|
Who What Now posted:Where "a lot of flack, criticism and general condemnation from other states and other international bodies and basically anyone else" has ever stopped discrimination, or civil and human rights abuses. You know, the thing we're talking about right now? Good god, you're almost as bad at basic reading comprehension as you are at comedy. It works plenty of times? We place sanctions on countries for human rights violations all the time. Granted, we also do business openly with often even worse governments, so in terms of an example set, poor form on everybody's part. But there's far more accountability now than there's ever been. You're really not even making a point here, are you? It's just knee-jerking all 'round the circle. The point is, electing a libertarian for four years is surely a better option that electing a corrupt warhawk whose own public history with homosexual rights is sketchy at best, right? Somebody want to say that putting a woman whose history with power had seen regime change become routine and devastated foreign powers mercilessly abused for financial gain is somehow better? If the very idea of diminishing federal power is the equivalent to crucifying gays, then again, there's absolutely no point in having this discussion.
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2016 00:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 13:24 |
|
|
Who What Now posted:Where "a lot of flack, criticism and general condemnation from other states and other international bodies and basically anyone else" has ever stopped discrimination, or civil and human rights abuses. You know, the thing we're talking about right now? South Africa. And Libertarians opposed all that flack and criticism because it was so mean and nasty to the Afrikaners who after all were just doing their best to defend their property from the communist Black Menace. But the criticism worked anyway after numerous state massacres, an insurgency, and threat of open civil war, so Libertarianism successful everyone.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2016 00:54
|
|
|
I genuinely can't think of anything which would be improved by giving states more power. Like literally nothing. Feds are better at governing than states 100% of the time afaict.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2016 00:55
|
|
|
8-Bit Scholar posted:It works plenty of times? We place sanctions on countries for human rights violations all the time. Granted, we also do business openly with often even worse governments, so in terms of an example set, poor form on everybody's part. But there's far more accountability now than there's ever been. You're really not even making a point here, are you? It's just knee-jerking all 'round the circle. The libertarian option for years would be far worse than any Clinton presidential term. I say this as a guy who's received a poo poo ton of flack for supporting Stein
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2016 00:56
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I genuinely can't think of anything which would be improved by giving states more power. lol yeah our public schools are loving wonderful
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2016 00:56
|
|
|
8-Bit Scholar posted:If the very idea of diminishing federal power is the equivalent to crucifying gays, then again, there's absolutely no point in having this discussion. You can reduce federal power without throwing human rights under the bus, so maybe Libertarians should work on that party platform a bit to fix this problem instead of whining about Clinton. And Gary Johnson supports the drone attacks anyway and said he wouldn't stop them so you don't even have that.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2016 00:57
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:You can reduce federal power without throwing human rights under the bus, so maybe Libertarians should work on that party platform a bit to fix this problem. Good, I'm glad we agree. Let's join forces and vote for Gary Johnson for 2016.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2016 00:58
|
|
|
8-Bit Scholar posted:lol yeah our public schools are loving wonderful Is there something preventing states from setting up their own schools?
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2016 00:59
|
|
|
States already have the ability to do better than the minimum required by federal law when it comes to LGBT citizens. "Letting the states decide" only advances things in one direction, and that's against said citizens. There is absolutely no benefit for non-bigots in this. Well, libertarians get to enjoy having their useless political principles validated, I guess. But if I'm gonna choose between benefits to the LGBT community vs. benefits for bigots and libertarians, pardon me for choosing the former.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2016 01:00
|
|
|
8-Bit Scholar posted:Good, I'm glad we agree. Let's join forces and vote for Gary Johnson for 2016. Lol bad
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2016 01:00
|
|
|
8-Bit Scholar posted:Good, I'm glad we agree. Let's join forces and vote for Gary Johnson for 2016. Gary Johnson wants to throw human rights under the bus, so why would we vote for that scumbag?
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2016 01:01
|
|
|
I can't wait for 8-bit Scholar to start his own thread
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2016 01:02
|
|
|
8-Bit Scholar posted:Good, I'm glad we agree. Let's join forces and vote for Gary Johnson for 2016. No, because his platform is pro-discrimination. And his foreign policy is similar to Obama and Clinton's so why wouldn't I just vote for her and get the lgbt protections too.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2016 01:09
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:And his foreign policy is similar to Obama and Clinton's so why wouldn't I just vote for her and get the lgbt protections too. lol is it now?
