- This topic has 323 replies, 1 voice, and was last updated 7 months, 3 weeks ago by
.
-
Posts
-
-
Why was the Libertarian Party of the US not more successful (1972-1996)? A platform combining economic and cultural libertarianism with foreign policy non-interventionism sounds like it would be popular in those times, particularly the 90s.
-
Libertarians have always been a joke
-
This. A perfect illustration of this imo is the description of the 1987 Libertarian Party Convention in the book "Ron Paul’s Revolution" by Brian Doherty. Paul was absolutely stunned by the fact that he almost lost the 1988 nomination to an American Indian domestic terrorist Russell Means.
-
>Paul was absolutely stunned by the fact that he almost lost the 1988 nomination to an American Indian domestic terrorist Russell Means.
The Last of the Mohicans guy? Why was Paul stunned? It seems somewhat strange to me that a self-described libertarian like Ron Paul is "stunned" at the attraction of libertarians to a guy at odds with the U.S. federal government. Because he’s "Injun?">Because most "libertarians" aren’t actually libertarian, but larpers who want to use "freedom" for their gain, but without the consequences of it.
I think there are two forks of libertarianism between the modernist Ayn Rand ideologues and a kind of 19th-century white paleolibertarianism in which "freedom" basically means white supremacy but nestled comfortably within the context of a kind of Apartheid liberalism with whites as the privileged land-owning and business-owning class. This is a pre-fascist conception of the world and tied up with a kind of original "Americanism" and where "freedom" means freedom from federal laws that prohibit segregating a privately-owned gated community and privately-owned businesses. It’s not the same thing as submitting to the national will and I think it’s why some really hard-right European fascists on /poo/ who really do believe in a big, powerful state get really confused by Americans who believe in what I was just talking about.Incidentally, I think the "libertarian-to-fascist pipeline" is not so simple, as some also become socialists. Ayn Rand is interesting because she grew up in the USSR and her philosophy is basically the first third of Marxism in terms of methodological questions and the nature of man, but Rand flipped some things around, so capitalists become a "productive" class who are held back from unleashing human potential by the state and literally go on strike in one of her books. Even the aesthetics are kinda similar to socialism.
-
>This is a pre-fascist conception of the world and tied up with a kind of original "Americanism" and where "freedom" means freedom from federal laws that prohibit segregating a privately-owned gated community and privately-owned businesses
Excepting that said Federal laws were never constitutional.
-
-
-
-
1. Third parties have always done poorly in U.S. elections.
2. The Libertarian Party is full of, and run by, people who want to smoke weed, jerk off to extreme porn, and not pay taxes. In practice, this leads to letting corporations run our lives, which results in social degeneracy.
-
Kind of like what’s happened with non-libertarian administrations? Just say you’re scrotebrained next time
-
>1. Third parties have always done poorly in U.S. elections
Perot did pretty good and Jesse Ventura won governor of Minnesota
-
The US uses the same electoral system as the UK, which is characterized by first-past-the-post elections and single-seat small voting districts.
This systems unequivocally ends up with bipartidism between moderate parties that cater to the centrists without deviating too much.The fact that third parties of any kind are politically irrelevant in America is not something unique to America, it would happen anywhere if those electoral rules were put in place. In the UK third parties are almost irrelevant, and the only reason they have some degree of importance is because the UK is a parliamentarian government, not a presidential one like the US.
Any other answer is bullshit.
>Perot did pretty good
Percentage of votes is an irrelevant metric, the only thing that matters is percentage of political positions. In that regard Perot was a complete failure.
The difference between electoral systems boils down to how they translate votes into positions.
-
-
-
Third parties have a huge structural disadvantage in a first past the post electoral system, because there’s never any incentive to vote for anybody other than the top two candidates.
Also, libertarianism is scrotebrained from a policy standpoint, because you’re basically saying to return to the economic policy and foreign policy of the 1920s, despite the fact that that led to the Great Depression and WW2 the last time we tried it.
-
>Also, libertarianism is scrotebrained from a policy standpoint, because you’re basically saying to return to the economic policy and foreign policy of the 1920s, despite the fact that that led to the Great Depression and WW2 the last time we tried it.
gave yourself away, LBJscrote-
> LBJscrote
obsessed -
Anon, no Republican president has wanted to return to the 1920s either.
Eisenhower, Nixon, Reagan and Bush all tacitly agreed that some elements of New Deal policy were politically and practically indispensable. Not to mention the fact that the GOP hate communists with a passion and libertarian’s answer to global communism is just to go nothing.
Both major parties have very valid reasons to dislike libertarians.
-
>Eisenhower, Nixon, Reagan and Bush all tacitly agreed that some elements of New Deal policy were politically and practically indispensable
Was not it a Democrat president Bill Clinton that did abolish the Glass-Steagle Act?-
Yeah, but every postwar president
>kept social security
>kept an interventionist monetary policy
>kept a federal government that was much, much larger as a percentage of GDP than before FDREven further than that, when LBJ passed Medicare and Medicaid, the Republicans quickly decided that those were unassailable.
-
Very disingenuous, there were 90 New Deal programs created by FDR and dozens more proposed. Only 7 exist today
-
The size and scope of the government ballooned a fuckload more under LBJ and Nixon.
-
You mean under LBJ’s Great Society? Which was basically just a revival of FDR’s pork barrel politics?
-
-
Yeah, but no postwar president has ever seriously considered returning to what US government was like before the New Deal.
Even under GOP administrations, government spending as a percentage of GDP stays static or even rises.
Libertarians represent something that has been a fringe view in American politics since the 1940s.
-
Other than a few things like Social Security and Federal unemployment insurance there’s not a lot let of the New Deal policies today.
-
I believe Federal farm subsidies? Those should definitely go and Reagan is to my knowledge the only president who ever proposed it.
-
>no postwar president has ever seriously considered returning to what US government was like before the New Deal.
>93% of all new deal programs have been deletedYeah, but the libertarian platform is to restore government spending as a percentage of GDP to minarchist levels, which is something that the US has never done at any point since the New Deal.
-
And what’s wrong with that? The system has quite a few freeloaders
-
and?
Do our government need to be a giant pated piece of shit? leftists are delusional they see a a giant unwieldy inhuman system that they themselves decry as oppressive, yet they are seemingly convinced the solution is to expand, change, control and otherwise regulate the monstrosity into submission (to them in particular) rather than starving it of it’s life blood.
The government can only be as corrupt and wasteful as it is opaque, wealthy, and massive -
Government is the only thing keeping you from being exploited by corporations, dude.
-
the government and cooperation hold hands while they Eiffel-tower all of us, they are one the in same. Cooperations become large, dominate a specific market, then use lobbying, bribes, nepotism, blackmail and every other tool to get a say in making regulations for their own industries.
These rarely do anything but add poison to the water, not enough that it effects giant multinationals that are constrained by no single government, but more than enough to keep any real competition from forming. -
>then use lobbying, bribes, nepotism, blackmail and every other tool to get a say in making regulations for their own industries.
It’s like economic power is political power, or something. -
Yeah because the New Deal literally made the society we are in.
-
-
-
>no postwar president has ever seriously considered returning to what US government was like before the New Deal.
>93% of all new deal programs have been deleted-
>93% of all new deal programs have been deleted
The bullshit that LBJ and Nixon created however…I have yet to see anyone call for abolishing the EPA and all the other shit they made.
-
>EPA
>new deal program
You’re really reaching scrote
-
-
-
-
Because they were created to recover from the Depression scrotebrain.
-
-
-
>Was not it a Democrat president Bill Clinton that did abolish the Glass-Steagle Act?
It was an act of a veto-proof congress
-
-
>Eisenhower, Nixon, Reagan and Bush all tacitly agreed that some elements of New Deal policy were politically indispensable
"Politically indispensable" is a far cry from "economically viable", also you’re talking out your ass because both Nixon and Reagan were harsh critics of New Deal policy, which was basically just progressive era pork barrel politics.-
You do realize when Reagan first entered politics in the 60s he was a Goldwater-tier libertarian who wanted to turn the clock back to 1928 and abolish Social Security, right? He only managed to become a viable presidential candidate when he moderated his stances on that stuff.
