FSTDT Forums
Community => Politics and Government => Topic started by: DiscoBerry on November 02, 2012, 10:09:27 pm
-
Anyone know anyone who is actually planning to vote for this guy for said reasons?
-
Personally, I wish these third party candidates would go away and stop endangering the process with an end result that might be a Mitt Romney Presidency.
Mitt becoming President would lead to an unparalleled hell on the international playing field, and wars and invasions to parallel the activities of Hitler's Germany.
-
I'd prefer the republican party to start loosing ground rather than democrats. Democrats I feel are, while slightly disappointing on some issues, a league ahead of the republicans currently. I want two parties that I feel could be interesting choice between the two sides.
Right now, I'm probably going to keep voting straight tickets. Maybe Green here and there on state-or-lower elections.
-
Personally, I wish these third party candidates would go away and stop endangering the process with an end result that might be a Mitt Romney Presidency.
Mitt becoming President would lead to an unparalleled hell on the international playing field, and wars and invasions to parallel the activities of Hitler's Germany.
Boo hoo, people aren't towing the Democrat line.
Also, Mitt Romney would be bad, but I'm pretty sure he wouldn't be Hitler bad. Fascist/Nazi/Hitler is not some insult which be used to describe anything.
-
What it fails to mention is that Johnson is for privatizing prisions, getting rid of the minimum wage(and I haven't heard any alternative solutions from him or his supporters) leaving Healthcare up to "the Free Market", and has jumped on the switching to Gold will solve our economic problems bandwagon in order to get the Paul supporters. Those are my biggest problems with Johnson, and why I'll go either Anderson(Justice) or Stein(Green).
-
Personally, I wish these third party candidates would go away and stop endangering the process with an end result that might be a Mitt Romney Presidency.
You do realize that Johnson could take away more votes from Romney than Obama?
Mitt becoming President would lead to an unparalleled hell on the international playing field, and wars and invasions to parallel the activities of Hitler's Germany.
We have the leftist version of a teabagger here.
-
Personally, I wish these third party candidates would go away and stop endangering the process with an end result that might be a Mitt Romney Presidency.
Mitt becoming President would lead to an unparalleled hell on the international playing field, and wars and invasions to parallel the activities of Hitler's Germany.
W00t! Godwin in two posts!
Also, you know who liked over-the-top political comparisons? Hitler.
-
Personally, I wish these third party candidates would go away and stop endangering the process with an end result that might be a Mitt Romney Presidency.
Mitt becoming President would lead to an unparalleled hell on the international playing field, and wars and invasions to parallel the activities of Hitler's Germany.
SOmeone overestimates the power of the prez.
-
Also, while Obama might not be as trigger-happy as Romney, he's still sending drone strikes and keeping troops in the Middle East. If Israel attacks Iran, I think Obama will allow a war to happen.
Also, Mitt Romney would be bad, but I'm pretty sure he wouldn't be Hitler bad. Fascist/Nazi/Hitler is not some insult which be used to describe anything.
Except. You know. Fascists.
-
Gold Standard? Yeah, he'd be a good president.
-
Personally, I wish these third party candidates would go away and stop endangering the process with an end result that might be a Mitt Romney Presidency.
Mitt becoming President would lead to an unparalleled hell on the international playing field, and wars and invasions to parallel the activities of Hitler's Germany.
W00t! Godwin in two posts!
Also, you know who liked over-the-top political comparisons? Hitler.
You took the words right off of my keyboard.
-
Personally, I wish these third party candidates would go away and stop endangering the process with an end result that might be a Mitt Romney Presidency.
Mitt becoming President would lead to an unparalleled hell on the international playing field, and wars and invasions to parallel the activities of Hitler's Germany.
W00t! Godwin in two posts!
Also, you know who liked over-the-top political comparisons? Hitler.
You took the words right off of my keyboard.
You know, writing on your keyboard is a really bad habit.
-
Not quite as bad as public masturbation, though.
-
Someone doesn't remember the Patriot Act, the Iraq War BS, and all the shadowy things Bush's advisers and backers pulled off, including the torture, the PMC movements, and who knows what else.
Romney is much, much more amoral and ruthless than Bush. Bush was just a dumbass. Romney's a schemer.
While Obama might let a war with Iran happen, its a certainty that Romney would start one.
While I might have overestimated the danger of the Republican Theocrats, I just cannot ignore how, if you substitute certain words in some of their speeches and platforms for such things as Islam and the Prophet Muhammed, the Tea Party and the Republicans start looking a lot like a Christian Taliban.
