You are making the implication that a Libertarian president would be able to effectively promote Libertarian ideologies. The fact of the matter is that the down ticket candidates are overwhelmingly Democratic or Republican. The president isn't a dictator.
This means that he has to appeal to either (or both) in order to be effective at all. So someone voting for Johnson can be assured that his economic policies are more or less conservative while appealing to liberal values on the economic scale.
That makes him a "centrist" overall. Johnson is far right on economics that's true, but it would be a disservice to call him one in terms of almost every other issue. Perhaps he won't address civil issues as much as Hillary, but at least he wouldn't regress them as Trump would.
Looking at your points, several of them are foreign policy in nature. Frankly I find the notion of "perpetual peace" to also be ridiculously idyllic and the fact that is a "liberal" ideology to be an archaic remnant of libtard hippy culture. War is terrible, but is sometimes necessary, especially when there are forces out there who don't have peace on their minds. The world isn't as peaceful as many believe. It's all an illusion, maintained by the promise of mutually assured destruction (and I'm not even talking about nuclear weapons).
Don't call pure capitalism "evil". It is no more "evil" than any other economic belief. It is merely ruthless. So it depends on what you hold more important. You sound like someone who holds socialist believes very highly. Even I, a liberal, find many socialist ideologies to be ridiculous.
Well, as evil and stupid a man Jackson was, he did basically stop a civil war from happening (though that proved to be inevitable). But yeah, I can't really support Jackson. He was kinda a tyrant.
Jackson was such an interesting character. He both showed how powerful the presidency could be and did many good things for our nation during his term, while at the same time being one of the most ******* insane presidents to ever be elected. I mean, trail of tears, murdering people, and so much more
Many Republicans are pro-LGBT but don't deem social issues as relevant as economic ones.
The issue is that it used it be somewhat understandable considering the times (til 2000s), but nowadays it's becoming increasingly impossible to rationalize being simultaneously pro-LGBT and Republican.
My brother is a Republican because he's a ideologically a fiscal conservative and honestly that's fine. Having differences on economic positions is a way to drive change. Social conservatism however has devolved into outright bigotry. Their current platform is the bigoted it has ever been. and I'm grateful my brother doesn't accept that. He has ditched the GOP for Johsnon, believing he's a better alternative
Johnson is a right-leaning candidate.
Libertarians are literally a far-right party.
Johnson has much more in common with someone like Trump than say... Johnson has in common with another third-party candidate like Stein.
Libertarians are still, by and large, a party with anti-government, anarcho-capitalist and far-right beliefs that stem from a hatred of poor people. There's some who think seat-belt laws are "over-reach".
Johnson isn't a centrist on social issues cause he cares. Libertarians would rather not go to war to save money than to save the thousands of lives lost in a war.
US political parties are set up the way they are cause they fall like this:
Far Left - Green
Left & Center-Left - Democrats
Center-Right & Right - Republicans
Far Right - Libertarians
Except now the religious zealots and xenophobes of the Republicans are pushing the party much more far right, while Johnson and his "keep government out of everything" beliefs let him slip by and appear as a center candidate with right-leaning beliefs even though his economic beliefs are extremely far-right.
Girl, WHAT?
the libs are ABSOLUTELY NOT the "far right." That's the Constitution Party.
Far Left - Green
Left & Center-Left - Democrats
Far left (social, foreign) & Far right (economics) - Libertarians
Center-Right & Right - Republicans
Far Right - Constitution
the libs are ABSOLUTELY NOT the "far right." That's the Constitution Party.
Far Left - Green
Left & Center-Left - Democrats
Far left (social, foreign) & Far right (economics) - Libertarians
Center-Right & Right - Republicans
Far Right - Constitution
Don't get it twisted
Johnson's "indifference" to social liberties doesn't make him far left. Just "not being awful" doesn't make him excellent. His social justice stances are a farce and he has shown himself to be one of those Libertarians who read one Ayn Rand novel and think the poor are the burden on society. Your social policies don't suddenly become left if you still think the poor of marginalized communities just need to pull up their bootstraps and "stop choosing to be poor". Even if it comes off as purity tests, intentions DO matter. I rather vote for someone who fights for social justice because they understand the inherent worth of marginalized people from ideologies like identity politics over some white wannabe anarchist who will maybe "give" me rights because he wants the government to not take away anyone's rights (but people can totally oppress on another - that's fine, and if you step in with government intervention, it's "overreach").
Quote:
Originally posted by Lebanese Dude
Looking at your points, several of them are foreign policy in nature. Frankly I find the notion of "perpetual peace" to also be ridiculously idyllic and the fact that is a "liberal" ideology to be an archaic remnant of libtard hippy culture. War is terrible, but is sometimes necessary, especially when there are forces out there who don't have peace on their minds. The world isn't as peaceful as many believe. It's all an illusion, maintained by the promise of mutually assured destruction (and I'm not even talking about nuclear weapons).
And much of Libertarian ideology comes from the tinfoil hat, alt-right anti-government side of the spectrum, where you have old white men burning their private documents "in guess the government gets them" and many of whom think racism isn't a thing but "race wars that act as a disguise for when the government acts out Martial Law (which is why we can't have gun control - the government can't tell us what to do!)". I rather be a "hippy libtard" than someone scared of seatbelt laws.
