Rand and Gary have some very different views, and SG isn't really altruistic.
Comment has been collapsed.
Jesus fucking christ this thread is a mess.
Okay, so let's just begin by mentioning that begging (or asking for donations) is against the rules here. Secondly, I'd like to point out that promotion is also against the rules, and promoting a political figure on this forum is probably not such a good idea.
Comment has been collapsed.
I am recruiting for my group, I do believe this is the name of the category, is it not?
Comment has been collapsed.
So this person i never heard of is suppose to be a better option because he was Gov. of NM while the country was riding on an all-time high economy really even if it is the worse economy you simply do not spend more then you have and that how you balance a budget.
Yet most people seem to not know how to do anyhow and why they buy houses,cars and charge shit because they spend more then they have yet call politicians idiots for not staying within budget yet the average person fails at that,wow i love that logic.
No matter who we vote it will still be the same BS,you know you need more then just a good president to get shit done it is a 2 way street where everyone wants to go t here way which is one way only.
Comment has been collapsed.
well, not only that, but it's not just about balancing a budget, it's also about stimulating the economy during a depression/recession, and about cooling it down during a boom.
Economic history has shown that government intervention is the best way out of a recession/depression, and government non-intervention can actually make it worse. Increased government spending can make up for the lack of demand, and get the economy back on track. What politicians especially forget, is that when the economy starts doing very well, they (a) need to pay down the debt, and (b) prevent the economy from overheating.
It's entirely possible to have cycles of moderation, rather than boom/bust. The more the economy is allowed to overheat, the bigger the crash. The more a recession is controlled, the shorter and less severe it will be.
But, no one ever wants to stop the gravy train.
Comment has been collapsed.
well, not only that, but it's not just about balancing a budget, it's also about stimulating the economy during a depression/recession,
Do you not think that they tried throwing money at it? Two Presidents tried to spend there way out of it countless ways yet you claim that is the best way to get out of one,Yet Bush nor Obama really did much for it despite throwing trillions of dollars to try and prop it up and stimulate it.That includes tax cuts,extended unemployment,more food share,tax breaks on owed taxes to give more money for people to spend.Tax breaks and no interest loans for cars and houses and so on.Also giving grants to fix bridges and so on.It not always as simple as throwing money at it.
Also how does cooling it down some how equal a good thing?When you slow the economy it goes into a recession and it happens a lot and often just most of the time nobody notices because it so short lived and has such little impact,like how it slowed after Sept 11,also how it has slowed several times after picking up during the recession.
And you can not say no one wants to stop it as then you are speaking for everyone.Also if you stopped the so called "gravy train" you think shit is bad now wait until that happens.
Also you forget one key aspect this is now a global economy so it makes it a lot harder to spend your way out of something when your economy relies on more then just your own spending and your own economy.China even passed our GDP.
Comment has been collapsed.
just throwing money at it is too simple: it's how the money gets spent that matters, and a large part of it wasn't spent properly. The problem was that, despite agreeing to an astronomical figure of spending, there was too much politics involved in how it got spent, and a lot got spent the wrong ways.
That being said, the economy did manage to stabilize and fix itself fairly quickly - the recession was over by July 2009.
As for cooling down, yes, it does cause a recession. Overheating also causes a recession (plus inflation). Basically, the point of cooling down the economy isn't to prevent a recession, but to prevent the recession from being too bad. Think of a sine wave. The higher the peak, the lower the trough. By reducing the size of the peak, you try and limit the depth of the trough.
The gravy train I'm specifically referring to is that of curtailing government spending during boom times. Subsidies that make sense during a recession should be eliminated if no longer needed after the recovery. That would allow the government to repay the debt incurred during the recesssion.
Speaking specifically about the U.S. government, there are subsidies from before World War 1 that are still on the books. As an example, the government still subsidizes coal mining. While that made sense in 1932, when it first started, it makes no sense anymore.
Comment has been collapsed.
regardless of anyones political opinon, this thread is just asking for trouble
Comment has been collapsed.
Sadly, the Libertarian party has never had a viable candidate in all it's 45 years of existence. The Green Party is only 15 years old with 1/6th the registered members and it were able to take nearly 3% of the general election in 2000 -- for Nader -- and that's the most votes any third party has ever gotten. Even more sad is the direction the party went afterwards and their decline from true public interest.
The way that elections are currently run in this country, there will never be a non-Republican or non-Democrat winner. It's practically impossible. The amount of legislative bias towards the two-party system would have to be removed or the election process entirely overhauled. There are actually large fees you have to pay to run for president as a third party and be included on the ballot, whereas the Republicans and Democrats have no such fees. So voting for third party candidates in the general presidential election is literally a waste of your vote, not to mention the popular vote doesn't elect the president anyways. xD
If you want to actually move towards more Libertarian ideals, you're going to have to start getting representatives and senators elected. They currently hold 1 out of 5,411 State Lower House Representative seats -- and that's not even a position within the electoral college. There are 538 members of the electoral college and every single one of them is a Republican or a Democrat; the people that actually elect the president regardless of the popular vote.
That being said, I wish you the best of luck but don't be too disappointed when Gary Johnson gets 0% of the votes. :D
Comment has been collapsed.
Gary Johnson is currently polling at around 11%, also there can always be a third party winner, Gary Johnson is the only other candidate that will be on the ballot in all 50 states. Also this election isn't really meant to get Johnson elected, right now we are shooting for 15% and if we do that we get included in the debates, even if we pass 5% we get federal funding.
Comment has been collapsed.
