• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Poll shows Gary Johnson in double digits in 3-way race against Clinton, Trump

RAMOSS said:
Actually, it uses bribes to get rid of a lot of the important regulation. It is known as 'Political Donations'. Getting rid of the regulations is what causes a lot of the issues, such at the repeal of glass stegeal act.
Click to expand...

political donations =/= bribes.

and yes, getting rid of some regulation does benefit big corporations and mall business alike...but adding onerous regulations benefits ONLY big corporations.
 
Thrilla said:
political donations =/= bribes.

and yes, getting rid of some regulation does benefit big corporations and mall business alike...but adding onerous regulations benefits ONLY big corporations.
Click to expand...

THat's what the big boys want you to believe. However, it is naive to assume that large donations are not expected to get .. favors. The number of times people who make large donations get legislation done they want is fairly high.
 
Lovebug said:
Why? Would be dreamy if Johnson won with anti Clinton and Trump voters, without having to lift a finger. Oh sweet justice.
Click to expand...
Because nightmare fuel?

I will take Clinton any day over some right-libertarian.

Any day.
 
RAMOSS said:
THat's what the big boys want you to believe. However, it is naive to assume that large donations are not expected to get .. favors. The number of times people who make large donations get legislation done they want is fairly high.
Click to expand...
Is there an actual study on that?

I strongly dislike unlimited campaign donations, but it does seem more and more like lobbyists and donors don't get their way. Banks failed to stop or seriously cripple Dodd-Frank or the CPB; donors shoveling money at Jeb! and Romney and "Little Marco" could not get them into office.

I don't think the connections are quite as pat as some may think.
 
MY OPINION: The Libertarian Party is going nowhere...and never will.

I seriously doubt Johnson has a chance to take a single electoral vote...and I cannot tell you how happy I am about that.

If this race ever gets tossed into the House of Representatives because nobody gets a majority of the Electoral College votes...the race goes to the Republicans...and to Donald Trump. (Unless the unlikely happens, and the Republican majority votes in Hillary Clinton or an outsider.)

The House WILL retain a Republican majority for that decision whether the Republicans retain control of the House or not.
 
FieldTheorist said:
I'm not interested in a long conversation on this, but some food for thought:
Click to expand...
And yet you wrote nearly a page of text for it...


There is pretty much no better example of right-wing libertarian governance (or lack thereof) than the early history of the settled West (or for instance, the illegally occupied Dakota territories prior to the US government buying them back from the Native Americans). The result? Business leaders did exactly what I said they would --they created private tyrannies.
Click to expand...

A very misleading example. Right wing libertarianism doesnt mean illegal occupation or domination by big business. It simply means small government and very few regulations, yet there would be a police force to prevent crime and exploitation. The example you gave has got nothing to do with libertarian thinking at all. The Dakotas were a territory at that time. Child labor has been a fact of life long before the industrial revolution so again, it is misleading and a total lie to put the blame on unregulated markets for that.

There never was a free market that has been advocated by modern libertarians, but there have been aspects of it and it has worked beautifully. The Gilded Age was the greatest peacetime expansion of America's economy in history, and it was done without heavy government spending/deficits and instead was led by the private sector. There was no SS or the Fed yet America finally surpassed the UK as the world's superpower. Countless numbers of people were lifted out of poverty because of non-existent taxes and regulations that would have otherwise stymied growth.

The excesses of that period were traced directly to the actions of the government, it was the government that gave unfair advantages to the oligarchs and it was the government that enabled them to monopolize key sectors. Nevertheless the nation as a whole prospered a lot.

Even in our present day there are still monopolies (such as major league sports or cable companies) despite the fact that the government is supposed to end such things.

So talking about "prohibiting business owners and corporations" from taking control of the government after squarely handing them all of the money, power, and influence is something I find to be wildly inconsistent --not at a logical level, just at a performative level. There's nothing stopping them from doing what time and time again in history they've proven they will do, namely buy off the government and remake it to their purposes.
Click to expand...
And thats being done right now, despite all the regulations that are in place, regulations that you support.

If a government is downsized so that it cannot influence or dictate the market, then free competition will destroy monopolies. A bigger government can be manipulated by those that have the money, as is evidenced by the bail out of Wall Street by taxpayers in 2008.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom