President Obama

[Zoraptor]

Ironically you could watch the 3rd party debate on RT and Al-J, of all places.

 

Everyone should use multi-member STV as the electoral system. Politicians hate it, thus it's awesome. It's also beautifully capitalist, in that having multi members for the same area make them compete against each other for things that actually count rather than just pander to their 51% target group every X years.

[Blodhemn]

I think that the two party system is also reinforced by the news networks. People barely know that Libertarians exist enough to have their own presidential candidate, and even when people see it, they don't have the information they need to sort out what the Libertarians are saying they'd do as a president. In the media run debates, the candidates are chosen based on polling numbers, which nobody but the "Big 2" are even on. Thus you end up with the self reinforced 2 party system. I doubt Ross Perot could have made it to wedge himself between Clinton and Bush Sr. in 1992 in todays media tastic world.

 

I agree that the major news networks do purposely do not cover third party candidates much. There was a third party debate hosted by Larry King, but it got very little coverage.

Heh, the networks are pathetic. Here's what they end up doing - instead of talking about a party such as the Libertarian, they instead ask someone like Johnson if he's going to endorse Romney or not. Usually Libertarians won't endorse Republicans, so those networks pretty much like asking that loaded question to try and further devalue the opposing party instead of giving any credence to the actual positions of Libertarians.

Edited October 27, 2012 by Blodhemn

[NOK222]

Eh, Libertarians are kind of risky. I've heard a couple say "Why should I have to pay for someone's else education? They can teach themselves to read and write."

 

Also their policies will allow the private sector to run even more unchecked.

[Blodhemn]

That's funny considering the Libertarian that I mentioned increased spending for education and vetoed all other spending bills as governor. Pretty impressive record but no doubt all of that work in savings has already been flushed down the toilet since he was succeeded by a Democrat.

[NOK222]

That's funny considering the Libertarian that I mentioned increased spending for education and vetoed all other spending bills as governor. Pretty impressive record but no doubt all of that work in savings has already been flushed down the toilet since he was succeeded by a Democrat.

 

Well, I guess I've only encountered the extreme types, either way, risky.

[BruceVC]

Gary Johnson: "Our biggest national security thread is the fact that we are bancrupt!"

 

No wonder the mainstream media didn't want to air what Third-party candiates have to say. Americans just cannot handle the truth.

 

I watched some of your video, but there is only stomach so much of Russia Today. Seriously, it is like the Fox News of Russia, only even more biased. I do not even consider it a legitimate news source.

 

I agree. Russian TV is the most biased and propaganda fulled News Channel I have ever had the unfortunate pleasure of being afflicted to watch.

 

RT is a global English-speaking news network.

 

How does that change the fact its anti-western and full of propaganda? I have watched RT when I travel in Europe and there are no other English news channels. I was forced to 2 months ago in Belgium.

[AGX-17]

Eh, Libertarians are kind of risky. I've heard a couple say "Why should I have to pay for someone's else education? They can teach themselves to read and write."

 

Also their policies will allow the private sector to run even more unchecked.

 

Libertarians have a tenuous grasp of the founding fathers' principles (public services such as education and the postal service being some of the ideas espoused by those men,) and the actual wording of the US Constitution at best. "Free markets" and "capitalism" never appear anywhere in the US constitution, and broad powers of taxation and interstate commerce (which exploded in importance as time went on,) are granted to congress.

 

Their faith in Austiran/Chicago school economics (which is more an economically far-right political philosophy than a science, as it disregards all scientific methods and evidence,) and Randian principles of rational self-interest have been refuted by both science and economic events over the past 150 years. Their reading of Adam Smith is even worse. As Herbert Stein said, "Adam Smith would not wear an Adam Smith necktie." Adam smith advocated for government regulation to protect the laboring class as well as increased taxation on the wealthy, going so far as to specify various types of luxury taxes that should be instituted. He was a "moral philosopher" and his analysis of embryonic Capitalism was just that: an analysis, not an endorsement. Smith would be appalled by their ideals of Social Darwinism and Might Makes Right (as long as it's private Might, not public Might.)

