Time to end the hegemony of the two major parties

[Dittohead not!]

Precisely. Neither Johnson nor Trump is a Conservative. Conservatives don't really have a candidate running this year.



yup. I'm on a couple of libertarian groups on Face Book. The live reaction to that townhall was pretty apoplectic.



:shrug: securing the border =/= "wall". Trump is also disconnected from reality.

So, none of them is perfect, but which one of the three do you think most closely reflects your political philosophy?

 

[cpwill]

So, none of them is perfect, but which one of the three do you think most closely reflects your political philosophy?

:shrug: according to isidewith - Trump. But he's a disastrous incompetent moron and many of his "positions" are lies, so.....

 

[Dittohead not!]

:shrug: according to isidewith - Trump. But he's a disastrous incompetent moron and many of his "positions" are lies, so.....

True
It also depends on which Trump. The Trump of today disagrees with the Trump of yesterday on so many issues.

I'd rather have someone in the White House I disagree with on important issues than someone who is a "disastrous incompetent moron", but that's just me.

 

[cpwill]

True
It also depends on which Trump. The Trump of today disagrees with the Trump of yesterday on so many issues.

I'd rather have someone in the White House I disagree with on important issues than someone who is a "disastrous incompetent moron", but that's just me.

I can do that up to and stopping at the issue of Life. I cannot and will not vote for the mass murder of my fellow Americans. :shrug:

 

[Dittohead not!]

I can do that up to and stopping at the issue of Life. I cannot and will not vote for the mass murder of my fellow Americans. :shrug:

and there we have the real, divisive, un solvable issue. The thing is, the president doesn't decide the issue of abortion. We went from a strongly pro life president in Bush, to a strongly pro choice president in Obama. What changed in the area of abortion? Roe V. Wade is a reality and has been for forty three years now. It isn't going away. Trump isn't going to make it go away, neither is Clinton, neither are the next ten presidents we elect.

 

[Helix]

Time to end the hegemony of the two major parties

i agree completely. i'd support banning gerrymandering via a constitutional amendment. and to be honest, i'd like to add the banning of political parties to that amendment. enough is enough.

 

[cpwill]

and there we have the real, divisive, un solvable issue. The thing is, the president doesn't decide the issue of abortion.

The President appoints judges, but more fundamentally, would you vote for someone who wants to reinstitute slavery, or get rid of Hispanics through forcible deportation? Or would you be unable to say that you could support such a moral atrocity, regardless of whatever else they promised you?



Sent from my XT1526 using Tapatalk

 

[Dittohead not!]

The President appoints judges, but more fundamentally, would you vote for someone who wants to reinstitute slavery, or get rid of Hispanics through forcible deportation? Or would you be unable to say that you could support such a moral atrocity, regardless of whatever else they promised you?



Sent from my XT1526 using Tapatalk

Roe V Wade is not going away regardless of who we put in the Whitehouse. Even if it did, outlawing abortion would not end it. The way to address the issue of abortion is through sex education and access to contraceptives. That's the reality.

I certainly don't want to put someone in the white house who wants to get rid of Hispanics through forcible deportation or spend billions building a wall.

We need to look at the issues that the POTUS can actually address, things like wars and the military.

 

[cpwill]

Roe V Wade is not going away regardless of who we put in the Whitehouse.

That is not accurate - Presidents appoint the judges, and hopefully eventually that atrocious ruling will be overturned by the court, if not by law.

Even if it did, outlawing abortion would not end it.

Sure. Outlawing slavery hasn't really "ended" it, either, simply dramatically reduced its incidence. We still have slaves in America. It's just that it's illegal, we recognize the human rights of the people who are trapped, and the moral horror isn't worth money.

I'm not going to vote for mass-murder of children because it's good for the economy, or because I think that it's wise foreign policy. I'm not going to vote for it at all. And if you are the kind of person who would vote for the mass abuse of your fellow Americans right to life so long as you felt we could make a buck off of it....

Well, I don't think that you actually are. I don't think you would actually do that. Donald Trump promises to round up and mass deport Hispanics, including American citizens; I don't see you voting for that, even if he does promise to reduce federal spending.

The way to address the issue of abortion is through sex education and access to contraceptives. That's the reality.

No. The way to address infanticide is to stop killing children.

