About the "If you don't vote for Hillary you are voting for Trump!" nonsense.

[TITAN308]

Seems relevant;

[Theodarzna]

Exactly, she's just neck and neck. That's why a lot of us say that voting for a third party ticket might bring us Trump, and with Trump all those horrible policies.

You just proved my point, thanks!

Perhaps Hillary should try running better and being a better candidate.

[Dextroden]

It's neck and neck because they are both horrible choices. I see it this way, if they are that bad then it's possible a third party could steal the win. If it is neck and neck then it means either candidate would be bad for the country.

And, despite being horrible, neither will ever be eclipsed by a third party candidate.

So, how horrible are they since they will never beat the establishment?

[Deleted]

It's neck and neck because they are both horrible choices. I see it this way, if they are that bad then it's possible a third party could steal the win. If it is neck and neck then it means either candidate would be bad for the country.

Or it's this simple: 50% just hate Hillary Clinton. That her bad policies are comparatively better than Donald Trump's horrible policies don't cancel out the fact that 50% hate her.

That's not a serious way to debate policies. Can you please mention which policy of Hillary Clinton you hate, and how they are worse or equal to Trump's? It's not serious to say "well 50% hate Hillary, so therefor she must be just as bad as Trump". That is just rediculous.

- - - Updated - - -

Perhaps Hillary should try running better and being a better candidate.

That is true as well. She has the main responsibility for this, and we could easily have avoided this if she were less corrupt and more progressive.

However, that doesn't cancel out your responsibility. It's not more okay to indirectly elect Trump because Hillary is bad. It's our responsibility to cancel out the worst option. Then we can fight for a better candidate in the primaries or in the mid term election.

[petej0]

And, despite being horrible, neither will ever be eclipsed by a third party candidate.

So, how horrible are they since they will never beat the establishment?

The reason why third party hasn't won in the past was because the two parties had respectable candidates running. They were some the party could get behind. Trump only has the support of the Republican establishment by means of default. Hillary has the support of the establishment, but not the Democrat voter. Both are unliked by their own registered voters.

The establishment won't win if the voters stop voting along party lines.

[Deleted]

The reason why third party hasn't won in the past was because the two parties had respectable candidates running. They were some the party could get behind. Trump only has the support of the Republican establishment by means of default. Hillary has the support of the establishment, but not the Democrat voter. Both are unliked by their own registered voters.

The establishment won't win if the voters stop voting along party lines.

But as polls show, there won't be a third party victory. So the outcome is you might get Trump, with the horrible policies I've mentioned before, and a deeply conservative supreme court.

It's okay to protest vote, but not if you know it will have a huge cost like Trump. Why don't you protest vote when the stakes aren't as high?

[Dextroden]

The reason why third party hasn't won in the past was because the two parties had respectable candidates running. They were some the party could get behind. Trump only has the support of the Republican establishment by means of default. Hillary has the support of the establishment, but not the Democrat voter. Both are unliked by their own registered voters.

The establishment won't win if the voters stop voting along party lines.

Except for, you know, the people that believe their best interests lie in the party and not rage voting like a bunch of fresh faced college kids. And the people that know Clinton is the only realistic person that will beat Trump.

Counterpoint. Why should someone like me who isn't voting for Trump or Clinton back one of these god awful third party people that will NEVER win?

[petej0]

But as polls show, there won't be a third party victory. So the outcome is you might get Trump, with the horrible policies I've mentioned before, and a deeply conservative supreme court.

It's okay to protest vote, but not if you know it will have a huge cost like Trump. Why don't you protest vote when the stakes aren't as high?

I doubt the costs are as high as you and the media suggest. He won't have the support of Congress and like an Obama admin it will be a do nothing Congress.

The only redeeming quality of Trump and Hillary is that they would only serve a single term.

[Deleted]

I doubt the costs are as high as you and the media suggest. He won't have the support of Congress and like an Obama admin it will be a do nothing Congress.

The only redeeming quality of Trump and Hillary is that they would only serve a single term.

It will probably be a conservative house and senate, so that is only true if Hillary wins. That is yet another reason for you to make sure she is elected, because she is the President who wouldn't be able to pass something through the conservative house. As you've seen, a large chunk of the Republican party is behind Trump.

So how is not defending the baltic states, banning all muslims, decreasing real wages, enormous tax cuts and environmental destruction a big cost? You don't seem to understand what Trump's policies really mean.

And don't get me started about the Supreme court. It has been ultra conservative for decades. How has that produced any good results? Is citizen united good for example?

[kail]

Seems relevant;

The way I imagine this election.

"Sir would you like to eat Donkey shit or Elephant shit for today's dinner?"

"Eh....I think I'll go hungry for tonight."

[petej0]

It will probably be a conservative house and senate, so that is only true if Hillary wins. That is yet another reason for you to make sure she is elected, because she is the President who wouldn't be able to pass something through the conservative house. As you've seen, a large chunk of the Republican party is behind Trump.

So how is not defending the baltic states, banning all muslims, decreasing real wages, enormous tax cuts and environmental destruction a big cost? You don't seem to understand what Trump's policies really mean.

And don't get me started about the Supreme court. It has been ultra conservative for decades. How has that produced any good results? Is citizen united good for example?

Trump is a showman. I guess he is like Hillary in that I don't believe a word out of their mouths.