 

Those Austrian/Chicago school economists have been the biggest influence on the political/economic elite in the last 50 years, and it shows from the growing wealth gap. In the late 30s, the Roosevelt administration was convinced by Hayekian economists to stop Keynesian intervention in the economy and it was a disaster that led to another mini-depression, remembered as "The Mistake of 1937."

 

Here's a fun fact for the finish: Alfred Nobel did not establish a Nobel prize in Economics. He did not consider it a science, he considered it dogma (the same dogma espoused by today's Libertarians.) It was a Swiss bank that established the "Nobel memorial prize in economics."

 

If I had to say one positive thing about them, it would be "at least they're not the Constitution Party."

Edited October 28, 2012 by AGX-17

[Blodhemn]

Libertarian monetary policy isn't to totally abolish all government spending and leave only mobs to run the place. It's to have more control and oversight instead of having to print and borrow without the oversight of where this money is going. The endless spending also lends itself to horrible policy across the board, in all facets and it encourages a lot of bad habits.

[Humodour]

Libertarian monetary policy isn't to totally abolish all government spending and leave only mobs to run the place. It's to have more control and oversight instead of having to print and borrow without the oversight of where this money is going. The endless spending also lends itself to horrible policy across the board, in all facets and it encourages a lot of bad habits.

 

What you're describing isn't Libertarianism. Don't try to mask Libertarianism as sunshine and lollipops - it's not.

 

I haven't met a US Libertarian yet who doesn't want to eliminate the Environmental Protection Agency, tax the rich and corporations less (if at all), and take an axe to spending in healthcare and similar.

 

The US Libertarian's hero is Ayn Rand and they tend to be very selfish people. Libertarianism isn't the cure to the US's problems. It's drinking poison to get rid of a bad stomach ache.

 

If you don't believe in the extremism of laissez faire capitalism (a model in no way applicable to real life), then don't call yourself a Libertarian. You're confusing your terminology.

 

Should the USA be fiscally responsible? Should the US stop being so corrupt? Hell yes! But there are ways of being fiscally responsible and non-corrupt without adopting the cancerous selfish extremism of Libertarianism. And there are plenty of countries to look to as examples of how to do so.

Edited October 29, 2012 by Krezack

[Humodour]

delete

Edited October 29, 2012 by Krezack

[Humodour]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=6TiXUF9xbTo

[Blodhemn]

Libertarian monetary policy isn't to totally abolish all government spending and leave only mobs to run the place. It's to have more control and oversight instead of having to print and borrow without the oversight of where this money is going. The endless spending also lends itself to horrible policy across the board, in all facets and it encourages a lot of bad habits.

 

What you're describing isn't Libertarianism. Don't try to mask Libertarianism as sunshine and lollipops - it's not.

 

I haven't met a US Libertarian yet who doesn't want to eliminate the Environmental Protection Agency, tax the rich and corporations less (if at all), and take an axe to spending in healthcare and similar.

 

The US Libertarian's hero is Ayn Rand and they tend to be very selfish people. Libertarianism isn't the cure to the US's problems. It's drinking poison to get rid of a bad stomach ache.

 

If you don't believe in the extremism of laissez faire capitalism (a model in no way applicable to real life), then don't call yourself a Libertarian. You're confusing your terminology.

 

Should the USA be fiscally responsible? Should the US stop being so corrupt? Hell yes! But there are ways of being fiscally responsible and non-corrupt without adopting the cancerous selfish extremism of Libertarianism. And there are plenty of countries to look to as examples of how to do so.

Democrats have plenty of selfish people, so do Republicans, so does any entity that has a team mentality. Libertarians seems to have more invididual viewpoints - just as many are for healthcare as are against it for example, as opposed to Democrats and Republicans where one leans far more one way, and the other team in the opposing direction. High ranking Libertarians in the US generally have a much higher consistency with their voting records than the other two parties, more honest, and generally have a wider range of knowledge. Even if you don't agree with them, there's some things that can be learned from them and it's too bad people are so willing to cast them aside and throw away all potential value simply because they don't agree with a subject or two. Edited October 29, 2012 by Blodhemn

[Guard Dog]

I've never understood this rabid hostility some of you harbor towards libertarians. Of all the political philosophies out there it is the only one, and I do mean the ONLY one that actually wants real freedom for everyone. Using myself as an example I personally thin abortion is horrible. But who am I to tell someone they can't have one. I'm not gay so I'd never marry a gay person but who am I to tell them they can't get married? I don't use drugs but what is it to me if someone else wants to and does? Freedom is never more important than when some one is doing something you don't like. Most of you don't own guns, but I don't want you guys telling me I can't. You get the idea.

