CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Gary Johnson for President!
with the election so close, most people have already decided who to vote for .but the 2 major candidates are among the worst candidates in history.
donald trump often sounds like a dumb child, ignorant of most issues and whining while displaying clear signs of racism, sexism, and complete lack of fitness for office .hillary clinton made over 100 million dollar by selling political favors and has engaged in criminal acts with her private emails the and bengazi scandal.
then there is gary johnson .while he is a poor public speaker and appears stupid when not prepared, his policies are very common sense .people will never agree on the issues, but gary generally errs on the side of freedom, which is the best compromise.
to use marijana as an example .some people think it should be legal, others not. there is no way to make everyone happy on this issue .but if it is legal, then people who dont want to smoke it are still free to not smoke it .whereas if it is illegal, then if even 1 person in the whole country wants to smoke it, then you are infringing on someones preferences .auck!
so then, when the major candidates are so horrible, why not to give a chance to a 3rd party of common sense?gary might not be ideal to you, but he probably wont do anything bad to you either, and most people will like most of what he does as president, such as reducing goverment spending when the others are racing to bankuptcy .thank you.
unless gary gets 5 percent of the popular vote ,thereby ending the 2 party system forever by getting automatic ballot access and federal funding and recognition of major party status .
There will always be only two parties, that is the natural equilibrium of the winner-take-all system. A third party will always only be a temporary aberration. What you can hope for is that Libertarian Party replaces the Republican Party, that would inject a freshness into our politics that is desperately needed.
no, but his reform party was not a real party .i couldnt even tell you what they stand for .he did well because he was a billionaire, not because people liked the reform party .
That would only because you didn't look for their platform - the same way most people don't look at the libertarian platform.
not because people liked the reform party
And much of what propels Gary is not that people like the libertarian party/platform. There are lots of Bernie people that might vote for Gary even though Bernie nearly the opposite of a libertarian.
The two-party system in America is structural and will not be destroyed by Gary getting 5%.
"Bernie nearly the opposite of a libertarian" gary says he agrees with bernie 75% of the time .i read an article a while back arguing that for a libertarian, bernie was the best choice among the major party candidates (rand paul had already dropped out) .the reasoning was that his economic policies were so far left of even the democrats, that any congress would shut them down. meanwhile, his policies on criminal justice reform, spying on civilians, and ending the war on drugs were much more moderate and progress could be made .
i hope youre wrong about the two party system .yes it is a mighty foe .but gary johnson only got .99% of the vote in 2012 .he is on track to do much better this time .the libertarian party has to spend almost all its resources every year just on collecting enough signatures to be on the ballot .if they not only had free automatic ballot access, but also got federal funding to use for advertising, and people see that the movement is growing, i believe they will be a huge threat to the 2 party system .
Progressive taxation, free public education including college, fair trade, minimum wage, labor and environmental regulations, government investment in renewable energy, greenhouse gas regulations, government infrastructure spending: roads, bridges, broadband, electric grid, etc., breaking up banks, single-payer health care, increased corporate taxes, expanding social security, mandatory paid family leave, government funded research, etc. etc.
Gary is to the left of Bernie on immigration, drugs, war, etc.
They basically agree on gay marriage and ??
(I think most but not all libertarians are pro-choice - so maybe that)
Overall they seem to agree on very little.
he is on track to do much better this time
Because Hillary is less likable than Obama and Trump is a crazy person - not because Gary is a good candidate.
Bill Weld (Gary's libertarian party running mate) is a much more respectable candidate and he is endorsing Hillary... ref
they will be a huge threat to the 2 party system
I am for getting more people in the discussion - generally by diminishing the parties rather than adding more of them, but it has to be done structurally.
The libertarians will never challenge the current parties because much of their platform is completely untenable.
well, speaking for myself as a libertarian, i agree with bernie about 70% of the time, which is to say most everything except the economy (plus he is not quite far left enough on some social issues) .the issues you listed are all economic issues, not very diverse at all .the economy is a big and important area for me, but it is not everything .
out of the major party candidates who were likely to get the nomination, bernie would have been closest to me, then hillary, then cruz, then rubio, and finally, after exhausting the rest of the list and realizing there was no other choice, trump .i do think bernie has much in common with libertarians, with the major exception of the economy .
i did not like bill weld at first but he grew on me when i heard him speak .he definitely did not endorse hillary though, he just thought she was much better than trump (which she was) .every time the media said he was backing out or supporting hillary, he debunked it .