-
>dude when Reagan was young he worshiped FDR for employing his dad
>but when he grew up he realized his heroes were false which pushed him into politics
It’s only and interesting story if you tell all of it -
>Reagan first entered politics in the 60s he was a Goldwater-tier libertarian
Now describe Democrat’s of the 60s and how terrible they were. If you want to be fair. Reagan was practically a saint even then.
>when he moderated his stances on that stuff.
New Deal is and was still a terrible idea that threatens to bankrupt the US. You can’t argue that cocaine is good because threatening to take it away is bad.-
The new deal directly led to the US overwhelming economic boom in WW2 and the post war period. The problem is we don’t have a new deal every few decades.
-
I’m pretty sure WWII did that and realistically prosperity didn’t return until the 50s when we had a more-or-less hands-off Republican administration.
-
>I’m pretty sure WWII did that
WW2 was another, even larger bout of Keynesian stimulus
>realistically prosperity didn’t return until the 50s
No
>when we had a more-or-less hands-off Republican administration
Eisenhower? That entire generation got rich off of the GI bill and union jobs.
-
>WW2 was another, even larger bout of Keynesian stimulus
At the expense of millions dying or being mentally or physically damaged for their life. -
I agree war is a good economic stimulus (the Civil War was as much of one as WWII) but do you really want to do that?
-
Just do the part where you’re spending money without the part where you’re killing people.
2ez
-
The New Deal amounted to throwing tons of money down a sinkhole so you tell me.
-
Are you seriously arguing against our involvement in the second world war?
-
-
we would have gotten out of the Depression by 1935 but for FDR’s fuckery
-
Jesus Christ read a book. The New Deal literally brought a massive chunk of America from subsistence farming. It brought power to regions with none. Those regions still live by those programs (TVA motherfucker). The New Deal made our economic boom possible by modernizing huge chunks of America and laying infrastructure to enable trade. To think that somehow a war that pulled resources from the nation and called for rationing created a boom is silly. Even the post war boom could only be leveraged thanks to the New Deal reforms that made living easier and better.
-
Subsistence farming during the dust bowl?
-
the New Deal was just pork barrel projects to FDR’s supporters, it did nothing but squander money. what did create something was the massive industrial over-capacity built as a result of the war.
-
>the New Deal was just pork barrel projects
This, the oldest corrupt politician play in the book. Build a bridge with borrowed money and have citizens pay for it and then tell them that it’s a gift
-
-
-
>The new deal directly led to the US overwhelming economic boom
People actually believe this
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
It always seemed to me Trump was big fan of returning to 1920s isolationist foreign policy so you tell me.
-
Tell that to Yemen.
-
What?
They are poor and isolationist because they are a a fractured collection of tribes barley able to function ad a modern nation state who have been at war with the Saudis for everComparing the two is pointless and softmoric
-
I didn’t know isolationism had a ‘but they suck, so it’s cool’ cop-out.
-
It always had. When usa was "isolationist" it was not involved much in europe because it was busy blowing up south america.
-
I am pointing out that your whole argument is backwards and it it’s pointless to compare the two (USA and Yemen) saying:
>"they are they are poor and isolationist, therefore a more isolationist USA would also be poor"
isnt a good argument.One is a content spanning nation with entrenched internal subdivisions the other is a small desert badland that has always been an impoverished backwater, who have also been at war with the Saudi’s for decades.
You might as well try to make the same argument with China and the DPRK simply because they both are/were communist-
I meant to United States supporting Saudi Arabia with weapons and logistics in their war with Yemen.
-
ah I completely misunderstood your argument, I thought you were trying to compare a potentially isolationist USA to modern day Yemen. Not making a point about US foreign interventionism
-
Easy mistake to make, don’t sweat it.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
>Third parties have a huge structural disadvantage in a first past the post electoral system, because there’s never any incentive to vote for anybody other than the top two candidates.
Well that just means that you need your party to win more grass root and local elections in order to get people to like your ideas and spread its message. Not just decide to run for president with a literal who party that no one cares about. -
>libertarianism is scrotebrained from a policy standpoint, because you’re basically saying to return to the economic policy and foreign policy of the 1920s, despite the fact that that led to the Great Depression and WW2
if the US actually had libertarianism, the US wouldn’t have been involved in WW1 and the US wouldn’t have created the Federal Reserve to inflate the money supply to pay for WW1, so there wouldn’t have been any excess funds to create the massive speculation that caused Great Depression.
-
Even with the Civil War they had to cheat by printing fiat greenbacks and enacting a temporary income tax.
-
>and the US wouldn’t have created the Federal Reserve to inflate the money supply to pay for WW1
The Federal Reserve was created in 1913 before WWI had even started. -
Kind of questionable to say that government intervention created the Great Depression when there was a constant boom-bust cycle of overspeculation and panics before that.
-
Most economic downturns in American history were caused by the government doing something scrotebrained.
-
-
The great depression was caused by shitty agricultural practices depleting the topsoil.
-
-
-
-
>Libertarian
>iron cross tattooEVERYTIME
-
-
Because it’s not actually libertarianism, it’s anarco-capitalism. Fun fact, their first candidate was a garden gnome from new York who married a distant cousin
-
> who married a distant cousin
Nothing wrong with that.-
It is when you’re a garden gnome and you’re already inbred
-
says the redneck
-
-
-
-
I feel that they didn’t do themselves a favor by talking about stuff like abolishing Social Security.
-
dont americans love freedom?
-
Old people love free money when they retire.
-
>free money
t. underaged poster. You pay into social security with every check you make. It comes out of your paycheck and goes into a trust that you can access after a certain age. It’s basically a guaranteed retirement fund and you better believe I’m cashing those checks when I’m old enough.-
It’s not going to exist when you’re old enough
-
-
-
-
In all fairness a lot of Ron Paul’s positions have been grossly distorted over the past 30+ years by Clintonites and their media bullhorn.
-
To be fair I’m not sure exactly what he did stand for beyond some mumbling about abolishing the Federal Reserve and reviving the gold standard.
-
-
-
Most people I suppose aren’t against some sort of basic social safety net. However there are a lot of letter agencies that very much should be axed because they’re useless/corrupt/unconstitutional.
-
Yeah I agree.
Part of Libertarianism’s problem is that it’s an a very rigid and dogmatic party fully dedicated to either AnCap shit or Ayn Randism, both of which are hugely unpopular.If they moderated and were just a small government, non interventionalist, liberal party they would do better and maybe even win elections.
-
-
I don’t think libertarians have had a real coherent road map or vision for the country beyond a few vague remarks about legalizing weed. Ron Paul’s obsession with the gold standard was dumb too.
-
The Ron Paul scrotes of 2012 were even more annoying than Bernie Bros in 2016
-
-
Because most "libertarians" aren’t actually libertarian, but larpers who want to use "freedom" for their gain, but without the consequences of it.
>Oh yeah! I’m totally pro-second ammendment guys! Fuck gungrabbers!
>W-Wait, why does that black guy have a rocket launcher in his shoulders..?
As a result, The Republican Party is more appealing as you can just scream "states rights" instead since the state can specify the freedom more so that it’s convenient to you, but not necessarily towards everyone else.-
>pointlessly bringing race into this
Dropped.-
Literally the definition of the left. Their entire worldview and view of the republician party comes from /poo/ posts. Meanwhile actual american right wingers stay in the youtube comment section of fox news.
-
-
>why does that black guy have a rocket launcher in his shoulders
that sounds badass -
>why does that black guy have a rocket launcher in his shoulders..?
Sounds like my freaking sis -
I want that black guy to have a rocket launcher in his shoulders. It implies he’s willing to work out, and it implies he’s willing to put himself at risk to fight for the things he believes in, unlike traditional leftie subhuman scrotes. That black dude is our guy. scrotebrain.
