Personally I think it's probably a good move by Obama to debate him on gay marriage. I think a majority of the country at this point is probably sympathetic to gay marriage & recognizes having it be illegal is an archaic and dying stance. I don't think Obama's going to break his back trying to use his influence to help legalize gay marriage, rather leave that up to the states, but at least he won't be the guy up there repeating the phrase "I believe marriage should be between a man and a woman", over and over. People do care about social issues as well.
I understand your point though, both candidates are fundamentally pretty bad in terms of civil liberties, with the most frightening example of which coming in the form of joint support of the infamous NDAA. I think any libertarian would blow both of them out of the water in this regard, & I'd give my left nut to be able to see Gary Johnson participate in the civil liberties debate. At least to me Gary would blow them out of the water, I'm very curious as to how the whole nation would react though. Libertarians are generally in favor of legalizing Drugs, Gambling, & Prostitution (which I am as well), but I don't know if the majority of America is ready for that kind of freedom just yet; I think most Americans are still inoculated with the notion that a Drug-War is in our interests. Nonetheless It's an idea I'd at least like to see permeate the lexicon of American thought.
When it comes to civil liberties all you're doing is voting for which form of big brother you want ruling your life. Granted Obama plays the rhetoric fiddle to gay marriage after being against forever. (conveniently right before the election). But the fact is neither candidate or party has a leg to stand on when it comes to civil liberties. The democrats will sign and even extend the patriot act. Obama specifically requested the indefinite detention of Americans provisions in NDAA. And continues to fight and appeal all court cases challenging that treasonous law. Voted for warrantless wiretaps and even immunity to tele-com companies that help spy on us for the government. Signed the Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011, which makes it a fedearl crime to protest anywhere near the president and congress. Believes he has the authority to kill Americans without due process or oversight. You can go on and on with Obama's attacks on civil liberties and Romney is no different. He's supported all big government interventions into our freedoms too. In the end we have no choice in the matter regardless of the classic wedge issues that the candidates use but never do anything about.
"Politics is the Art of Looking for Trouble, Finding it Everywhere, Diagnosing it Incorrectly, and Applying the Wrong Remedies"
But, as you stated, both candidates are for that. So doesnt that just serve to highlight things like the abolishment of "Dont ask, dont tell"? Being against the defunding of Planned Parenthood? Being able to watch porn in our homes? Etc, etc, etc, on various "little" issues.
We're not talking about the election, we're talking about a debate setting. If one candidate is 90% restrictive, wouldnt he beat the candidate that is 95% restrictive? All things being equal in their debate performance, id say he would. As i stated earlier, what exactly would Romneys defense be? "All those regulations on how you live your life are part of American Exceptionalism!!!"....?
So you recognize that Obama's positions are at least somewhat (or marginally, or however you want to phrase it) better, but just don't believe there will be any follow through. Is that a fair summary?Originally Posted by Dolphins9954
If so, why trust the libertarian party or any party candidate? What reason do you have to believe they would do any different? Or is it simply a vote registered in protest of the status quo and for a certain ideology?