CNN has a short interview with Gary Johnson, polling at 11%, on being the 'possible alternative to T - Polidicks

well look's like trump will split the republican party in half

[QUOTE=carcarcargo;50278299]I know that's what they think, but they're fucking retards for thinking that.[/QUOTE] Compelling argument, sir!

There are Libertarians who don't follow the LP Tenet word for word and disagree with some of its ideas, LP represents all Libertarians just like the DP represents all Democrats. Unfortunately carcarcargo is ignorant of that.

I vote for the LP because they're the party that has the [I]most[/I] policies I like, not [I]all[/I] the policies I like. Each party has at least a couple policies I like and adhere to, but the LP has the most. That is why I am voting for Gary Johnson. Not because I'm some blind follower towing the ideological line like Sanders or Trump supporters may, but because he's the most agreeable to me.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;50283934]I vote for the LP because they're the party that has the [I]most[/I] policies I like, not [I]all[/I] the policies I like. Each party has at least a couple policies I like and adhere to, but the LP has the most. That is why I am voting for Gary Johnson. Not because I'm some blind follower towing the ideological line like Sanders or Trump supporters may, but because he's the most agreeable to me.[/QUOTE] Indeed, that is why I vote for Bernie first because he has the most I agree with, but Libertarian second as I agree with them more then I do with the Republicans and Democrats.

[QUOTE=carcarcargo;50278664]Falling apart it is![/QUOTE] I like Libertarians because they believe in protecting our civil liberties (Bill of rights) and limited government. Limited Government would include less dumb ass wars and reducing the surveillance apparatus. In some areas the government needs reducing. In some other areas, not really. [QUOTE]Indeed, that is why I vote for Bernie[/QUOTE] I donated to Bernie because the reasons of fixing the infrastructure, fiance reform, breaking up the "too big to fail "banks", getting rid of the surveillance apparatus and stop getting involved in stupid ass wars America can no longer afford. Also he doesn't have much dirt on him, unlike say Clinton or Trump. He actually what he says he is. All appealing. Unlike other people, I don't have nightmares because of one wrong party gets into office. All have their positives, and I make do with those positives.

[QUOTE=Monkah;50283444]Compelling argument, sir![/QUOTE] He already made his actual argument. [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] He was responding to somebody who said that it's okay because that's what Libertarians believe. He's saying that just because Libertarians believe it doesn't mean it's immune to criticism.

[QUOTE=Dayzofwinter;50283974]I like Libertarians because they believe in protecting our civil liberties (Bill of rights) and limited government. Limited Government would include less dumb ass wars and reducing the surveillance apparatus. In some areas the government needs reducing. In some other areas, not really. [/QUOTE] libertarians wouldn't agree with the 1964 civil rights act, gary johnson may claim to be socially progressive but thats an easy platform to stand on when its been erected over 45 years of government intervention, something which contradicts the core belief of limited government. in fact, rand paul, probably the most prominent libertarian in many years said that the civil rights act should be walked back because of the massive government overreach, yet without its actions back in the 60s we wouldn't be at the point where people can sit around discussing whether we still need it or not.

[QUOTE=Sableye;50284572]libertarians wouldn't agree with the 1964 civil rights act, gary johnson may claim to be socially progressive but thats an easy platform to stand on when its been erected over 45 years of government intervention, something which contradicts the core belief of limited government.[/QUOTE] I think the argument is, we don't need the government to intervene any longer. The past is done and gone, but there's still a potential future with big government.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;50284590]I think the argument is, we don't need the government to intervene any longer. The past is done and gone, but there's still a potential future with big government.[/QUOTE] but what about other issues that [I]need[/I] further government intervention, or perhaps new government intervention? the libertarians won't allow those options, even though they may very well be the only course of action. arguing for flat out reduction of government is naive, just like they routinely declare government can do no good.