-
Someone doesn't remember the Patriot Act, the Iraq War BS, and all the shadowy things Bush's advisers and backers pulled off, including the torture, the PMC movements, and who knows what else.
You don't seem to remember the Democrats supporting the Patriot Act, both Wars, that Obama approved war funding, sent extra troops into both Iraq and Afghanistan, tried to keep 10,000 soldiers in Iraq, has refused to close Guantanomo Bay (though obviously there are other prisons) and has spent more on domestic surveillance.
-
I just want to know why Omegle has been sucking Gary Johnson's cock for the last few months.
-
Democrats are still better than the alternative.
Voting for a third party candidate in this system is ignoring the plain and simple fact that third parties are not accepted in political discourse here. Yes, its a horrible fact, but its a fact. Until you manage to affect some sort of change, that is the reality you live in.
And even then, what will it really change? For the large part, a vast majority of America will just vote for the parties they know, even should you make a miracle.
Just because Jill Stein or whoever says some nice things, doesn't mean they're gonna get anywhere in the Presidential Race.
If you want some of the progressive plan put into place, you have to vote for the Democrats, or you get the Republicans who will only set things back.
-
If Gary Johnson wins 5% of the vote this year, next year the LP candidate will be on all 50 states in 2016. This will save a lot of petitioning.
-
If Gary Johnson wins 5% of the vote this year, next year the LP candidate will be on all 50 states in 2016. This will save a lot of petitioning.
That's super if your a Libertarian, and what about the other 3rd parties. Despite the fact that I have somewhat of a libertarian streak in me, there is a good number of polices that rub me the wrong way, like their worship of the "free market", the gold standard, how they look down on low income folks, and how they think that private charity will solve all of the world's problems. I'm willing to compromise on some things, but they don't seem to understand that private charity isn't fool proof, and isn't a great replacement for a social safety net. They bitch about minimum wage laws, but don't offer ideas for alternatives(such a Basic income guarantee or even collective bargaining) a good deal of them are hostile to those ideas even and flip out when you tell them that Hayek was in favor of a Basic income,even. When it comes to Healthcare, a lot them still think it's "a privilege", sorry healthcare is fucking necessity, there needs to be something for those on the bottom/and such, we can leave it up to the States' and what if the States want to screw over the poor, like they do a lot in the name of "State's Rights" and private charities are unable to help??
-
If Gary Johnson wins 5% of the vote this year, next year the LP candidate will be on all 50 states in 2016. This will save a lot of petitioning.
That's super if your a Libertarian, and what about the other 3rd parties. Despite the fact that I have somewhat of a libertarian streak in me, there is a good number of polices that rub me the wrong way, like their worship of the "free market", the gold standard, how they look down on low income folks, and how they think that private charity will solve all of the world's problems. I'm willing to compromise on some things, but they don't seem to understand that private charity isn't fool proof, and isn't a great replacement for a social safety net. They bitch about minimum wage laws, but don't offer ideas for alternatives(such a Basic income guarantee or even collective bargaining) a good deal of them are hostile to those ideas even and flip out when you tell them that Hayek was in favor of a Basic income,even. When it comes to Healthcare, a lot them still think it's "a privilege", sorry healthcare is fucking necessity, there needs to be something for those on the bottom/and such, we can leave it up to the States' and what if the States want to screw over the poor, like they do a lot in the name of "State's Rights" and private charities are unable to help??
Same here. I consider myself libertarian but the gold standard is a joke. It makes it even more difficult for people to pay back loans, for instance. Also, I think it would ultimately be a boon for businesses if all workers had their healthcare covered (whether by private or public insurance) because healthy workers are more productive. I don't agree with mandates but I do think that there should always be a government-run safety net funded by taxes. States' rights is just a fancy way of saying that they don't want federal laws, anti-discrimination laws in particular, to affect them. Such thinking only trades out the power and coercion of one state for the power and coercion of another.
-
If Gary Johnson wins 5% of the vote this year, next year the LP candidate will be on all 50 states in 2016. This will save a lot of petitioning.
T
<libertarian rant>
The point isn't to get 3rd parties elected yet, but rather to try to dismantle the 2 party system. If libertarians get power, they will likely support alternate voting systems to get elected more, which will allow other parties to get elected as well.
When it comes to Healthcare, a lot them still think it's "a privilege", sorry healthcare is fucking necessity, there needs to be something for those on the bottom/and such, we can leave it up to the States' and what if the States want to screw over the poor, like they do a lot in the name of "State's Rights" and private charities are unable to help??
