I've been voting Libertarian since I was old enough to vote and they always lose. But this year Gary Johnson is polling higher than any libertarian has in a presidential election. Trump and Clinton are polling lower than ever. I predicted that third parties would draw a significant portion of the vote this year, but it was my guess that that Clinton would get the highest percentage of the vote with Trump coming in second, Johnson third and Jill Stein fourth. Now, after the whole Clinton email scandal, I'm starting to have hope that maybe Johnson could actually pull off a victory, if he actually makes it to the debates. Yes, I know Clinton got away without being indicted, but the FBI director's statements were so damning that even her supporters are starting to turn against her. And Trump? I just don't see him gaining much more support after all the dumb things he's said. Plus there's still plenty of time for him to put his foot in his mouth several more times. Maybe I'm getting my hopes up to high, but I think Gary Johnson actually has a shot this year.
Generational Theory Forum: The Fourth Turning Forum: A message board discussing generations and the Strauss Howe generational theory
›
Fourth Turning Forums
›
Current Events
›
General Political Discussion
Can a third party candidate win?
Can a third party candidate win?
Thread Rating:
|
Can a third party candidate win?
|
07-06-2016, 10:20 AM
I doubt the FBI report changed anything. Hillary did not pass along secrets. Emails called "classified" by others later were not marked when she received them on her server. Using private servers was routine practice when she became Secretary. So, what's new? Nothing, really.
Libertarian Party ideology is too narrow and utopian. It pretends to be for liberty, but its principle purpose is to enable the rich to became ever-more powerful and thus squelch the liberty of the people through their economic power. Because without the state, some individuals do not voluntarily contribute their wealth to society nor limit their ambition and greed. Most people realize that the result of such policies, which have been pretty-much already-adopted these last 35 years, is rampant inequality, less-mobility, more poverty, and general economic decline. So therefore, the Libertarian Party can never be more than a fringe operation because it is doctrinaire, utopian, impractical, and in-fact very authoritarian by totally deferring to big business power. At this point, to vote for Gary Johnson, is essentially to vote to continue the current failing policies. Our political system does not favor such narrowly-based third parties. The Greens are broader, but the country is not liberal enough for us either. Third parties can get a share of power in parliamentary systems with proportional representation, ranked-choice voting, and without gerrymandering. If we want a system where more than two establishment parties are represented, we will have to change our system this way. There may be opportunity for this during the 4T. Independents are a growing share of the electorate, and may not favor our current system much longer. Trump may be inserting a wedge between xenophobic-authoritarians and libertarian-authoritarians within the Party, and if the GOP thus collapses, then the opportunity to change the system will open up. But this year, the USA is still severely polarized, and most people will vote out of fear that the other Party would win unless they support one side of the duopoly. So third party candidates, usually also fairly narrowly-based, fall by the wayside as the election approaches. 
07-06-2016, 12:50 PM
(07-06-2016, 10:20 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: I doubt the FBI report changed anything. Hillary did not pass along secrets. Emails called "classified" by others later were not marked when she received them on her server. Using private servers was routine practice when she became Secretary. So, what's new? Nothing, really. You are correct that the FBI report will not matter and I expect that Clinton will be elected. However, your description of the classified emails is not what was reported by the FBI. Quote:https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-...ail-system
… whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things. Phil 4:8 (ESV)
07-06-2016, 01:12 PM
(07-06-2016, 12:59 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:Which is more secure is not relevant to current US policies on the handling of classified information. My concern is that Clinton was not treated as anyone else in the government would have been treated. Looks like special treatment to me.(07-06-2016, 12:50 PM)radind Wrote:(07-06-2016, 10:20 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: I doubt the FBI report changed anything. Hillary did not pass along secrets. Emails called "classified" by others later were not marked when she received them on her server. Using private servers was routine practice when she became Secretary. So, what's new? Nothing, really. There may be other cases, but I have never heard of any involving Top Secret/Special Access Program information where no action was taken.
… whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things. Phil 4:8 (ESV)
07-06-2016, 06:49 PM
(This post was last modified: 07-06-2016, 07:03 PM by Eric the Green.)
(07-06-2016, 01:12 PM)radind Wrote:(07-06-2016, 12:59 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:Which is more secure is not relevant to current US policies on the handling of classified information. My concern is that Clinton was not treated as anyone else in the government would have been treated. Looks like special treatment to me.(07-06-2016, 12:50 PM)radind Wrote:(07-06-2016, 10:20 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: I doubt the FBI report changed anything. Hillary did not pass along secrets. Emails called "classified" by others later were not marked when she received them on her server. Using private servers was routine practice when she became Secretary. So, what's new? Nothing, really. It's correct that the FBI upped the accusation against Hillary beyond what she claimed. She didn't "pass on" secrets like Patraeus did. She put info in emails that she should have known was dangerous to put there, even if not marked classified. And those she sent them to or received them from did the same thing. So Congressman Becerra was probably right that as hackers have gotten better, in recent years, it's better to be more careful than the Secretary was in 2009. Technically, Hillary was probably right that they were not individually marked classified; Comey said that they "concerned matters" that were top secret. The subject of the thread though, is whether Johnson has a better chance now that Hillary was accused of being "extremely careless" with her emails. The thing to remember about HRC is that all the accusations against her have been exaggerated by the opposition, which itself gets a much freer ride. That's quite the opposite of the contention that the Clintons aren't treated like others (they are not, but in the other way; accused of far more than anyone else would be accused of who do the same things). That has been true all along with all the scandals, and with regard to her husband's scandals too. Knowing this, Hillary has been less transparent with the press than they would like, which is one reason she used the private server in the first place. The Republicans continue to exaggerate and use whatever they can to slander Hillary. I think at least 50% of the public is used to it and won't punish her. (07-06-2016, 10:20 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: Libertarian Party ideology is too narrow and utopian. It pretends to be for liberty, but its principle purpose is to enable the rich to became ever-more powerful and thus squelch the liberty of the people through their economic power. Because without the state, some individuals do not voluntarily contribute their wealth to society nor limit their ambition and greed. Most people realize that the result of such policies, which have been pretty-much already-adopted these last 35 years, is rampant inequality, less-mobility, more poverty, and general economic decline. So therefore, the Libertarian Party can never be more than a fringe operation because it is doctrinaire, utopian, impractical, and in-fact very authoritarian by totally deferring to big business power. At this point, to vote for Gary Johnson, is essentially to vote to continue the current failing policies. Do you really think the trend of the country has been towards smaller government? Since the beginning of the 20th century the trend has been the opposite. We have become more socialist not less. Pretty much everyone lives off of government dole at this point. I was talking to my cousin about voting libertarian this year. He's a pretty conservative guy and I thought I could convince him. But he was afraid Gary Johnson would cut too much government programs and he'd lose his job. I couldn't understand this because he works as an engineer in the private sector. But then he told me his company only has three clients, the federal, state or city governments. And the Federal government pays the best. It was no longer the case that private sector clients could afford their services. I remember the situation was the same when I worked for various companies in IBEW. Most private companies couldn't afford union jobs, so I'd spend most of my time benched waiting for that big government job. I thought about it a bit more and realized that most of the people I knew who were able to support themselves comfortably relied heavily on the government in some way or another, even if it wasn’t outright a government job. The purely private sector industries, that rely primarily on the private market for their income, are struggling and