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2016 01:13
|
|
|
8-Bit Scholar posted:*your Some states are still trying to pass laws that do the same thing. They're getting smacked down by various FEDERAL courts. This is why people are getting all up in your grill for going "States rights! Woo!" Because if you remove the barricades that the federal courts have put in place on this type of bigoted behavior, you let the behavior flow through. To wit, there are a number of states where people who favor marriage equality are the vocal minority. Like, it's cool that you're, to repeat: 8-Bit Scholar posted:...not interested in establishing fifty tiny tyrannies in favor of one large one... but that is exactly what will happen in some cases if states are left up to their own devices. And it's cool that you would "oppose any legislation with intention to dictate the sexual mores of consenting adults," but again, in some states that makes you the vocal minority that everyone else is taking an active role against in order to prevent you from enforcing your view points on everyone else. It's a finite world. It's not a matter of whether someone's views get enforced on someone else or not, it's a matter of who's get enforced, which view, and when, and why. Buried alive fucked around with this message at 01:20 on Aug 12, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2016 01:13
|
|
|
8-Bit Scholar posted:lol yeah our public schools are loving wonderful Public schools are locally administered and funded for the most part. This is like the absolute worst counter-example to vindicate state-level governance, it's actually hilarious. GunnerJ fucked around with this message at 01:22 on Aug 12, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2016 01:19
|
|
|
GunnerJ posted:Public schools are locally administered and funded for the most part. This like the absolute worst counter-example to vindicate state-level governance, it's actually hilarious. Pretend I posted your av
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2016 01:20
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I genuinely can't think of anything which would be improved by giving states more power. e: like sure, multiple layers of power helps keep different opinions alive and I guess there's some value in built-in inertia?
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2016 01:28
|
|
|
8-Bit Scholar posted:lol is it now? What do you actually even know about Johnson?
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2016 01:30
|
|
|
8-Bit Scholar posted:This is not even remotely a fair equivalency. I am cool with states' deciding how best to govern themselves in most issues--that doesn't mean that the bill of rights is completely thrown out the window. As far as I am concerned, the bill of rights is quite comprehensive and inclusive in who it assigns individual liberties to (it's everybody). It's contemptuous to think that the federal government is literally the only salvation homosexuals have from the frothing masses of hate-filled mobs. The right to get married is not in the bill of rights Nor is the ability to adopt children
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2016 01:38
|
|
|
Twerkteam Pizza posted:The libertarian option for years would be far worse than any Clinton presidential term. I say this as a guy who's received a poo poo ton of flack for supporting Stein Because she's an anti vaxx moron
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2016 01:38
|
|
|
8-Bit Scholar posted:lol yeah our public schools are loving wonderful Schools aren't federally run, which is why curriculum varies so wildly from state to state You're going to point at common core or NCLB and I'm going to laugh hysterically because those don't actually do poo poo
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2016 01:41
|
|
|
Literally The Worst posted:The right to get married is not in the bill of rights There is nothing in the bill of rights about employment, healthcare, or housing, either.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2016 01:43
|
|
|
Curvature of Earth posted:There is nothing in the bill of rights about employment, healthcare, or housing, either. Or voting Or slavery
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2016 01:45
|
|
|
8-Bit Scholar posted:It works plenty of times? We place sanctions on countries for human rights violations all the time. Granted, we also do business openly with often even worse governments, so in terms of an example set, poor form on everybody's part. But there's far more accountability now than there's ever been. You're really not even making a point here, are you? It's just knee-jerking all 'round the circle. *Worked. No, because one policy, even foreign policy, is not the sum of a presidential administration. You think the Clinton administration would be more hawkish than typical for a democrat, and that is probably true. I'd counter that as a former republican Gary Johnson would almost certainly be bowing to the wishes of the only party that would be his ally in both the house and the senate, so you might want to consider that when you think about how hawkish he would be. That aside however, Gary Johnson being pro-weed and anti-prison are about his only palatable positions. I wasn't much of bernout since I'm a Canadian and I was sure he was going to lose, but I do have to ask, were you pushing this hard for Bernie Sanders when he was running for president? He was pro-weed, anti-war and anti-prison as well after all. Libertarians and libertarian candidates do not hold the monopoly on having good positions. We agree with you on those issues, so lets talk about what we disagree on. You don't like Bernie because he was a socialist (I'm guessing)? Well we don't like Gary Johnson because he makes typical republican attacks on Social Security and Medicare, programs that keep upwards of sixty percent of our elderly out of poverty and provide medical care that the free marked was not providing prior to their introduction. His tax plan is an idiotic national flat sales tax at 23%, which sounds 'fair' on the surface but which is horrifyingly regressive in practice. He believes in a balanced budget amendment which any reputable economist can easily tell you would absolutely loving cripple the US economy. So no, we're not going to run out and vote for Gary Johnson because he is pro-pot and anti-war. The fact that we agree with one or two of his positions does not negate that the rest of his positions are incredibly dangerous for the country and for the world as a whole. Caros fucked around with this message at 02:01 on Aug 12, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2016 01:59
