So a lib candidate would help Hillary win.
All the shills telling us a vote for libs is a vote for Trump can go shut the fuck up now.
Wouldn't be the first time the Clinton dynasty steals a victory by having another candidate in the race.
I voted for him in 2012. I'm less keen on him now since politics have shifted a lot since then and there are candidates closer to my weird political position, but he still has a lot of good ideas, and he's smart enough that his bad ideas (like the gold standard) are very low priorities. I've been recommending him to my Republican friends who don't like Trump (or even the ones who do), because he aligns better with Republican ideals than Trump does.
PS: Can we please stop calling Trump, "The Donald"? There is absolutely no reason to feed his ego like that.
[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;50277419]Wouldn't be the first time the Clinton dynasty steals a victory by having another candidate in the race.[/QUOTE]
Ok now being fair the Clinton's weren't exactly a 'dynasty' when Bill ran for president.
Now with a second Clinton and possibly a third in the future you can call them that.
I shall call them that then. Still though, really sick of family dynasties running our political atmosphere.
[QUOTE=LtKyle2;50277408]So a lib candidate would help Hillary win.
All the shills telling us a vote for libs is a vote for Trump can go shut the fuck up now.[/QUOTE]
Libertarians usually take votes from the Republican Party. Greens take votes from the Democrats. That's usually how it goes historically.
Why can't there be a socially liberal party that isn't going to try and take my guns?
[QUOTE=Broseph_;50278097]Why can't there be a socially liberal party that isn't going to try and take my guns?[/QUOTE]
That's exactly what the LP is, though?
So the alternative to trump is someone worse than trump. Might as well just vote fucking Hillary when your alternative to trump is a libertarian.
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;50278135]So the alternative to trump is someone worse than trump. Might as well just vote fucking Hillary when your alternative to trump is a libertarian.[/QUOTE]
In what universe is Libertarian worse than Trump?
[QUOTE=Durandal;50278154]In what universe is Libertarian worse than Trump?[/QUOTE]
In this universe, where a libertarian would increase the poverty gap and lower social mobility ten fold. You can at least count on a populist not to fuck over his voter base, most of trumps mad policy would never make it through congress any way, he's not actually that much of a threat.
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;50278171]In this universe, where a libertarian would increase the poverty gap and lower social mobility ten fold. You can at least count on a populist not to fuck over his voter base, most of trumps mad policy would never make it through congress any way, he's not actually that much of a threat.[/QUOTE]
Doesn't Trump's tax plan do that anyway?
[QUOTE=Durandal;50278217]Doesn't Trump's tax plan do that anyway?[/QUOTE]
Not nearly as badly as Gary's mad ideas. I mean this shit alone
[QUOTE]He has stated he supports "slashing government spending", including [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicare_(United_States)"]Medicare[/URL], [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicaid"]Medicaid[/URL], and [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_(United_States)"]Social Security[/URL],[SUP][URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Johnson#cite_note-Former_NM_gov_is_little_known-114"][114][/URL][/SUP] which would involve cutting Medicare and Medicaid by 43 percent and turning them into [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Block_grant"]block grant[/URL] programs, with control of spending in the hands of the states to create, in his words, "fifty laboratories of innovation.[/QUOTE]
[url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Johnson[/url]
Is worse than anything trump has suggested
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;50278171]In this universe, where a libertarian would increase the poverty gap and lower social mobility ten fold. You can at least count on a populist not to fuck over his voter base, most of trumps mad policy would never make it through congress any way, he's not actually that much of a threat.[/QUOTE]
Without wanting to start a shit storm. The theory behind Libertarianism is that living standards would increase without state support because the private sector would compete to provide the same service at the lowest price and highest quality, whilst the poorest people would see a tax cut.
Now I'm by no means saying that this would work in the real world, I mean just look at America's healthcare system. But what I am saying is that Libertarians don't hate poor people and want to exploit them for profit. They just genuinely think that market competition is superior to Government provision.
[QUOTE=The mouse;50278285]Without wanting to start a shit storm. The theory behind Libertarianism is that living standards would increase without state support because the private sector would compete to provide the same service at the lowest price and highest quality, whilst the poorest people would see a tax cut.
Now I'm by no means saying that this would work in the real world, I mean just look at America's healthcare system. But what I am saying is that Libertarians don't hate poor people and want to exploit them for profit. They just genuinely think that market competition is superior to Government provision.[/QUOTE]
I know that's what they think, but they're fucking retards for thinking that.
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;50278171]In this universe, where a libertarian would increase the poverty gap and lower social mobility ten fold. You can at least count on a populist not to fuck over his voter base, most of trumps mad policy would never make it through congress any way, he's not actually that much of a threat.[/QUOTE]
The data does not support that.