most people just use those jobs as a temporary stepping stone for the higher paying government reliant jobs. I guess the one exception is working in banking, investment and finance. But these industries rely so heavily on central banking monetary policy that it’s hard to distinguish where private sector end and public sector begins. And combine this with the rise of an automated economy in which people’s jobs are increasingly being replaced by computers and you’ve got a significant lower class that also becomes reliant on a government safety net. This seems like new situation for this country, in which the backbone has always been the private sector, but now the government is the backbone. We really have been become more socialist than capitalist. The government itself traditionally made its money from taxation, but has increasingly relied on borrowing and quantitative easing (essentially printing more money). It seems like we’re heading towards a crash at some point, we can’t continue down this path indefinitely. But there are those who argue we can, as long as GDP remains high, continue with this monetary policy until the economy recovers. But will it if the private sector is gutted? Maybe they’re right. Inflation hasn’t been too bad yet. Most of the money being created by all the QE hasn’t really been dispersed to the general population as of yet. Our lives aren’t so bad right now, but there’s definitely a strain, particularly within the working class that is suffering the most from this transition. Expanded welfare programs or a universal basic income will probably be necessary in the near future. The question is will it lead to the collapse of the dollar when all that government money is finally dispersed to the General population. Anyway, sorry for this long essay, but it bothers me that so few people actually think about the long term consequences of what the government is doing to the economy. Don't get me wrong, capitalism has a slew of problems all its own, but socialism is far worse. We've always had a mixed economy (a mixture of capitalism and socialism). Most countries do. But our country has always prided itself on being the center of capitalism. I don't think this has been the case for almost a century now. The USA has steadily become less capitalist and more socialist over the years. But yes, that also means that our country has become more of an oligarchy. Socialism tends towards oligarchy. I can't really say with hard data if we're more or less socialist than we were in the 50s, a period when we were prosperous, and some argue we were just as socialist, if not more socialist than we are today. It's true. We did have a period of de-regulation in the 80s but government still grew in other ways during that time. But I think it's safe to say we are definitely are more socialist than we were before WWII, especially before FDR's new deal and if you want to go further back to the progressive era, especially the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 and the Central Banking polices that came along with it. There's no going back to the 50s though, no matter how much Bernie Sanders supporters dream of it. Socialism only works really well in the beginning when businesses are first nationalized because the really talented people who were running the businesses when it was still competitive in the free market are still around. Once they have government money behind them and are working together with their competitors to achieve something collectively the results can be amazing. That's how NASA went to the moon. But there's usually a slow decay over time after that initial burst when the enthusiasm dries up and those people start to retire. The really innovative and competitive people go into different competitive industries that aren't as heavily regulated because they want the freedom to do what they want without anyone telling them what to do. I think this is why you see so many people who should have been scientists going into finance and banking instead. There's just a lot more money in it, and, after the de-regulation of the 80s, it was a lot more attractive to entrepreneurs. Too much of science has become political, because they rely so much on government grants. There needs to be more incentive to bring inventive types back into the field of science. Science has become very bureaucratic, political, and dogmatic. In some ways it's almost a religion in itself. Thankfully, the field of computer science and technology is still very competitive, but I'm not sure how long that will last either if we keep going in this direction ...
07-06-2016, 07:37 PM
(This post was last modified: 07-06-2016, 07:42 PM by Eric the Green.)