They way I see it, states will screw up the poor. It needs to be passed in congress, and representatives from Texas and Kentucky don't have the best interests of people from New York or Vermont. Even if there is a federal Universal Health Care Plan, people from different states would try to cut it and make the quality worse for everyone.
I think leaving things to the states is a good plan since state governments are much more efficient. Besides, if progressivism works in one state, other states are bound to follow. There are literally dozens of states around the world that don't have Univeral Health Care, but I don't see anyone calling for a one world government to provide for everyone.
-
If Gary Johnson wins 5% of the vote this year, next year the LP candidate will be on all 50 states in 2016. This will save a lot of petitioning.
You need to slow down and check your facts.
5% of the national vote would not give the Libertarian party automatic access to all the states ballots in 2016. Each state has their own ballot laws, there is no over riding federal ballot law.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballot_access
5% would give the Libertarian party to get federal election funds which would get them a huge monetary boost. Even that would will not come close the the amount of money the two major parties will be spending. It is a start for them however.
-
When it comes to Healthcare, a lot them still think it's "a privilege", sorry healthcare is fucking necessity, there needs to be something for those on the bottom/and such, we can leave it up to the States' and what if the States want to screw over the poor, like they do a lot in the name of "State's Rights" and private charities are unable to help??
They way I see it, states will screw up the poor. It needs to be passed in congress, and representatives from Texas and Kentucky don't have the best interests of people from New York or Vermont. Even if there is a federal Universal Health Care Plan, people from different states would try to cut it and make the quality worse for everyone.
I think leaving things to the states is a good plan since state governments are much more efficient. Besides, if progressivism works in one state, other states are bound to follow. There are literally dozens of states around the world that don't have Univeral Health Care, but I don't see anyone calling for a one world government to provide for everyone.
I have no problem with the route that I believe you're talking about here, Universal HealthCare law on a Federal level, but let the states do their own thing, the problem is the rabid Libertarians still won't buy into the idea.
-
When it comes to Healthcare, a lot them still think it's "a privilege", sorry healthcare is fucking necessity, there needs to be something for those on the bottom/and such, we can leave it up to the States' and what if the States want to screw over the poor, like they do a lot in the name of "State's Rights" and private charities are unable to help??
They way I see it, states will screw up the poor. It needs to be passed in congress, and representatives from Texas and Kentucky don't have the best interests of people from New York or Vermont. Even if there is a federal Universal Health Care Plan, people from different states would try to cut it and make the quality worse for everyone.
I think leaving things to the states is a good plan since state governments are much more efficient. Besides, if progressivism works in one state, other states are bound to follow. There are literally dozens of states around the world that don't have Univeral Health Care, but I don't see anyone calling for a one world government to provide for everyone.
I have no problem with the route that I believe you're talking about here, Universal HealthCare law on a Federal level, but let the states do their own thing, the problem is the rabid Libertarians still won't buy into the idea.
The most hardline rabid Libertarians would probably want the U.S to return to the shitload of fuck that was the Articles of Confederation. It didn't have the division of power that the Constitution had, opting to leave everything to the states. In addition, even though Congress could pass laws, it had no standing army to enforce them, which is how states like Rhode Island got away with a lot of dumb shit. Also, since economic regulation was left entirely up to individual states, this caused massive economic burdens for farmers who tried to sell their goods across state lines. Congress could raise taxes, but didn't have any means of collecting them and was pretty much constantly bankrupt, which sucked because France was getting impatient with the US not paying back their loans.
-
What I get annoyed with libertarians is that they think somehow no regulations make the world a smiling place. For instance libertarian support deregulating chicken meat. When that happens the fatalities go up from food poisoning.
-
LIBERTARIAN MAGIC. That's what happens, you simp! [/lolbertarian]
-
The most hardline rabid Libertarians would probably want the U.S to return to the shitload of fuck that was the Articles of Confederation. It didn't have the division of power that the Constitution had, opting to leave everything to the states. In addition, even though Congress could pass laws, it had no standing army to enforce them, which is how states like Rhode Island got away with a lot of dumb shit. Also, since economic regulation was left entirely up to individual states, this caused massive economic burdens for farmers who tried to sell their goods across state lines. Congress could raise taxes, but didn't have any means of collecting them and was pretty much constantly bankrupt, which sucked because France was getting impatient with the US not paying back their loans.
You have no idea how often I hear the "Let's return to the Articles of Confederation" bs from them. Talk about ignoring history.