[QUOTE=Sableye;50284572]libertarians wouldn't agree with the 1964 civil rights act, gary johnson may claim to be socially progressive but thats an easy platform to stand on when its been erected over 45 years of government intervention, something which contradicts the core belief of limited government. in fact, rand paul, probably the most prominent libertarian in many years said that the civil rights act should be walked back because of the massive government overreach, yet without its actions back in the 60s we wouldn't be at the point where people can sit around discussing whether we still need it or not.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE][I][U][B]In some areas the government needs reducing. In some other areas, not really.[/B][/U][/I][/QUOTE] I stated why I would not mind the Libertarian party. All views have their upside and down sides. All candidates (and parties) have their up sides and down sides. The trick is take the positives whomever is in power and roll with those. With Libertarians, I get lower taxes, less invasive government, a higher change of the national debt being paid off and less stupid ass wars. With Green or liberals I get better social programs and better government assistance when needed. Either way benefits me as a person . I make it a point to be flexible. So should you.

The Green Party is probably the next best thing to the Libertarian Party, but they get even less coverage and attention than the LP does.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;50284799]The Green Party is probably the next best thing to the Libertarian Party, but they get even less coverage and attention than the LP does.[/QUOTE] You missed the point of my post. Unlike others, I believe in flexibility. I do not shit my pants at night at the thought of a republican in office or democrat. If Trump wins, I will make the best of it. If Clinton wins, I will try to make the best of it. If Gary wins, I will try to make the best of it. I will try to make the most each has to offer. Is there an outcome I would like to happen? Sure, but it is not healthy to freak out about the possibility of that out come not happening.

I wasn't replying to your post or your point (which I agree with for the most part), merely making a comment about the Green Party.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;50284590]I think the argument is, we don't need the government to intervene any longer. The past is done and gone, but there's still a potential future with big government.[/QUOTE] I believe the actual argument is that racism and slavery would have passed out of the US far faster if the government weren't involved at all. Much of the continuation of racism was pushed forward because of laws that enforced it, not economic necessities. Places without slavery, even places that depended on agrarian economies, that didn't use slavery did better, not worse, than those that used slavery. So, they would argue that the Civil Rights Act was a government solution to a government facilitated problem. People forget that racism wasn't just matter of racism people. There were actual laws that enforced racism.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;50284841]I wasn't replying to your post or your point (which I agree with for the most part), merely making a comment about the Green Party.[/QUOTE] No problem.I just want sure if I was understood.

[QUOTE=Monkah;50283444]Compelling argument, sir![/QUOTE] Well I mean if I need to explain the obvious, and point out how almost every single time things were deregulated that shit got fucked up (hello 2008), and numerous times the private sector has abused it's position (just like in that recent drug price hike, and don't tell me getting rid of patents would solve that, all getting rid of patents would do is cause drug companies to never invest in anything since it'd be too easy for another company to come along and steal their research, the private sector is just not fit for purpose in terms of drug production and healthcare in general), then I think my original point stands rather well. You obviously need a state and a private sector, giving too much power to one or the other almost always ends in disaster, as with most things in life balance is best. Libertarians would oversee just as much abuse as an authoritarian government if they ever got their way.

[QUOTE=Sableye;50284603]but what about other issues that [I]need[/I] further government intervention, or perhaps new government intervention? the libertarians won't allow those options, even though they may very well be the only course of action. arguing for flat out reduction of government is naive, just like they routinely declare government can do no good.[/QUOTE] Libertarians do believe in government intervention. Namely the Bill of rights. If some thing needs to be implemented, it gets written into that document. Its limiting government that is needed. [QUOTE]things were deregulated that shit got fucked up (hello 2008)[/QUOTE] Libertarians believe in capitalism. Not cronyism. In a pure capitalistic system, it is the job of the government to ensure a level playing field. Not grant favors to one player or another. The reason we had 2008 happened is because people are tribalistic. Get rid of the tribalistic tendencies, the root of the "lesser of the two evil" syndrome, and you get rid of corruption.

[QUOTE=Dayzofwinter;50295225] Libertarians believe in capitalism. Not cronyism. In a pure capitalistic system, it is the job of the government to ensure a level playing field. Not grant favors to one player or another. The reason we had 2008 happened is because people are tribalistic. Get rid of the tribalistic tendencies, the root of the "lesser of the two evil" syndrome, and you get rid of corruption.[/QUOTE] Oh right, so when things get fucked up due to not enough regulation, your solution is even less regulation. Like pouring petrol on a fire trying to put it out. 2008 would never have happened with proper regulation, this is why the government is required, its the neoliberal obsession with deregulation that caused it. I don't see how on earth you can argue less regulation would lead to less corruption, that literally makes no sense other than in the idea that things that would have been considered corruption would be classes as totally legal in your system, but I wouldn't really call that a good thing. More freedom to companies = more abuse of customers, it's impossible to expect the average person to make a totally informed decision on every purchase since that would require people to be experts in literally every topic known to man, which is why we have governments regulate things for them.

[QUOTE=carcarcargo;50295391]Oh right, so when things get fucked up due to not enough regulation, your solution is even less regulation. Like pouring petrol on a fire trying to put it out. 2008 would never have happened with proper regulation, this is why the government is required, its the neoliberal obsession with deregulation that caused it.[/QUOTE] I am not libertarian. I am pointing out that libertarians are for government control when it is absolutely necessary. I am saying the government is supposed to regulate the market in a pure capitalistic system. In 2008, it was not a capitalistic system in play. It was a cronyism system in play. In a libertarian society, the government is not supposed to pick favorites, like it did in the crisis. Its supposed be a neutral referee. As for 2008, it happened because people kept voting in the same two parties that were bought and paid for. The "us vs them mindset" that infects the voting population is what led to the crisis. This "us vs them" mindset is why America keeps letting people who are corrupt and bought up by the likes of Goldman sachs get into office again and again.

[QUOTE=Dayzofwinter;50295454]I am not libertarian. I am saying the government is supposed to regulate the market in a pure capitalistic system. In 2008, it was not a capitalistic system in play. It was a cronyism system in play. I view tribalism tendencies as racist and a sign of bigotry. You are showing favoritism to a specific ideal, thus you are being a bit bigoted in my view. You need for a specific ideal and to eliminate competition is a sign of a "us vs them" mindset. Racist in other words. As for 2008, it happened because people kept voting in the same two parties that were bought and paid for. The "us vs them mindset" that infects the voting population is what led to the crisis.[/QUOTE] Haha what, I don't like mad survival of the fittest economics, a system literally designed to root out "inferior" people (i.e anyone not fortunate enough to be born into a rich household) and offer no protection to vulnerable sections of society, including many minority groups who'd get fucked over by suck a system as it'd allow businesses to discriminate against anyone they wanted, and yet I'm the bigot?

Libertarians generally are not a fan of government bail-outs of banks that did all that dirty shit in 2008 if that's an consolation.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;50295492]Libertarians generally are not a fan of government bail-outs of banks that did all that dirty shit in 2008 if that's an consolation.[/QUOTE] If they hadn't bailed out the banks then millions would have lost their savings and therefore been totally fucked, so yeah not such a great idea. I do wish people would think things through before criticising bailing out the banks.

[QUOTE=carcarcargo;50295471]Haha what, I don't like mad survival of the fittest economics, a system literally designed to root out "inferior" people (i.e anyone not fortunate enough to be born into a rich household) and offer no protection to vulnerable sections of society, including many minority groups who'd get fucked over by suck a system as it'd allow businesses to discriminate against anyone they wanted, and yet I'm the bigot?[/QUOTE] You not even listening to what I said. Another proof of intolerance in my opinion. I am not advocating for libertarianism. I am displaying their arguments so you can learn something new. My position is simple. If you display inflexibility, a need to control others through the political system, an inability to be flexible and have an "us vs them" mindset, you are intolerant. We see this us vs them mindset and its ill effects in the current election. One is a fraud and one is being served up charges by the FBI. But I am going assuming as long its a democratic turd that gets elected, it is ok as long you keep out the GOP turd. Right? Cant you see how this mindset can lead to a crappy system? The reason the 2008 collapsed happens is people keep voting in corrupt people who are easily bought up the likes of Goldman sachs. As long the corrupt people were of the "correct tribe" it was "ok". No it is not. How can you regulate a market when you keep putting into office corrupt people who listen to the whims of big corporations? Answer is you cannot. The sooner these tribalistic tendencies with the voting population is dealt with, the sooner corruption and the sooner the likely hood of another 2008 collapse will be eliminated.

