2016 Election Thread

[mikecgrimes]

 

I think arguing over who is a libertarian or republican or democrat is silly. These are scales....everyone has tendencies up and down the scales. Sometimes those seem inconsistent, but that doesn't mean they are.

 

Some people are more into freedom than others....but that doesn't mean the others don't generally want more freedom. I don't agree with a lot of what mikegrimes posts here, but I agree that even many of us that lean libertarian see a role for government. It is a matter of degree.

 

That said, if you think government should stop gays from marrying, drugs from being legal, Sunday sales of certain items being illegal.....etc.......you probably aren't very far into the libertarian side of the scale, imo. Libertarians generally think if two adults want to do something that doesn't hurt someone else, they should be allowed to do so. I don't see anyone on the stage right now that really believes that, except maybe Paul. Maybe.

The libertarian stance on gay marragie is the govenment should have nothing to do with marraige, and it sure as heck shouldn't mandate churches do things they don't want to do that harm nobody.  Figuring out who's feelings might be hurt isn't the role of government.

[Mike Sixel]

Except taxes and about 100 other things are affected by marriage.......marriage has nothing to do with religion. Marriage is a contract between adults that confers/affirms rights under law. Now, if you want to completely change EVERY law that is effected by marriage (like hospital visits, for example), that's a different issue.

 

NOT ONE PERSON has told a church they have to "marry" gays. Just like not one person has told the catholic church they have to ordain women. It's a completely BS argument.

 

But people seem to be confusing marriage as a legal contract with some kind of religious ceremony.

[mikecgrimes]

 

Libertarian has always meant socially liberal and fiscally conservative as a rough approximation. Those are the main principles. If you are a social conservative you are not a libertarian. You are injecting government into individual choices. There is nothing more anti-libertarian.

It has nothing to do with being anti-military, it has to do with abusing the function of the military. It's also about holding the military accountable for spending rather than constantly ramping up spending.

What you are is a fiscally conservative, socially conservative hawk. That ain't libertarian and neither is Gomer.

 

Because I believe we can deal with ISIS?  I'm a Ron Paul Rand Paul supporter, but much like Ron Paul and to a lesser extent Rand Paul Cruz has proved he is willing to fight for libertarian principals.  But we see one statment suggesting he might be willing to use his military and you disqualify him?  Thats fine, but you don't get to define the word libertarian because of your personal view on a single issue.

[Squirrel]

 

The libertarian stance on gay marragie is the govenment should have nothing to do with marraige, and it sure as heck shouldn't mandate churches do things they don't want to do that harm nobody.  Figuring out who's feelings might be hurt isn't the role of government.

Um, since when is the government mandating that churches do anything? No one is forcing churches to marry anyone. But it is 'forcing' state and local governments to not deny marriage licenses to a certain sector of a population. And if a church wants to marry said couple in a religious ceremony, that's on the church, not the government. But churches are not being forced to do anything.

[Squirrel]

 

 

Because I believe we can deal with ISIS?  I'm a Ron Paul Rand Paul supporter, but much like Ron Paul and to a lesser extent Rand Paul Cruz has proved he is willing to fight for libertarian principals.  But we see one statment suggesting he might be willing to use his military and you disqualify him?  Thats fine, but you don't get to define the word libertarian because of your personal view on a single issue.

I think Levi pointed out several issues, not just one, that distinguishes Cruz as not a Libertarian.

[TheLeviathan]

 

I like a lot of the points he brings up, and if I had a gun to my head and had to vote Repub he would be my clear #1 choice. However I see why people don't respond to him well nationally/overall, he doesn't have the charisma needed and can come off a bit "weaselly" and a little pompus.

 

I agree, I do see how he could rub people the wrong way.  But I think he'd be far and away the most competent person in the field right now.  Moreso even than Hillary in many ways.

[TheLeviathan]

 

Because I believe we can deal with ISIS?  I'm a Ron Paul Rand Paul supporter, but much like Ron Paul and to a lesser extent Rand Paul Cruz has proved he is willing to fight for libertarian principals.  But we see one statment suggesting he might be willing to use his military and you disqualify him?  Thats fine, but you don't get to define the word libertarian because of your personal view on a single issue.

 

The desire to go around carpet bombing people is a rather large issue, but not the only one.  There is also his desire to continue the war on drugs and intervene in social issues.  That's not libertarian.  