-
Needless to say, a Glibertarian government would probably be the worst possible government in the US. The Republicans' increasing libertarian slant (Ron Paul!) explains their worst failures. It's a good thing the party will never win anything.
-
You underestimate our country's stupidity
-
RE Gold Standard:- Wouldn't going back on the Gold Standard kinda wreck the US gov't? I mean, if it's harder for people to pay back debt under the Gold Standard...think about how much debt the US Government has. If the US Debt became denomianted in Gold wouldn't this make things worse for them than if it was denominated in their own currency(which, of course, they can print)?
Yeah...(Maybe this the teh aim of the libertarians. I don't know. :P)
-
RE Gold Standard:- Wouldn't going back on the Gold Standard kinda wreck the US gov't? I mean, if it's harder for people to pay back debt under the Gold Standard...think about how much debt the US Government has. If the US Debt became denomianted in Gold wouldn't this make things worse for them than if it was denominated in their own currency(which, of course, they can print)?
The gold standard wouldn't replace US currency with actual gold, it would tie the value of all US dollars in existence to all the gold in Fort Knox. Basically it would mean $1 is good for a set quantity of gold and that quantity would change only at the discretion of the US government. The idea being that it'll tie the value of the US dollar to gold prices as well as the general state of the US economy, which would hopefully give it a bit of stability during a recession.
That said, it's a horrible fucking idea in practice.
-
RE Gold Standard:- Wouldn't going back on the Gold Standard kinda wreck the US gov't? I mean, if it's harder for people to pay back debt under the Gold Standard...think about how much debt the US Government has. If the US Debt became denomianted in Gold wouldn't this make things worse for them than if it was denominated in their own currency(which, of course, they can print)?
The gold standard wouldn't replace US currency with actual gold, it would tie the value of all US dollars in existence to all the gold in Fort Knox. Basically it would mean $1 is good for a set quantity of gold and that quantity would change only at the discretion of the US government. The idea being that it'll tie the value of the US dollar to gold prices as well as the general state of the US economy, which would hopefully give it a bit of stability during a recession.
That said, it's a horrible fucking idea in practice.
If I remember correctly it's not physically possible as there isn't enough known gold to back the current value of of the dollar. Even with the massively inflated prices lately. Unless of course we're going to massively devalue the dollar, or Ron Paul farts gold.
-
If I remember correctly it's not physically possible as there isn't enough known gold to back the current value of of the dollar. Even with the massively inflated prices lately. Unless of course we're going to massively devalue the dollar, or Ron Paul farts gold.
Ron Paul's supporters probably DO think he farts gold.
-
RE Gold Standard:- Wouldn't going back on the Gold Standard kinda wreck the US gov't? I mean, if it's harder for people to pay back debt under the Gold Standard...think about how much debt the US Government has. If the US Debt became denomianted in Gold wouldn't this make things worse for them than if it was denominated in their own currency(which, of course, they can print)?
The gold standard wouldn't replace US currency with actual gold, it would tie the value of all US dollars in existence to all the gold in Fort Knox. Basically it would mean $1 is good for a set quantity of gold and that quantity would change only at the discretion of the US government. The idea being that it'll tie the value of the US dollar to gold prices as well as the general state of the US economy, which would hopefully give it a bit of stability during a recession.
That said, it's a horrible fucking idea in practice.
If I remember correctly it's not physically possible as there isn't enough known gold to back the current value of of the dollar. Even with the massively inflated prices lately. Unless of course we're going to massively devalue the dollar, or Ron Paul farts gold.
Hence why it's a horrible fucking idea in practice.
-
Hence why it's a horrible fucking idea in practice.
I'm still lost on how gold is supposed to be better myself. Gold backed medium of exchange, or other medium of exchange. Both will be fucked at the same time, one hinders growth due to supply concerns. I'm reasonably sure the people who back it just have a hardon for shiny things.
-
Hence why it's a horrible fucking idea in practice.
I'm still lost on how gold is supposed to be better myself. Gold backed medium of exchange, or other medium of exchange. Both will be fucked at the same time, one hinders growth due to supply concerns. I'm reasonably sure the people who back it just have a hardon for shiny things.
I suppose some people think that gold is inherently valuable. It's why those Cash for Gold scams seem to work so well.
-
@ Distind: I *think* it's meant to be because Gold is a commodity "produced" by capitalists, and thus if you believe that "the market" solves everything, money should also be a commodity produced by the laws of supply and demand. On this view, the government printing money is essentially a form of "socialism" because the government is trying to control monetary supply from the centre, rather than leaving it up to the "market".