-
>why does that black guy have a rocket launcher in his shoulders..?
Sounds like my freaking sis>why does that black guy have a rocket launcher in his shoulders
that sounds badass>Open fires on a crowd of thousands of white people to BTFO the white man
Woke af black man indeed.-
Cope. Red states have plenty of minorities and violent crime is very low. It’s when you have a blue state like new york with the lowest rent being 2000 dollars for a studio does violent crime skyrocket
-
>Cope. Red states have plenty o- *BOOOOM*
-
-
-
-
-
Because Republicans branded themselves as fiscal conservatives and
‘libertarian-leaning" while also picking up the mantle of social/religious conservatism to appeal to evangelicals.Just say ‘abortion bad and welfare bad’, and you can be as crony capitalist as much as they want to be. Because the average republican voter knows shit about anything and doesn’t actually care about Austrian economics enough to vote libertarian over republican and maybe doesn’t even know that the republicans are not librarians in the first place, if they could even define roughly what libertarianism is asides from ‘government bad’ in vague emotional descriptions.
-
>librarians
kek -
Ask me how I know you come from reddit
-
-
our system makes it so that if you vote 3rd party you’re actively hurting your own interests
-
American system doesnt allow for a 3rd party.
And libertarianism is simply unpopular. -
why does looneytoonarian policy always boil down to "I want the freedom to get high and look at CP?"
-
>why does looneytoonarian policy always boil down to "I want the freedom to get high and look at CP?"
Those should be regulated at the state level; any Federal level regulations on them should be removed because they are unconstitutional and it is not and has never been the Federal government’s place to play vice squad.
-
-
IDK mang, Goldwater got shellacked at the ballot box for advocating going back to pre-New Deal times.
-
Lost your job? learn to code.
-
-
Reminder to all potheads who voted for Obama in 2008 because you thought he’d legalize weed.
>the first Federal level restrictions on narcotics happened under Wilson (Democrat) when heroin and cocaine were put on the Federal controlled substances list
>the forerunner of the ATF was created by FDR (Democrat)
>Weed was put on the Federal controlled substances list when FDR (Democrat) was president thanks to a lobbying campaign by William Randolph Hearst (Democrat) as a favor to his sis-in-law Henry Anslinger (Democrat) who headed the DEA and was also a raging racist
>The War on Drugs was started under a Republican president but greenlighted by a Democrat House and Senate -
Any mutts here care to explain how in the UK there is a third party that even managed to get elected a few times but there’s no third party in the US?
-
Our election system is first-past-the-post, which weeds out everyone except for two giant Frankenstein parties.
-
UK is first past the post too scrotebrain
-
-
Every time a third part could have been created they just joined the other party
-
the electoral college
-
I love how the electoral college is still a thing yet people pretend like states shouldn’t have any power. The country would be a better palce if every scrote that complained about the electoral college was executed, starting with the politicians
-
What’s your opinion on the ‘National Popular Vote Interstate Compact’?
Also, the senate also exists btw, two senators per state no matter how populated they are.
-
then again, Senators weren’t even directly elected for the first 124 years of the nation
-
The senate existing is also why popular vote-tards want to create more states (loyal to them) since the inception of the country
-
It’s speculated that the Dakotas were made into two states rather than one so the Republicans would have two additional Senators.
-
-
-
Who’s complaining? It’s an undeniable fact the the electoral college prevents a third party candidate from being elected president.
-
the electoral college prevents mob rule where states like California and new york would control all the other states, the founding fathers foresaw this problem and created the electoral college. Because the obvious thing state would do if they had no representation would be to fuck off out of the union.
-
>the electoral college prevents mob rule where states like California and new york would control all the other states, the founding fathers foresaw this problem and created the electoral college.
>Because the obvious thing state would do if they had no representation would be to fuck off out of the union.
Its funny that you point that out because, the concept of any state leaving the union is non existent to people who bitch about the electoral college. In their minds states are just whimsical lines on a map and have no actual power.
-
-
>It’s an undeniable fact the the electoral college prevents a third party candidate from being elected president.
Imagine being this oblivious about how electoral systems work.
-
-
-
-
When? Hasn’t it been Conservative or Labour for the past 100 years?
-
The way our system works, with an outright majority being needed to elect a candidate, otherwise going to a version of the house where each state only gets one vote, it is basically impossible for a third party to win an election on the federal level.
Because to beat two super huge institutions, which already have at least 60% of the population as partisans for them, is not an easy feat.On local elections it is much easier to win as a third party. As long as people like you and your beliefs more than any other candidate you will win.
As long as you aren’t in like Chicago where people just vote Democrat all the way down.
-
-
As others have said Ron Paul just didn’t have a coherent message or knew how to market to middle America, he didn’t have a slogan like Reagan’s "get the government off everyone’s back."
-
>A platform combining economic and cultural libertarianism with foreign policy non-interventionism sounds like it would be popular in those times, particularly the 90s.
As much as they might try to deny otherwise, a huge amount of people are closer to being culturally right-wing and economically left-wing. The Republicans only use "small government" and "libertarian" as buzzwords, in practice they have no problem expanding government when it suits their interests. The number of genuinely libertarian people is vastly overstated.-
No most people are freaking afraid of welfare lmao
Infact there are more instances of people being economically right wong and culturally left wing (accepting of transgenders, racial equality but against high taxes and government intervention)
-
Government spending goes so far beyond just welfare.
Most Republicans support spending on the military, keeping medicare and medicaid, farming and domestic production subsidies, reforming but maintaining social security. It was Trump who first started the rounds of stimulus checks and he was widely praised for it.
You’ll also find a lot of people aren’t super socially liberal. Again they’ll claim to be and pay lip service to it like they do being economically conservative. They’ll talk abut how the country should take in more refugees, but won’t want them to live in their own neighborhood. They’ll say racism should be dead and gone, but wouldn’t be comfortable with their daughter dating outside their race. Are fine with gay people getting married, but aren’t comfortable giving kids puberty blockers. Almost all of them have gotten around to supporting legalized pot, but almost no one could imagine ending all drug laws.
Look less at what people say, and more at what they actually do. You’ll see that economically conservative/socially libertarian ideals aren’t actually that popular in the polls. Which is why they’ve remained a fringe party.
-
>Most Republicans support spending on the military
To a reasonable extent, not to the point where there is so much waste and graft that the F-35 cost about $30 billion more than expected.
>farming and domestic production subsidies
No small government conservative would support corporate welfare such as this.
>Are fine with gay people getting married
No.
>but almost no one could imagine ending all drug laws.
Drugs should be a state not a Federal level thing to regulate. If Oregon wants weed and Alabama doesn’t, bless ’em, that should be their choice. However that also ignores the real issue which is that drug laws cannot be practically enforced except perhaps at a staggering cost. When enough people want to do something they’re gonna do it and no laws on the planet are going to deter them.-
You’re mixing your personal beliefs and ideals with majority opinion and reality. Both Republicans and Democrats either actively or tacitly support large military spending, even if they disagree on specific levels. Conservative politicians claim to be for small government all the time, but almost always vote in support when a new corn subsidy for their constituency comes up.
Whether you like it or not, most people are supportive/ambivalent about gay people marrying. But they’re not really on board with the new wave of trans bullshit, and the vast, vast majority do not support legalizing all drugs, or even letting individual states legalize all drugs.
-
the guy you’re replying to is an intern at a Federal agency
-
>Drugs should be a state not a Federal level thing to regulate
For one thing it’s unconstitutional and regulating drug possession isn’t an enumerated Federal power, unless it was added in there with a Constitutional amendment.
-
-
>but wouldn’t be comfortable with their daughter dating outside their race. Are fine with gay people getting married, but aren’t comfortable giving kids puberty blockers
Not him but this is so freaking backwards you just convinced me people on the left want this totalitarian dystopia. Saying you can’t pick a partner woke af on race is like those incels who think they should be mandated women. The point of ending racism is never having a policy which divides or classes different races as different. But you’re allowed to shit talk them, or prefer not to date them and so on within close circles and your family. Can you imagine if muslims can’t bash Christians anymore? That’d be freaking crazy. There’s nothing wrong with saying christians are dirty because they eat pork to a close friend, but there is something wrong with religiously motivated attacks against another group. The same applies for ethnicity. What you described isn’t libertarianism at all. For the transgender issue with children, it’s a hard choice akin to stuatory rape because children have a harder time making decisions for themselves.