If Bernie is too left on the economy and too right on "some social issues" - what are the issues you agree with Bernie on that equate to 70% of policy?
[Bill Weld] grew on me
Me too.
he definitely did not endorse hillary
He got as close as you can without saying - I'm with her.
As an preliminary question: can you name anywhere in the world where a community of more than a couple hundred people have been successfully governed by libertarian philosophy for any sustained period of time?
"Perhaps you are less libertarian than you think."
perhaps, but i am definitely not democrat or republican .so what does that leave me ?
"No they aren't."
which of these issues are not economic: "Progressive taxation, free public education including college, fair trade, minimum wage, labor and environmental regulations, government investment in renewable energy, greenhouse gas regulations, government infrastructure spending: roads, bridges, broadband, electric grid, etc., breaking up banks, single-payer health care, increased corporate taxes, expanding social security, mandatory paid family leave, government funded research"
i agree with bernie on reforming criminal justice, ending the war on drugs, a woman's right to choose, gay rights, making it easy to vote, accepting immigrants, ending the wars, and ending police brutality. i think all these things put together are much more important than just economic issues .
"He got as close as you can without saying - I'm with her."
i didn't read those links .i know bill weld thinks hillary is much more qualified than trump (which she obviously is), but he has also said things like "theres no such thing as government money, only taxpayer money. democrats dont get that" and "dont waste your vote on trump or clinton" .
"I'll do a separate post for this after work."
please do . (maybe you did, i didnt check yet)
"As an preliminary question: can you name anywhere in the world where a community of more than a couple hundred people have been successfully governed by libertarian philosophy for any sustained period of time?"
can you name a woman who was a successful president of the united states ?my point is that just because something has not happened yet does not make it a bad idea .
Who would ever know what Johnson stands for? The biased Liberal media spends all their time crucifying Trump for some past vulgarity while praising Bill Clinton as the Democrat's spoksmen even though he is a rapist and has been impeached.
The biased Liberal media buries most of Hillary's scandals. They don't want Gary Johnson getting any traction. The vast majority of the media is in bed with the Democrat party.
We are no longer a majority two party nation. We have become a one Party nation controlled by our main stream media and this extremist Democrat party. Any third party candidate has no chance!
The voters who will not vote for Trump should definitely vote for Johnson, and send a loud and clear message that the electorate will not stand for an elite criminal (who calls millions of Americans deplorable and irredeemable) who is not deserving of our national security clearance, and should never be rewarded with our presidency.
I like how Trump can brag about grabbing women by the pussy, calling Illegals rapists, murderers, and drug dealers, mocks a disabled reporter, mocks POWs, and many more. But for some reason Hillary calling an obviously shitty group of humans deplorable is the most insulting thing to ever be said in public.
Both candidates suck but your selective bitchiness is very poorly hidden.
Calling millions of Americans you don't even know as being deplorable and irredeemable is the most hideous elitist thing any person coud ever say.
For you to excuse it makes you a complete elitist moron. No wonder if you lived in this nation I'm sure you would vote for a criminal.
When Mitt Romney said far less when running against Obama, he was crucified by the biased media for weeks up to the election. When Hillary insults millions of Americans she does not even know, the press instantly buries the story.
The bias in our press is pure corruption. They are in bed with one Party and it destroys our democracy.
It's like living in Arab nations where the press is all slanted for the dictators.
Sorry, there ARE millions of Americans that are "deplorable", and you have to go no further than CD to see many of them will vote for Trump. See?? Everything Hillary says is NOT a lie and "deplorable" comes From Within.
Mitt Romney spoke truth about millions of Americans who pay no taxes and would vote for Obama no matter what! Funny how the Press crucified Romeny for that truthful statement, while burying Hillary's much worse lie about millions of Americans.
Arrogant fools ike you would say that people who vote for trump are deplorable and irredeemble? You judgemental arrogant elites!
LOL, you are too old to even grasp the mindess rhetoric coming out of your mouth.
Keep voting for a corrupt Government that supports your children so you don't have to.
Mitt Romney was wrong to think that the Republicans can only help people with jobs. Republicans are supposed to be able to help every American, remember?