-
@ Distind: I *think* it's meant to be because Gold is a commodity "produced" by capitalists, and thus if you believe that "the market" solves everything, money should also be a commodity produced by the laws of supply and demand. On this view, the government printing money is essentially a form of "socialism" because the government is trying to control monetary supply from the centre, rather than leaving it up to the "market".
Then who controls the gold supply in the Libertarian Free Market paradise?
-
@ Distind: I *think* it's meant to be because Gold is a commodity "produced" by capitalists, and thus if you believe that "the market" solves everything, money should also be a commodity produced by the laws of supply and demand. On this view, the government printing money is essentially a form of "socialism" because the government is trying to control monetary supply from the centre, rather than leaving it up to the "market".
Then who controls the gold supply in the Libertarian Free Market paradise?
No-one. That's basically their point. That no-one should control the gold supply (except the laws of supply and demand). Because controlling the money supply is interference in the "free market".
Also I think that Austrians think that printing money interferes with the "natural rate of interest" and causes economic crisis (gov't tried to push Interest Rates lower against the market). Thus the way to fix economic crises is to abolish the Fed & other centralbanks.
(Forgive me if I'm wrong, I make no claim to be an expert on economics, but I think that's right).
-
@ Distind: I *think* it's meant to be because Gold is a commodity "produced" by capitalists, and thus if you believe that "the market" solves everything, money should also be a commodity produced by the laws of supply and demand. On this view, the government printing money is essentially a form of "socialism" because the government is trying to control monetary supply from the centre, rather than leaving it up to the "market".
Then who controls the gold supply in the Libertarian Free Market paradise?
No-one. That's basically their point. That no-one should control the gold supply (except the laws of supply and demand). Because controlling the money supply is interference in the "free market".
Also I think that Austrians think that printing money interferes with the "natural rate of interest" and causes economic crisis (gov't tried to push Interest Rates lower against the market). Thus the way to fix economic crises is to abolish the Fed & other centralbanks.
(Forgive me if I'm wrong, I make no claim to be an expert on economics, but I think that's right).
I get that but if the GOv't isn't hoarding the gold and counting it, how much gold do you peg to each individual dollar?
-
I get that but if the GOv't isn't hoarding the gold and counting it, how much gold do you peg to each individual dollar?
Typically the material contained within the coin itself. The coinage business is a reason there was a rather huge fight over if gold or silver should be used. Paper currency is kinda the enemy of gold backed currencies, as it is mutable, as it's not always going to be redeemable for the same quantity of material if it's redeemable at all. So obviously we should all be carrying around large amounts of precious metals.
But since that doesn't work so well bank notes were developed, typically produced by the institution which held someone's stash of precious metals and could be redeemed for them at that bank. Which eventually became accepted as a government practice as well. Which might have worked well when digging shit out of the earth was a cutting edge profession. Not so much in an information age.
-
Relevant:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ELEwjVRxxGE
-
@ Distind: I *think* it's meant to be because Gold is a commodity "produced" by capitalists, and thus if you believe that "the market" solves everything, money should also be a commodity produced by the laws of supply and demand. On this view, the government printing money is essentially a form of "socialism" because the government is trying to control monetary supply from the centre, rather than leaving it up to the "market".
In fact, in practice the Gold Standard adheres far more to this definition off soshalysm. The value of a floating dollar largely reflects the market, consumer confidence, ect. A Gold Standard reflects what the government wants the value to be.
I see it as the single greatest self-contradiction in Austrian Bullshitnomics.
Edit to add: Of course, the other problem is that you always get deflation (cause of the shortfall of money chasing economic growth). Deflation is pretty much the worst thing that can happen.
-
I've heard people claim its because backing money with gold (or even making it OUT of fucking gold, hard to tell, at times) would somehow magically make our money non-fiat money. Of course, this is bullshit, because all money, no matter what its made out of or what backs it, is fiat money: its value is only what a person believes its worth. For example, I likely view a single dollar as far more important than Bill Gates does, ergo, it has more intrinsic worth to me than it does him.
If these retards would stop and think for a moment, they'd realize that the only "libertarian" way of trade would be a return to the barter system, where people trade only for what they need and/or want, anything could effectively be currency, and establishing standards would be a nightmare for anything beyond a local scope.
Basically, they don't really understand why humans invented currency in the first place.
-
...fuck it lets got to caps and be done with it.
-
Of course, this is bullshit, because all money, no matter what its made out of or what backs it, is fiat money
One billion points for you!