32 YEARS !! Thirty-Two Years Is Enough!! VOTE FOR ROMNEY !!!!!!!

[TheWalrus]

While you aren't wrong, it might also behoove us to install a federal government that doesn't do things like this in the first place.

I think a source of confusion for me at least, is as an Obama supporter; you criticize Johnson on the grounds that this sort of thing might happen, whilst it's already happening under Obama. You state that our right to privacy could very well be infringed upon if originalist judges were appointed, while our right to privacy is currently almost literally non-existent. I understand the advocacy of your theoretical style of government which is different than Obama's, but realistically speaking I find it a little confusing that you seem to be giving Obama a pass on things that are actually happening while strongly criticizing Johnson on an unlikely possibility. For example, speaking of privacy, Obama & congress did just extend the Patriot Act this past year.

If you want to add more amendments to the Bill of Rights I'm with you. The last time it was amended was in '92. Time's have changed, let's update that ****. We just have different view points about how invasive the Feds should be. While I think it would be good for the Feds to be able to overrule things like the Ohio voter suppression issue, I also very much don't like a myriad of the other unconstitutional things they're doing as well. It's a double-edged sword; a sword I fear is more likely to stab you, than defend you.

FWIW, congress did shoot down NSA's spy center idea in 2003 (though it did later pass FISA for the NSA in 2008, which largely legalized warrentless-wiretapping), but it's still happening because the Feds have basically said, "Congress can suck our nads, we're gonna do that **** anyway, try & stop us". I think they've become out of control, & I believe it's time for change in regards to the size, & role of the Federal Government.

Well, I don't have to be a Republican to criticize Romney for not being enough of a Republican, right? It's fair to point out inconsistencies there and it's the same kind of thing here. I don't agree with your use of the word "unlikely," but it's not like we're going to find out either way.

I'm voting for Obama because I think he'd be a better president than Romney. I understand why people support third party candidates but ultimately I think I should choose between one of the two people with a chance to become president. I feel like that's my duty as a voter and citizen. Which is not to say I think that people who don't vote or vote for a third party aren't doing their duty. It's just what I feel I should do.

Any way you choose it it's a double edge sword, though. A federal sword can stab and so can a state one. I don't consider it a choice between sword and no sword. Ultimately I'm just of the opinion that Johnson's style of libertarianism is not so much about allowing people to do what they want as it is allowing states and local communities to do what they want. We haven't even gotten to his supply side fiscal policy but that's another non-starter for me.

[Dolphins9954]

You want me to make an extensive list of all the ways I don't like what Obama's done on civil liberties -- which isn't my top issue -- when you won't even go farther than a meek "it's an issue" on the point of discussion of this thread (which is your chief issue in this campaign)? You want to talk about bitching out, go look in a mirror. It's ****ing clownish, this act of yours. As of this post you're on ignore.

Monkey man goes down. I wear your ignore as a badge of honor. What a silly thing to do.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[rob19]

Well, I don't have to be a Republican to criticize Romney for not being enough of a Republican, right? It's fair to point out inconsistencies there and it's the same kind of thing here.

No, but I don't know if you're being fair to Johnson given I don't ever see you criticize Obama on these same issues. Granted, the style of judging may be different, but the results are nonetheless deplorable.

I don't agree with your use of the word "unlikely," but it's not like we're going to find out either way.

I think it's apt given the current status & state of affairs in regards to our right to privacy.

I'm voting for Obama because I think he'd be a better president than Romney. I understand why people support third party candidates but ultimately I think I should choose between one of the two people with a chance to become president. I feel like that's my duty as a voter and citizen. Which is not to say I think that people who don't vote or vote for a third party aren't doing their duty. It's just what I feel I should do.

That's fair. Personally I believe the Republicans & Democrats have a little bit of a shell-game going here & I'd like to see a 3rd party break up the monopoly a bit.

Any way you choose it it's a double edge sword, though. A federal sword can stab and so can a state one. I don't consider it a choice between sword and no sword. Ultimately I'm just of the opinion that Johnson's style of libertarianism is not so much about allowing people to do what they want as it is allowing states and local communities to do what they want. We haven't even gotten to his supply side fiscal policy but that's another non-starter for me.

Absolutely not, to me it's a choice between a sword & an even bigger sword.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[TheWalrus]

No, but I don't know if you're being fair to Johnson given I don't ever see you criticize Obama on these same issues. Granted, the style of judging may be different, but the results are nonetheless deplorable.

Well, if a Republican wants to criticize me for supporting Obama because Obama's not liberal enough, I wouldn't see anything wrong with that. It's a valid critique whether the person making it is liberal or not.