I certainly don't want to put someone in the white house who wants to get rid of Hispanics through forcible deportation or spend billions building a wall.

Or reintroduce slavery.

But what if such a person also wanted to withdraw much of our active military presence from overseas, and try to reduce federal spending? Would you be willing to vote to support slavery (regardless of his effectiveness, when you vote for a man (or woman), you are voting for putting them in charge - you are saying that their ideas should shape the country), in order to get reduced federal spending?

We need to look at the issues that the POTUS can actually address, things like wars and the military.

So we can chunk your point about Spending, then, since the House starts the budget. And since Congress also has the power to declare war, and fund wars, I suppose then we shouldn't make that a measure, either....

 

[code1211]

I have friends who are politically conservative, but really don't like Trump. When I tell them I don't plan to vote for Trump or his opponent either one, but for Gary Johnson, they say: "Who's that?"

And that's the problem. No one knows anything about any of the third party candidates.

So, I say, "He's the only conservative running this time," which is true.

Take a look at where he stands on the issues, compare that with Hillary and Donald, and see who you agree with.

Then ask yourself if it isn't time to dump the Republicants and the Democraps, or at least give them some competition.

The problem is that the game is rigged to favor the two major parties because of laws passed by the two major parties.

They are opponents only in relation to how well that serves their actual end game which is to continue to centralize the stranglehold they maintain on the American Government.

They are only two voices singing in harmony. They are separate and maybe even on different notes sometimes, but the tune they sing is the same tune. Any difference perceived by the listener is more the product of preconception than performance.

 

[Dittohead not!]

That is not accurate - Presidents appoint the judges, and hopefully eventually that atrocious ruling will be overturned by the court, if not by law.



Sure. Outlawing slavery hasn't really "ended" it, either, simply dramatically reduced its incidence. We still have slaves in America. It's just that it's illegal, we recognize the human rights of the people who are trapped, and the moral horror isn't worth money.

I'm not going to vote for mass-murder of children because it's good for the economy, or because I think that it's wise foreign policy. I'm not going to vote for it at all. And if you are the kind of person who would vote for the mass abuse of your fellow Americans right to life so long as you felt we could make a buck off of it....

Well, I don't think that you actually are. I don't think you would actually do that. Donald Trump promises to round up and mass deport Hispanics, including American citizens; I don't see you voting for that, even if he does promise to reduce federal spending.



No. The way to address infanticide is to stop killing children.



Or reintroduce slavery.

But what if such a person also wanted to withdraw much of our active military presence from overseas, and try to reduce federal spending? Would you be willing to vote to support slavery (regardless of his effectiveness, when you vote for a man (or woman), you are voting for putting them in charge - you are saying that their ideas should shape the country), in order to get reduced federal spending?



So we can chunk your point about Spending, then, since the House starts the budget. And since Congress also has the power to declare war, and fund wars, I suppose then we shouldn't make that a measure, either....

Thinking that electing pro life candidates to the White House will ever result in the overturn of Roe V Wade is just tilting at windmills. Even if it did, the result would be bringing back the "back ally" abortions. The practice can't be ended by passing a law any more than passing a law is going to keep people from smoking pot or going 70 in a 65. Most people don't share your opinion that abortion is tantamount to infanticide, and they're never going to be convinced otherwise any more than you will be convinced otherwise. Read any one of the abortion threads on this forum, and you'll see the same thing: Life begins at conception! Does not! Does so! and so on. No one is going to change their minds. Other nations have outlawed abortion, yet have just as much of it as we do. The way to reduce abortion is through education and availability of contraceptives.

Now, this one is interesting:

So we can chunk your point about Spending, then, since the House starts the budget.

So, there is no concern about any presidential candidate who proposes massive new spending as it is the House that determines spending. Actually, that's a good point. The POTUS does, however, propose a budget and can (theoretically anyway) veto spending bills.

And since Congress also has the power to declare war, and fund wars, I suppose then we shouldn't make that a measure, either....

and since Congress has not declared war since 1941, we haven't had any wars since then.

No legal wars anyway.

 

[cpwill]

Thinking that electing pro life candidates to the White House will ever result in the overturn of Roe V Wade is just tilting at windmills.

A) No it's not. Electing Lincoln, for example, helped us to overturn Dred Scott v Stanford. Presidents are able to bring public pressure to bear on a variety of ways, and also appoint Judges, who can overturn the abuses of former Judges.