Observe [url=http://www.americashealthrankings.org/NM/gini]this historical record[/url] of New Mexico's Gini coefficient. Gary Johnson was governor of New Mexico from 1995 to 2003 - over which time the Gini coefficient dropped from .459 to .449, never exceeding .493. Over the same timespan, the national Gini coefficient rose steadily, from .454 to .466, so Johnson's governorship is at least correlated with decreasing wealth inequality (I can't definitively prove that it was caused by his policies with just this graph).
Johnson's main proposal is a tax overhaul called FairTax, which is essentially a flat sales tax, combined with monthly "prebate" payments to households below the poverty line. Economists are divided on what effect this would have on inequality - it would close basically every loophole used by the wealthy, and would have some literal handouts for the poor, but sales taxes are inherently regressive so it may increase inequality over time.
However, while experts are divided on whether it would be positive or negative, I could not find *any* experts predicting an order of magnitude decrease in wealth gap. It would take some very extreme circumstances to make a transfer of wealth like that possible.
[QUOTE=gman003-main;50278327]The data does not support that.
Observe [URL="http://www.americashealthrankings.org/NM/gini"]this historical record[/URL] of New Mexico's Gini coefficient. Gary Johnson was governor of New Mexico from 1995 to 2003 - over which time the Gini coefficient dropped from .459 to .449, never exceeding .493. Over the same timespan, the national Gini coefficient rose steadily, from .454 to .466, so Johnson's governorship is at least correlated with decreasing wealth inequality (I can't definitively prove that it was caused by his policies with just this graph).
Johnson's main proposal is a tax overhaul called FairTax, which is essentially a flat sales tax, combined with monthly "prebate" payments to households below the poverty line. Economists are divided on what effect this would have on inequality - it would close basically every loophole used by the wealthy, and would have some literal handouts for the poor, but sales taxes are inherently regressive so it may increase inequality over time.
However, while experts are divided on whether it would be positive or negative, I could not find *any* experts predicting an order of magnitude decrease in wealth gap. It would take some very extreme circumstances to make a transfer of wealth like that possible.[/QUOTE]
Any flat tax increases inequality since it puts excessive burden on the poorer side. This is just an outright fact. I wouldn't really say his governorship could be classes as an example of his policy not affecting income inequality since the federal government are usually the ones mopping up after people like him, so that income inequality level could easily be down to the federal government rather than Gary himself.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;50278121]That's exactly what the LP is, though?[/QUOTE]
It's not, they have retarded financial positions last time I checked.
[QUOTE=Broseph_;50278385]It's not, they have retarded financial positions last time I checked.[/QUOTE]
That wasn't in your criteria.
You wanted pro social policies with pro gun policies.
The LP has that.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;50278121]That's exactly what the LP is, though?[/QUOTE]
Why can't it be a party that won't throw the poor under the bus in ways even the Republican party hasn't?
[editline]7th May 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=gman003-main;50278327]Johnson's main proposal is a tax overhaul called FairTax, which is essentially a flat sales tax[/QUOTE]
Isn't that how sales tax already works? Or is this for a national sales tax?
[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;50278512]Isn't that how sales tax already works? Or is this for a national sales tax?[/QUOTE]
Sales taxes are flat out of practical necessity. To do a progressive sales tax rate, you'd have to find someone's tax bracket during checkout, which is just too cumbersome to work in practice.
FairTax eliminates pretty much every current federal tax (income, corporate, etc.) and replaces it with a consumption tax on new goods/services.
It'll be interesting if third-party support actually gets high enough this year to make at least one candidate a serious contender for the White House, but it just doesn't seem very likely to me. We'll see, but Johnson definitely needs to make it to the debate stage before that could happen. Won't be voting for him either way, though. Can't say I care for the platform much.
Also, is it really accurate to call Libertarians "the middle"? I'm not really sure what to think about that because instead of being both economically and socially moderate, it's more, as Johnson puts it, "fiscally conservative, socially liberal." It's, of course, reductive to put political leanings on a simple one-dimensional axis, but I suppose the question would be more like, "[I]Is he actually able to resonate with the majority of people who feel the Democrats are too left-wing and the Republicans are too right-wing? Or would these people tend to feel that he's too polarizing on both fiscal and social issues?[/I]"
Hoping for a 3rd party candidate to take the election from trump. Also hoping that lead republicans like Paul Ryan come out against him and a lot of people simply don't vote on the Republican side.
[QUOTE=gman003-main;50278327]The data does not support that.