[QUOTE=Dayzofwinter;50295504]You not even listening to what I said. Another proof of intolerance in my opinion. I am not advocating for libertarianism. I am displaying their arguments so you can learn something new. My position is simple. If you display inflexibility, a need to control others through the political system, an inability to be flexible and have an "us vs them" mindset, you are intolerant. We see this us vs them mindset and its ill effects in the current election. One is a fraud and one is being served up charges by the FBI. But I am going assuming as long its a democratic turd that gets elected, it is ok as long you keep out the GOP turd. Right? Cant you see how this mindset can lead to a crappy system?[/QUOTE] Its intolerance to be against awful ideas? Is being against authoritarianism "intolerance" as well? The American political system is buggered when it comes to choice I don't disagree, but picking libertarianism is a fucking awful way to protest that, almost any other ideology would be better.

[QUOTE]Its intolerance to be against awful ideas? [/QUOTE] I am glad you agree. Your ideas and views demonstrate a "black and white" tendency thus is "tribalistic"" thus "intolerant" and "racist". That is why your ideas are horrible. I am glad we are making progress. Once again I am not arguing for libertarians. I am not libertarian. I am saying their arguments against your claims.

[QUOTE=Dayzofwinter;50295542]I am glad you agree. Your ideas and views demonstrate a "black and white" tendency thus is "tribalistic"" thus "intolerant" and "racist". That is why your ideas are horrible. I am glad we are making progress. Once again I am not arguing for libertarians. I am not libertarian. I am saying their arguments against your claims.[/QUOTE] So if I'm not open minded to nazism that makes me racist too?

[QUOTE=carcarcargo;50295563]So if I'm not open minded to nazism that makes me racist too?[/QUOTE] Point out how this statement is a sign of "us vs them" thinking thus "intolerant" mindset. Basically any one who does not agree with you is a villain. To answer your question, Nazism to my view is another ideal that is rich with tribalistic thinking. It is loaded with "us vs them" patterns thus it is intolerant and thus not to be put up with. Any ideal that has patterns of "us vs them" within them is intolerant and must not be put up with. Any one who shows tribalistic tendencies must be dealt with severely. This is my actual position. The reason 2008 crisis happened is due to people being with the tribalistic tendencies. The voters were wiling to forgive character flaws of those who they elected and reward them for being on the correct team. Despite knowing full well both teams were in the pockets of Goldman Sachs and the like. A leader should not be rewarded with power due to association. They should be awarded power when they demonstrate the ability to handle responsibility and a sincere desire to further the public good. Such a trait transcends ideological lines.

[QUOTE=Dayzofwinter;50295598]Point out how this statement is a sign of "us vs them" thinking thus "intolerant" mindset. Basically any one who does not agree with you is a villain. To answer your question, Nazism to my view is another ideal that is rich with tribalistic thinking. It is loaded with "us vs them" patterns thus it is intolerant and thus not to be put up with. Any ideal that has patterns of "us vs them" within them is intolerant and must not be put up with. Any one who shows tribalistic tendencies must be dealt with severely. This is my actual position.[/QUOTE] I'm honest to god lost as to what you're even on about at this point.

[QUOTE=carcarcargo;50295676]I'm honest to god lost as to what you're even on about at this point.[/QUOTE] Of course you are confused. You are under the influence of false consciousness due to having being conditioned in a society that encourages "us vs them" thinking. You are unconsciously intolerant. If you were not, you would understand me and agree right away.