I think it's apt given the current status & state of affairs in regards to our right to privacy.

Again, there seems to some confusion. Johnson doesn't have to be worse than Obama or Romney on civil liberties to not be what's he's cracked up to be on that issue.

That's fair. Personally I believe the Republicans & Democrats have a little bit of a shell-game going here & I'd like to see a 3rd party break up the monopoly a bit.

I go back and forth on it. I'd be much more likely to support vibrant third parties if we had a parliamentary system rather than a presidential one. The latter always produces inevitable questions of legitimacy (in other words, when Congress is of one party and the president the other, who really speaks for the people? The lack of clarity on that issue produces unceasing attempts by both to tear down the legitimacy of the other). Many viable parties combined with a presidential system would only make things worse, in my view. Either way, I wouldn't vote for Johnson even if he had a decent shot to win.

Absolutely not, to me it's a choice between a sword & an even bigger sword.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

This big? Cause this is pretty ****ing big.

[rob19]

Well, if a Republican wants to criticize me for supporting Obama because Obama's not liberal enough, I wouldn't see anything wrong with that. It's a valid critique whether the person making it is liberal or not.

Well yes, but I meant I didn't think you were being equally objective in criticizing Obama on these issues in comparison to your criticisms of Johnson. Perhaps I just haven't seen them.

Again, there seems to some confusion. Johnson doesn't have to be worse than Obama or Romney on civil liberties to not be what's he's cracked up to be on that issue.

Fair enough. To me civil liberties is high on my priorities list (you know, being a criminal & all), so any improvement in that regard would I think be extremely beneficial to our citizens. Especially when you consider 1/2th the prison population is made up of non-violent drug offenders. Personally, I believe it's no small margin by which Johnson is the better of the other two candidates in these respects.

I go back and forth on it. I'd be much more likely to support vibrant third parties if we had a parliamentary system rather than a presidential one. The latter always produces inevitable questions of legitimacy (in other words, when Congress is of one party and the president the other, who really speaks for the people? The lack of clarity on that issue produces unceasing attempts by both to tear down the legitimacy of the other). Many viable parties combined with a presidential system would only make things worse, in my view. Either way, I wouldn't vote for Johnson even if he had a decent shot to win.

Would that be because you have fundamental disagreements about the core principles of the party, or is it a personal issue with Johnson? Inversely, is the reason you're voting for Obama because you agree (for the most part) with the basic philosophy of the democratic party, or because you like Obama personally as a candidate? Or is Obama simply the lesser of two evils in your mind?

We've been over this, but as for me I have a hard time voting for a candidate that A) Would advocate the perpetuation of a drug war B) Would display disregard for the constitution by signing, & appealing the overturning of the NDAA, as well as extending the Patriot Act, & C) Won't stand up to (or actually supports) the NSA unconstitutionally spying on American citizens.

--

As an aside, do you think people are underestimating the economic impact of the legalization of drugs, gambling, & prostitution? Personally I think those would be absolutely huge industries that we're currently not taking advantage of. Jeffery Miron of Harvard wrote an interesting piece about the economic implications of not only the income of the ending of a drug war, but the amount of money we save not enforcing it.

"All drugs should be legalized nationwide, Miron says. Pot, cocaine, LSD, crystal-meth --- you name it.

Legalizing drugs would save roughly $41.3 billion per year in government expenditure on enforcement of prohibition. Of these savings, $25.7 billion would accrue to state and local governments, while $15.6 billion would accrue to the federal government," Miron claims in a recent Cato Institute report he co-authored.

According to their website, "The report also estimates that drug legalization would yield tax revenue of $46.7 billion annually, assuming legal drugs were taxed at rates comparable to those on alcohol and tobacco. Approximately $8.7 billion of this revenue would result from legalization of marijuana and $38.0 billion from legalization of other drugs."


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


Just the legalization of drugs alone would be upwards of a 100 billion dollar annual swing in revenue.

[TheWalrus]

Well yes, but I meant I didn't think you were being equally objective in criticizing Obama on these issues in comparison to your criticisms of Johnson. Perhaps I just haven't seen them.

I haven't. Others seem to have that pretty well covered, so it's much fresher ground to go over the implications of libertarianism generally and Johnson specifically as it relates to civil liberties.

Fair enough. To me civil liberties is high on my priorities list (you know, being a criminal & all), so any improvement in that regard would I think be extremely beneficial to our citizens. Especially when you consider 1/2th the prison population is made up of non-violent drug offenders. Personally, I believe it's no small margin by which Johnson is the better of the other two candidates in these respects.