Our government has NEVER supported myself or my children. I myself have drawn less than a months unemployment in my 65 (approx.) years of working, and most of that was forced "temporary layoff" which I never completed (was called back early). I don't know if my children have had any, but I do know it was miniscule. WE pay our taxes AND DON'T take handouts, like MOST liberals, and detest those who do. I have a millionaire brother-in-law, a devoted conservative, that takes advantage of every government handout available, and teaches his conservative children to do the same ... even signs them up!
Yeah, I'm old. Old enough to see the ways conservatives turn THEIR behavior around to make it look like liberals want the handouts THEY themselves have created FOR THEMSELVES, !through lobbyists and tax manipulation!
Don't base Conservatives on what your brother did.
I am as Conservative as they come, and like you have never used Government programs, nor my children.
Any person such as yourself should know full well that the Democrat party is the socialist party that searches our more and more dependent voters. Do you like being used? Do you like your children being used?
The middle class workers are the cash cow of the Democrat party to buy their low income dependent voters. Did you see your Democrat party cutting loop holes for the Rich when they were in total control the first two years of Obama's presidency? NO! They are all talk every election cycle and then DO NOTHING as Trump said Hillary has done for all of her career.
What did the Democrats pass those two yers when they hd control of both houses? OBAMACARE! Maybe you missed it but Obamacare is the largest tax on the middle class in my lifetime. It was passed purely to get the low income votes. Middle class families can no longer afford health insurance for their own families because they are subsidising the low income Democrat voting block.
Premiums and deductibles skyrocketed for the middle class. Democrats have never cared about the middle class worker. The premiums are set to go up another 25% and more next year. Can your children afford those insane healthcare premiums and deductibles?
Trump will overhaul Obamacare while Hillary will keep the failed plan going.
You are fighting for the wrong side. Start watching Fox news and learn.
"Under Obama, the average federal tax rate paid by the top 1% of households has gone up more than 6 percentage points to an estimated 33.8% today, according to the Tax Policy Center."
tax hikes on the rich that were part of the Affordable Care Act and the bipartisan fiscal cliff deal:
they were in total control the first two years of Obama's presidency
They had "control" (60 votes) in the Senate for 132 days - 9/25/2009 to 2/4/2010 - (and they only met for 70 of those since that included 38 weekend days, Veterans day, Thanksgiving, Christmas, New Years, etc.)
You arrogant fool. The only people who might come close to that label are those who support no restriction abortions for any reasons when they vote for these extremist pro abortion Democrats.
Yes, any person who supports infanticide is truly deplorable.
Hillary has no clue what these millions of Americans believe in. SHE IS A PERJURER, A LIAR TO THE FAMILIES OF FOUR DEAD MEN, A TRAITOR TO OUR GOVERNMENT SECRETS, A CORRUPT MONEY GRABBING ELITIST and she has the nerve to call other's deplorable?
YOU TOTAL HYPOCRITES ON THIS SITE! This is why I ban the people who spew the Democrat rhetoric and lies.
hillary is bad but abortion keeps people from having a baby if they are not prepared to be parents . if they want to keep the baby then they dont get an abortion so everyone gets what they want .
You are saying that it is ok for a mother to kill her baby just because she is not prepared.
So under your inhuman logic, a mother who delivered her Baby could decide to kill the Baby 1 week after birth because she found that she was not prepared to be a parent.
That Baby one week from birth is just as much a living growing viable human life as he is a week after birth, but selfish sheep like you actually swallow the pro abortion rhetoric of this extremist Democrat party that supports killing any baby for any reason up to birth.
Can you even think or do you let Democrats tell you how to think.
Are you thankful your mother was not so selfish as to have aborted you, if she had some doubts of not being prepared?
There are TWO lives involved, not just the mother's. Humanity says we can not kill someone just for being a burden to them.
i know that abortion is an uncomfortable idea, but do you have a better one ? force people to be parents ? and why do conservatives want liberals to reproduce ?
killing sperm is sad . killing a clump of cells is more sad . killing a 2 month fetus is yet more sad . when does it become wrong, i dont know . but i dont know anyone who wants to allow killing a born baby .
if my mother didnt want me, then of course i would not want to be born . that would destroy 3 lives, instead of 0 .
Why do you keep excluding the late term viable life that is killed?
You keep missing how that Baby's life is destroyed. I know you are not that dense.
You are this new age selfish people who have rationalized how killing innocent people is ok if they are burdens to you.
No one forced two people to have unprotected sex. They chose to take the chance of getting pregnant. They chose to become parents with their irresponsibility.