 

The biggest flaw in the leftist viewpoint in the US is the the government should stay out of their personal lives and be used as a club to suppress religion, capitalism, and other things they don't like. The conservatives think the government should stay out of their economic lives and be used as a club to suppress gay marriage, abortion, and other things they don't like. They are both wrong.

 

Libertarians do not, as a rule, want to destroy all government. What we want is a government that has a clearly defined role and power limited to what is required to fulfill that role. And nothing more. The truth is Ayn Randian objectivisim just is not something that American libertarians embrace.

 

The US really got off track after WWI when politicians began consolidating power in Washington at the federal level. Our country was founded on the federalist concept on the majority of power being kept at the level of government closest to the people. Now the tail really is wagging the dog and we have this all powerful behemoth sitting on the Potomac sucking more and more money and power to itself and imposing it's will on a nation that it is becoming completely alienated from. I know electing Romney will not turn back the tide of that process but it might slow it down. Electing Obama would be like hitting the accelerator. I think he envisions and America where state and local governments are irrelevant. I hope that never happens.

[Guard Dog]

Buy the way, you think the current election is bitter, check this one out: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18560_162-57544621/tough-campaign-much-worse-in-1800/

[Malcador]

Buy the way, you think the current election is bitter, check this one out: http://www.cbsnews.c...-worse-in-1800/

 

Someday they could just have it settled by gladiatorial games with politicians.

[NOK222]

Eh, Libertarians are kind of risky. I've heard a couple say "Why should I have to pay for someone's else education? They can teach themselves to read and write."

 

Also their policies will allow the private sector to run even more unchecked.

 

Libertarians have a tenuous grasp of the founding fathers' principles (public services such as education and the postal service being some of the ideas espoused by those men,) and the actual wording of the US Constitution at best. "Free markets" and "capitalism" never appear anywhere in the US constitution, and broad powers of taxation and interstate commerce (which exploded in importance as time went on,) are granted to congress.

 

Their faith in Austiran/Chicago school economics (which is more an economically far-right political philosophy than a science, as it disregards all scientific methods and evidence,) and Randian principles of rational self-interest have been refuted by both science and economic events over the past 150 years. Their reading of Adam Smith is even worse. As Herbert Stein said, "Adam Smith would not wear an Adam Smith necktie." Adam smith advocated for government regulation to protect the laboring class as well as increased taxation on the wealthy, going so far as to specify various types of luxury taxes that should be instituted. He was a "moral philosopher" and his analysis of embryonic Capitalism was just that: an analysis, not an endorsement. Smith would be appalled by their ideals of Social Darwinism and Might Makes Right (as long as it's private Might, not public Might.)

 

Those Austrian/Chicago school economists have been the biggest influence on the political/economic elite in the last 50 years, and it shows from the growing wealth gap. In the late 30s, the Roosevelt administration was convinced by Hayekian economists to stop Keynesian intervention in the economy and it was a disaster that led to another mini-depression, remembered as "The Mistake of 1937."

 

Here's a fun fact for the finish: Alfred Nobel did not establish a Nobel prize in Economics. He did not consider it a science, he considered it dogma (the same dogma espoused by today's Libertarians.) It was a Swiss bank that established the "Nobel memorial prize in economics."

 

If I had to say one positive thing about them, it would be "at least they're not the Constitution Party."

 

Good post.

 

Rand was brilliant, but she was biased against any form of statism (that's what libertarians call anyone who isn't another lib) for obvious reasons.

 

If I had to say one positive thing about them, it would be "at least they're not the Constitution Party."

 

lol yup Rather live in New Vegas, despite it's poverty, than Ceaser's Legion.

[Hurlshort]

See my problem is I think both Romney and Obama will continue to make the federal government bigger, which I frown upon tremendously. So I really dislike both parties. But I do see civil rights as the biggest issue out there, and only one of these guys has actually taken a stance against discrimination.