 

You're confusing small government = libertarian.  That's a ridiculous over simplification to the point of falsehood.

[biggentleben]

And we're back to exactly why jack crap gets done to actually impact the country. We're all so worried about establishing which side we're on that we get so deep into that side and can no longer reach across the aisle to anyone with a slightly differing viewpoint to our own.

 

Screw caucuses. Our own civil discussions need to be where these changes start. Education on the issues among the masses, who can then feel free to discuss topics in a way that can be brought forward rather than turned into nothing more than a monkey-style feces-flinging exchange. I can respect someone who disagrees with my views if they support their position and are willing to listen to mine. The crazy part is that the two of us in our disagreement can frequently come to a place where we can work together on that issue because we can be civil.

[TheLeviathan]

 

The libertarian stance on gay marragie is the govenment should have nothing to do with marraige, and it sure as heck shouldn't mandate churches do things they don't want to do that harm nobody.  Figuring out who's feelings might be hurt isn't the role of government.

 

Marriage licenses are ENTIRELY government related.

 

Here, test it yourself: Pick any young religious couple you want.  Have them perform ceremonies in every church, synagogue, mosque, or temple in the state and see how "married" they are when they file their taxes.  All they did was hold a religious ceremony and no number of priests or pastors is going to amount to anything until a government official files the paperwork.

 

Do whatever you want in your church.  That's the ceremony.  Marriage is a legal institution and license dispensed by the government to promote social stability.

 

So no, it's absolutely as un-libertarian as I can conceive to be opposed to same sex marriage.

[Hrbowski]

 

Cruz is not a libertarian.  The fact that he had even suggested carpet bombing Syria should be all the proof you need.  Gary Johnson is a Libertarian.  Ron Paul is a Libertarian.  Ted Cruz is another neocon pretending to be a Libertarian to hopefully steal a few votes. 

There are a few things you got wrong here, for one he never suggested carpet bombing Syria, ISIS and Syria are two totally different things, and when someone suggests that they are that is inconceavable. Another, if some of us on here don't understand the definition of Libertarian, others certainly don't understand the defintion of neocon, a neocon is someone who puts a heavy emphasis on free market capitalism and an interventionist foreign policy, something far from what Cruz is, the way he has spoken out against recent trade deals, and interventionists like McCain, Graham, Rubio etc. Ted Cruz is anything but a neocon.

[formerly33]

 

Um, since when is the government mandating that churches do anything? No one is forcing churches to marry anyone. But it is 'forcing' state and local governments to not deny marriage licenses to a certain sector of a population. And if a church wants to marry said couple in a religious ceremony, that's on the church, not the government. But churches are not being forced to do anything.

Yeah, forcing? If I remember correctly, they even made loopholes for Kim Davis, for pete's sake. Didn't they say that she didn't have to sign licenses for gay couples but had to let the other clerks do it for her? That was going overboard, I thought. But no, she wouldn't accept that. Unfortunately she's turned into a bit of a celebrity for her behavior.

 

People who talk about how the government shouldn't make laws based on "figuring out who's feelings might be hurt" are generally quick to believe that Kim Davis shouldn't have to follow the law because of her feelings. Smh.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

He was asked if he would pledge to support the Republican nominee and he wouldn't.  He's had hours and hours and hours of interviews to prove he's something othert then a Democrat and he's never done it.

You are really grasping at straws here, Mike. In essence, you're arguing that Voldemort is a political mole.

 

Given Voldemort's ego and history, that's an absurd statement. Voldemort is out for one guy: himself. He refuses to support another GOP candidate because he can't envision a world where he supports anyone other than himself.

 

Here are the facts of the situation:

 

1. Voldemort is running as a Republican.

 

2. Far more conservatives support Voldemort than liberals.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

Marriage licenses are ENTIRELY government related.

 

Here, test it yourself: Pick any young religious couple you want.  Have them perform ceremonies in every church, synagogue, mosque, or temple in the state and see how "married" they are when they file their taxes.  All they did was hold a religious ceremony and no number of priests or pastors is going to amount to anything until a government official files the paperwork.

 

Do whatever you want in your church.  That's the ceremony.  Marriage is a legal institution and license dispensed by the government to promote social stability.

 

So no, it's absolutely as un-libertarian as I can conceive to be opposed to same sex marriage.