You are the new generation of people who will take no accountability for their own choices and actions.
You say you don't know when it becomes wrong. How sick is that? I guess you prove what Christians and Conservatives have been saying all along. You have lost the common sense discernment to understand right from wrong.
To people with love and compassion for our most inocent lives, they would err on the side of life when in doubt.
Life of mother abortions are always allowed. Life should always be the deciding factor when discerning right from wrong!
yes, zero lives are destroyed .if the baby was allowed to grow up in a family as an unwanted child, that would destroy their life .but having your life annulled is not destroying it, it just never was .if you dream about having a baby but don't, is a life destroyed ?
"You are this new age selfish people who have rationalized how killing innocent people is ok if they are burdens to you."
innocent people sometimes die in war .unfortunate but inevitable .but we cant end all war because of that, right ? abortion is humane because it prevents a zygote from becoming a person whose parents dont want them .
"No one forced two people to have unprotected sex."
protected sex can result in pregnancy, as can rape, and that is force .
"They chose to take the chance of getting pregnant."
some people want to have sex for pleasure and not to have a baby .thank god there is a backup method of contraception if others fail .do you want everyone be gay if they are not ready for a baby ?
"They chose to become parents with their irresponsibility."
no, the whole point of abortion is that they do not want to be paretns .why would you force people to be parents and force a baby to be unwanted ?
"You say you don't know when it becomes wrong. How sick is that?"
none .when are taxes too high ? 0.00001% ? 0.5% ? 1% ? 5% ? 10% ? 50% ? 150% ?what is the calculation for when it becomes wrong ?
"Life of mother abortions are always allowed."
how sick is that ? what if the mother is a horrible person , and the baby will win a nobel prize ?
When fools still talk about zygotes to change the OBVIOUS discussion of no restriction abortions of viabe late term babies, then they have proven they have NOTHING!
You do what all pro abortion people do....TALK ABOUT ZYGOTES! TALK ABOUT ANYTHING BUT THE INHUMANITY OF WHAT THE DEMOCRAT PARTY SUPPORTS!
Grasp the facts. When you vote for the Democrat party, you are supporting those no restriction abortions for any reason of viable babies.
FOR THE MILLIOTH TIME, THE GOP HAVE TRIED TO PASS LEGISLATION THAT WOULD ALLOW YOUR ZYGOTE ABORTIONS AS WELL AS ALL ABORTIONS UP TO 20 WEEKS(WITH EXTREME CASE EXCEPTIONS) BUT THE DEMORAT PARTY REFUSE TO COMPROMISE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You are a joke to pretend you care for viable late term babies! You show that you don't care about these viable babies when voting for these extremist Democrats who never met an unborn baby at any stage that they would protect.
"FOR THE MILLIOTH TIME, THE GOP HAVE TRIED TO PASS LEGISLATION THAT WOULD ALLOW YOUR ZYGOTE ABORTIONS AS WELL AS ALL ABORTIONS UP TO 20 WEEKS(WITH EXTREME CASE EXCEPTIONS) BUT THE DEMORAT PARTY REFUSE TO COMPROMISE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
thats the first time i heard that, not the millionth .if thats true,then why is this not widely known ?why is the abortion debate not over then ?instead you hear about the rebublicans being opposed to roe v wade, and paul ryan talking about this "bean" nonsense .
"You are a joke to pretend you care for viable late term babies! You show that you don't care about these viable babies when voting for these extremist Democrats who never met an unborn baby at any stage that they would protect."
and i suppose you support the rights of someone to kill first graders with an ar15 .so fetus = protected, born = unprotected, is that right ?
Listen, I apologise if this is the first time you have heard the facts about abortion.
I have been giving these facts on this site for a few years now.
I realize Democrats are very deceptive about not telling people they support no restriction abortions.
Plese spare me ludicrous arguments about what some person chooses to illegally do with any weapon whether it be knife, a gun, a bomb, a car, a hammer, etc. etc. etc. compared to keeping purposeful no restriction abortions legal.
Are you aware that hammers kill more people each year then assault rifles?
I hope you learn to watch Fox news and get the facts rather than the all the other biased Liberal media that gives you the information they want you to have.
These ar15's you speak to kill very few compared to all the other murders from normal guns.
yes, assault rifles are almost never used in attacks .(and 8.5 month babies are almost never aborted) .why do you think i am against guns ?i was just making a point that i am consistently pro freedom while conservatives are strangely anti freedom for abortion while pro freedom for guns .
