Making sense of the election, 3 weeks away.

[TheWalrus]

I get being dissatisfied with Obama or Romney. But what I don't get is believing that Gary Johnson or Jill Stein -- or any of the third party candidates -- care about you. It seems more like a protest vote than a vote for them, in other words.

I mean, everyone should vote for whomever they want and for whatever reason. But it seems to me, and perhaps I'm wrong, that people don't apply the same level of scrutiny to the specific policies and beliefs of third party candidates than they do to one of the top guys. It's more like, "I don't like the top two candidates and this is the third party that's closest to my own beliefs so I'm voting for whoever they nominated this time."

[WVDolphan]

I get being dissatisfied with Obama or Romney. But what I don't get is believing that Gary Johnson or Jill Stein -- or any of the third party candidates -- care about you. It seems more like a protest vote than a vote for them, in other words.

I mean, everyone should vote for whomever they want and for whatever reason. But it seems to me, and perhaps I'm wrong, that people don't apply the same level of scrutiny to the specific policies and beliefs of third party candidates than they do to one of the top guys. It's more like, "I don't like the top two candidates and this is the third party that's closest to my own beliefs so I'm voting for whoever they nominated this time."

Wow. I agree with the Walrus again. Thats it. Im going to get checked out. Gotta make sure Im not becoming a socialist.

[Locke]

I get being dissatisfied with Obama or Romney. But what I don't get is believing that Gary Johnson or Jill Stein -- or any of the third party candidates -- care about you. It seems more like a protest vote than a vote for them, in other words.

I mean, everyone should vote for whomever they want and for whatever reason. But it seems to me, and perhaps I'm wrong, that people don't apply the same level of scrutiny to the specific policies and beliefs of third party candidates than they do to one of the top guys. It's more like, "I don't like the top two candidates and this is the third party that's closest to my own beliefs so I'm voting for whoever they nominated this time."

This is especially true with Ron Paul. Don't get me wrong, I like the guy and think that we're going to have to adopt a fair share of his ideas sooner rather than later, but he big on ideology and low on reality. He wants to end the fed, but offers no real plan for that. He wants to get rid of all government agencies, such as the department of education, and leave all of that up to the states. However, he completely ignores the myriad of issues that come with leaving absolutely everything up to the states. He wants to get rid of the IRS and reduce taxes to some level in line with 1975 or something like that, but offers no real way to cover the lost revenue. I could go on, but I think the point is clear. If Ron Paul were the Republican nominee, he'd be getting trashed harder than Romney and Obama combined. But since he isn't, no one even bothers to point out the numerous problems that come with his idea of government...

[JamesBW43]

I get being dissatisfied with Obama or Romney. But what I don't get is believing that Gary Johnson or Jill Stein -- or any of the third party candidates -- care about you. It seems more like a protest vote than a vote for them, in other words.

I mean, everyone should vote for whomever they want and for whatever reason. But it seems to me, and perhaps I'm wrong, that people don't apply the same level of scrutiny to the specific policies and beliefs of third party candidates than they do to one of the top guys. It's more like, "I don't like the top two candidates and this is the third party that's closest to my own beliefs so I'm voting for whoever they nominated this time."

I don`t know about anyone else but I looked at Jill Stein`s policy positions before I decided to entertain the idea of voting for a third party candidate. I agree with her positions more than any of the other candidates. Now it`s just a question of pragmatism or principle imo.

[TheWalrus]

Wow. I agree with the Walrus again. Thats it. Im going to get checked out. Gotta make sure Im not becoming a socialist.

Eh, it just means you're probably on the right track about something, rather than your usual gibbering nonsense.

[TheWalrus]

I don`t know about anyone else but I looked at Jill Stein`s policy positions before I decided to entertain the idea of voting for a third party candidate. I agree with her positions more than any of the other candidates. Now it`s just a question of pragmatism or principle imo.

I agree with a lot of Stein's positions, though a lot of it is sort of pie in the sky, especially her energy policy. You can't simultaneously end nuclear power, end drilling, end coal, end fracking and end our dependence on foreign oil. Sorry, but hydroelectric, wind, solar and biofuels just doesn't cut it. Not close, not even kind of close.

That's something I've realized as I've gotten older, that there's a difference between caring about the "masses", as it were, in sort of an abstract way... and actually focusing on the issues that affect them, which are principally pocketbook issues. As great as renewables and organics and sustainable products are, if every grocery store in the US were mandated to be like Whole Foods, no one could afford to shop for food. It's just too damn expensive. You'd have to have government run grocery stores run on a voucher system to supplement the high end places, which would be a terrible situation. Similarly, as I mentioned above, her energy policy would lead to a massive increase in energy costs, which would primarily affect, you guessed it, the poor.

[Tetragrammaton]

Anyone who was paying attention knew Ron Paul was a fraud five years ago. His run was entertaining, though.