It seems to me Mike is confusing the Libertarian stance of "government shouldn't be involved in marriage because it's a system of tax loopholes and nonsense" with the neo-con stance of "government shouldn't be involved in marriage whenever it conflicts with the opinions of the religious right".

 

One opinion is about personal freedom and the government not financially incentivizing personal choice while the other is... Well, almost the exact opposite.

[DaveW]

 

You are really grasping at straws here, Mike. In essence, you're arguing that Voldemort is a political mole.

 

Given Voldemort's ego and history, that's an absurd statement. Voldemort is out for one guy: himself. He refuses to support another GOP candidate because he can't envision a world where he supports anyone other than himself.

 

Here are the facts of the situation:

 

1. Voldemort is running as a Republican.

 

2. Far more conservatives support Voldemort than liberals.

Just call him Trump. Harry Potter was a terrible series of books and movies.

[DaveW]

 

 

I agree, I do see how he could rub people the wrong way.  But I think he'd be far and away the most competent person in the field right now.  Moreso even than Hillary in many ways.

I get why people don't like Hilary, but I don't see how you can say he would be more competent then her, Hilary's resume is what makes me think she would be just fine.

 

This is going to be UN PC as all hell my real issue with Hilary is with her age, I'm not sure I want someone in their late 70's running the country which would be her second term. Things like Alzheimer's, dementia etc are very real things that can effect people in that stage of life (look at RR) It sounds cold and callous but I don't want for a tough decision to be made potentially in 6-7 years.

 

 

[Squirrel]

 

I get why people don't like Hilary, but I don't see how you can say he would be more competent then her, Hilary's resume is what makes me think she would be just fine.

 

This is going to be UN PC as all hell my real issue with Hilary is with her age, I'm not sure I want someone in their late 70's running the country which would be her second term. Things like Alzheimer's, dementia etc are very real things that can effect people in that stage of life (look at RR) It sounds cold and callous but I don't want for a tough decision to be made potentially in 6-7 years.

She's in her 60s, younger than Trump, although Trump gives us more than age to not vote for him. Bernie is also older, too. What's un-PC about mentioning her age, is just mentioning hers and not everyone's.

[TheLeviathan]

I get why people don't like Hilary, but I don't see how you can say he would be more competent then her, Hilary's resume is what makes me think she would be just fine.

 

This is going to be UN PC as all hell my real issue with Hilary is with her age, I'm not sure I want someone in their late 70's running the country which would be her second term. Things like Alzheimer's, dementia etc are very real things that can effect people in that stage of life (look at RR) It sounds cold and callous but I don't want for a tough decision to be made potentially in 6-7 years.

I think foreign policy decisions may be the most critical over the next four years and there is no one in either party I trust more to avoid huge mistakes, including Hillary.

[Willihammer]

Trump is just basically the world's most successful troll at this point. I don't "hate" him nearly as much as I hate the people who support his every god damn nonsensical word. I have a hard time believing he actually believes half of the bile he spits out.

Evidently in Trump's book, Art of the Deal, he discusses the negotiating tactic known as "anchoring." This is, I suspect, behind 90% of the false and outrageous things he says. It is part of the reason he inspires so much confidence as a leader, and its also why his supporters get such a kick out of the "outrage" crowd overreacting to everything he says. So, is trolling but also a negotiating tactic which has doubled as a political one.

[twinsnorth49]

 

Oh I see.  I guess since I've voted Republican once I'm not a libertarian and am just not smart enough to get it.  Let me repeat I am a libertarian.

Really? From this perspective, it doesn't really seem that you are. 

[DaveW]

 

She's in her 60s, younger than Trump, although Trump gives us more than age to not vote for him. Bernie is also older, too. What's un-PC about mentioning her age, is just mentioning hers and not everyone's.

I said in the post I don't like the idea of having a president in office int heir late 80's, I didn't bring up Bernie and Trump because neither one has any real shot at winning a general election anyways, unless they went against each other which would be the most comical and sad few months in American history.

 

Also, it is worth noting that women are more likely to get Dementia then men, almost twice as much. For any other job in the world besides PUSA, I don't worry about it one bit, but for this role? It has to be considered.

[DaveW]

 

 

I think foreign policy decisions may be the most critical over the next four years and there is no one in either party I trust more to avoid huge mistakes, including Hillary.