(07-06-2016, 06:52 PM)Drakus79 Wrote:(07-06-2016, 10:20 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: Libertarian Party ideology is too narrow and utopian. It pretends to be for liberty, but its principle purpose is to enable the rich to became ever-more powerful and thus squelch the liberty of the people through their economic power. Because without the state, some individuals do not voluntarily contribute their wealth to society nor limit their ambition and greed. Most people realize that the result of such policies, which have been pretty-much already-adopted these last 35 years, is rampant inequality, less-mobility, more poverty, and general economic decline. So therefore, the Libertarian Party can never be more than a fringe operation because it is doctrinaire, utopian, impractical, and in-fact very authoritarian by totally deferring to big business power. At this point, to vote for Gary Johnson, is essentially to vote to continue the current failing policies. Romney said 47% were. No I don't think so. The other way around; since Reagan government help has been cut way back. Social Security and Medicare were "socialist" and a good thing in my opinion, but they aren't doles. I don't think the trend has been toward smaller government, because although the Reaganoids talked the game, they spent more on the military and subsidies to big oil and other corporate swindles that they get rich from. But the trend since Reagan and even before has been to cut back on programs that actually help people, and although those programs are not "socialist" except in a watered-down way (not government owned and run enterprises), it is worse for the people to lose those programs. Quote:I was talking to my cousin about voting libertarian this year. He's a pretty conservative guy and I thought I could convince him. But he was afraid Gary Johnson would cut too much government programs and he'd lose his job. I couldn't understand this because he works as an engineer in the private sector. But then he told me his company only has three clients, the federal, state or city governments. And the Federal government pays the best. It was no longer the case that private sector clients could afford their services. I remember the situation was the same when I worked for various companies in IBEW. Most private companies couldn't afford union jobs, so I'd spend most of my time benched waiting for that big government job. I doubt you could quote me actual stats that show that most people work for companies that contract with the government. But yes automation is putting people out of work. The safety net has not yet accomodated them, however. Increases in safety-net programs are blocked by libertarian Republicans. But the need to expand it will be increasingly inevitable. Quote:This seems like new situation for this country, in which the backbone has always been the private sector, but now the government is the backbone. We really have been become more socialist than capitalist. The government itself traditionally made its money from taxation, but has increasingly relied on borrowing and quantitative easing (essentially printing more money). It seems like we’re heading towards a crash at some point, we can’t continue down this path indefinitely. But there are those who argue we can, as long as GDP remains high, continue with this monetary policy until the economy recovers. But will it if the private sector is gutted? Some people do tend to worry about the debt and QE. The latter is basically over now, and it didn't result in inflation. It was the only program the Republicans could not stop to stimulate the economy, and it was the least effective program to do it. But I suppose it had some effect in helping to end the recession. I don't see much QE money being dispersed to the population beyond what it has already. The capitalists have appropriated most of it. Debt will become more of a problem if interest rates rise. But the economy can muddle along I think, since the deficit has fallen and the debt is not going up much now. Quote:Don't get me wrong, capitalism has a slew of problems all its own, but socialism is far worse. We've always had a mixed economy (a mixture of capitalism and socialism). Most countries do. But our country has always prided itself on being the center of capitalism. I don't think this has been the case for almost a century now. The USA has steadily become less capitalist and more socialist over the years. But yes, that also means that our country has become more of an oligarchy. Socialism tends towards oligarchy. Your contention seems to be that this is so because most business is government contracting, but I see most of it as being still private, although a lot of it is supported by subsidies for things like the military, highways and cars. Even spending for infrastructure is down though; Republicans block it. Most of our economy is based on imports now, and outsourcing. The service sector has replaced much manufacturing. The oligarchy is not socialist, except to the extent that Republicans subsidize corporations. Quote:I can't really say with hard data if we're more or less socialist than we were in the 50s, a period when we were prosperous, and some argue we were just as socialist, if not more socialist than we are today. It's true. We did have a period of de-regulation in the 80s but government still grew in other ways during that time. But I think it's safe to say we are definitely are more socialist than we were before WWII, especially before FDR's new deal and if you want to go further back to the progressive era, especially the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 and the Central Banking polices that came along with it. Your view is interesting, but I just don't see it the same way. Deregulation did not end, and the public sector has shrivelled. The government hasn't done things like NASA, not because innovative people have left aerospace, but because the government is no longer allowed to do great things for the people and the country. There are no government activities today remotely comparable to the moon landing. Republicans don't allow this. Visionary collective schemes are not acceptable in the Reagan-Bush-Clinton era. Money for research into anti-biotics has dried up, which have made us more liable to epidemics. That's just one blatant example. I think too many people going into finance is grounds for re-regulating finance, not de-regulating science. Unregulated finance caused the great recession. Mixed-economy socialism worked well in Europe for a while, and people were happy with it. Do you see it failing now in the heart of Europe and in the north and west of Europe, because innovation has been curtailed by government activity?
