OMG Politics, I'm over it already.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Flamencology said:
Libertarianism's only platform is economics, and libertarian economics are proven bullshit based on inflexible and juvenile fantasy and doctrine.
Click to expand...

And yet Republicans have started flowing towards the Libertarians trying to stake some kind of legitimacy in the wake of Trump. If Johnson can win 5%, it legitimizes the party. The RNC splits just how everyone wants them to as Clinton wins the presidency. Libertarians become the Tea Party/Evangelical party while the DNC and RNC swing to the left. Even with 5%, the Libertarians would lose terribly in 2020, but the work to shift the country left would be done.
 
Flamencology said:
Libertarianism's only platform is economics,
Click to expand...

That's not entirely true. While money, and particularly how government collects and spends it is certainly their main jive, there are more or less some standard positions on a variety of social, judicial, military, and foreign issues as well. Pretty much all of those being to the left of the current GOP, and some even to the left of the Dems. And with some issues they were way ahead of the Dems in any sort of "progressive" sense.

*shrug*
 
Honestly, unless the constitution is changed, I don't see how a third party even helps. With a viable third party, it would be pretty hard for one party to get to 270.
 
Help!I'maRock! said:
A vote for either Johnson or Stein is really a "None of the Above" vote. Neither will win. One might get 5%, which is worth voting for.

Had Nader not been the third party candidate, I'm sure there would have been another.
Click to expand...

Maybe. I voted for Nader in 2000 in hopes of a third party. Gore had no chance in Va. But with a real third party, it is awfully hard to get to 270 and I really don't want the house deciding the president :grin:
 
Chad said:
Maybe. I voted for Nader in 2000 in hopes of a third party. Gore had no chance in Va. But with a real third party, it is awfully hard to get to 270 and I really don't want the house deciding the president :grin:
Click to expand...

I'm ok with it. It's also highly likely that even if the Libertarians do get to 5%, they fail to get even one electoral vote.
 
I think the fundamental point on the national level is to get the 5%, get the funding, and increase awareness that third parties are a possibility. Not necessarily that the current ones are what we want.

As many people have said the voting laws and regulations need to be changed. We definitely need some sort of instant runoff voting. And yeah it's gonna require a local and state effort first.
 
Chad said:
Honestly, unless the constitution is changed, I don't see how a third party even helps. With a viable third party, it would be pretty hard for one party to get to 270.
Click to expand...

while i am as frustrated with our two party system as anyone else, the very last thing i want to see happen is ANY of these ass clowns in congress messing with the constitution. remember, once a continental congress is opened, ANYTHING........ANYTHING may be changed ANY WAY those involved wish to. all they need is the votes on any amendment, and it's done. imagine what these fucktards in congress would do, if they could change it.

no thanks. leave it the way it is, and work on a new party that is popular with a wide variety of people. they'll get elected and then change can happen.
the problem right now is that everyone out there are standing on postage stamp platforms (tea baggers especially). if there is any kind of compromise needed to get something done, then it's fucking war and no one will move. we don't need a candidate. we need an organization. socially liberal, fiscally conservative, militarily strong, and focused on american jobs over foreign jobs. and guess what, ain't none of them out there willing to be that. no one puts it all together.
my 2 cents.
 
The government has been loop-holing or ignoring the constitution in one way or another since its inception.

Flamencology is right, it's hardly some sacred all binding document
 
mongooz said:
while i am as frustrated with our two party system as anyone else, the very last thing i want to see happen is ANY of these ass clowns in congress messing with the constitution. remember, once a continental congress is opened, ANYTHING........ANYTHING may be changed ANY WAY those involved wish to. all they need is the votes on any amendment, and it's done. imagine what these fucktards in congress would do, if they could change it.

no thanks. leave it the way it is, and work on a new party that is popular with a wide variety of people. they'll get elected and then change can happen.
the problem right now is that everyone out there are standing on postage stamp platforms (tea baggers especially). if there is any kind of compromise needed to get something done, then it's fucking war and no one will move. we don't need a candidate. we need an organization. socially liberal, fiscally conservative, militarily strong, and focused on american jobs over foreign jobs. and guess what, ain't none of them out there willing to be that. no one puts it all together.
my 2 cents.
Click to expand...

That's not how it works. 2/3 of the house and senate pass an amendment, then it goes to the states, if 3/4 of the states approve, it is added to the constitution.

Or 2/3 of the states can call for a convention where amendments can be discussed. Those amendments must also be passed by 3/4 of the states. Congress has no say in conventions, those are run by the states.
 
Chad said:
That's not how it works. 2/3 of the house and senate pass an amendment, then it goes to the states, if 3/4 of the states approve, it is added to the constitution.

Or 2/3 of the states can call for a convention where amendments can be discussed. Those amendments must also be passed by 3/4 of the states. Congress has no say in conventions, those are run by the states.
Click to expand...
that's not my point. with the current stupidness sweeping the country, you'd end up with waterboarding for breaking the speed limit.
i can't name 5 people i would trust with changing the constitution. and none of them are elected officials.
 
bz-panel-08-12-16.jpg
 
mongooz said:
i wouldn't want to take the chance that they might.
Click to expand...

My sentiments exactly. The only things three quarters of the states could agree on would be nonsense like a constitutional mandate that tax increases have to be implemented by plebiscite.
 
jp_nyc said:
My sentiments exactly. The only things three quarters of the states could agree on would be nonsense like a constitutional mandate that tax increases have to be implemented by plebiscite.
Click to expand...
i would be more worried about some kind of crazy 'religious liberty' clause being added. it seems to be all the rage in many states.:mad::mad:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top