People being majorly left wing economically you are right, though.
-
I’m not arguing in favor of being socially liberal, lmao. I’m saying people claim to be socially liberal, but usually are much more conservative when it comes to their own lives and families.
-
That’s how it should be… Do you think all of the people at gay pride rallies or transgender rallies want the same for their children? Fuck no but they’d gladly be against institutional prejudice against gays or transgenders
Muslims don’t want christians killed, but they don’t want to be christians themselves
-
You’re missing my point. I’m not arguing for or against anything, I’m making an observation.
People like to say they’re for vague libertarian ideals about being for small government and for social liberalism, but their actions and votes say otherwise. A huge part of the voting demographic is for generally economically left-wing and socially right-wing policies, even if they would claim otherwise in front of strangers.
-
people want stuff until they realize they have to pay for it. gibes are not free, no, not at all.
-
That is one of the big arguments towards reducing the size and scope of government that libertarians never managed to utilize in that you can make an easy case to voters for saving millions in taxpayer dollars a year. Appeal to pocketbook is a pretty failsafe strategy that rarely loses elections and it’s why most third parties don’t go anywhere.
-
-
-
-
-
-
I think that’s mostly right but I think opposition to miscegenation is pretty much dead in America. The last poll I saw on this had acceptance of interracial marriage at 94% in the U.S., and while you can say that’s just what people tell the pollsters, or they might be uncomfortable with it on some level, back in the 1950s that was around 4% so I don’t think it’s totally made up.
In terms of welfare, I think something that would be popular is a program like Nixon’s "Family Assistance Program" (literally FAP) which a form of UBI that offered around $12,000 in today’s currency per year for a married family with two kids. It didn’t make it through Congress though because of opposition from within his own party and conservative Southern Democrats. Basically, Nixon wanted to replace welfare with the FAP, push unemployed welfare recipients into the workforce and then supplement working families’ incomes with it. And limiting the FAP to *families* in particular was Nixon’s way of trying to attract conservative support. Today, I think it’d quite seriously be like something Tucker Carlson might propose.
Incidentally, racial issues played a role in preventing it from passing since it would’ve *expanded* welfare to the working poor (which included many blacks, and disproportionately so, as they had larger families back then), albeit cutting welfare for the unemployed and single people. The irony is that blue-collar white working families would’ve benefited from the program as well. Then the U.S. got Reagan and Clinton and RIP and here we are.
-
So only dumb normalscrotes get free money?
-
>In terms of welfare, I think something that would be popular is a program like Nixon’s "Family Assistance Program" (literally FAP) which a form of UBI that offered around $12,000 in today’s currency per year for a married family with two kids. It didn’t make it through Congress though because of opposition from within his own party and conservative Southern Democrats. Basically, Nixon wanted to replace welfare with the FAP, push unemployed welfare recipients into the workforce and then supplement working families’ incomes with it. And limiting the FAP to *families* in particular was Nixon’s way of trying to attract conservative support. Today, I think it’d quite seriously be like something Tucker Carlson might propose.
>Incidentally, racial issues played a role in preventing it from passing since it would’ve *expanded* welfare to the working poor (which included many blacks, and disproportionately so, as they had larger families back then), albeit cutting welfare for the unemployed and single people. The irony is that blue-collar white working families would’ve benefited from the program as well. Then the U.S. got Reagan and Clinton and RIP and here we are.Very good, Senator Sanders. And how will you be paying for this?
-
We should half the amount of money we spend on the military, abolish the ATF and other useless agencies, shrink other agencies and have a protective tariff to help our domestic industry and raise money for the federal government.
End the department of Energy and Education and with all that cash UBI and Free Healthcare
-
-
Can you stop trying to sell this "actually the republicans are the socialists" crap? He wanted to delete New Deal era welfare and replace it with something new, not add another layer of welfare on top of it. Specifically the welfare would only be for working families, if you didn’t work you wouldn’t get the benefits. The original legislation is a unilateral incentive for "welfare queens". Black women teach their daughters to get knocked up and have children so that they can get family assistance from the government. Nixon was trying to stop this
-
I didn’t say Nixon was a socialist. I just think something like would be popular with the American public today.
-
-
-
-
-
-
Media oligarchy
The telecommunications act of 1996
The entire deepstate
Wall street enjoying fractional reserve banking -
So now ask yourself why Texas is having to do what the Feds apparently cannot when it comes to border security.
-
>why isn’t the greed good party more successful?
-
It’s more of the pure markets are less greedy because they exist with only voluntary transactions rather than overt theft backed by violence.
-
Wdym? Republicans have been doing great
-
-
The Libertarians and Greens are run by complete nutcases. It’s why the only halfway successful candidates they ever have usually jump ship to the main two parties the second they get any traction.
-
Like someone said Ron Paul didn’t do himself any favors by wanting to abolish Social Security and pushing the gold standard. I don’t know the whole ins and outs of their platforms but I do know those two particular things were not a recipe for success at the ballot box.
-
-
People only like the word freedom when it means they are safe and their needs met. They don’t like responsibility.
-
1) Economically conservative, socially liberal is actually a pretty small bloc. It seems bigger than it is because a lot of elites fall in it, though. Economically liberal, socially conservative is much bigger, but tends to be ignored because not a lot of elites were in it.
2) They were pretty successful. Libertarian economic ideas were a key part of the Republican platform up until Trump. The country is a lot more socially liberal, too. I guess that non-intervention was a failure, but IMO that was never a key libertarian belief anyway. Just because they weren’t winning elections doesn’t mean they didn’t have influence.
-
Different brand of human same brand of stupidity
-
Government intervention caused the rent crisis we see today
And with free market capitalism there is competition. If company A sells lemonade for $50, I will go to company B who sells it for $5
-
In a libertarian society, you would be able to get a rifle and blow the CEO or landlord’s head off. In a statist society the state bans guns and jails you if you blow the CEO or landlord’s head off with a rifle.
-
You are saying it’s right to shoot people for being rich?
-
If they violate the nonaggression principle, yes.
-
Why not just take your business elsewhere?
-
The nonaggression principle indicates overt violence. Like how the state corporation steals money from you at the threat of throwing you in prison at gunpoint.
-
But jacks lands and co wont do that they’ll just evict you… maybe at gun point or by a court
-
Rent shouldn’t even exist in the first place. It is not a true product or service and in the event of lease to own competition would die off. Rent is the dumbest most cucked thing you can do.
-
-
>Corporations steal money from you
You’re not a libertarian.
-
-
Because human beings make better customers than beavers.
-
-
-
-
>In a libertarian society, you would be able to get a rifle and blow the CEO or landlord’s head off.
In a libertarian society; you could shoot rich people? How fuck stupid are you son? Landlordism is a legitmate form of wealth generation, especially in a libertaria society, because its peaceful and completely voluntary.
-
-
-
Identical problem to all other third parties in the US, lack of funding. Popularity of platform is totally irrelevant.
-
Libertarians are the exact opposite of what would make good politics and what most people actually want. They’re socially left wing and economically right wing, when the answer is left wing economics with right wing social policies. Take the NatSoc pill.
-
There is nothing in libertarian philosophy that dictates social liberalism. Quite the opposite really. Fundamentally the reason they are accused of that is because they don’t want the government to enslave people for victimless crimes.
-
The problem is that most of those "victimless crimes" corrode social cohesion and do massive damage to society in the long run, but since these are indirect externalities and not immediate consequences they refuse to see it and enact preventative measures. So whether they’re explicitly advocating social liberalism or not, their policies of letting people shoot up heroin in the streets or promote homosexuality because it’s "not hurting anyone" ultimately has the same effect on society.
