton (D) and Donald Trump (R). Do you think Evan McMullen (R), tossing his hat in the ring at this time, is likely to cause any more of a stir than Gary Johnson (L) might at this point in the game? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nicky Posted August 9, 2016 Report Share Posted August 9, 2016 (edited) 6 hours ago, epistemologue said: "Once our borders are secure, we can begin a national debate on developing a system where law-abiding people can seek a path to legal residence and in some cases citizenship." - amnesty for illegals? If he wanted amnesty, he would've used the word. It's not a particularly difficult word to type out. Amnesty would be wrong. People who break the law should pay for their crime. The penalty should be as high as a $100 fine. Edited August 9, 2016 by Nicky softwareNerd 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nicky Posted August 9, 2016 Report Share Posted August 9, 2016 3 hours ago, epistemologue said: What's wrong with outlawing abortion? Imposing religious morality on society is well outside the scope of a rights protecting government. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
epistemologue Posted August 10, 2016 Author Report Share Posted August 10, 2016 19 hours ago, Nicky said: Imposing religious morality on society is well outside the scope of a rights protecting government. Whose rights? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nicky Posted August 10, 2016 Report Share Posted August 10, 2016 6 hours ago, epistemologue said: Whose rights? Look it up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yes Posted August 24, 2016 Report Share Posted August 24, 2016 Yet another collectivist. HO-hum! My criteria for a good candidate is one who staunchly defends individual rights. One who fully understands the Constitution and the purpose of American government as dictated by the Constitution. There is no candidate out there who fully meets this criteria. So, from my point of view , I will vote for the candidate who is least likely to impinge upon my current rights by proposing to pass restrictive legislation. That rules out any Republican, quasi-Republican, conservative, white supremacist, and racist. However, rather than copping out and NOT voting, I will vote. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
epistemologue Posted October 29, 2016 Author Report Share Posted October 29, 2016 On 8/24/2016 at 1:05 PM, Yes said: My criteria for a good candidate is ... One who fully understands the Constitution and the purpose of American government as dictated by the Constitution. I think that's a great criteria for judging a candidate, and actually Evan McMullin is pretty outstanding by that standard (his moderate policies aside). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
utabintarbo Posted November 7, 2016 Report Share Posted November 7, 2016 On 8/24/2016 at 1:05 PM, Yes said: Yet another collectivist. HO-hum! My criteria for a good candidate is one who staunchly defends individual rights. One who fully understands the Constitution and the purpose of American government as dictated by the Constitution. There is no candidate out there who fully meets this criteria. So, from my point of view , I will vote for the candidate who is least likely to impinge upon my current rights by proposing to pass restrictive legislation. That rules out any Republican, quasi-Republican, conservative, white supremacist, and racist. However, rather than copping out and NOT voting, I will vote. Does this not also rule out any Democrat, quasi-Democrat, liberal, etc. as well? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.