Observe [url=http://www.americashealthrankings.org/NM/gini]this historical record[/url] of New Mexico's Gini coefficient. Gary Johnson was governor of New Mexico from 1995 to 2003 - over which time the Gini coefficient dropped from .459 to .449, never exceeding .493. Over the same timespan, the national Gini coefficient rose steadily, from .454 to .466, so Johnson's governorship is at least correlated with decreasing wealth inequality (I can't definitively prove that it was caused by his policies with just this graph).
Johnson's main proposal is a tax overhaul called FairTax, which is essentially a flat sales tax, combined with monthly "prebate" payments to households below the poverty line. Economists are divided on what effect this would have on inequality - it would close basically every loophole used by the wealthy, and would have some literal handouts for the poor, but sales taxes are inherently regressive so it may increase inequality over time.
However, while experts are divided on whether it would be positive or negative, I could not find *any* experts predicting an order of magnitude decrease in wealth gap. It would take some very extreme circumstances to make a transfer of wealth like that possible.[/QUOTE]
gini coefficient is affected by population and demographic swings, in that time span, new mexico added close to 400,000 new resident, which is a huge boost in population, almost 20% change and will affect it, among other criticisms of using a simple metric to describe a complex problem
and just calling something Fair doesn't make it any better than the shit that trump put out as his tax plan. a flat tax isn't fair at all as the poorest pay more while the rich pay almost nothing, taking 1000$ from someone who makes 15,000 a year is really painful, while taking 100,000$ from someone who makes 1 million$ a year isn't even a scratch to them
[QUOTE=gman003-main;50278601]
FairTax eliminates pretty much every current federal tax (income, corporate, etc.) and replaces it with a consumption tax on new goods/services.[/QUOTE]
So he's going to either bankrupt the country or cut so many services it falls apart.
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;50278615]So he's going to either bankrupt the country or cut so many services it falls apart.[/QUOTE]
He wouldn't be much of a libertarian if he didn't want to slash the size of the government.
[QUOTE=gman003-main;50278642]He wouldn't be much of a libertarian if he didn't want to slash the size of the government.[/QUOTE]
Falling apart it is!
[QUOTE=Katska;50278603]It'll be interesting if third-party support actually gets high enough this year to make at least one candidate a serious contender for the White House, but it just doesn't seem very likely to me. We'll see, but Johnson definitely needs to make it to the debate stage before that could happen. Won't be voting for him either way, though. Can't say I care for the platform much.
Also, is it really accurate to call Libertarians "the middle"? I'm not really sure what to think about that because instead of being both economically and socially moderate, it's more, as Johnson puts it, "fiscally conservative, socially liberal." It's, of course, reductive to put political leanings on one simple two-dimensional axis, but I suppose the question would be more like, "[I]Is he actually able to resonate with the majority of people who feel the Democrats are too left-wing and the Republicans are too right-wing? Or would these people tend to feel that he's too polarizing on both fiscal and social issues?[/I]"[/QUOTE]
Libertarians tend to focus on the vertical authoritarian to liberty axis versus the left to right axis.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;50278772]Libertarians tend to focus on the vertical authoritarian to liberty axis versus the left to right axis.[/QUOTE]
I suppose that makes sense, in a way. But wouldn't that be another axis with a wide distribution of people on it that they've put themselves on one end of? If you happen to use the political compass model (which seems to be controversial but for now I'll just go with it) of charting them then I guess you would have to put them somewhere in the middle on the [I]left-right[/I] axis, but the way the CNN host used the word middle, as in [I]a voice for the middle...[/I] Does being on the far end of the vertical axis actually capture what moderates in this country are generally saying?
If we're going by that chart there's a number of alignments that could also be described as moderate if we're considering Libertarian ideology moderate, like people who lean right socially but left economically, or more moderate on both fronts. There's also centrist authoritarians, or people who land squarely in the middle of the compass who might feel that Libertarianism is too extreme.
It might not seem very useful to speculate about which categories Libertarianism might alienate when it's not like the Democrat or Republican candidates can really appeal to all categories on their ends of the [I]left-right[/I] spectrum either. But this does relate to the question of whether or not Johnson can secure the moderate vote. I think the difference between him and Trump/Clinton (or Bernie by some miracle) is that the two main parties have firmly established themselves by way of the usual first-past-the-post crappiness as being nigh unbeatable, and can pull votes in from a lot of ideological groups that don't completely align with their positions because people understand that they're basically the only choices they've got. With the spoiler effect working against instead of for Johnson, it'll probably be much harder to convince people that don't already agree with most of what he says to vote for him. A less divisive, more middle-of-the-road platform might give him a bit more to work with in this scenario, I think, since he'd be able to overlap with more groups in the middle that way.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