Would that be because you have fundamental disagreements about the core principles of the party, or is it a personal issue with Johnson? Inversely, is the reason you're voting for Obama because you agree (for the most part) with the basic philosophy of the democratic party, or because you like Obama personally as a candidate? Or is Obama simply the lesser of two evils in your mind?

We've been over this, but as for me I have a hard time voting for a candidate that A) Would advocate the perpetuation of a drug war B) Would display disregard for the constitution by signing, & appealing the overturning of the NDAA, as well as extending the Patriot Act, & C) Won't stand up to (or actually supports) the NSA unconstitutionally spying on American citizens.

--

As an aside, do you think people are underestimating the economic impact of the legalization of drugs, gambling, & prostitution? Personally I think those would be absolutely huge industries that we're currently not taking advantage of. Jeffery Miron of Harvard wrote an interesting piece about the economic implications of not only the income of the ending of a drug war, but the amount of money we save not enforcing it.

"All drugs should be legalized nationwide, Miron says. Pot, cocaine, LSD, crystal-meth --- you name it.

Legalizing drugs would save roughly $41.3 billion per year in government expenditure on enforcement of prohibition. Of these savings, $25.7 billion would accrue to state and local governments, while $15.6 billion would accrue to the federal government," Miron claims in a recent Cato Institute report he co-authored.

According to their website, "The report also estimates that drug legalization would yield tax revenue of $46.7 billion annually, assuming legal drugs were taxed at rates comparable to those on alcohol and tobacco. Approximately $8.7 billion of this revenue would result from legalization of marijuana and $38.0 billion from legalization of other drugs."


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


Just the legalization of drugs alone would be upwards of a 100 billion dollar annual swing in revenue.

Both. I would like to see nearly all drugs be legal (within limits. I'm not an expert on all the different designer cocktails and street variants but some drugs seem to be so harmful to the body it seems sensible to outlaw or at least curtail their use, the way it makes sense to limit people's availability to dynamite. PCP comes to mind, as does Crystal Meth).

Pot legalization I do think is coming. Most young people I know, regardless of their politics, have smoked at least once. And most people who smoke realize what how basically harmless it is. I don't think people should do it and operate heavy machinery, but I think the day when you get it at a head shop isn't far off. Maybe that's overly optimistic, but that's my view.

I think the reason the Democrats don't take it up is because women with children ("Soccer Moms", to use fellow Cuban and political operative Alex Castellanos' term) are irrationally frightened of drugs. They throw them all in one big dumb box and link it to crime and criminals. Republicans (especially Republican men) do a similar thing, though not out of fear for their children. Theirs instead is fear of minorities, especially blacks, which gets back to the reason pot is illegal in the first place, as I'm sure you know. Anyway, no Democrat gets elected without the gender gap swinging big in their favor so no Democrat has the balls to suggest legalization even though they know it hurts them with young people.

At the end of the day, though, I don't smoke so I can't get all worked up about that issue.

I'm voting for Obama because he's the lesser of two evils. I don't particularly care for that phrase, but it's fine. He's the better choice. I wouldn't vote for Johnson mainly for the reason I've said, which is that I think that supply side economics on the scale he advocates is a terrible, absolutely awful idea.

I think if you're going to vote for a 3rd party candidate, that's a choice you're making for ideological reasons. He or she is not going to win, so you know that at most you're making a statement and there's a good chance you're just letting someone else make your choice for you. It has to be a vote cast with conviction. Whereas choosing between the lesser of two evils is judged on a different scale... like being on a road trip and having to pick between gas station food and McDonalds. Neither one might be great, but they're not the same, either. Depending on your preferences, and the circumstances, it's perfectly reasonable to think one of them is a better choice than the other.

In other words, it's appropriate to judge a 3rd party candidate by a different criteria. To see if they live up to being voted for with conviction rather than being merely another compromise.

So let's break down Johnson's positions like this (this will not be a perfect list) and I'll show where I agree and disagree:

Civil Liberties: Agree in principle but not execution.
Drug War: Agree.
Foreign policy: Disagree.
Taxes: Disagree.
Regulation/approach to business: Disagree.
Supreme Court approach: Disagree.

Whereas if it's Obama on those same issues, it goes like this:

Civil liberties: Disagree.
Drug War: Disagree.
Foreign policy: Agree.
Taxes: Agree with basic approach. Wealthy pay too little in taxes.
Regulation/approach to business: Basically agree. Not enough being done but move in the right direction.
Supreme Court approach: Agree.

He's a better candidate in theory than he's been in practice, though that's usually the case.