-
The current model of throwing people into convict college and then making them felons thus destroying their ability for career advancement and any corrective life course is far worse and more destructive and evil than allowing someone to self medicate because their life sucked in the first place.
Oh your life sucks so you do drugs? Allow me to rob 15 years of your youth and then make you a janitor for the rest of your life.
-
>We the jury agree the defendant was shooting up heroin but the law was injust therefore he is innocent of all charges.
The system doesn’t want you to know about jury nullification but it’s your friend.-
Too bad the republitards are even more complicit and scrotebrained when it comes to drugs thanks to their regan worship despite his regime being the one that banned the future ownership of automatic weapons.
-
>actually it was the republicans
Wasn’t anti drug legislation started by democrats?-
Reminder to all potheads who voted for Obama in 2008 because you thought he’d legalize weed.
>the first Federal level restrictions on narcotics happened under Wilson (Democrat) when heroin and cocaine were put on the Federal controlled substances list
>the forerunner of the ATF was created by FDR (Democrat)
>Weed was put on the Federal controlled substances list when FDR (Democrat) was president thanks to a lobbying campaign by William Randolph Hearst (Democrat) as a favor to his sis-in-law Henry Anslinger (Democrat) who headed the DEA and was also a raging racist
>The War on Drugs was started under a Republican president but greenlighted by a Democrat House and Senate -
Yeah but Democrats are pretty transparent and open about how evil they are. Fundamentally most republican values like smaller government and more human rights and free markets are actually good. The problem is they don’t actually do any of those things. So I hate republican politicians far more.
-
That’s cool but can you stop posting so many factually wrong thing here like a schizo
-
Any boomercon you meet is for the police state and against drug rights. And any jury will be mostly boomercons because they aren’t smart enough to get out of jury duty and are good statist dogs who would enjoy serving on a jury.
-
>Any boomercon you meet is for the police state and against drug rights
This isn’t the 70s, if anything we’ve seen more push for drug legalization simply because all the people who grew up pre 60s-70s are pretty much dead now. Nearly everyone around today has lived in a world where recreational drug use has been a normal part of life. -
Most convictions for drugs or weapons or whatever never actually go to court, usually a plea deal gets struck because the court systems are horribly overburdened and simply do not have the ability to handle everyone who gets charged with a crime.
-
-
>republican values like smaller government and more human rights and free markets
Fuck I hope Bitcoin takes off and Republicans are revealed to be full of shit as they tax and spend when they no longer can print money.
-
>memecoin
Only good for buying drugs on tor -
It’s possible I guess, but I’ve never heard a good argument against Bitcoin.
-
You have, you just don’t want to believe them. The value fluctuates too rapidly to ever be used as a replacement for stable fiat currency. The fluctuation is even more unpredictable and rapid than the stock market so it’s not even a good investment unless you look at it as a literal gamble. The only positive is that it can be used for untraceable purchases on Tor.
-
There are blockchain ledgers for physical gold now that combine the transparency and backing of precious metals with the liquidity and ease of use of blockchain.
-
Cool, except that hasn’t actually done anything to stabilize crypto. The truth about memecoins is that they are too unstable to ever replace fiat currency. Even if they were to become stable enough to replace the dollar, there would be literally no reason to use them over fiat unless you were trying to hide your purchase from the government. That’s the only reason they were created and it is the main reason why they still exist. For every normie and zoomer “investing” in bitcoin, there are 100 people using it to buy drugs/CP/malware on Tor.
-
Well that and because it does the opposite of fiat currency. The problem with the federal reserve constantly inflating currency is it fucks over the middle class. Unless you are smart enough to invest in assets purely like real estate and you have a normal retirement account your money will shrivel in retirement to nothing especially people on fixed incomes. It punishes people who save money. Having your liquid assets in blockchains is more likely to grow rather than depreciate. Fiat currency is only stable in that it is guaranteed to depreciate.
-
Most republicans don’t even understand the federal reserve. They just think big budget bad small budget good. What annoys me more is democrats who blame capitalism for cronyism when the entire problem is the government protects crooked businesses so they don’t have to actually compete in a free market. Average republicans are just dupes kept on a idiot plantation for bad policies in practice. Democrats are thoroughly evil ideologically and in practice.
-
-
>smaller government
>more human rights
>free markets
>republican values-
It is if you talk to people on the ground. It’s just the politicians are liars and the telecommunications act of 1996 ensures there is no representation of 3rd party alternatives.
-
>It is if you talk to people on the ground. It’s just the politicians are liars
You give the trumpists too much slack, they deserve their politicians.
-
Trump was nearly a 3rd party candidate who ran on "drain the swamp" as in rid the corruption. It was a maladaptive middle finger to the system and only happened because those old fucks underestimated new media. Now they objectively censor and control new media.
-
Yeah, and if Trump said his shit don’t stink the Republicans would be sniffing his farts all day.
-
Don’t you wonder why exactly? Because he is the closest thing to a third party choice since Ross Perot. Republicans are inarticulate but their gut feelings are correct.
-
>Because he is the closest thing to a third party choice since Ross Perot
He ended up being another run of the mill GOP Republican -
For gut feelings that are correct, he sure didn’t do much of anything he said he would, then lost against sleepy joe.
Facts don’t care about your feelings, sis.
-
>Trump was nearly a 3rd party candidate
Until he became another neocon
>continued support for Israel
>corporate tax cuts
>increased military spending
>environmental deregulation
Even his immigration policies ended up being similar to Bush’s and Obama’s. Anyone who actually thought a New York millionaire was “anti establishment” was a gullible rube. -
Yeah I would say he did maybe 3 good things which were resist starting new wars besides yemen, cbd, and destroying trust in the GOP entirely.
-
What about better trade deals and the host of smaller acomplishments like some criminal justice reform and right to try?
-
-
-
-
Which isn’t actually true. Prior to the AWB, there was a registry you had to sign onto to purchase automatic weapons. This wouldn’t have been touched by that bill except some Congressman (forget who) inserted a clause that stipulated no new automatic weapon registrations would be taken after a certain date.
-
oh
-
-
Yeah Newsflash to lot’s of people, but Authoritarians like to pretend they have the same values as other people to get into power and then immediately flip as soon as convenient.
-
-
-
Do we not also consider the sheer cost to the taxpayer through jailing all this many people?
-
-
-
-
-
The libertarians never really made a good argument for less government, at least convince a good portion of the population to adopt the idea. At least the republicans were a little less overt in their corporatism.
-
Libertarians are the real American Conservatives. The founding fathers would be Libertarian today.
-
Not the Federalists you dumb bimbo.
-
-
Didn’t human society basically evolve from a libertarian system? No goverment, no nations etc. and yet tribes chose to organize, why is that?
-
LULZ is literally
[…]
-
How so
-
-
the polarized mob is vicious and obtuse
-
[…]
Yeah I’m from Arizona. The problem is the same people still buy into the two party system despite it bot actually being real. The difference when you vote is between a fast lane of more taxes and more government or slightly more taxes and more government. The two party system is a joke.
-
>The two party system is a joke.
No one is forcing you to vote Republican or Democrat-
>No one is forcing you to vote Republican or Democrat
SeeThe fact that third parties of any kind are politically irrelevant in America is not something unique to America, it would happen anywhere if those electoral rules were put in place. In the UK third parties are almost irrelevant, and the only reason they have some degree of importance is because the UK is a parliamentarian government, not a presidential one like the US.
Any other answer is bullshit.
>Perot did pretty good
Percentage of votes is an irrelevant metric, the only thing that matters is percentage of political positions. In that regard Perot was a complete failure.
The difference between electoral systems boils down to how they translate votes into positions.The system is specifically designed so that no third party can ever exist.
The only way for the democrat or republican party to stop existing is for a new party to appear and claim their spot as one of the two most popular parties, thus creating a new bipartidistic paradigm.
