Jamezz
Well-Known Member
Don't put words in my mouth, I didn't say that I was demanding for a third party candidate to be in the Presidential debates. I just find it unfair that they never get invited to the big party is all.
Libertian party debate
- Thread starter ♪alt13
- Start date
Don't put words in my mouth, I didn't say that I was demanding for a third party candidate to be in the Presidential debates. I just find it unfair that they never get invited to the big party is all.
♪alt13
Well-Known Member
It's because the Presidential Debate Commission is ran literally by the two major parties. After Perot the parties got scared and increased restrictions on 3rd parties hoping to debate. Now they have to poll at least 15% support in 3 major polls but are mostly not included in those polls. Good news Gary Johnson polled at 11% in a national Monmouth University Poll already and the Libertarian & Green Parties are sueing the commission.
Presidential debates used to be ran by The League of Women Voters until 1988. Below is a link that explains why the LWV no longer sponsors and runs the debates.
https://lwv.org/press-releases/league-refuses-help-perpetrate-fraud
Unfair unfair unfair. You are still crying. I am a true libertarian I do not believe in crying only in earning results. Sigma kippa homie.
Watched. Too many talking points and buzz words. Felt much like a presidential debate. Petersen is my least favorite as he sounds like a Fox News ideologue. Mcafee seems uninformed with statements like the "prohibition did not reduce consumption" (not true, I am very much in agreement with the libertarian view on drugs, but alcohol consumption was reduced during the prohibition), or that Russia and China never suffer terror attacks because of their awesome intelligence capabilities (in reality, they do suffer from terrorism, and these comments disregard the fact that those are authoritarian governments).
Johnson, while not awe-inspiring, is the most pragmatic and in touch with the reality of the situation. He would probably get my vote if he was a realistic candidate.
Johnson, while not awe-inspiring, is the most pragmatic and in touch with the reality of the situation. He would probably get my vote if he was a realistic candidate.
Jamezz
Well-Known Member
Ok tough guy.
Is there something wrong with that? This country was created and built by tough guys not you government worshiping slack jaws. Go get your fairness good luck w that.
D
Deleted member 365
Guest
Meh.
Lots and lots of talking points with lil substance. The former governor of New Mexico, "everything in the future is going to be like uber. Uber doctors, plumbers, etc."
Apparently his vision of the future includes a bunch of unlicensed, unregulated, cheap high school dropouts looking to make an easy buck. Make no mistake, I'll pay extra if it means that my doctor or plumber actually know what the hell they're doing.
Their arguing for the free market while complaining about our open borders and the need to seal the border seems hypocritical to me. It's impossible to support the free market while arguing for closed borders. If you're pro free market then you should recognize that the invisible hand will always find the cheapest labor.
Not only that, but this undermines their primary argument for the free market. When arguing for trade deals they argued that these trade deals, while hurting some Americans via offshoring of jobs, actually added to the purchasing power of most Americans. Why doesn't this same thinking apply to immigration? While supporting immigration, especially illegaLaissez-fairel immigration, yes you undermine Some laws and hurt some Americans. But ultimately, you create a cheap (slave) labor caste which ultimately adds to the purchasing power of most Americans, correct?
Lastly, I agreed with them on foreign policy. We are suffering from some terrorist groups and organizations that we helped to create through our intervention.
However, isn't that also part of the "free market."
If some extremists don't like western influence, too bad. Right? The invisible hand will find the cheap labor, abundant oil, etc that the ME offers, right?
Lots and lots of talking points with lil substance. The former governor of New Mexico, "everything in the future is going to be like uber. Uber doctors, plumbers, etc."
Apparently his vision of the future includes a bunch of unlicensed, unregulated, cheap high school dropouts looking to make an easy buck. Make no mistake, I'll pay extra if it means that my doctor or plumber actually know what the hell they're doing.
Their arguing for the free market while complaining about our open borders and the need to seal the border seems hypocritical to me. It's impossible to support the free market while arguing for closed borders. If you're pro free market then you should recognize that the invisible hand will always find the cheapest labor.