Republicans are for freedoms FOR ALL PEOPLE, INCLUDING THAT UNBORN VIABLE BABY!
Why do you spew such absolute nonsense?
Conservatives are not anti freedom of abortion! We are anti the murder of viable unborn babies for any reason! Sense when have we as Americans had the freedom to kill each other? You are sitting there saying that Conservatives are not for freedoms of killers?
YES, WE ARE PART OF HUMANITY! There can never be the freedom to kill other innocent lives!
How can you try to twist the common sense difference between the two issues?
Comparing our contitutional gun freedoms, to freedom to kill innocent life is beyond moronic!
thank you for that information .i guess someone looking for an abortion would most likely not go to a catholic hospital, but still, sad that a hospital would choose to allow a woman to die .
Well, I think it would be unfair to represent catholic hospitals and 'good' hospitals as being inherently different things. But there are plenty of hospitals that may be catholic hospitals without making that fact perfectly clear.
Like I just said, Trump labeled much larger demographics of people as much worse terms than "deplorable", I'd much rather be called deplorable than a murdering rapist drug dealer. Can you be anymore hypocritical?
You would make a great Democrat if you lived in this nation.
You spew the same deception and lies as they do.
TRUMP NEVER CALLED ALL MEXICANS RAPIST DRUG DEALERS YOU MINDLESS FOOL! He was speaking to the ones who are and who come across our borders illegally.
Just like Democrats, you can never stick to the facts because you have NO ARGUMENT OR EXCUSE TO BE OK WITH HILLARY CALLING MILLIONS OF AMERICANS SHE DOES NOT EVEN KNOW AS BEING DEPLORABLE AND IRREDEEMABLE, simply because they want to vote for Trump so her corruption might finally stop.
Calling the millions of illegal immigrants murderers, rapists and drug dealers is still demonizing an entire populace with no proof to back it up. But that's obviously a skill for republicans.
biased Liberal media spends all their time crucifying Trump for some past vulgarity while praising Bill Clinton as the Democrat's spoksmen even though he is a rapist and has been impeached.
Leave it to the Libertarians to put a euphemism for penis on the ballot for President. Not a bad strategy, but it's not going to work, especially when the Democrats already put a euphemism for cvnt on the ballot for themselves. And Trump at best is what, a euphemism for the butt?
not all taxes, but most . taxes take money from those who earn it to give it to those who want to spend it (politicians) . and gary does not oppose all taxes, the county does need some money after all .
[oppose] gov't welfare, relief projects, aid to poor, child services; Medicare; Medicaid; Social Security...
absolutely . this is a big part of what is great about gary, that he doesn't support robbing peter to pay paul . leave peter alone and let paul pay for himself .
[oppose] bans on concealled weapons, [support] prostitution, polygamy, homosexuality, depicting sex/violence, abortion, voluntary birth control, DNA research, substance use;
why would you ban concealed wpeaons ? should guns be on full display ? concealment is polite ? why ban matters of personal choice that the government has no business in ?
abolish:
[many things]
yes, we need less government intervention . let people run their own lives .
support:
[good things]
yes, good things are good .
i guess we disagreee because i think people should own their lives and you think government should run them . if that is your goal, then a dictator is best for you .
some of them would ,but i think libertarians, like liberals or conservatives, have some room for diversity of opinion within their group .not all of us are borderline anarchists . what is pragmatism ?
we do need government services, but i think we could use much less, such as by having less wars and eliminating questionable programs .i also dont think its fair to have a progressive tax, to say that because you can pay a higher percentage you should have to .
ideally people would all pay the same amount (not percent but $) because we all use the same amount of govt services .(same as how we all pay the same for a hamburger, not base the price on income) .i know that is not possible though unless spending is cut majorly .
id just as soon eliminate them .like social security, you could say lets cut benefits, or raise the retirement age, or allow self directed accounts or whatever, but its easier, cheaper, and more fair to just have everyone take care of their own retirement .