|
|
|
Caros posted:That aside however, Gary Johnson being pro-weed and anti-prison are about his only palatable positions. I wasn't much of bernout since I'm a Canadian and I was sure he was going to lose, but I do have to ask, were you pushing this hard for Bernie Sanders when he was running for president? He was pro-weed, anti-war and anti-prison as well after all. But the alternative, as far as I can see, is to elect to office more of the very people who are currently destroying this country. The super rich have been playing around with the world using American military might for decades now, and Clinton is the very poster child of the corruption that Sanders was rallying against. His cowtowing only further cements that it is absolutely imperative that neither Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump become President. Of the alternatives available, Johnson has a lot of interesting ideas, and the benefit of wrenching the Presidency away from the moneyed grasp of the oligarchy, alleviating the chaos we've spread in the Middle East and focusing on eliminating the most destructive domestic policy currently underway (at least from one angle) seems to me to far outweigh the risk of having four years of really frugal government spending. The alternative is terrifying to consider, and any of you who truly think Hillary Clinton is some kind of moderate choice of candidate are deluding yourselves. If even half the poo poo that shadows her career is true, it would absolutely invalidate her as a potential leader of the free world. She's so absolutely abysmally terrifying a prospect that they had to pit her against Donald Trump to give her even the shadow of a hope. I refuse to play that sort of game.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2016 02:12
|
|
|
Literally The Worst posted:Or voting It sounds like the Bill of Rights is completely adequate, then, and we shouldn't concern ourselves with any amendments after the 10th. 8-Bit Scholar posted:But the alternative, as far as I can see, is to elect to office more of the very people who are currently destroying this country. The super rich have been playing around with the world using American military might for decades now, and Clinton is the very poster child of the corruption that Sanders was rallying against. His cowtowing only further cements that it is absolutely imperative that neither Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump become President. Of the alternatives available, Johnson has a lot of interesting ideas, and the benefit of wrenching the Presidency away from the moneyed grasp of the oligarchy, alleviating the chaos we've spread in the Middle East and focusing on eliminating the most destructive domestic policy currently underway (at least from one angle) seems to me to far outweigh the risk of having four years of really frugal government spending. Johnson literally stands for the people who you just said are destroying this country. Libertarianism helps the super rich far more than it helps anyone else. His platform is a huge helping of supply-side economics, privitization of social security, and deregulation of everything in sight. He wants to replace the income tax with a sales tax for gently caress's sake, everything in his economics platform is regressive bullshit that helps the wealthy and hurts the lower and middle classes. also lol way to imply that the Trump v Clinton race was planned out by the illuminati or whatever QuarkJets fucked around with this message at 02:22 on Aug 12, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2016 02:18
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:Johnson literally stands for the people who you just said are destroying this country. Libertarianism helps the super rich far more than it helps anyone else. His platform is a huge helping of supply-side economics, privitization of social security, and deregulation of everything in sight. He wants to replace the income tax with a sales tax for gently caress's sake, everything about his platform is regressive bullshit that helps the wealthy and hurts the lower and middle classes. Trump v Clinton is a ridiculous Presidential race to begin with--how is it so absurd to suggest it isn't a giant sideshow? Look, I don't agree 100 percent with Johnson, but I also know that guaranteed he will not be able to do half of the poo poo that most of you are worried about--but he can do all the things that I and I think everyone else wants him to do quickly and I bet with reasonably little resistance. Again, I've seen the options before us and I see no better options before me. "More of the same" seems to be an invitation to more disaster, more tragedy, and more economic decline. This guy has a crazy idea, I'd be curious to see what he can do. In four years, much of what he wants to do could be undone without much fuss, and we'd still have an end to the drug war and with any luck at all we'd have stopped dropping bombs in the Middle East for awhile. I've yet to hear a better alternative brought forward.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2016 02:25
|
|
|