I suppose that's an accomplishable goal. In my opinion, that should be expressly campaigned on as the main platform then -- trying to get into the system first. The only problem with that is most people don't seek out reputable pollers because nobody respect polls as they are often unreliably volatile and no doubt have their own bias (Pew normally recognized as the least biased). With that in mind, it doesn't just have to be 15%+ in one poll -- it has to be 15%+ "determined by five selected national public opinion polling organizations". That means there's another level of bias from whoever is controlling the CDP at the time. It'd be cool to see a third party in the debates, but man is that an entire war itself that I haven't seen anyone properly rally.
By the way, I don't support Republicans or Democrats anymore than any other politician. I just often play devil's advocate in an attempt to bring an amount of realism to the idealistic. My ideals are far more extreme than a Libertarian president, but everyone has dreams right? For me, it'd be nice to restructure our entire government into a technocracy and actually move into the future instead of constantly regressing every second or other election cycle. xD
Comment has been collapsed.
Johnson actually often mentions the 5% threshold in a lot of his promotional material. Also, while I understand there may be bias in polls that doesn't mean we should standby and either vote for a lesser evil. We should stand for what we believe, whether that be the green party, constitutional party or the libertarian party. Also assuming from your latter comment your are an anarchist, correct?
Comment has been collapsed.
Well unfortunately he doesn't really have the media shilling his promo material so the undecideds don't really get to hear it. Yeah I've never been a fan of voting for any evil unless it's a needed evil (as good/evil is just a point of view -- an entire different can of worms to open xD).
Sorry I'm not sure but maybe you misunderstood the last sentence of my last reply? I'm in no way an anarchist. However, between every true revolution there is a required period of anarchy and I'm not an opponent to a revolution. I don't try to define myself with labels, I let everyone else do that for me. ;D But I've always been a fan of a democratic technocracy with some scientocratic influence or even a liberal oligarchic technocratic republic if the former took too long for our current society to achieve culturally -- it might end up more dystopian than we'd like but I think it's about time we stop calling ourselves [insert nation here]ians and start calling ourselves Earthlings.
Comment has been collapsed.
I came here expecting a joke thread pretending to be political, but I found a political thread for real :(
Wasn't this kinda stuff supposed to be against the rules? You know, no political or religious stuff allowed.
Comment has been collapsed.
I doubt that this is against the rules. Where is this even written? And anyway, it's just his opinion and we ought to respect it. :/ I don't even know this guy that he's talking about, but all I'm saying is that we should respect each other's opinions. ;P
Comment has been collapsed.
I like the part where he's saying "If you don't like Hilary and you don't like Trump then Gary Johnson might be the guy for you"! It's like saying that if you don't want those 2 shitty politicians, then only Gary Johnson is left and you must vote for him. :P
Comment has been collapsed.
Here's the thing: a lot of people don't like trump, and a lot of people don't like hillary. but, I'm sure that once they get to know him, people won't like gary whothefuckisthisguy johnson either
Comment has been collapsed.
And by the way, I'm against conservative politicians. But I don't even live in USA, so I don't care. :P
Comment has been collapsed.
Well, if there's ever been an election cycle for the Libertarian party to step up, this is it.
Comment has been collapsed.
Joined, nice to see a fellow lover of liberty here on SG. Some of the vitriol in this thread is cute ;)
Comment has been collapsed.
Eh, if you're talking about me, I was more annoyed at the begging part of the thread (which has now been removed) than anything regarding politics. I'm not even a resident of the US. :P
Comment has been collapsed.
Glad to see a supporter in the madness. Thanks for joining!
Comment has been collapsed.
If I wanted to waste my vote by casting it for someone whose policies I agreed with but had no chances of winning, I'd vote for Jill Stein. Lol Gary Johnson.
Comment has been collapsed.
Instead of wasting your vote on an establishment candidate who won't change anything, why not vote for a third party candidate you actually agree with so that more people will hear their message, and pave the road for real change later on? Otherwise you're just reinforcing the false dichotomy of "choice".
Comment has been collapsed.
I vote for a violent revolution.
Who's coming with me?
Comment has been collapsed.
http://steamcommunity.com/groups/GaryJohnson2016
If you don't like Hilary and you don't like Trump then Gary Johnson might be the guy for you. To learn more either join the group that is linked above or check out his website at garyjohnson2016.com
Here is a short bio:
Governor Johnson, who has been referred to as the ‘most fiscally conservative Governor’ in the country, was the Republican Governor of New Mexico from 1994-2003. A successful businessman before running for Governor of New Mexico in 1994, Gary Johnson started a door-to-door handyman business to help pay his way through college. Twenty years later, he had grown that business into one of the largest construction companies in New Mexico, with more than 1,000 employees. Not surprisingly, Governor Johnson brings a distinctly business-like mentality to governing, believing that public policy decisions should be based on costs and benefits rather than strict ideology. Johnson is best known for his veto record, having vetoed more than 750 bills during his time in office — more than all other governors combined. His use of the veto pen has since earned him the nickname “Governor Veto.” He cut taxes 14 times while never raising them. When he left office, New Mexico was one of only four states in the country with a balanced budget. Term-limited, Johnson retired from public office in 2003. An avid skier, adventurer, and bicyclist, he has scaled the highest peak on each of the seven continents, including Mt. Everest. In the 2012 presidential election, Johnson placed third and garnered more votes than any other Libertarian candidate in history. Johnson was raised Lutheran. He has two grown children, a daughter Seah and a son Erik, and currently resides in a house he built himself in Taos, New Mexico.
Comment has been collapsed.