Not only that, but this undermines their primary argument for the free market. When arguing for trade deals they argued that these trade deals, while hurting some Americans via offshoring of jobs, actually added to the purchasing power of most Americans. Why doesn't this same thinking apply to immigration? While supporting immigration, especially illegaLaissez-fairel immigration, yes you undermine Some laws and hurt some Americans. But ultimately, you create a cheap (slave) labor caste which ultimately adds to the purchasing power of most Americans, correct?
Lastly, I agreed with them on foreign policy. We are suffering from some terrorist groups and organizations that we helped to create through our intervention.
However, isn't that also part of the "free market."
If some extremists don't like western influence, too bad. Right? The invisible hand will find the cheap labor, abundant oil, etc that the ME offers, right?
As someone on the far left it always strikes me as funny how both extremes want to minimize government as far as possible (idealists say to completely get rid of, but I believe some common laws is probably for the best). But both sides have vastly different ideas on how to get there and what the result will be if we do ever get there.
What in the fork are you talking about? Nobody said we want anarchy. So what if we do not want government in are business and bedrooms? That does not mean we do not believe there is a role for government in protecting are boarders and national sovereignty.
As far as foreign policy goes, I say we let the free market handle it. Let the oil cartel create a mercenary army to dismantle the Middle East then they can reap the war booty. Costs us less than nothing as oil would be cheaper.
D
Deleted member 365
Guest
I've also never met a true libertarian. Every self proclaimed libertarian I've ever met have fallen into 2 categories:
Desenfranchised repub or repub trying to sound unique or smart.
for example, one of my friends was a huge libertarian. Especially when it came to taxes, education, and health care. Yet, he was adament about enforcing drug laws, maintaining gay marriage/discrimination bans, and was a huge supporter of the Bush wars. So basically, he was just a desenfranchised republican. He felt like the GOP had back stabbed him with tarp.
Libertarians a repub trying to sound smart. In reality, their policies and philosophy look nice on paper but don't work in a globalized reality.
The Koch bros, the poster children for libertarianism. Even they put the whole philosophy on hold when it came to the 08 crisis. Originally, Americans for Prosperity (their mouthpiece masquerading as a think tank) was against tarp. But after a few days of stocks falling, the organization changed sides and met with members of congress to pass tarp.
The poster girl for libertarianism, Ayn Rand, was against social security and Medicare until she became old and destitute. Then, suddenly, she forgot her anti-gubbamint philosophy and joined the masses drinking from the public trough.
Again, libertarians are against gubbamint intervention until they want/need its services.
Desenfranchised repub or repub trying to sound unique or smart.
for example, one of my friends was a huge libertarian. Especially when it came to taxes, education, and health care. Yet, he was adament about enforcing drug laws, maintaining gay marriage/discrimination bans, and was a huge supporter of the Bush wars. So basically, he was just a desenfranchised republican. He felt like the GOP had back stabbed him with tarp.
Libertarians a repub trying to sound smart. In reality, their policies and philosophy look nice on paper but don't work in a globalized reality.
The Koch bros, the poster children for libertarianism. Even they put the whole philosophy on hold when it came to the 08 crisis. Originally, Americans for Prosperity (their mouthpiece masquerading as a think tank) was against tarp. But after a few days of stocks falling, the organization changed sides and met with members of congress to pass tarp.
The poster girl for libertarianism, Ayn Rand, was against social security and Medicare until she became old and destitute. Then, suddenly, she forgot her anti-gubbamint philosophy and joined the masses drinking from the public trough.
Again, libertarians are against gubbamint intervention until they want/need its services.
D
Deleted member 365
Guest
Anarchy? Who said anything about anarchy?
Watch the debate bro. You cannot argue for Laissez-faire and against open borders. Pretty simple. In this case, the libertarians want to have their cake (free market) and eat it too (control the borders and shut down illegal immigration).