And, if they don't prepare well, or if the market, and their homes, etc., lose half of their value right before retirement - they should: ̲ ̲ ̲ ̲ ̲ ̲ ̲ ̲ ̲ ̲ ̲ ̲ ̲ ̲?
they should be treated as adults who can face the consequences of their decisions .and if someone pays into social security for decades and then the program goes bankrupt, they should: ?
i dont have a strong opinion on amnesty and i am for few restrictions on immigration .i think if you can pass a background check it should be easy to get a work visa and start paying taxes .
well i think every country allows pollution and 14 year olds are allowed to work in the states .but there could be some cases where we have some trade restrictions .i just think its a bad idea to have a 35% tariff on all imports to make people buy american .
It depends on what you mean by "allows" - lots of countries have restrictions on pollution and that number is growing as the impacts become more clear to governments and their citizens.
there could be some cases where we have some trade restrictions .i just think its a bad idea to have a 35% tariff on all imports to make people buy american.
Then you just went from being libertarian to being a pragmatist - welcome to the club.
well i have to say that im not pragmatist if that currently means democrat .i find democrats better than republicans, but insufficiently liberal on social issues while far too liberal on economic issues .
GJ's "policies" are (agreeably) nice, but totally unrealistic. Looking stupid and unprepared in world negotiations would make U.S. look stupid (and unprepared). His policies are Ostrich-like and would lead to a take over by "certain dictators" of the world! He IS unprepared and stupid!
Liberty is NOT unrealistic. I don't see where you got that. What IS unrealistic is pulling back our troops from the world and going strictly defensive. Letting everyone have the freedom to do anything they want (freedom is only when it doesn't step on anyone else's freedom!). We can't live without regulation that PROTECTS the American people from unscrupulous businesses and damage to our Earth!
If HRC "looks" fake she's one up on Trump who looks BOTH stupid AND fake! She has proven she isn't what YOU say she looks like. She made the Kangaroo Court Congress look fake, which they WERE!
did i misunderstand you ? you said "GJ's "policies" are (agreeably) nice, but totally unrealistic" . since garys policy is pro liberty and the others are anti liberty , i thought you meant that liberty was unrealistic .
pulling troops back from the world is good . why are our allies not fighting isis very much ? because they know america will if they dont want to . its time for them to earn their keep .
some regulation is needed , but we dont need countless pages of regulation that no one could ever read in their lifetime . remember that even if gary wanted to eliminate all regulation he couldn't make congress do that . he just wants to cut back on the insanity .
As I SAID, his "POLICIES" are unrealistic. I NEVER said, (or meant), "liberty was unrealistic".
Yes, "pulling troops back from the world WOULD BE GOOD ... if the world was in a better place! It would be "unrealistic" to do that at THIS TIME and leave the world to Putin, China, and, of course, ISIS! WE are actually NOT fighting ISIS, WE are ASSISTING Muslims to fight for their OWN "liberty"! I agree it would be nice to get a bit more help from our friends, but, are we to walk away, and, as I said, leave everything to Putin (or Iran?)?? (Unrealistic!) If WE stop and "pull our troops back", Iran WILL move in! (Unrealistic!)
The regulations the conservatives want dearly to throw out are those that cost ...."the corporations that have been making record profits for years" ...MONEY! Like: Equipment or methods that prevent polluting air and water; Equipment and precautions that prevent injury at work (including "black lung" for coal miners); Regulations that prevent dumping a bad drug on the people before it is proven safe; Regulations that TRY to prevent banks from doing what Well Fargo did a few months ago, and Wall Street from doing what IT did a few YEARS ago! Regulations that prevent destroying our National Parks for oil and mining that we don't need! In particular, regulations that 196 countries in the world agreed on to TRY to stop climate change! ETC.!! To NOT have ALL those, in order to increase already obnoxious PROFITS ....WOULD be insanity! (And unrealistic!)
Capitalism is a great thing, but, like everything ELSE, if it is allowed to go its own way, unregulated, it WILL destroy itself (and US) with GREED! Yes, I agree his POLICIES are NICE ... but, unrealistic!
im still having a hard time understanding how you can say that liberty is realistic but his pro liberty policies are unrealistic .how then do you get liberty, without pro liberty policies ?
you clarified a bit about ending the wars...so this aspect of liberty is unrealistic now but maybe realistic lator when the middle east is stable ? it sounds though like you think cutting regulations will always be unrealistic .how then to get liberty ?
"Regulations that TRY to prevent banks from doing what Well Fargo did a few months ago" - this is what happens with regulations, they TRY but they FAIL to do anything...except create jobs for lawyers and cost everyone else money while not protecting consumers at all .
So, you are saying that regulations fail to regulate because lawyers use them to make money??
