Libertarian Thread #2: We Shall Never Die!

Anybody think we'll see a US revolution in our lifetime?

Gamemako wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: We seemed to do an alright job with agriculture. That doesn't make any sense. Care to elaborate?

Can you define what you mean by the tragedy of the commons? I'm confused now.

James wrote: I don't think any of them are suitable.  Why would I vote for Ron Paul?  Seriously? There isn't a left in America.  The Democrats are barely more left than the Republicans and they're not even really that left. So I guess I'd be a Mickey Mouse voter.

Or, accept Ron Paul is (shockingly) closer to representing my honest beliefs than anyone else. Even if the mindset behind them are different. Also that frankly America could use some less government.

And $14,000 left to go for $6M for Ron Paul as of now.

Equality 7-2521 wrote: James wrote: By the way guys, you do realise Obama isn't fully running the show?  He cannot just say he'll do something and it'll happen. The same will be the case for old Ron if by some miracle he became President.  He wouldn't be able to do anything in power.  He'd be a puppet. Really? He can do a lot. He can nullify federal laws. He can withdraw troops and covert operations. He can talk to countries. That alone would translate to a significantly different country.

Apparently he is going to talk to countries.   And he has been withdrawing troops (not just in bodybags).  Just not very fast.  Even the UK are doing more.

But he still has his hands tied in regards to a lot of things and the next President will have the same problems.

Ron Paul (or whoever) won't be able to do what he wants.  People around him won't allow it.

By the way, I'm no Democrat either.  I'm not that big a fan of Obama.  There's just nobody out there I'd vote for.  Luckily for me, being in the UK, I don't need to worry about it.


Edited by James - January 05 2012 at 19:21

James wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: James wrote: By the way guys, you do realise Obama isn't fully running the show?  He cannot just say he'll do something and it'll happen. The same will be the case for old Ron if by some miracle he became President.  He wouldn't be able to do anything in power.  He'd be a puppet. Really? He can do a lot. He can nullify federal laws. He can withdraw troops and covert operations. He can talk to countries. That alone would translate to a significantly different country. Apparently he is going to talk to countries.   And he has been withdrawing troops (not just in bodybags).  Just not very fast.  Even the UK are doing more. But he still has his hands tied in regards to a lot of things and the next President will have the same problems. Ron Paul (or whoever) won't be able to do what he wants.  People around him won't allow it.

That's true of every president. Your argument could be used against anybody. He has more at his disposal than you're willing to admit I think.

What is the antecedent of the first few he's? I guess you mean Obama? He's not withdrawing troops, he's just moving them and changing their name. If you start another war as you end one, you don't really get any points.

Yeah...that was Obama's biggest letdown. Quitting Iraq just to vamp up Afghanistan, the lesser discussed epic fail.
And unlike domestic policy, the Pres has clear supremacy with the military. Obama's hands are as tied there as he wants them to be. Also he deff supports the "war on terror" the same way wubya did.

At the least I'd like to see all the wars be truly ended, most of the troops and bases pulled, and our defense budget thinned. Grand irony is despite anti-Americanism when we talk of removing a base in the Middle East near by countries got upset! God forbid we actually do what the world wants and stop policing their business
And if we ever did, no one better cry to us for help I say.

But Brian, from what I know of your political views, Paul is not the answer.  Nobody is.  I understand why you feel he's the best candidate when everyone else is so terrible but can you just abstain?

I'd rather spoil my paper or abstain, than vote for the lesser of all those evils.

Even in the UK I find it difficult.  Although the gap between the left and right is a bit larger here, the left (I mean New Labour here) is so wishy-washy now that even they are not doing much for me.  There are of course fringe political groups who are much more left but they don't stand a chance and they don't have enough members or candidates in either councils or MP wards to even allow me to vote for them.

I'd never vote for the Conservatives.  I was fooled briefly by the Lib Dems.  Never again.  So there's only one option for me now and even that's becoming less likely unless major changes take place.

I'm very much a disenfranchised voter.


Edited by James - January 05 2012 at 19:47

Out of curiosity James, in Britain do voters of a certain party often switch over to other parties or is party loyalty pretty solid for most peoples' lifetimes?

I'm both, Rob.

I'm not officially disenfranchised, as I'm sure the UK government feel it's completely fair to have only 3 major parties (none of which currently fit my views) but I feel disenfranchised because there really is nobody I want to vote for and I feel it's the fault of the terrible system being against me.

I either have to vote for wishy-washy Liberalism or a right-wing government.  There's barely a left here now.