Say Wha?

[Random Gal]

I just want to know why Omegle has been sucking Gary Johnson's cock for the last few months.

[niam2023]

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.

[Cataclysm]

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.

[nickiknack]

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??

[Osama bin Bambi]

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.

[Cataclysm]

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.

[m52nickerson]

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.

[nickiknack]

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. 

[Osama bin Bambi]

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.

[kefkaownsall]

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.

[RavynousHunter]

LIBERTARIAN MAGIC.  That's what happens, you simp!  [/lolbertarian]

[nickiknack]

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.

[Lt. Fred]

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.

[kefkaownsall]

You underestimate our country's stupidity

[myusername]

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.  )