You think without regulations people will not try to go around them (because they don't exist), and therefor, things will be better??
I can understand why you have a hard time understanding why, with the world in the situation it is in, liberty can not be the answer to all problems.
This kind of fits here: "You can avoid reality, but you cannot avoid the consequences of reality". Choosing liberty for OUR country, when other countries are waiting to take it from the world, is unrealistic. By the way, I don't quote many conservatives positively, but that quote was Ayn Rand.
what if one would otherwise vote for hillary if not johnson ? then to vote for johnson ?and the statement can be heard ,if gary gets 5 percent of the vote then federal funding and ballot access and the end of the 2 party system .ps hillary is not liberal .
There is already conspiracies adding people to races to split the vote. It can be abused on many fronts. And it divides in three so that assures no middle ground. Mob rules.
It doesnt actually result in fairness. It sounds good on the front end, but thats how regimes take over. And there are several ready to apply force and that would be tragic.
It much easier to manipulate a third. And militarize them. Look how violent special interest groups are becoming. Its like they are becoming militant.
We werent built for that. As rights and freedoms lose personal boundaries, we were built on a different mentality.
The founding fathers would be in shock. American rights and freedoms are for a people that understand and respect others rights and freedoms.
We corrected from within rising always to that idea. Self correcting, how many countries self corrected and humanity and a high value to grow toward, and we still healed us moving toward furthering a better society?
Your best bet is to choose one that you identify with and work within it to achieve change in areas you differ some.
Middle ground is important too.
When you aspire to fair to all, then you are American. When you aspire to all for one at the cost of fairness to all is when rights and freedoms are being taken, As others rights and freedoms are mowed over, the ground is being laid for the mob to lose theirs tomorrow.
Mob rules mentality doesn't understand win win. It is becoming a sad existence with this mentality.
"And it divides in three so that assures no middle ground."
but the libertarian party is the middle ground . not liberal, not conservative, but in the middle, taking the best of each side and discarding the bad .
"The founding fathers would be in shock. American rights and freedoms are for a people that understand and respect others rights and freedoms."
yes, also called libertarians . they believe you can do whatever you want as long as you dont hurt someone or take their stuff .
"When you aspire to fair to all, then you are American. "
again, libertarian .
"When you aspire to all for one at the cost of fairness to all is when rights and freedoms are being taken, As others rights and freedoms are mowed over, the ground is being laid for the mob to lose theirs tomorrow."
youre describing anarchy, not libertarianism .
"Mob rules mentality doesn't understand win win. It is becoming a sad existence with this mentality."
jill stein is probably the more win win candidate , but gary would be next . trump and clinton are win lose with an emphasis on lose .
its true that they dont pull a large margin ,but thats mostly because gary johnson gets little media coverage, other than when the media wants to focus on his apello moment, like thats worse than what trump and hillary have done .
not sure what you mean about not pulling away votes .theyre taking votes from trump and hillary .the more that people learn about libertarianism, the more votes they pull from the anti-freedom parties .
The Libertarian party have never pulled much weight in my lifetime. And also the Libertarian can't be made a media sensation.
Its opposite their agenda. So they would never be able to be infiltrated by any curruption who want big or bigger or biggest government! They are far off on their own in a different direction.
Their votes really effect neither party. And they usually vote republican. At least the ones who understand math. Obviously less government in our lives is opposite liberal left!
But now take a third party anywhere toward the left, and it would be a coopertive tool, working together. Now thats dangerous. The left is more militant and minipulative, and own steering by media. Republicans do not have the same resourses.
Makes me laugh or cry, both actually, liberals complain about conservative media. Really?
Fox and recently added OAN (an awesome new station for news) Fox news has been the only "more" balanced news with any fair consideration given to Conservatives. But intolerant is the left, the ones who scream tolerance! I could throw up its so sickening!
But as selfish liberals on yhe left and their angry mob of militant atheist and inflamed special interest grooups, no consideration of fairness to conservatives exists at all! Evil, steering people by lies. Your all cattle!
And just the big guys Fox stood alone till recently, when joined by OAN. So media sorce 15 to 1 for liberal left agenda!
So what idiot would want another party that would also be to the left rising? That would be naive on our part, but for the liberal left it would be strategies!!
Libertarians wouldnt cooperate with either. So they wouldnt fall into my example of worst case scenerio.
"The Libertarian party have never pulled much weight in my lifetime. And also the Libertarian can't be made a media sensation."
thats mostly true, but i dont understand this logic that says if something is difficult then dont try .it will be difficult for a libertarian to win, but either you fight for liberty or youre just as bad as the stooge we elect .
"Their votes really effect neither party."
true (unless they win a state or get 5% someday),and id say thats a good reason to vote for them without felling like youre throwing your vote away .if it doesnt effect either party, why not vote for the good guys ?
"And they usually vote republican."
not sure if thats true,theyre also pro abortion, pro marijuana, pro voting, pro immigration, pro criminal justice reform, anti war .
"Obviously less government in our lives is opposite liberal left!"
not so obviously .gary johnson said he agrees with bernie sanders on 75% of the issues .
The issue is not it's difficulty. The issue is it's vulnerability.
It would be the movement of idiots to create another party that would be made popular to compete for votes on issues we struggle to find middle ground on. Now you would have 3 middle grounds. Where does that end up pulling?
And can those middle ground be used to set up things like in a volley ball game? It could easily become conspiritous toward an end goal. I'll pass this bill, if you get me elected and then bribes for greed, agenda, and power while using the media to steer to their end game. Thats not democracy that's fascism! Welcome to 2017. This is an end game. If Hillary gets in, it will be quicker.
Which would be a left characteristic. Because of cooperation of media and special interst groups. These are militant within us. No one seems to realize what is behind the curtain.
Your vote isnt the place to make a statement. Your statement is negotion. Voting is not negotiation. Its win or lose. Vote is a time of strategy implementing the best and in the greater odds of successful execution.
For further damage control at the very least. Your vote should count as if the best available strategy with the highest possible outcome. Voting as if shooting your one and only bullet, into the most effective of all directions, one that gives the most strategic advantage out of all available choices.
You wouldn't shoot your one and only bullet into open space to make a statement. And if you did that is very foolish.
Make your statement, but cast your vote with an attitude of strategy. If your group breaks it for 30 years by statements, how long does it take to repair? Does it ever repair?
Its a close race. Either Hillary or Trump will be president. Unless they arrest Hillary or something major.
So if that happens then your choices change.
But the current choice is 50 50 Hillary and Trump.
There isnt a snow flake in Hell's chance that Gary or Jill will win. One or both may even be put there as a pawn, likely Jill.
Because she soaks up votes that would have gone from Bernie to Trump. So regardless of knowing themselves, they are there for a purpose. Used knowingly or unknowingly.
They use strategy to get elected, and we wouldnt be pawns if we knew better. Regardless if either of these are set there for a stepping stone, it still is factual that if say each take 5 % of the vote, that is 10 % of voters that contributed to the outcome by not really voting, but making a statement. So if either is less favored and they get in, you can thank you mini statement.
So the best of both evils is the best strategy. And I see Trump as closer to the right direction. Even if for only 4 years.
In popular vote mob rules. We are not a democracy for that reason. Your logic is simplistic and its liberal brainwashing.
The march to the one world order will devastate you in the end.
As long as your mind follows that way, you will wake up enslaved in the middle of tribulation never seen before in all of history.
Jesus came to make us individuals, and He gave us properties of light to show us. Light is one, it moves together in the waves, yet each particle is an individual.
The concept of a photon's path is undefined.
If a single photon can demonstrate double-slit interference, then which slit did it pass through? The unavoidable answer must be that it passes through both! This might not seem so strange if we think of the photon as a wave, but it is highly counterintuitive if we try to visualize it as a particle. The moral is that we should not think in terms of the path of a photon. Like the fully human and fully divine Jesus of Christian theology, a photon is supposed to be 100% wave and 100% particle. If a photon had a well defined path, then it would not demonstrate wave superposition and interference effects, contradicting its wave nature. (In the next chapter we will discuss the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, which gives a numerical way of approaching this issue.)
well we know what a popular 1st or 2nd party would look like, dumb and dumber . but for a popular 3rd party candidate, i'd say gary johnson in 2016, john mcafee in 2020, austin petersen in 2024, each being more popular than the last, until people come to their senses and decide to replace president trump after he nukes atlanta over a twitter war, or president chelsea clinton after she spends 10 jillion dollars on sex changes for all .
in order to run for president,he stopped using weed and resigned as ceo of a cannabis company .oh the sacrifices he had to make !but i think trump and hillary could stand to be a bit more mellow .