The last time this happened was over 100 years ago though.-
>The system is specifically designed so that no third party can ever exist
It’s not intentional, it just panned out that way because of Duverger’s Lawhttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law
There were plenty of relatively successful third parties in America until the early 20th century.
-
-
I am a lolbert anon. Unfortunately there are literally trusts controlling the news and new media to ensure that people do not have a choice because they do not know about a choice. It really doesn’t help that the intelligence agencies and bankers also see the lolberts as a threat.
-
-
-
[…]
>70% of people don’t think elections are fair anymore
Source? -
[…]
>Something like 30-40% of democrats don’t think 2020 was legit.
Source?-
I’m not going to spoodfeed you scrote, I’ve done enough of that today on here
-
Yeah that’s what I thought
-
if you don’t have a single source then it’s better to stop replying rather than embarrass yourself like this
-
>75% of Republicans say democracy is under attack, compared with 46% of Democrats.
-
>source: sis trust me
-
https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/572433-majority-of-americans-say-democracy-is-under-attack-poll
But it doesn’t mean that they don’t believe in the election, just that they rightfully realize American "democracy" is on its way out due to a series of issues
-
-
-
-
-
-
[…]
This. Trump had a Republican majority in the Senate and House for two years and decided to jerk off instead of pass legislation.
-
Remember Mccain being the one vote that turned over trumps legislation, what was it for? He said "lets see him make american great now".
-
>Remember Mccain being the one vote that turned over trumps legislation
I don’t, because Republicans held 52 Senate seats from 2016-2018. And Trump squandered it.-
And republican rhinos like McCain frequently sided with democrats to shoot down his legislation, what’s your point?
-
>if you don’t agree with le ex-democrat orange man on every single position then you’re a RINO
When will this meme die?-
If you side with democrats to "bash the fash" you’re definitely not a conservative
-
>If you side with democrats to "bash the fash"
Never happened schizo
>you’re definitely not a conservative
Not up for you to decide-
>voters overwhelmingly voting against RINOs and pathetic neocons doesn’t mean anything chud
>We are the real republicans, you can’t win unless you continue compromising on every front while the left counties to gain more and more institutional power
your days are numbered gramps, both parties are going through some big changes. The only difference is speed and build up between the two
-
-
-
-
>rhinos like McCain
Imagine being this delusional-
McCain was a pathetic salty old man that seethed so hard at Trump he was willing to vote for the ACA all while desperately holding onto his position of power despite his cancer.
He carpetbagged to Arizona and turned the state GOP into his own personal nepotistic club, paying lip service during elections before freaking off to somewhere else for the rest of the year.He is the perfect example of a brown nosing, egotistical DC politician so full of hot air and self importance that he spent his last days on this earth attacking his own party as it moved away from his shitty and vapid political positions.
His tumor deserves a medal, and his daughter is somehow an even worse grifting operturinst than he ever was
-
yes I remember /poo/ having 30 or so threads up celebrating his demise
-
yes I remember /poo/ having 30 or so threads up celebrating his demise
>His tumor deserves a medal
How did he even win elections?-
Because the choices were always McCain "im a good old boy I wuz military I am a respectable man look at me talk with border agents" pandering vs some Democrat appealing to the California enclave in Phoenix
>he got elected therefore he must be loved
Is a non argument in our political systems, no on other the McCain or someone close to him was every allied to run for the GOP in Arizona it was 209% controlled by him and those close to him, it was HIS party.
The only opposition then we’re Dems that either so far left they knew they had no chance of winning and just ran to get their image out while maintaining the pretense of fair and meaningful elections, or were dem moderates that didn’t attract enough attention-
How did none of the conservatives in the state try and run against him? Was a Bernie situation where they’d immediately take them out so he was the only conservative?
-
because again the Arizona GOP was McCain’s organization he controlled who was and wasn’t allowed to play ball.
Anyone that disrupted this and attempted to run as Republican in any was opposing him or those connected to him would be destroyed.Im not sure if you are an American but I am expecting not, both parties have gotten more centralized especially over the last 30-40 years. But they are still not national parties. Because of the importance of each individual state and their unique status and rights the parties are not national.
There are technically 100 "political parties" the combined together make up the 2 super parties, 50 republican 50 Democrat one of each for each state.
It has its merits and is a big reason why for example a republican from Massachusetts and a republican from Georgia will be very different.
But it can lead to situations where state parties become completely controlled by one person and their clique comprised of family members, associates and apprentice politicians, this is what happened with McCain and the Arizona GOP -
it’s why for example Joe Manchin is stonewalling Porkulus because it would fuck up his state’s principle economic activity.
-
and because he is simply a more moderate democrat the kind that seems to be less and less common these days.
He gets Incredible power within his own party by virtue of his current unique position why would he use it to get some "assistance" for his state while maintaining his popularity at home.
Again he isn’t just a "Democrat" he is a West Virginia Democrat. He seems to have it of loyalty to his state, and is over all apprehensive about a lot of things happening in the party at the national level -
There aren’t very many flyover state Democrats anymore, this isn’t the 50s. The Democrat center of gravity has increasingly shifted to the Northeast and West Coast the last 30 years.
-
I am not delusional I agree with you assessment 100% but they still do exist in some pockets and are proving to be a thorn in the side of the further left of the party as they (moderate "fly over" Dems) continue to elect people like Manchin
-
The reality is that the Democrats are structurally a weaker party than the Republicans. Even with an overwhelming majority of the vote total, the Dems still barely control congress, due to all the cornoid states with like four people in them voting GOP and getting two senators.
This in addition to the fact that like half of registered Democrats identify as "moderate" rather than "liberal," so the Democrats can only ever have a majority by electing purple Democrats like Manchin.
-
should understand most of the stereotypical ANTIFA/BLM/CRT bullshit is from a handful of mostly West Coast Dems like Nancy Pelosi. it’s these San Fran/Portland scrotes who are steering the entire ship.
-
thankfully Pelosi will die soon
-
There’s a huge disconnect between the most vocal Democrats and actual Democrat voters.
The activist wing of the Democratic Party are all highly educated urbanites who live on social media, who naturally gravitate towards the most extreme opinions. The problem is, there just aren’t enough of those people in America to actually win an election.
During the 2018 midterms, when the Democrats were at peak panic mode over Trump, AOC’s justice Democrats lost like 29 out of 30 races, while the Democrat establishment focused on running ex military candidates in purple districts, and won so many seats they took the House back.
This is also why Bernie always loses. It’s simply a lack of numbers.
-
they already tried that once with George McGovern by letting the pothead wing of the party run a candidate and you see how well that worked. the problem with McGovern and Bernie was that most of their voter base were too busy getting high to vote.
-
Bernie doesn’t have the money or support of the major power brokers in the Democrat Party. Of course that’s not always a handicap; we see how in 1948 Truman won despite little money and nearly no support from his own party because he mounted an aggressive populist appeal to voters. And Hillary had about 10x Trump’s war chest.
-
BLM really kicked off last year in Minneapolis though. Ferguson, Missouri before that. This "coastal vs. heartland" thing or "red states" vs."blue states" is a simplification for a whole bunch of states that go 60/40 or 55/45. It’s more complex.
One reason why I think Georgia has been trending to the Democratic column is Atlanta’s urban growth, of course, but it’s said there is a "reverse migration" with blacks from northern states moving back south where their ancestors moved away from and are settling in the suburbs. The Atlanta region now apparently has more black suburban homeowners than any other metro area in the country:
-
>The Atlanta region now apparently has more black suburban homeowners than any other metro area in the country
Atlanta is possibly the blackest city in America and Georgia is one of the blackest states in America. I don’t think they need to supplement their numbers with blacks from the north. -
Louisiana is the highest IIRC; its population is 40% black.