Socialism is failing because it's running out of money. You can only tax the private sector for so long until they free market runs out of money to tax. Fortunately the FED can still do QE5 and QE6 till the cow comes home ... or until GDP drops below the deficit ... or until the dollar collapses from inflation. Fortunately the oligarchs are hoarding the monopoly money the FED has created so inflation hasn't happened yet. So I guess the system will just have to collapse when a populist revolution takes place. Hey that explains the popularity of Trump!
07-06-2016, 07:56 PM
(This post was last modified: 07-06-2016, 07:57 PM by Eric the Green.)
(07-06-2016, 07:45 PM)Drakus79 Wrote: Socialism is failing because it's running out of money. You can only tax the private sector for so long until they free market runs out of money to tax. Fortunately the FED can still do QE5 and QE6 till the cow comes home ... or until GDP fails ... or until the dollar collapses from inflation ... but inflation hasn't happened yet. Why? Because the oligarchs are refusing to raise wages and actually disperse the counterfeit to the poor. So I guess the system will just have to collapse when the a populist revolution takes place. Hey that explains the popularity of Trump! Trump's "populism" is restricted to his hypocritical slogans about stopping free trade agreements. It's true, the oligarchs refuse to raise wages. It was Sanders of course who pushed for that, not Trump. The trend now is for local and state governments to raise the minimum wage. That won't cause much inflation yet, unless liberal millies take the federal government back from the gerrymandered-in Tea Party and make a large federal minimum wage hike. Even then, wage inflation was worse back in the 60s and 70s when labor could force wage hikes for middle-class workers with strikes. Labor is too weak to do that now. "Socialism is running out of money." What socialism? What money? QE is over, until another recession in which government is otherwise hamstrung. If our socialism consists of government contracting, it can't amount to much. Why? Because the government isn't doing very much. The "people you know" may get government contracting jobs, but most people don't get that. I think libertarians might be too affected by personal experiences rather than actual facts.
Raising the minimum wage will only result in less jobs and will only encourage more businesses to replace people with less costly machines.
Now a universal basic income? That might work. Gary Johnson's tax prebate check is the beginning of such an idea. People will get paid regardless of whether they're working so, unlike welfare or unemployment checks, people will still have the incentive to get a job because they won't stop getting their government checks when they do start working. Plus it's a good safety net for workers whose jobs will inevitably be replaced by machines as we move into an automated economy. Then we can use the money to do the things we want to do and create entirely new professions.
07-06-2016, 09:06 PM
(07-06-2016, 06:49 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:I don't see a third party as viable this year. Maybe in 2020.(07-06-2016, 01:12 PM)radind Wrote:(07-06-2016, 12:59 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:Which is more secure is not relevant to current US policies on the handling of classified information. My concern is that Clinton was not treated as anyone else in the government would have been treated. Looks like special treatment to me.(07-06-2016, 12:50 PM)radind Wrote:(07-06-2016, 10:20 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: I doubt the FBI report changed anything. Hillary did not pass along secrets. Emails called "classified" by others later were not marked when she received them on her server. Using private servers was routine practice when she became Secretary. So, what's new? Nothing, really.
… whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things. Phil 4:8 (ESV)
07-07-2016, 12:05 PM
(07-06-2016, 08:05 PM)Drakus79 Wrote: Raising the minimum wage will only result in less jobs and will only encourage more businesses to replace people with less costly machines. Most studies show that raising the minimum wage stimulates the economy because workers can then buy more. Automation seems inevitable anyway, and usually affects workers on higher pay scales than the minimum wage. I don't see any excuse for employers not to pay their employees a living wage. Not doing so is mere slavery. Since the economic libertarians took control under Reagan, the minimum wage has been flat for long periods, and is now much lower compared to inflation than in the sixties. Quote:Now a universal basic income? That might work. Gary Johnson's tax prebate check is the beginning of such an idea. People will get paid regardless of whether they're working so, unlike welfare or unemployment checks, people will still have the incentive to get a job because they won't stop getting their government checks when they do start working. Plus it's a good safety net for workers whose jobs will inevitably be replaced by machines as we move into an automated economy. Then we can use the money to do the things we want to do and create entirely new professions. Johnson has a point there. The earned income credit instituted by Bill Clinton was a start in this direction.
99% of "Libertarians" are just a social-Darwinist variety of Right-Wing Authoritarian who think "freedom" means the right for the strong to exploit the weak.
Also, the Social-Democratic Welfare State is not "Socialism" and it certainly did not fail, it was destroyed by decades of right-wing propaganda. Socialism is worker control of the means of production. And continued automation and the technological unemployment is exactly the kind of internal contradictions inherent within Capitalism that will cause it's demise.
#MakeTheDemocratsGreatAgain
Please. At least Libertarianism doesn't promote a totalitarian police state which strips the average citizen of their rights. Strong to exploit the weak indeed. At least Libertarianism is actually forward thinking and not stuck in some 19th century idea of a workers revolution that relies on capitalism to actually create the wealth for the marxists and socialists to loot. At least libertarianism actually takes human nature and economic incentive into account. You may not like it but people actually do act in their own self interest and want to keep and defend their own property.
If you really are interested in forward thinking solution to our shift from a worker based economy to an automated economy, why don't you actually look into UBI instead of just scoffing at a possible libertarian solution: http://www.libertarianism.org/columns/li...sic-income 
Libertarian-"ism" is utopian idea. What do you even mean by Libertarianism at the ground level?
Would property rights still be respected? If so, who or what would enforce them? Would there still be courts, police, etc to adjudicate disagreements among the libertines? Or would the strongest Libertines simply declare ownership of properties and then defend them themselves? Would it be allowed in a Libertarian society to band together into groups, for mutual support, protection, etc.? Any limits to the size of the tribes? What in your mind distinguishes Libertarians from Anarchists? That should be a good start ... if you find these too easy to answer, let me know and I'll trot out some more ground-level questions. These Utopian views from the 90,000 foot level leave a lot of detail undefined, for my tastes.
[font=Arial Black]... a man of notoriously vicious and intemperate disposition.[/font]
07-07-2016, 07:23 PM
Socialism does not equal a totalitarian police state; that has developed under capitalism too.
Actually, libertarianism is an 18th century creed; 19th century socialism is more up to date and more progressive. We have fallen backwards these last 35 years. We need to reclaim the best of all 3 revolutions: democracy, socialism, and late-20th century greenpeace, and move forward on all three revolutions, not retreat backwards. No capitalist enterprise ever succeeded without collective sources of wealth, because mere profit motives do not make for investment in the long term. Human nature does need individual incentives, but it is not selfish, and not focused only on defending property. Human nature also has a compassionate side, and we are all in this life together. We must love each other, or we must die. As the green movement continues to unfold, a workable synthesis of local, small cooperatives and enterprises with strong government where needed to provide adequate sharing of wealth and power rather than oligarchy, will be created. Free spiritual individuals are microcosms and holograms of the whole, not separate and merely competitive. Local and global power in the right balance is the way; thinking globally and acting locally. Outdated ideologies such as trickle-down free-market libertarianism, xenophobic or militaristic/imperialist nationalism, religious fundamentalism, and totalitarian or corporate socialism, need to be challenged. We