8-Bit Scholar posted:But the alternative, as far as I can see, is to elect to office more of the very people who are currently destroying this country. The super rich have been playing around with the world using American military might for decades now, and Clinton is the very poster child of the corruption that Sanders was rallying against. His cowtowing only further cements that it is absolutely imperative that neither Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump become President. Of the alternatives available, Johnson has a lot of interesting ideas, and the benefit of wrenching the Presidency away from the moneyed grasp of the oligarchy, alleviating the chaos we've spread in the Middle East and focusing on eliminating the most destructive domestic policy currently underway (at least from one angle) seems to me to far outweigh the risk of having four years of really frugal government spending. Johnson wants to take away all the regulations that limit the powers of the super rich, as well as empower nationalists and bigots to take away people's civil and human rights. But he'll let you blaze it up, and that's really all you actually care about.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2016 02:26
|
|
|
8-Bit Scholar posted:Trump v Clinton is a ridiculous Presidential race to begin with--how is it so absurd to suggest it isn't a giant sideshow? But you apparently don't know anything about Johnson's platform, aside from his opposition to the war on drugs. So how can you hold him up as a better alternative? Trump has some crazy ideas, too, but that doesn't mean that you should vote for him.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2016 02:32
|
|
|
Literally The Worst posted:Because she's an anti vaxx moron http://www.snopes.com/is-green-party-candidate-jill-stein-anti-vaccine/ I mean she's pretty dumb on certain things but she's not anti vaxx
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2016 02:37
|
|
|
8-Bit Scholar posted:Trump v Clinton is a ridiculous Presidential race to begin with--how is it so absurd to suggest it isn't a giant sideshow? Lol your best alternative to Trump v Clinton is a guy who basically openly advocates loving the poor over
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2016 02:42
|
|
|
8-Bit Scholar posted:lol yeah our public schools are loving wonderful States run the public school systems. You loving idiot clown.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2016 02:42
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:But you apparently don't know anything about Johnson's platform, aside from his opposition to the war on drugs. So how can you hold him up as a better alternative? I know more about his platform than half of the posters here, since you seem to be equating States Rights as 1:1 to pro-discrimination laws, which hardly seems fair. I'm well aware of his policies, flat taxes and deregulation, and a lot of them I'm skeptical about, sure; but I've heard him speak and explain his policies and I get a sense for who he is and I like him as an option far more than Clinton or Trump. Again, he seems vastly better than any of the options put forward by the main parties, and frankly a lot of the objections to his platform verge on hysterics or hyperbolic half-truths. I refuse to sully my vote with more foreign war, drone strikes, opaque government, and whistleblower prosecutions. The state of the United States government is undeniably awful, so thick with corruption that any high minded rhetoric is drowned in the quagmire. Again: 8-Bit Scholar posted:I've yet to hear a better alternative brought forward. Why on earth should I vote for Hillary Clinton in the face of how overwhelmingly disappointing Obama proved as president, if not in the face of the vast amount of scandals and accusations that have hounded her career?
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2016 02:44
|
|
|
8-Bit Scholar posted:Why on earth should I vote for Hillary Clinton in the face of how overwhelmingly disappointing Obama proved as president, if not in the face of the vast amount of scandals and accusations that have hounded her career? because despite corporate liberals being pretty bad there are two candidates (one you're supporting, one you aren't mentioning) who are far, far worse
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2016 02:46
|
|
|
Twerkteam Pizza posted:http://www.snopes.com/is-green-party-candidate-jill-stein-anti-vaccine/ I agree that jill stein isn't expressly anti vax i also think that she courts the anti-vaxx part of her party in her statements; she refuses to give solid answers regarding mandatory vaccinations and supports removal of "corporate influence in the vaccine approval process" (as per that link), which is dumb and stupid.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2016 02:47
|
|
|
8 bit scholar what are your thoughts on john mcafee
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2016 02:50
|
|
|
8-Bit Scholar posted:But the alternative, as far as I can see, is to elect to office more of the very people who are currently destroying this country. The super rich have been playing around with the world using American military might for decades now, and Clinton is the very poster child of the corruption that Sanders was rallying against. His cowtowing only further cements that it is absolutely imperative that neither Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump become President. Of the alternatives available, Johnson has a lot of interesting ideas, and the benefit of wrenching the Presidency away from the moneyed grasp of the oligarchy, alleviating the chaos we've spread in the Middle East and focusing on eliminating the most destructive domestic policy currently underway (at least from one angle) seems to me to far outweigh the risk of having four years of really frugal government spending. Honest question before I get any further. What is the 'most destructive domestic policy' exactly? Obamacare? I honestly don't know with you. And while I'm at it, let me be clear. A balanced budget amendment is not 'really frugal government spending'. A balanced budget amendment is a loving global financial collapse. The US government accumulates approximately one trillion dollars in debt every year from deficit spending. The US budget is approximately 4 trillion. What you are talking about is cutting fully one quarter of all government spending within the