-
>simplification for a whole bunch of states that go 60/40 or 55/45
when you go by county, every state is urban vs. rural. This was true back in the 1700’s when England was urban and the colonies were rural, which is why the US has the current system. -
yeah that is the problem with being the self described "big tent" party, sometimes it works out really well and you get 70% of the population supporting /your dude/ most of the time you end up with a giant mess of different groups some of which really don’t agree on much of anything or even get along with one another
>cornoid
fuck you i actually chuckled why is this so funny -
i do kind of agree that states like Indiana and Wyoming are essentially free Republican votes
-
i mean yeah you had some people complain Arnold Schwarzeneggar wasn’t as rock ribbed conservative as a guy from Kansas but it was California. even then he was the last governor there to support capital punishment at all.
-
That was less than 20 years ago yet Arnold couldn’t win in 2021 California most likely, the state has moved much much more left than it even was in the Bush years.
-
-
-
Election turnout would be like 10% and the only people who voted were Republican party workers and people who got handouts/pork barrel projects from voting for McCain.
-
-
>trump say mccain bad so now i think he bad!
-
Fuck off Meghan.
-
-
Glad to see the Republican party is splitting at the seems
-
Trump is a good man with good intentions although I feel we need to go much further than he would have dared to. For example we need to smash the media conglomerates under anti-trust statutes and we need to take a hatchet to quite a few Federal alphabet agencies. Problem is there hasn’t been a strong intellectual case for this like there was for the Progressive movement or abolitionism both of which overcame some very powerful entrenched interests. Men with well-inked pens can move mountains.
-
Good intentions sure, but ‘good man’ might be a stretch.
-
>Trump is a good man with good intentions
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHABSBAHA
-
-
>mccain is responsible for trump’s failed presidency
-
Trump’s one term was already more successful than any administration since Clinton.
And the first good administration since Ford.
-
-
You realize Trump’s even own replacement of the ACA wouldn’t even completely repeal it, right? American Healthcare Act was even opposed by Trump’s conservative funders like the Hertiage Foundation. You can’t even blame Mccain.
-
-
-
If you side with democrats to "bash the fash" you’re definitely not a conservative
He is the perfect example of a brown nosing, egotistical DC politician so full of hot air and self importance that he spent his last days on this earth attacking his own party as it moved away from his shitty and vapid political positions.
His tumor deserves a medal, and his daughter is somehow an even worse grifting operturinst than he ever was
Im not sure if you are an American but I am expecting not, both parties have gotten more centralized especially over the last 30-40 years. But they are still not national parties. Because of the importance of each individual state and their unique status and rights the parties are not national.
There are technically 100 "political parties" the combined together make up the 2 super parties, 50 republican 50 Democrat one of each for each state.
It has its merits and is a big reason why for example a republican from Massachusetts and a republican from Georgia will be very different.
But it can lead to situations where state parties become completely controlled by one person and their clique comprised of family members, associates and apprentice politicians, this is what happened with McCain and the Arizona GOP>MAGAtards start scapegoating McCain when faced with the fact that Trump wasted a Republican majority in Congress
Like pottery-
Trump wasn’t a career politician. He was a businessman.
-
>He was a businessman
Specifically a con artist-
He did deliver on most of his promises… He just didn’t give off the right vibes. The vibes he was giving off was to get the far right extremists to vote for him too, providing racial divide in speeches "mexicans are rapists but im not really saying that lol" but in reality did nothing to aid or embed far right extremists
-
>He did deliver on most of his promises
Like what? Aside from giving a bunch of public lands to oil companies and sinking Obamacare without replacing it with anything that is
>providing racial divide in speeches "mexicans are rapists but im not really saying that lol" but in reality did nothing to aid or embed far right extremists
I don’t really care if he said mean things about illegals, I’m personally annoyed by how easy it is to come here illegally. The problem is he didn’t do anything to curb that. The wall was never built and he just made it harder for educated foreigners to get work visas. Meanwhile Jose and his 20 cousins were still able to stroll across the Rio Grande unobstructed.With all of Trump’s isolationist talk I thought we’d at least get some more sensible foreign policy, but all he did was send billions of dollars to Israel like every president before him. The only difference is he threw an autistic temper tantrum and screamed at our NATO allies while simultaneously giving garden gnomes free gibs and sucking off Putin.
I thought he’d finally stick it to the chinks but he abandoned the trade war he started with them after it bonked over American farmers and steel workers. His entire presidency was one giant shit in the bed and now we have a whole new geriatric scrotebrain in office because Trump was so incompetent that he made freaking Biden look like a good alternative to most people.
-
>Like what?
Most of the wall, lowered legal immigration, replaced NAFTA, renegotiated other trade deals, killed ISIS, lowered taxes, moved the US embassy in Israel. -
Holy shit what universe do you live in and how do I move there?
>moved the US embassy in Israel
Classic Zion Don appeasing garden gnomes as always
-
-
-
-
-
He didn’t ‘waste’ it.
He couldn’t use it.Because he ran against the whole Republican establishment. He was hated by the actual GOP.
He’s only been accepted and embraced now because he is insanely freaking popular among the GOP and the Right in this country.
But during the first half of what I hope to be his first term, the GOP wasn’t behind him, and there were no Trumpists in any high positions in congress.
Because of this he couldn’t get much done.A second term for him would be much more eventful hopefully.
-
>He didn’t ‘waste’ it.
>He couldn’t use it.
We’re hitting levels of cope that shouldn’t be possible
-
-
-
-
You are acting like republicans actually do anything. Where did you get that idea?
-
They gained seats in the senate in 2018, and then only lost like 3 or 4 in 2020.
Trump objectively is the best thing to happen to the party since 9/11
-
-
-
-
Isn’t this board for discussion of events >25 years ago? Trump is not 25 years ago.
-
The telecommunications act of 1996 just made it then
-
-
just 80 more posts to the bump limit
-
I’ll start another one don’t worry.
-
kek
-
woke af
-
-
-
Crypto would likely do a lot of good if it takes off, although it won’t fix everything wrong with capitalism either. Namely capital flight and runaway capital accumulation. So it’s possibly going to be something, but not an ancap utopia or anything. Mix of good and bad I’d say.
-
Didn’t have a viable, marketable platform.
-
it’s no different with Mitch McConnell. better the devil you know than risk an ANTIFA-hugging Democrat getting his Senate seat.
-
McConnel is old blood, I bet he has a framed picture of Lincoln in his office. He’ll die soon enough
-
McConnell was smart and pragmatic enough to at least play ball with Trump and those supporting him. He realized that it was in some ways and injection of life into the party.
He was willing to make deals, negotiate and put up a untied front against the democrats as a whole, with most disagreements being hashed out behind closed doors.
McCain on the other hand acted like a petulant child-
Right. But he’s dedicated to the idea that the US is this imaginary egalitarian funhouse, which is probably why he’s so negotiable
-
ofc I am not staying I 100% agree with him or particularly like his but you need to balance idealism with pragmatism and the reality that most people are fairly moderate. Overall the continued presence of McConnell m with his knowledge of the senate and it’s workings as well as his ability to work with many of the more typical yesteryear conservatives still in the GOP had been a very good thing for the part as a whole. He is shrewd and skilled at both establishing and the executing long term political strategies.
He knows how to play the game
-
-
-
-
-
the left in America seem to be gradually getting more toothless and lame. they don’t for example even pretend to be anti-capitalist, anti-deep state, or antiwar anymore. at least in the Bush years they were still screaming no war destroy KKKorporations CIA evil.
-
>the left in America seem to be gradually getting more toothless and lame. they don’t for example even pretend to be anti-capitalist, anti-deep state, or antiwar anymore. at least in the Bush years they were still screaming no war destroy KKKorporations CIA evil.