can't afford to keep the baggage. Question authority, and question assumptions. Let's move onward and upward to the promised land now. It's past time. The Green Party offers this synthesis. Can it provide the political alternative? I don't know yet. The quality of its candidates needs some work, and the political system needs big adjustments, for this to happen. But it can help bring a light for our way. Quote:Libertarian-"ism" is utopian idea. What do you even mean by Libertarianism at the ground level? Libertarianism is not a Utopian ideal. I think you're confusing it with anarchism. Anarchists believe in no government. Left-Anarchists also believe in no property rights, while Right-Anarchists (Anarcho-Capitalists) often get confused with libertarians but they are quite different. In Anarcho Capitalism there is no government and you have to hire security companies for defense and Dispute resolution organizations to settle common law disputes. They mainly believe in the non-aggression principle which is the idea that no person or organization should be allowed to initiate the use of force against another person or entity for any reason. Libertarians are more like classical liberals but with modern solutions to modern day problems. They just believe in small limited government a la John Locke, Adam Smith Thomas Paine and Thomas Jefferson. Namely the enlightenment era ideas of freedom of equality before the law (meaning equality of opportunity, not of outcome). Libertarians also believe in the non-aggression principle, but they have a bit of a looser interpretation as it applies to certain government actions, like taxation. Like anarchists, most libertarians acknowledge that tax is theft, and hence the initiation of the use of force, but it's a necessary evil. There's really no limit to the size of the "tribe" (not sure what you mean by that), but libertarians believe that a more localized government is preferable to a larger central government since the individual has more say. "The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities." - Ayn Rand. Gary Johnson is a very moderate-left libertarian though. He defines himself more as fiscally conservative and socially liberal. But he's liberal on both spectrums for a libertarian. A lot of the more conservative and more hardcore Randian libertarians don't like him for this reason.
07-07-2016, 07:46 PM
I have to say too, that I'm now leaning to vote for Hillary. I don't like the way Stein is attacking her. She needs to advocate for the Green Platform, not play politics by attacking the Democrats with the kind of exaggerated charges that Republicans use. I also disagree with her support for Brexit. Well, we'll see where I end up with Stein. She got my vote in the primary, and my vote in 2012. Now I'm not so sure about my vote in the general for 2016.
(07-07-2016, 07:23 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Socialism does not equal a totalitarian police state; that has developed under capitalism too. It's developed under large scale socialist governments and large scale governments with mixed economies that tend towards crony-corporatism. Neo-liberal / Neo-con policies of big government lead towards a police state. Free market competition does not lead to a police state. When governments remains small and localized with fewer strict laws less people are disenfranchised, communities are more trusting of each other, and there's less of a need for surveillance and curtailing of rights. And the best thing about it is different communities can try different things out. It's easier to see what laws work and what laws don't. Given more freedom individuals can try different things too. With freedom comes innovation and experimentation. And though it often leads to mistakes, that's how we learn and grow. One big overbearing government that stifles everything we do just tends to stagnate everything to decay. Quote:I have to say too, that I'm now leaning to vote for Hillary. I don't like the way Stein is attacking her. She needs to advocate for the Green Platform, not play politics by attacking the Democrats with the kind of exaggerated charges that Republicans use. I also disagree with her support for Brexit. Well, we'll see where I end up with Stein. She got my vote in the primary, and my vote in 2012. Now I'm not so sure about my vote in the general for 2016. I like Jill Stein. She's probably my second choice. And having my college debt erased would be nice. But there's a lot of statist baggage that comes along with her as well. Gary Johnson's my first pick. 
07-08-2016, 01:40 AM
(07-07-2016, 08:03 PM)Drakus79 Wrote:(07-07-2016, 07:23 PM)Eric the Obtuse Wrote: Socialism does not equal a totalitarian police state; that has developed under capitalism too. Exactly my point. Simply because fewer people are getting pushed around by people with guns and uniforms which for some odd reason makes this behavior acceptable.
Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard. -- H.L. Mencken
If one rejects laissez faire on account of man's fallibility and moral weakness, one must for the same reason also reject every kind of government action. -- Ludwig von Mises |
|
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)