B) Even if your (incorrect) claim was accurate, it is also immaterial. I'm not voting for a man who believes in allowing the mass-murder of children because that is horrifically wrong. My candidate for POTUS this primary was Marco Rubio. Had Rubio come out in favor of reinstituting slavery, or committing genocide against East Asian Americans, I would have immediately dropped him regardless of his ability to put that policy into play, because it is morally atrocious and I am not willing to attach my name to that for any amount of otherwise positive policy.

If the pitch is "Sure we'll keep killing children, but at least we'll make a buck off it!", then I'm turning it down.

Even if it did, the result would be bringing back the "back ally" abortions.

Again, apply the slavery analogy. Is the result of pushing the human slave trade into the black market a worthy reason to keep it legalized?

Or did we institute a government for the purpose of protecting our individual rights?

The practice can't be ended by passing a law any more than passing a law is going to keep people from smoking pot or going 70 in a 65.

And so we should decriminalize Rape (it's still going to happen), Assault (man it's still going to happen), Pedophilia (pedophiles are gonna pedophile), etc. so on and so forth?

This is an extremely unconvincing argument.

Most people don't share your opinion that abortion is tantamount to infanticide, and they're never going to be convinced otherwise any more than you will be convinced otherwise.

Argumentum Ad Populum?

Restricting abortion does indeed enjoy broad support. Even if it didn't, however, that other people are willing to trample over the rights of others doesn't make that something I'm willing to support or lend my name to. If 70% of Americans decided that we should hunt down and wipe out all left-handed people tomorrow, it would still be wrong.

That being said:



There is a majority support for Abortion illegal in either all or most circumstances.

Read any one of the abortion threads on this forum, and you'll see the same thing: Life begins at conception! Does not! Does so! and so on. No one is going to change their minds.

None of the people who come to debate forums to argue about abortion change their minds. The broader populace is not our tiny slice, and as science has continued to advance our understanding of early development (and as imaging becomes better, and so we can see the children we are killing), then public opinions do indeed shift.

Take a look at the shift since the 1990s.

So, there is no concern about any presidential candidate who proposes massive new spending as it is the House that determines spending.

Not according to the standard you've raised. Ergo, Johnson cannot get credit for wanting to limit spending.

The POTUS does, however, propose a budget and can (theoretically anyway) veto spending bills.

And he can appoint Judges.

and since Congress has not declared war since 1941, we haven't had any wars since then.

No legal wars anyway.

So you want to keep credit for Johnson for wanting to pull back a bit from overseas? But if we are only scoring that, then wouldn't the candidate who is thinking about removing us almost altogether - dropping out of NATO, giving Japan and South Korea responsibility for defending themselves, etc., the better candidate?

 

[Dittohead not!]

A) No it's not. Electing Lincoln, for example, helped us to overturn Dred Scott v Stanford. Presidents are able to bring public pressure to bear on a variety of ways, and also appoint Judges, who can overturn the abuses of former Judges.

B) Even if your (incorrect) claim was accurate, it is also immaterial. I'm not voting for a man who believes in allowing the mass-murder of children because that is horrifically wrong. My candidate for POTUS this primary was Marco Rubio. Had Rubio come out in favor of reinstituting slavery, or committing genocide against East Asian Americans, I would have immediately dropped him regardless of his ability to put that policy into play, because it is morally atrocious and I am not willing to attach my name to that for any amount of otherwise positive policy.

If the pitch is "Sure we'll keep killing children, but at least we'll make a buck off it!", then I'm turning it down.



Again, apply the slavery analogy. Is the result of pushing the human slave trade into the black market a worthy reason to keep it legalized?

Or did we institute a government for the purpose of protecting our individual rights?



And so we should decriminalize Rape (it's still going to happen), Assault (man it's still going to happen), Pedophilia (pedophiles are gonna pedophile), etc. so on and so forth?

This is an extremely unconvincing argument.



Argumentum Ad Populum?

Restricting abortion does indeed enjoy broad support. Even if it didn't, however, that other people are willing to trample over the rights of others doesn't make that something I'm willing to support or lend my name to. If 70% of Americans decided that we should hunt down and wipe out all left-handed people tomorrow, it would still be wrong.