Well, it’s hard to be "anti-war" today compared to the Bush years for obvious reasons. It’s the same problem facing Die Linke, the left-wing party in Germany, which saw its best result in 2009 by taking a hard line against Bush’s wars and building momentum on the back of mass anti-war demonstrations going on at the time (Germany had a troop presence in Afghanistan), but the party has struggled to define itself since then — losing East German boomers to the AfD (due to immigration) while losing their younger voters to the SPD (social democrats) and Greens (green politics + cultural left-wing / identity politics concerns).In the U.S. meanwhile, the Democrats and Republicans are not really "parties" like other countries have. They’d be more like "fronts" or coalitions of different parties, associations (including business groups), NGOs, religious groups and ethnic factions. The DNC or RNC are stage-managed shows arranged in advance, not real party conventions. There are associated media outlets for both, and so forth. So while if you’re the left (or a far right group), you might be able to synchronize yourself with these larger fronts on some issues, like the far-right does with immigration, but no single faction like that is going to be able to overpower and control an entire "front." Either they will be made to conform or be pushed out, or they’ll just leave on their own accord because of the dissonance that is caused by contradicting some major priorities shared by the other factions.
-
Also, it’s hard to build a politics around being "anti-military" or "anti-deep state" when the U.S. military is one of the most popular institutions in American society. Much more popular than the politicians. That’s the irony of the Q-Anon people because they were against "the deep state" but, in their own mythos, believed there was a secretive group of JSOC operators who were preparing to launch a coup to install Trump as emperor-for-life or whatever while locking up all the "deep state" traitors. Not only was that not true as far as I’m aware, but that’s contradictory. You can hardly claim to be against the deep state while wanting military officers to intervene in politics.
What I think has happened is that after the Cold War, political leaders, the media, the "intelligentsia" and perhaps the public have become more militaristic than the more "realist" military leaders and soldiers — who are not given clear missions by the doinks in Washington diverting national resources to warmaking at the expense of the domestic economy (other than for defense contractors), and that indeed played a role in driving Trump’s election against the neocons and liberal hawks. Trump did campaign as an anti-interventionist. Yet, Trump appointed a bunch of generals to his cabinet and boosted defense spending even more, and was so reckless, his top general went behind his back to coordinate with the PLA in case Trump tried to provoke a war with China to stay in power.
While politics have become more "militarized," the military brass has become more "politicized" (inadvertently drawn into events against their will, like a sucking motion), they’re being drawn into politics or affairs that should be the domain of political leaders because the generals are a more-or-less neutral, "apolitical," stabilizing group of people — and generally respected. And Q-Anon types are outraged! But if you want the brass to get involved in non-military matters, be careful what you wish for…
-
>it’s hard to build a politics around being "anti-military" or "anti-deep state" when the U.S. military is one of the most popular institutions in American society
No one gives a shit about the military, hence Trumpists shit talking Mattis and McCain while sucking off a guy who dodged the draft with a “bone spurs” diagnosis-
"Mad Dog Board Fiduciary" Mattis was conned by that blonde bitch at Theranos lol, he’s just another example of the terminal decline of America’s (ostensible) elites
-
t. neverserved
-
>simping for Mad Dog "Theranos Board Fiduciary" Mattis
-
t. neverserved
-
hope Mattis sees this, bro
-
>yea i was gonna enlist but i’m just too much of a free thinker bro
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Trump supporters don’t actually give a shit about the military, exhibit A
He is the perfect example of a brown nosing, egotistical DC politician so full of hot air and self importance that he spent his last days on this earth attacking his own party as it moved away from his shitty and vapid political positions.
His tumor deserves a medal, and his daughter is somehow an even worse grifting operturinst than he ever was
-
-
-
most of this thread seems to be filled with people whining about modern libertarians.
Rothbard did not really care about politics he just want a political party to raise awareness.
If you dont know who Rothbard is he was like the right wing karl marx. He founded the LP and the mises institute.
https://mises.org/library/strategies-libertarian-victory
TLDR: Rothbard says libertarians will win once the state collapses due to a crisis-
Except they wont. Crisis’ end result is the centralization of power, not its decentralization
-
Well that is just what he believed. this is LULZ not /poo/
-
-
-
My state has its own version of McCain; it’s called Pat Toomey, a guy who:
>drank Obama’s cum and licked his nutsack every day from 2009 to 17
>voted for Obamacare, the 2009 Porkulus bill, and more
>is 40% owned by the Chinese Communist Party
>spent every waking minute of the past 5 years trying to undermine Trump every chance he got-
The American government is owned by corporations, which in turn bow to the Chinese. There is no clean American politician
-
But american politicians are extremely restricted in what they can do, you see. So it balances itself out.
The President of the United States right now is having issues with just being able to turn on a printer. America’ system is the best it can be for minimizing corruption.
-
if you lived in Mexico i don’t see how American can possibly complain about their politicians being incompetent, dictatorial, corrupt. the worst they do would still be 5x better than PRI on their best day.
-
"well at least you aren’t mexico" is setting the bar really freaking low mate
-
The Lockean perspective sets the bar at "well at least you aren’t alone in the wilderness." I’ve yet to come across a good argument to using any other criteria as a baseline for instituationalized group interactions.
-
-
-
What? That isn’t remotely true. And even if it were, the fact that the government can’t enact any meaningful legislation is a bad thing, because they desperately need their infrastructure repaired and updated, they desperately need to reform their school system, they desperately need to solve their drug and obesity crises, and it is becoming imperative that they ween off fossil fuels.
-
>can’t enact any meaningful legislation
the system is working as intended by the founding fathers, not you>infrastructure
only the california drought, which california should pay for, not the federal government. other than that, I would trust Amazon (or any other scroteMAN) to build infrastructure better and cheaper than the feds.>reform their school system
lefties’s too busy brainwashing kids with critical race fallacy. rightie’s has too many bible thumping donors. neither side is interested in getting rid of common core math, or improving STEM education, or trades.>drug and obesity crises
or nutritional education. Women’s liberation killed Home Economics curriculum for everybody. This is the future you wanted.>oil
is best as plastic, but useless if left in the ground.-
>only the california drought, which california should pay for, not the federal government. other than that, I would trust Amazon (or any other scroteMAN) to build infrastructure better and cheaper than the feds.
>After the Texas port city of Indianola was ravaged by a hurricane in 1886, President Cleveland declined to send Federal disaster relief on the grounds that he could find nothing in the Constitution authorizing it. "Although the people should support the government," he said, "the government should not support the people."[59]
-
And right he was. Meanwhile Nawlins got ravaged because the Federally-funded flood wall they were expecting never came.
-
>no not muh heckin constitutionarino
-
-
-
-
-
-
remember the scrote from Ohio? John Kasich? The guy who said "I wrote in John McCain for president I’m not going to support Orange Hitler."
-
>>spent every waking minute of the past 5 years trying to undermine Trump every chance he got
Woke af
-
-
Because cultural libertarianism is a bad thing.
-
The one thing I will say is I agreed with Biden suspending Federal executions which Trump had revived the use of and I didn’t agree with him on that, I don’t think they were constitutional.
-
really? I didn’t know that.
-
I’m not sure if it was so much Trump as it was Bill Barr. But they executed a couple people over state level crimes including one where a guy kidnapped and murdered a 10 year old girl back in the 90s. Which was horrible but that was strictly a state level issue to deal with, it was completely unconstitutional to convict the guy in Federal court. Besides that it was in a death penalty state (Kansas) it’s not as if he couldn’t have been executed there.
So yeah I didn’t agree with that all.
-
-
-
Poor LBJscrote. All the minutes of his life spent writing walls of text that he will never get back.
-
>Why was the Libertarian Party of the US not more successful (1972-1996)?
Skimming the answers and I don’t see it.
Of course the oligarchy would never ever ever ever let go of using the US government’s power over the planet after WWII.
Also. I suspect Marxism and Libertarianism are controlled opposition. The kosher extreme Right and the Kosher extreme Left. Both probably funded by the Rothschilds like everything else.
Does any White guy stay on the open borders cause for long?
It seems like an ideology to create the NWO in the end. -
I don’t think the main parties had really polarized enough for there to be any place for a third party like that
-
It is of course a fact that Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders were of military age during the Vietnam War and neither of them served.
-
Biden should have served. Sanders? No, he literaly hates America. He’sa commie. He would have supported the Vietcong.
-
bone spurs
-
So was Trump. Your point?
-
-
Because americans are scrotebrained thats why they call themselves "americans"
also you block ips from other countries from posting scrotes
-
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.