I think she will be fine when it comes to these decisions to be honest. Hopefully will follow Obamas lead.

[formerly33]

 

I said in the post I don't like the idea of having a president in office int heir late 80's, I didn't bring up Bernie and Trump because neither one has any real shot at winning a general election anyways, unless they went against each other which would be the most comical and sad few months in American history.

 

Also, it is worth noting that women are more likely to get Dementia then men, almost twice as much. For any other job in the world besides PUSA, I don't worry about it one bit, but for this role? It has to be considered.

Pfft, probably our brains get tired from having to remember everything for you men. She'll be fine.

[Squirrel]

 

I said in the post I don't like the idea of having a president in office int heir late 80's, I didn't bring up Bernie and Trump because neither one has any real shot at winning a general election anyways, unless they went against each other which would be the most comical and sad few months in American history.

 

Also, it is worth noting that women are more likely to get Dementia then men, almost twice as much. For any other job in the world besides PUSA, I don't worry about it one bit, but for this role? It has to be considered.

She won't reach late 80's, Dave, unless they rewrite the law of only two terms. She's 68, so the maximum age she'd reach is 76/77.

[DaveW]

 

She won't reach late 80's, Dave, unless they rewrite the law of only two terms. She's 68, so the maximum age she'd reach is 76/77.

Sorry I meant late 70's (which is what I said in the OP)

[ashbury]

Sorry I meant late 70's (which is what I said in the OP)

The OP was 58 pages ago. I don't think computers had archives back then, otherwise I'd check.

[TheLeviathan]

I think she will be fine when it comes to these decisions to be honest. Hopefully will follow Obamas lead.

Obama's foreign policy has generally been pretty crappy, I don't consider mimicking that to be a positive.

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

Because I believe we can deal with ISIS?  I'm a Ron Paul Rand Paul supporter, but much like Ron Paul and to a lesser extent Rand Paul Cruz has proved he is willing to fight for libertarian principals.  But we see one statment suggesting he might be willing to use his military and you disqualify him?  Thats fine, but you don't get to define the word libertarian because of your personal view on a single issue.

 

Ron Paul would say get out of the Middle East.  Ted Cruz wants to carpet bomb them.  How can you be a supporter of RP and TC? I don't see it.  Those are pretty much diametrically opposed.

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

Um, since when is the government mandating that churches do anything? No one is forcing churches to marry anyone. But it is 'forcing' state and local governments to not deny marriage licenses to a certain sector of a population. And if a church wants to marry said couple in a religious ceremony, that's on the church, not the government. But churches are not being forced to do anything.

 

I completely agree. I think the churches' fear this (the mandating part)... and sadly rightfully so. It is not set in law, and there are plenty that would take advantage of it. There's an easy solution here. Allow gay marriage while allowing churches to not perform those marriages.  95% of this debate would go away.

[TheLeviathan]

 

Allow gay marriage while allowing churches to not perform those marriages.  95% of this debate would go away.

 

This really has less to do with marriage itself and more with not liking the lifestyle.  I think it's naive to think it would go away with this.

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

There are a few things you got wrong here, for one he never suggested carpet bombing Syria, ISIS and Syria are two totally different things, and when someone suggests that they are that is inconceavable. Another, if some of us on here don't understand the definition of Libertarian, others certainly don't understand the defintion of neocon, a neocon is someone who puts a heavy emphasis on free market capitalism and an interventionist foreign policy, something far from what Cruz is, the way he has spoken out against recent trade deals, and interventionists like McCain, Graham, Rubio etc. Ted Cruz is anything but a neocon.

 

Let's clarify the definitions. 

 

Carpet bombing ISIS means carpet bombing Syria.  There's little difference.  Plenty of Syrians get killed via carpet bombing ISIS' b/c carpet bombing ISIS could give a rats you know what about WHO actually pays the price for said action.  The Ven diagrams of the two don't overlap much, but the results obliterate both sides and give power to ISIS.

 

And Neocons...  well, let's just say that they don't believe in free market capitalism.  Free market capitalism would have put the people who caused 2008 in jail, yet no one to this day has been prosecuted. And don't blame Obama here, b/c we know that those people bribed plenty of people in the Bush admit too. Free market Capitalism is a joke b/c neither party actually abides by it.