Hotdog
Well-Known Member
This is the best post ever.
Never Trump
- Thread starter colton
- Start date
This is the best post ever.
♪alt13
Well-Known Member
It is strange to me that you would come up with a list of reasons to vote for Johnson(none of which are issues that anyone expects Clinton to address) and then say that the problem is Koch money(which GJ is not getting). The candidate that you are supporting is the definition of a corporate sponsored politician. The major corporations sponsor the major parties, the major media outlets, but you would ignore all that and point the finger at the relatively meager support the Libertarian party gets from a select few business people and corporations. Let's not pretend that the libertarians are the ones who are bought or that they are worse in this regard when they clearly are not. As far as a Libertarian liberal coalition I think you would be surprised at some of the ideas and proposals that come out of placess like CATO.
[video]https://www.cato.org/multimedia/events/our-hands-plan-replace-welfare-state-raising-floor-how-universal-basic-income-can
As I've said before I'm not exactly a libertarian but shrinking the size and scope of the US government is a huge concern of mine and a big reason why I vote Libertarian in federal elections.
I think that you and Mr. Chomsky have fallen for an argument that ultimately led the Bolsheviks to destroy the International labor movement as well as every legitimate revolution of the people that had the real promise of delivering freedom, democracy, and socialism to the masses(Catalonia comes to mind). Yes there are social Darwinists both within and that support the libertarian party/platform. They would agree with your assessment that without the state they would become even more powerful. I believe that's just not correct. The state has created our current private power structure and without a strong state it could not exist. Further while I agree with you that private power can be dangerous I do not think that focusing ever more power in a state is a good idea. As Mr. Yglesias points out "People are going to try to manipulate the state to advance their own ends".
This "solution" to private power gives the powerful a tool with which to commit violence with near impunity and further secure their station.
Jonah
Well-Known Member
I’m not to a supporter of Clinton or the Democrat Party and agree that both are too heavily influenced by corporate contributions. I’ve argued here against Trump because his candidacy poses a unique and immediate threat whereas Clinton would be more of the same.
The Koch brothers are a separate problem. They spend hundreds of millions of dollars influencing the Republican Party because that's what it takes to buy a metaphorical battleship and steer it in their direction. They only have to spend tens of millions of dollars to buy the Libertarian Party because it’s just a tugboat in the political ocean. That doesn’t mean I can’t be concerned about the direction of unchecked corporate dominance they’ve steered for the Libertarian Party.
I listed some areas of agreement with libertarian values and most involve curtailing the scope of government, however, I prefer cutting with a scalpel whereas too many old-style libertarians want to use a hatchet. The video you posted, rather than supporting any kind of left-right alliance, highlights this basic disagreement. The issue is universal basic income (UBI). Andy Stern, former union leader, wants UBI to replace programs such a food stamps and help, possibly dramatically, reduce the size of the federal government. Charles Murray, author of The Bell Curve, wants to completely eliminate the welfare state through constitutional amendment and replace it with a below subsistence level UBI.
In an alternate universe, the alliance Ralph Nader argued for and worked for back in 2014 would have made for a dramatically different election in 2016. Realistically, though, he was too old even then and a Nader/Johnson ticket was just a pipe dream. Still, I'd like to see a modern, moderate version of libertarianism replace the current Libertarian Party. The Libertarian Party has too many fossilized fringe ideas that have not been updated since before 1980 when David Koch ran as their VP candidate and it will never have a chance to become a major national party until it publicly repudiates some of its more extreme Koch influenced positions.
"Let every dirty, lousy tramp arm himself with a revolver or a knife, and lay in wait on the steps of the palaces of the rich and stab or shoot the owners as they come out. Let us kill them without mercy, and let it be a war of extermination." (I'm actually kind of a fan of hers...)
Red
Well-Known Member
That one moment in the debate, and he repeated the promise to appoint a prosecutor at a Pa rally Monday, demonstrated why he is unfit to run for, or serve as, President:
https://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/trump-clinton-jail-ex-prosecutors-slam-229547
https://www.theatlantic.com/politic...ton-is-a-threat-to-american-democracy/503516/
Red
Well-Known Member
https://www.washingtonpost.com/post...hat-should-terrify-us/?utm_term=.d051b136a52a
"Emphasizing that there is a normal way of doing things in the face of something so transparently malevolent lacks the emotional luster of justice done — but worth doing, because in this election it has to be done. Just as basic concepts have to be carefully explained to Donald Trump, just as questions have to be teed up for him, so, too, does the American way of life and what it means to run for president have to be explained to him as well. That the presidential nominee of one of the major political parties in the United States of America has to continually have the fundamentals of American life pointed out to him over the course of his execrable 15-month campaign speaks volumes, and the fact that he’s come so close to the highest office in the nation with little grasp of or respect for our country’s most basic principles should be disturbing to us all. That he may have done permanent or lasting damage to the self-evidence of these principles should be equally discomfiting."
"Emphasizing that there is a normal way of doing things in the face of something so transparently malevolent lacks the emotional luster of justice done — but worth doing, because in this election it has to be done. Just as basic concepts have to be carefully explained to Donald Trump, just as questions have to be teed up for him, so, too, does the American way of life and what it means to run for president have to be explained to him as well. That the presidential nominee of one of the major political parties in the United States of America has to continually have the fundamentals of American life pointed out to him over the course of his execrable 15-month campaign speaks volumes, and the fact that he’s come so close to the highest office in the nation with little grasp of or respect for our country’s most basic principles should be disturbing to us all. That he may have done permanent or lasting damage to the self-evidence of these principles should be equally discomfiting."
You're retarded.
ConradA24
Well-Known Member
Uhhh....yikes!
♪alt13
Well-Known Member
♪alt13
Well-Known Member
I honestly was on the verge of tears during that part of the "debate". I worry that my children will be living in an evil empire that will increasingly look inward for the enemies it needs to justify its existence.
This **** is about to crescendo into an epic turd explosion. Trump is about to let loose.
I'm kind of excited to see it all happen.
Same. These elections have been entertaining. It's easy to be entertained when you know Trump will lose.
LogGrad98
Well-Known Member
Contributor
20-21 Award Winner
2022 Award Winner
2023 Award Winner
2024 Award Winner
Oh really. Seemingly inconsequential actions only applies to Mr. Trump but not Keith olberman or your repeated incendiary racist chatges.
This is the political left on stage folks. They have no morals or values other then what is hip hop ATM. Olbermien is a pos person willing to say anything to sound cool. He works for msnbcevil.
Even if Trump loses, is it entertaining to see how Trump has received a legitimizing platform on the biggest stage on earth? I'm happy you are so confident in the outcome in this election, but I don't enjoy watching anything Trump has brought to this election. Look at any of the top intellectuals Chomsky, Dawkins, Harris, Krauss, Dennett, Coyne, Ayaan, and even ultraconservative Ben Shapiro. They are all saying what a disaster Trump would be. Many of these intellectuals have been very active in repudiating Trump. They've taken this threat seriously. I like the lambasting of Trump by comedians, but I can relate with Alt13 when it comes to sadness.