That being said:

View attachment 67204135

There is a majority support for Abortion illegal in either all or most circumstances.



None of the people who come to debate forums to argue about abortion change their minds. The broader populace is not our tiny slice, and as science has continued to advance our understanding of early development (and as imaging becomes better, and so we can see the children we are killing), then public opinions do indeed shift.

Take a look at the shift since the 1990s.




Not according to the standard you've raised. Ergo, Johnson cannot get credit for wanting to limit spending.



And he can appoint Judges.



So you want to keep credit for Johnson for wanting to pull back a bit from overseas? But if we are only scoring that, then wouldn't the candidate who is thinking about removing us almost altogether - dropping out of NATO, giving Japan and South Korea responsibility for defending themselves, etc., the better candidate?

The better candidate is a relative term. Remember, we're comparing Johnson to Trump and to Clinton. I can see you're passionate about the issue of abortion, as are many Americans. All three are pro choice. Therefore, it's time to look at other issues. Which one wants to scale back the size and power of the federal government? Only one, and that it seems to me is the primary issue for conservatives. Which one is likely to get us into yet another undeclared war? To me, that is an important issue. The wars in Vietnam and later in Iraq have had far reaching consequences not only for Americans but for the world, and none of those consequences have been good. Talk about issues equal to slavery, surely killing millions in military action rises to that standard. I could be wrong, of course, but I think I'd rank the likelihood of going to war strongest under Trump, then under Clinton, then under Johnson.

Of course, a Johnson presidency is way down on the list of probable events, but maybe, just perhaps, if enough people vote for a libertarian or an independent the populace just could begin to wake up and realize that the country doesn't have to be run by Democrats or Republicans.

Maybe....

 

[iguanaman]

You mean because he didn't bake a cake for those bigots?

Gay people are not bigots but a baker that refuses service because they are gay is. You must not know what bigot means.

Simple Definition of bigot
a person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc. : a bigoted person; especially : a person who hates or refuses to accept the members of a particular group

Bigot | Definition of Bigot by Merriam-Webster

 

[joG]

Gay people are not bigots but a baker that refuses service because they are gay is. You must not know what bigot means.

Bigot | Definition of Bigot by Merriam-Webster

Exactly! That is why I said, what I said. You on the other hand do not seem to understand the meaning of your link. Maybe, you should have thought about it, before you got in the mental rut that bars seeing the view.

 

[RetiredUSN]

We could be like other countries with multiple prominent parties, or five or 6 parties.

Then we would be electing presidents with only 25% (per say) percent of the vote?

I'm not sure that it would fly well here just yet.

 

[cpwill]

The better candidate is a relative term. Remember, we're comparing Johnson to Trump and to Clinton. I can see you're passionate about the issue of abortion, as are many Americans. All three are pro choice. Therefore, it's time to look at other issues.

:shrug: those are not my only three options.

Which one wants to scale back the size and power of the federal government?

But who still wants to mass-murder children.

Which one is likely to get us into yet another undeclared war?

But who still wants to mass-murder children.

Talk about issues equal to slavery, surely killing millions in military action rises to that standard.

We haven't killed "millions" of people in the past decades in wars (others have). We have killed millions in the womb. About 1/3rd of my generation was murdered by our parents (and I intend to remember that when Social Security and Medicare start to fail because - oddly - there aren't enough of us around paying FICA taxes).

I could be wrong, of course, but I think I'd rank the likelihood of going to war strongest under Trump, then under Clinton, then under Johnson.

:shrug: Actually the odds are 100% for all three. You don't get to "opt out" of wars when the other side decides to Opt You In, unless you are willing to surrender and they are willing to accept it. Obama's boosters thought somehow he was going to magically end the Global Jihad as well - but they don't actually care who the President is, or what his policies are.

 

[Dittohead not!]

:shrug: those are not my only three options.



But who still wants to mass-murder children.



But who still wants to mass-murder children.



We haven't killed "millions" of people in the past decades in wars (others have). We have killed millions in the womb. About 1/3rd of my generation was murdered by our parents (and I intend to remember that when Social Security and Medicare start to fail because - oddly - there aren't enough of us around paying FICA taxes).