 

I took the quiz on the libertarian homepage, and I seem to be a centrist.

 

Oh, and the libertarian party does not seem very enamored with Romney.

Edited November 3, 2012 by Hurlshot

[Wrath of Dagon]

Why would they be? Romney is center right, nothing to do with libertarians.

[GuybrushWilco]

Three days from the election, and Obama is still the odds on favorite. I'm not sure that there is much the Republicans can do at this point to turn it around.

[ravenshrike]

Three days from the election, and Obama is still the odds on favorite. I'm not sure that there is much the Republicans can do at this point to turn it around.

Odds on Obama because of what the polls say. But the problem is that the bigger the sample size in the polls, the better Romney does. Which says something about the polls themselves. Mainly that they're weighted too far registered democrat. Time's recent Ohio poll was weighted 20 points Democrat, and still only had Obama with a 5 point lead. This is important, because even in 2008 registered Dems did not hold a 20 point lead over registered Reps.

[Blarghagh]

As someone who doesn't live in America and doesn't really care who wins, I want to state objectively that as far as I've seen at least the EU likes Obama and regards Romney as essentially a laughing stock.

[Hurlshort]

As someone who doesn't live in America and doesn't really care who wins, I want to state objectively that as far as I've seen at least the EU likes Obama and regards Romney as essentially a laughing stock.

 

Yeah, Romney's brief trip around Europe during the Olympics didn't go very well apparently. It's a small sample size, but it still doesn't bode well for his term if he wins.

[AGX-17]

As someone who doesn't live in America and doesn't really care who wins, I want to state objectively that as far as I've seen at least the EU likes Obama and regards Romney as essentially a laughing stock.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk...canada-20008687

 

A BBC poll found that only one country favors Romney over Obama. Pakistan. The very country that we have been throwing American tax dollars at in exchange for a knife in the back.

 

And to our angry Libertarian friend, I am an American liberal and you are misinformed about every aspect of liberalism you touched on in your post. Obama is not conspiring to destroy religion. Obama is not a Socialist. Any Socialist will tell you that. You could tell yourself that if you bothered to read up on Marx. American liberalism (liberalism is what the rest of the world calls America's conservatism,) is not about big government, it's about fairness and social justice. It's about protecting the poor and the weak from the rich and the strong so that the aforementioned poor and weak can get some semblance of a fair shot at success in a system rigged by the winners to keep the losers at the bottom. As it has been since the beginnings of human civilization.

Edited November 4, 2012 by AGX-17

[Calax]

I've never understood this rabid hostility some of you harbor towards libertarians. Of all the political philosophies out there it is the only one, and I do mean the ONLY one that actually wants real freedom for everyone. Using myself as an example I personally thin abortion is horrible. But who am I to tell someone they can't have one. I'm not gay so I'd never marry a gay person but who am I to tell them they can't get married? I don't use drugs but what is it to me if someone else wants to and does? Freedom is never more important than when some one is doing something you don't like. Most of you don't own guns, but I don't want you guys telling me I can't. You get the idea.

 

The biggest flaw in the leftist viewpoint in the US is the the government should stay out of their personal lives and be used as a club to suppress religion, capitalism, and other things they don't like. The conservatives think the government should stay out of their economic lives and be used as a club to suppress gay marriage, abortion, and other things they don't like. They are both wrong.

Ok, I'm gonna throw out there that you're entirely wrong with the "Leftest viewpoint" stuff. Yes, some groups do use it as a club, but with regard to Religion it'd probably be more that they're trying to prevent A SPECIFIC religion from attempting to control the entire national conversation to the detriment/supression of all others. I'm, at best, a-religious, and get seriously cheesed off when somebody comes up to me proselytizes their particular religion in my face, and gets offended if I say I don't want to talk about it.

 

Capitalism, as a solitary concept on it's own, without any checks on it, will lead to corruption, and a lack of human life on such a scale that would be frightning. Capitalism is effectively Darwinian Economics, with the fight between private enterprise to drive the economy. However even within our own lifetimes we've seen how that gets manipulated and distorted once one company has becomes so successful that no others can compete. Look at Standard Oil, Microsoft, Debeers... these companies are entirely able to control the market for their product, without competition (yes I realize Standard Oil is an older one...), and thus are completely ripping apart anything remotely close to a "capitalist system" that we'd have.