Quote:
Originally posted by Auris
Israel deserves support. The second we don't support them, the liberties of all their people are stripped because literally everyone wants them dead. Israel needs to back out of the West Bank but other than that - in my opinion as someone with family in Israel - any candidate that supports Israel is a candidate worth supporting.
Israel is a settler nation acting out terroristic colonialism. The sheer fact that Johnson's entire party is about putting liberties of people first and taking control out of the government's hands, yet he supports giving millions in tax dollars to Israel to kill more Palestinian children is so hypocritical and makes him a bigger joke. Odd though that people drag Jill for being an "anti-vaxxer" yet Johnson advocates for not requiring any kind of guidelines or laws about most social interactions (vaccines? not mandatory! legal drinking age? not mandatory! a minimum wage to stop slave labor? not mandatory!). It doesn't matter if he could get any of this through or not - the sheer fact that a politician in 2016 believes any of this is shocking and sadly probably just him pandering to his alt-right anarcho-capitalist base who think income tax "is theft" .
Johnson's "indifference" to social liberties doesn't make him far left. Just "not being awful" doesn't make him excellent. His social justice stances are a farce and he has shown himself to be one of those Libertarians who read one Ayn Rand novel and think the poor are the burden on society. Your social policies don't suddenly become left if you still think the poor of marginalized communities just need to pull up their bootstraps and "stop choosing to be poor". Even if it comes off as purity tests, intentions DO matter. I rather vote for someone who fights for social justice because they understand the inherent worth of marginalized people from ideologies like identity politics over some white wannabe anarchist who will maybe "give" me rights because he wants the government to not take away anyone's rights (but people can totally oppress on another - that's fine, and if you step in with government intervention, it's "overreach").
And much of Libertarian ideology comes from the tinfoil hat, alt-right anti-government side of the spectrum, where you have old white men burning their private documents "in guess the government gets them" and many of whom think racism isn't a thing but "race wars that act as a disguise for when the government acts out Martial Law (which is why we can't have gun control - the government can't tell us what to do!)". I rather be a "hippy libtard" than someone scared of seatbelt laws.
Israel is a settler nation acting out terroristic colonialism. The sheer fact that Johnson's entire party is about putting liberties of people first and taking control out of the government's hands, yet he supports giving millions in tax dollars to Israel to kill more Palestinian children is so hypocritical and makes him a bigger joke. Odd though that people drag Jill for being an "anti-vaxxer" yet Johnson advocates for not requiring any kind of guidelines or laws about most social interactions (vaccines? not mandatory! legal drinking age? not mandatory! a minimum wage to stop slave labor? not mandatory!). It doesn't matter if he could get any of this through or not - the sheer fact that a politician in 2016 believes any of this is shocking and sadly probably just him pandering to his alt-right anarcho-capitalist base who think income tax "is theft" .
Indifference may be what you call it, but he (and esp. Weld) have always been in favor of pushing social liberties further to the left. I don't care the motives, I care the position and I care the result. Johnson and Weld to me have proven that they truly care about these social issues and aren't simply "indifferent," but regardless, the result is the same.
Who cares where the party originated or what its extremists view. Johnson is a moderate who is willing to take things from all three parties in order to form his platform. Seatbelt laws, btw, are stupid. I understand why they're there, but we really don't need people getting arrested for not wearing a seatbelt in their own property.
Israel I will heartfully disagree with you on. The Palestinians have brainwashed you into thinking Israel is the enemy when Israel ALWAYS warns the Palestinians of when they're attacking and the Palestinians instead send more people to attack zones to increase their death tolls. Also, the Palestinians hold their weapons strategically in hospitals and schools. I mean what are you supposed to do as Israel? I bet you've never been to Israel/Palestine and your only knowledge of it is from liberal TV and internet. I've been there - my family is there - I've seen it firsthand.
The far-far-extreme of libertarians will be against vaxxes and drinking ages etc., but most logical ones will realize that vaxxes and drinking ages end up falling into the "government has a responsibility to defend the life of its people."
That was a legit question. That's why she doesn't do press conferences. It's a set-up.
Hillary barely knows how to answer any question. It was a cringe when they asked her in a debate who in the GOP does she consider a friend.
Its so strange, she needs to let her guard down every once in a while (scratch that, last time she did that we got HotSauce-gate)
She could just memorize better, shorter answers... (and talk normally, her campaign voice is so theatrical for no reason )
Its so strange, she needs to let her guard down every once in a while (scratch that, last time she did that we got HotSauce-gate)
She could just memorize better, shorter answers... (and talk normally, her campaign voice is so theatrical for no reason )
Her talking to an interviewer in Nevada yesterday was such a relief. She was going off on Trump in a way that was so genuine. I don't know. I need more of that.
Hillary being unable to answer a question as simple as " What is the most meaningful conversation you've ever had with an African American?"
Nah, she did well.
It would've been SUPER cringeworthy if she would've tried to actually answer that messy question and it wouldn't have come off right. She did the right thing.
That is not a legit question! How is she supposed to answer when she has had conversations with literally hundreds of black people? The mothers of the victims of police violence. The black lives matters representatives, activists, she even went to Africa and met with the people there.
.
)