[TheWalrus]

This is especially true with Ron Paul. Don't get me wrong, I like the guy and think that we're going to have to adopt a fair share of his ideas sooner rather than later, but he big on ideology and low on reality. He wants to end the fed, but offers no real plan for that. He wants to get rid of all government agencies, such as the department of education, and leave all of that up to the states. However, he completely ignores the myriad of issues that come with leaving absolutely everything up to the states. He wants to get rid of the IRS and reduce taxes to some level in line with 1975 or something like that, but offers no real way to cover the lost revenue. I could go on, but I think the point is clear. If Ron Paul were the Republican nominee, he'd be getting trashed harder than Romney and Obama combined. But since he isn't, no one even bothers to point out the numerous problems that come with his idea of government...

My problem with Ron Paul and libertarians in general -- as I was telling 9954 in another thread -- is that their philosophy as a practical matter doesn't end up being to support something like gay rights. It's that the federal government shouldn't intervene. People just sort of assume this adds up to gay marriage for all or in another case for legalization or for civil liberties generally. But the reality is if you leave these things up to the states, you haven't guaranteed anything. You merely might be trading in a federal oppressor for a local one.

To me, the federal government should be in the business of guaranteeing individual freedoms against local governments and corporates interests alike. The Constitution and Bill of Rights are not merely principles, in other words. They carry with them the right of the government to enforce what they say.

A good example of this is Gary Johnson's stated preference for Supreme Court justices who would rule based on original intent (which generally speaking limits the power of the Supreme Court to, as conservatives like to say, "legislate from the bench"). Well, the problem is that an originalist judicial philosophy don't include the right to privacy. It's not explicitly in the text, therefore you can't infer it, says that philosophy. Well, that's huge. Without an inferred right to privacy, abortion rights go out the window, since Roe v. Wade was built on the right to privacy (Johnson admits Roe would be overturned by originalists). So was Griswold v. Connecticut, which guaranteed the right of couples to buy contraception. It's no small issue, and Johnson himself might not like the results of decisions handed down by that kind of judiciary. But what is he going to do? His philosophy of limited government would in and of itself prevent his ability to affect change.

[Locke]

My problem with Ron Paul and libertarians in general -- as I was telling 9954 in another thread -- is that their philosophy as a practical matter doesn't end up being to support gay rights, for example. It's that the federal government shouldn't intervene. People just sort of assume this adds up to gay marriage for all or in another case for legalization or for civil liberties generally. But the reality is if you leave these things up to the states, you haven't guaranteed anything. You merely might be trading in a federal oppressor for a local one.

To me, the federal government should be in the business of guaranteeing individual freedoms against local governments and corporates interests alike. The Constitution and Bill of Rights are not merely principles, in other words. They carry with them the right of the government to enforce what they say.

A good example of this is Gary Johnson stated preference for Supreme Court justices who would rule based on original intent (which generally speaking limits the power of the Supreme Court to, as conservatives like to say, "legislate from the bench"). Well, the problem is that an originalist judicial philosophy don't include the right to privacy. It's not explicitly in the text, therefore you can't infer it, says that philosophy. Well, that's huge. Without the right to privacy, abortion rights goes out the window. Roe v. Wade was built on the right to privacy (Johnson admits Roe would be overturned by originalists). So was Griswold v. Connecticut, which guaranteed the right of couples to buy contraception. It's no small issue, and Johnson himself might not like the results of decisions handed down by that kind of judiciary. But what is he going to do? His philosophy of limited government would in and of itself prevent his ability to affect change.

Great points throughout.

I think it's also important to point out that giving the local governments all this power has several dangers in of itself. What would prevent a state like Kansas from deciding that Creationism is right and that it should be taught in place of Evolution? What would stop a state like Oregon from deciding that any kind of fossil fuel wouldn't be allowed to be used within it's state borders? If states had the ability to do that, we'd still see states like Virginia and North Carolina with legal slavery, which is universally agreed to be one of the most significant dark spots in U.S. history. it took the Federal government going in and enforcing that to end it. The Federal government has a role, despite what people would like to believe. Ron Paul's America is something that just isn't pragmatic. It sounds great on paper, but it's just not realistic...

[rob19]

All good points, but I will admit I do admire a guy that will stand up and say the NDAA is unconstitutional when no one else will. I do like a guy that will say the fed is probably a bit corrupt and should be audited, or who'll say the drug war has been a failure, & that gambling & prostitution shouldn't be a criminal matter. That will say the Federal government shouldn’t overstep matters that the state’s people have voted in favor of. He is by far the most financially supported candidate in terms of active military personnel so you figure they probably agree with a lot of his foreign policy. Yes, states like Missouri might be a bit late on the gay marriage train, but isn't that part of being in a democracy? As it stands now though I don't exactly see the federal government itching to jump in on gay marriage.