first year of a Johnson presidency. For simplification sake, to cut one trillion dollars from the US budget would require one of the following, more or less: - The elimination of all discretionary spending (1.11 trillion). This would eliminate the entire budget for the US military. It would eliminate all funding for government workers (how the gently caress does that work) all funding for education. All funding for veterans. All funding for public housing. All funding for international affairs (no more embassies!). All funding for energy and the environment. All funding for loving science. All funding for transportation. All funding for food and agriculture. It would also remove all discretionary funding for Social security, EI, Labor, Medicare and Health. - The elimination of Medicare (1.05 trillion). This would take away medical care from every man and woman over the age of 65 in the US. Have fun with that. - The near elimination of social security (1.33 trillion). This would remove the entire source of income for twenty two million americans, more or less. In addition it would remove the majority of income from another twenty something million. In short it would loving destroy the quality of living for seniors. - Welfare and interest (500 billion) - You could try just eliminating all money for the poor and welshing on debts! That'd get you almost halfway there. I'd like to think by now you get my point. Taking a quarter of the US federal budget and expecting the country to just shrug and move on with their day is loving ridiculous. The knock on effects of significant cuts to any of those programs would be loving catastrophic as the majority of the US budget is spent on poo poo people need. In addition it would further gently caress the US because these funds actually get spent, stimulating economic activity. If all of a sudden forty million seniors don't have any money what do you think that would do to the US housing market? I could go on for days about how loving idiotic a balanced budget amendment would be, but I think you should stop and look really long and hard at what I just wrote. Those programs are important, and the candidate you are supporting isn't merely suggesting frugal government spending he is suggesting that we go in with a machete and slash the gently caress out of government spending like its Friday the 13th and the budget just got lucky. All of your worries are hypothetical. Ooooh, scary Hillary is going to do bad things, and all these republican rumors make her a terrifying person. If he is able to get a bill through the republican house and senate (and he would because they are loving idiots) he would sign a bill that would crash the global economy just about overnight. I'll take someone I find distasteful over a loving idiot any day of the week. Now for my original comments: Every single loving year we elect politicians who are destroying this country. LBJ was destroying this country when he implemented the civil rights act. FDR was destroying this country when he instituted the minimum wage and social security. Obama was destroying this country when he passed healthcare reform. Hell even Nixon was destroying this country when he pushed for the EPA to stop rivers from catching on fire. It is a meaningless phrase designed to get people to harken back to some golden age that never loving existed. Before the super rich were loving around playing empire they were loving around building tens of thousands of world ending missiles because of communism. You are buying into a narrative that america is somehow broken, one might even say we need to make it great again, instead of just being a version of what it always was, a flawed country. Like every nation in history the US is built by people who aren't always going to get it right, but throwing a tantrum about how they are destroying our country is a bit absurd. I don't actually like Hillary, I'd much rather have preferred Bernie all things being equal, but Johnson? Are you loving kidding me? Do you not read the name that comes up to his name on the ticket or somehow not know what thread you are in when you're talking about Gary motherfucking Johnson? Gary Johnson is the libertarian candidate. You are worried about oligarchy and your loving solution is to support the presidential candidate for the party that was created in the 1950's as a vessel for big business? This is the loving party that ran David Koch, the goddamn poster child for Oligarchy as their VP in 1980. This is the party that thinks that Laissez faire capitalism is a panacea for all the worlds ills. This is a party that doesn't believe in the loving concept of a monopoly and you're telling me that we should vote for their candidate because their candidate is somehow going to be a movement away from the moneyed elite? Caros fucked around with this message at 02:53 on Aug 12, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2016 02:50
|
|
|
8-Bit Scholar posted:I know more about his platform than half of the posters here, since you seem to be equating States Rights as 1:1 to pro-discrimination laws, which hardly seems fair. It seems unfair to you because you're apparently ignorant of a lot of basic poo poo. Like, for example, the weird coincidence that the people going on about state's rights are always either the same people or affiliated with/supported by the people who favor pro-discrimination laws, wow what a weird coincidence! So yeah one is the vehicle for the other out there in the real world.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2016 02:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 13:24 |
|
|
Rollofthedice posted:i also think that she courts the anti-vaxx part of her party in her statements; she refuses to give solid answers regarding mandatory vaccinations and supports removal of "corporate influence in the vaccine approval process" (as per that link), which is dumb and stupid. I can't refute that, because yeah she refuses to just concretely say "vaccines are good" which is p stupid
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2016 03:04
|
|