:shrug: Actually the odds are 100% for all three. You don't get to "opt out" of wars when the other side decides to Opt You In, unless you are willing to surrender and they are willing to accept it. Obama's boosters thought somehow he was going to magically end the Global Jihad as well - but they don't actually care who the President is, or what his policies are.

Neither Iraq nor Vietnam opted us in to their wars. That was a decision made by the commander in chief in both instances.

and if you add up all of the casualties in both of those "military actions" or undeclared wars, it would likely go into the millions.

Now this statement is interesting:

those are not my only three options.

meaning perhaps that you agree that it's time to end the hegemony of the two parties, but don't agree with my choice of Gary Johnson? Who could you support, then?

 

[cpwill]

Neither Iraq nor Vietnam opted us in to their wars. That was a decision made by the commander in chief in both instances.

We are fighting Islamist Extremists in Iraq, Syria, and Afghanistan. Both of whom have launched attacks here. The odds of the next President involving us in foreign conflict is about 100%, regardless of who is elected.

and if you add up all of the casualties in both of those "military actions" or undeclared wars, it would likely go into the millions.

If you want to count the civilians murdered by other actors, okay. I don't really hold Obama responsible for the decision by Assad to barrel-bomb his own people.

Now this statement is interesting:

meaning perhaps that you agree that it's time to end the hegemony of the two parties, but don't agree with my choice of Gary Johnson? Who could you support, then?

I was a Petersen fan for the Libertarians, now I'm sort of wandering. I am currently leaning towards the Constitution Party. Whom I disagree with on several fronts. I was looking into Chris Keniston of the Veterans Party, but that seems to have sort of fallen by the wayside.

 

[Dittohead not!]

We are fighting Islamist Extremists in Iraq, Syria, and Afghanistan. Both of whom have launched attacks here. The odds of the next President involving us in foreign conflict is about 100%, regardless of who is elected.

There were no Islamist Extremists in Iraq before the invasion. It was a secular state run by an iron-fisted dictator who was no friend of jihad. They are there in spades now, and that may make your prediction turn out to be correct: We may, at some future date, have on alternative but to go to war once again. If we do, let's have Congress declare war, then go in it to win this time instead of engaging in nation building projects and limited conflicts that never end well or at all.

If you want to count the civilians murdered by other actors, okay. I don't really hold Obama responsible for the decision by Assad to barrel-bomb his own people.

I was thinking about the "collateral damage" in the two major undeclared wars. Perhaps millions was an exaggeration. I wonder:

Here's the result of "how many people died in Vietnam"

Deaths in Vietnam War (1954–1975) per R. J. Rummel (except where otherwise noted)
low estimate of deaths

North Vietnam/Viet Cong military and civilian war dead 533,000

and the result of "how many died in the Iraqi war":

Tables
Source Estimated violent deaths Time period
Opinion Research Business survey 1,033,000 deaths as a result of the conflict March 2003 to August 2007
PLOS Medicine Survey Approximately 500,000 deaths in Iraq as direct or indirect result of the war. March 2003 to June, 2011

So, "millions": may have been an exaggeration, but not by much.

I was a Petersen fan for the Libertarians, now I'm sort of wandering. I am currently leaning towards the Constitution Party. Whom I disagree with on several fronts. I was looking into Chris Keniston of the Veterans Party, but that seems to have sort of fallen by the wayside.

Good. Make up your mind by November. The more of us who vote for "none of the above", the more likely the voters and partisans will wake up to the fact that there are alternatives to whoever the party bosses decide should be the president.

 

[JumpinJack]

I have friends who are politically conservative, but really don't like Trump. When I tell them I don't plan to vote for Trump or his opponent either one, but for Gary Johnson, they say: "Who's that?"

And that's the problem. No one knows anything about any of the third party candidates.

So, I say, "He's the only conservative running this time," which is true.

Take a look at where he stands on the issues, compare that with Hillary and Donald, and see who you agree with.

Then ask yourself if it isn't time to dump the Republicants and the Democraps, or at least give them some competition.

No. He's a Libertarian. No Social Security, no Medicare. In fact, he doesn't believe in government. I doubt that someone who doesn't believe in government would be good at governing.

 

[Dittohead not!]

No. He's a Libertarian. No Social Security, no Medicare. In fact, he doesn't believe in government. I doubt that someone who doesn't believe in government would be good at governing.

Did you get that from his webpage?