 

And one thing to keep in mind is that Humans are Bastards. Particularly a human who's good enough to "Win" a monopoly. That's why you find so many "Liberal" job regulations in place, so that a company can't order you to do 80 hours a week for a pittance, and then fire you when their equipment hurts you. The "Free Market" isn't some magical thing that'll solve all our issues on it's own. It's a system that will be manipulated and used to the benefit of those who can control it. And with constant globalization, simply having states regulate stuff on that level will be disastrous for the state and federal economies because the states would be entering into a "tax haven" system much like we find in the world today.

 

As to stuff like the EPA... do you REALLLLLY want to have your tap water LIGHT ON ****ING FIRE?

The US really got off track after WWI when politicians began consolidating power in Washington at the federal level. Our country was founded on the federalist concept on the majority of power being kept at the level of government closest to the people. Now the tail really is wagging the dog and we have this all powerful behemoth sitting on the Potomac sucking more and more money and power to itself and imposing it's will on a nation that it is becoming completely alienated from. I know electing Romney will not turn back the tide of that process but it might slow it down. Electing Obama would be like hitting the accelerator. I think he envisions and America where state and local governments are irrelevant. I hope that never happens.

Either member will increase bounds of Federal power, and that their office will hold. Right now, Obama has the Economists (magazine) endorsement because while they might not like his policies per-se, he's the one who managed to salvage the entire economy from a depression, and their examinations of Romney's rhetoric makes them think that he'd have let everything fail and we'd all be hiding our paychecks in our mattresses at this point.

 

(the Economist thing was found via

leading to this article

[Guard Dog]

Hey Calax. You have never heard me say that government does not have a role to play in the economy. As far as I know the constitutionality of the Sherman Anti Trust Act, the Clayton Act, The FLSA, Robinson-Patman, Glass-Stengal, just to name a few that provide protections against the things you just named and a somewhat level economic playing field has ever been called into question and no one that I have heard has ever called for their repeal.

 

Now what I do have a real problem with is the Federal Government using taxpayer dollars to perform a leveraged buyout of a private company, forcing bond holders of said company to relinquish their shares at 10% of their value or face prosecution. And then turning management of that company over to the union bosses who supported the election of the President whose administration seized the company. I also have a serious issue with a government that passes a law that compels private citizens, on pain of penalty, to enter into a private contract with a third party solely as a condition of being a citizen. To make matters worse the US Constitution does not grant them the power to do any of this. They just do it because who will stop them?

 

I'd also take exception to your notion that state governments are incapable of managing themselves and left to their own devices will become dens of corruption and tax havens. Politicians at the state level face reelection more frequently than at the federal level and with smaller constituencies are far more in tune with the needs of their state and people than the Monster-On-The-Potomac. On top of that, many appointed positions at the federal level are elected offices at the state level. I know you've heard me say this before but my home is in Tennessee. The government of my home should be in Nashville, not Washington.

 

Now I'll grant you that the government is only going to get bigger, more intrusive and more destructive no matter who wins. That is why I believe with complete certainty there will be a break up at some point. Hopefully not in my lifetime but I think it is inevitable. As for the short term, voting pragmatically means picking the guy who will screw you the least and that for me at least is Romney, hands down. Unemployment is way up over the last four years. The value of the dollar is falling. Costs of everything are rising. Obama terminates the off shore oil drilling leases, puts the majority of the gulf coast oil production out of business then sends US tax dollars to Brazil so they can drill for oil off shore. Meanwhile China is building rigs on the oilfields we have abandoned in the gulf and contracting operation of those rigs to Cuba. I assure you neither country gives a damn about environmental concerns in the gulf. For the first time in our history we are importing refined fuels. Canada wants to help build a pipeline to sell us their oil and Obama tells them to bugger off and then blames the rising costs of fuel on a guy whose been out of office for four years. (Yes there is a lot more to fuel prices than that but declining supplies never, ever make anything less expensive.)

 

Anyway I've rambled enough.