Libertian party debate
- Thread starter ♪alt13
- Start date
Joe Bagadonuts
Well-Known Member
Thanks. Watching.
Joe Bagadonuts
Well-Known Member
I really enjoyed the debate (especially the part where they talked about the demons in their closets) and then ended up kissing. I typed up a pretty long response but it disappeared. The policy I'm most freaked out about is the total elimination of foreign aid. Would it really be possible to do that or are they being naive? I want to learn more. If my choices are any of Trump, Clinton, Sanders or Cruz I will be voting for one of these guys. My favorite in this brief intro (I've never seen any of them speak before) was Austin what's his name (the 35 year old). I hope their candidate is allowed to debate the major party candidates. I will be stunned if that hope comes true, though. No way do the people in power want to invite these guys to the dance.
I am not a fan of foreign aid. But there are times where it is needed. I don't want to eliminate all of it. I just want an open review of it so we can decide what to keep and what not to. Also I seriously doubt they can just stop all of it. I'm sure many of them are contractual and we'd have to wait till the contract is up.
Joe Bagadonuts
Well-Known Member
Your opinion sounds reasonable. The candidates did not sound reasonable on this particular issue to me. That's why I mentioned it. They said a lot of things that I really liked, though.
♪alt13
Well-Known Member
Here is a talk that sums up pretty well why foreign aid is a problem for foreigners.
https://www.ted.com/talks/andrew_mwenda_takes_a_new_look_at_africa?language=en#t-505311
and here is an article
https://fee.org/articles/third-world-development-foreign-aid-or-free-trade/
Libertarian is the only logical option coming from a philosophical stand point. If your goal is to get assisted and target your favorite problem areas than keep voting selfishly D or R. Meanwhile you are creating bigger problems then you are solving like the housing crash that decimated 40 million middle class families and the USEPA that is pushing every last USA manufacturing job to China and Mexico. We export jobs to Mexico in trade for there criminals. Thanks congress.
Jamezz
Well-Known Member
Crying about libertarians not being included in PRIVATE SECTOR debates is so anti-libertarian it baffles me that libertarian crybabies always spill tears over it. Guess what [MENTION=2931]Jamezz[/MENTION] the debates are hosted by private sector media companies. You want to be a commie and demand they include your third party candidate? Where does that slippery slope end? You want a third party in the debates then be a American and go create you're own platform and broadcast it to the world. If you do not your words are empty crying so shut up.
Jamezz
Well-Known Member
Don't put words in my mouth, I didn't say that I was demanding for a third party candidate to be in the Presidential debates. I just find it unfair that they never get invited to the big party is all.
♪alt13
Well-Known Member
It's because the Presidential Debate Commission is ran literally by the two major parties. After Perot the parties got scared and increased restrictions on 3rd parties hoping to debate. Now they have to poll at least 15% support in 3 major polls but are mostly not included in those polls. Good news Gary Johnson polled at 11% in a national Monmouth University Poll already and the Libertarian & Green Parties are sueing the commission.
Presidential debates used to be ran by The League of Women Voters until 1988. Below is a link that explains why the LWV no longer sponsors and runs the debates.
https://lwv.org/press-releases/league-refuses-help-perpetrate-fraud
Unfair unfair unfair. You are still crying. I am a true libertarian I do not believe in crying only in earning results. Sigma kippa homie.
Watched. Too many talking points and buzz words. Felt much like a presidential debate. Petersen is my least favorite as he sounds like a Fox News ideologue. Mcafee seems uninformed with statements like the "prohibition did not reduce consumption" (not true, I am very much in agreement with the libertarian view on drugs, but alcohol consumption was reduced during the prohibition), or that Russia and China never suffer terror attacks because of their awesome intelligence capabilities (in reality, they do suffer from terrorism, and these comments disregard the fact that those are authoritarian governments).
Johnson, while not awe-inspiring, is the most pragmatic and in touch with the reality of the situation. He would probably get my vote if he was a realistic candidate.
Johnson, while not awe-inspiring, is the most pragmatic and in touch with the reality of the situation. He would probably get my vote if he was a realistic candidate.
Jamezz
Well-Known Member
Ok tough guy.
Is there something wrong with that? This country was created and built by tough guys not you government worshiping slack jaws. Go get your fairness good luck w that.
The Thriller
Well-Known Member
Meh.
Lots and lots of talking points with lil substance. The former governor of New Mexico, "everything in the future is going to be like uber. Uber doctors, plumbers, etc."
Apparently his vision of the future includes a bunch of unlicensed, unregulated, cheap high school dropouts looking to make an easy buck. Make no mistake, I'll pay extra if it means that my doctor or plumber actually know what the hell they're doing.
Their arguing for the free market while complaining about our open borders and the need to seal the border seems hypocritical to me. It's impossible to support the free market while arguing for closed borders. If you're pro free market then you should recognize that the invisible hand will always find the cheapest labor.
Not only that, but this undermines their primary argument for the free market. When arguing for trade deals they argued that these trade deals, while hurting some Americans via offshoring of jobs, actually added to the purchasing power of most Americans. Why doesn't this same thinking apply to immigration? While supporting immigration, especially illegaLaissez-fairel immigration, yes you undermine Some laws and hurt some Americans. But ultimately, you create a cheap (slave) labor caste which ultimately adds to the purchasing power of most Americans, correct?
Lastly, I agreed with them on foreign policy. We are suffering from some terrorist groups and organizations that we helped to create through our intervention.
However, isn't that also part of the "free market."
If some extremists don't like western influence, too bad. Right? The invisible hand will find the cheap labor, abundant oil, etc that the ME offers, right?
Lots and lots of talking points with lil substance. The former governor of New Mexico, "everything in the future is going to be like uber. Uber doctors, plumbers, etc."
Apparently his vision of the future includes a bunch of unlicensed, unregulated, cheap high school dropouts looking to make an easy buck. Make no mistake, I'll pay extra if it means that my doctor or plumber actually know what the hell they're doing.
Their arguing for the free market while complaining about our open borders and the need to seal the border seems hypocritical to me. It's impossible to support the free market while arguing for closed borders. If you're pro free market then you should recognize that the invisible hand will always find the cheapest labor.
Not only that, but this undermines their primary argument for the free market. When arguing for trade deals they argued that these trade deals, while hurting some Americans via offshoring of jobs, actually added to the purchasing power of most Americans. Why doesn't this same thinking apply to immigration? While supporting immigration, especially illegaLaissez-fairel immigration, yes you undermine Some laws and hurt some Americans. But ultimately, you create a cheap (slave) labor caste which ultimately adds to the purchasing power of most Americans, correct?
Lastly, I agreed with them on foreign policy. We are suffering from some terrorist groups and organizations that we helped to create through our intervention.
However, isn't that also part of the "free market."
If some extremists don't like western influence, too bad. Right? The invisible hand will find the cheap labor, abundant oil, etc that the ME offers, right?
As someone on the far left it always strikes me as funny how both extremes want to minimize government as far as possible (idealists say to completely get rid of, but I believe some common laws is probably for the best). But both sides have vastly different ideas on how to get there and what the result will be if we do ever get there.