[Dextroden]

The way I imagine this election.

"Sir would you like to eat Donkey shit or Elephant shit for today's dinner?"

"Eh....I think I'll go hungry for tonight."

And then people mention Green shit and vomit in disgust.

[petej0]

And don't get me started about the Supreme court. It has been ultra conservative for decades. How has that produced any The results? Is citizen united good for example?

The supreme Court decisions are a result of bad legislation. Why is citizens united the case that's rolled out and not cases like ACA or marriage equality?

[Deleted]

Trump is a showman. I guess he is like Hillary in that I don't believe a word out of their mouths.

But we know he promised potential VP candidates a lot of power, so Mike Pence would a good indicator. Regarding muslim ban and building walls, I don't see why he would back down on that? It's really popular, and steer the attention away from all tax cuts and anti-labor laws. Donald Trump takes donnor money, so you can trust he will fullfill their wishes in the economic policy area.

[May90]

The way I imagine this election.

"Sir would you like to eat Donkey shit or Elephant shit for today's dinner?"

"Eh....I think I'll go hungry for tonight."

The problem is, you WILL end up eating one of these in the end!

[Deleted]

The supreme Court decisions are a result of bad legislation. Why is citizens united the case that's rolled out and not cases like ACA or marriage equality?

Because ACA abd marriage equality came about after Obama made the court more liberal, and aren't radical policies.

And no, the supreme court decisions are a result of conservative, pro-corporate agenda that has taken the DNC as well. Voting for more conservative, pro-corporate candidates won't get rid of that.

[Deleted]

The problem is, you WILL end up eating one of these in the end!

The far left is likely to be energized by Trump. Under a Democrat it tends to be passive as it has been under Obama. For this reason many on the left are voting for Trump.

[petej0]

But we know he promised potential VP candidates a lot of power, so Mike Pence would a good indicator. Regarding muslim ban and building walls, I don't see why he would back down on that? It's really popular, and steer the attention away from all tax cuts and anti-labor laws. Donald Trump takes donnor money, so you can trust he will fullfill their wishes in the economic policy area.

Muslim ban is constitutional but he would have more support of he listed the countries that we shouldn't accept immigration from. The wall is a stupid reason to vote for him. I mean seriously how the fuck you gonna get Mexico to pay for it. The whole thing is just a nice sound bite with no basis in reality.

What politician doesn't take donor money? That's a weak argument.

[BannedForViews]

I will preface this by saying that there is not "one ideology" amoung libertarians, but there are a lot of constants.

Let's start with your original post.

If you're Libertarian you don't believe in "some government", you believe in "next to no government at all".

This is Anarchism, not Libertarianism.

Yes, Libertarians seem nice at first. However, when you strip away all hand outs and publicly funded projects, you'll quickly learn that many lives depend on those hand outs and programs. People would literally live and die on the streets in front of your eyes.

Libertarians do not advocate stripping away all these things, but lets come back to that. You point out that peoples lives depend on social programs: how is that my concern? But even ignoring that, people would not "literally live and die on the streets in front of your eyes." That is extraordinary hyperbole. It is also multiple logical fallacies such as a straw man, ad ignorantiam, and a false dichotomy. There are not only two options, public funding or homeless in the streets. In fact there are a slew of options in between these things, but this argument misses the primary agenda of Libertarianism, which is the reduction of federal government in favor of stronger state/local governments. In this way people are provided with more free choice when it comes to the governance they want to be subjected to.

On the contrary, I have a very good grasp of that ideology. You on the other hand didn't present a single argument against any of my points. Which indicates that you have no clue what you're talking about.

As I mentioned, libertarianism is about maximizing negative rights. That means property right, religious and speech rights and national defence. Everything else is assigned to the private market. Think of a bubble. Everything that concerns you within your bubble is free to meddle with. In order words, you control your property and what you do with your labor, body and ideas. However, it is strictly forbidden to meddle in another bubble (stealing, government taxes etc.).

If you indeed are a libertarian, you made an active choice to not be a more "classical liberal", because classical liberals don't want to maximize negative rights. They're open to be pragmatic and defend certain "positive rights" (like policing, fire departement, free secondary education etc.). Although, not to the same lenght as "social liberals" or "democratic socialists/social democrats".

What's your idea about libertarianism? I'm very curious to know that.

You are incorrect about these things being different. Libertarians are essentially neo-classical liberals. The distinctions you think exist here do not. Libertarians are not against the existence of police, fire and rescue, or even a level of state funded education.

As I said above, most people who consider themselves Libertarians are not anarchists, they are people who think they are smart enough to have more direct control over their governance. They want a smaller federal government which allows for state and local governments to step into the gaps left and allows for the residences of said locations to decide what they believe should and shouldn't exist. This is especially important because it allows the ability for people who disagree to "vote with their feet" and move to somewhere with others who think the same way they do. As it currently stands though, because the federal government dominates such a large portion of governance and taxation, people are not able to escape all the things they do not agree with by moving to a place with people of a like mind.

[petej0]

Because ACA abd marriage equality came about after Obama made the court more liberal, and aren't radical policies.

And no, the supreme court decisions are a result of conservative, pro-corporate agenda that has taken the DNC as well. Voting for more conservative, pro-corporate candidates won't get rid of that.

The same court decided all three of those cases. You can't slam one decision and hail the other two when it was the same court.