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

[Deleted]

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.

No you said Trump wouldn't be true to his word, so I said he would because he takes donor money. You can trust him to lower the wages and decrease taxes for the rich.

And no, a muslim ban isn't constitutional. There is something called "freedom of expression" and "freedom of speech". If you ban a religion, you don't have freedom of religion. Simple right?

- - - Updated - - -

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.

The same conservative courts. But yes I can. I already told you allowing gays to marry and not shooting down a conservative health care plan (obamacare is based on a conservative policy plan) isn't a radical thing to do. Citizen united far outweights that. The good stuff were only passed because one conservative judged changed positions. In other words, the conservative did not contribute to the good outcome.

[BannedForViews]

So, Trump wants to decrease wages, use coal and shred international climate agreement, abolish freedom of religion and speech, "go after the terrorists' families" and slaughter innocent people, continue fracking, push forward the Christian theological agenda through Mike Pence, privatize the schools, heavily decrease taxes mainly for himself and rich people and give away the baltic states to Russia without a fight.

How the fuck can you equate that to Hillary Clinton? She's bad, but she's not going to ruin the world like the con man Donald.

1) The president doesn't set wages, the free market does.
2) I won't argue global warming with you, but international climate agreements have no weight in our sovereign country.
3) Hyperbole about muslims
4) Nothing wrong with fracking
5) More hyperbole. The VP does basically nothing. There is no forcing here.
6) Privatizing schools would be a significant improvement over public schools
7) Heavily decrease taxes for everyone, but especially those that actually pay them. You can't really "heavily decrease" taxes for people who aren't paying them.

- - - Updated - - -

No you said Trump wouldn't be true to his word, so I said he would because he takes donor money. You can trust him to lower the wages and decrease taxes for the rich.

And no, a muslim ban isn't constitutional. There is something called "freedom of expression" and "freedom of speech". If you ban a religion, you don't have freedom of religion. Simple right?

Actually a Muslim ban is totally constitutional, provide you aren't barring actual American Muslims from entering the country. There is no "Constitutional Right" for any non-American being allowed here though.

[petej0]

No you said Trump wouldn't be true to his word, so I said he would because he takes donor money. You can trust him to lower the wages and decrease taxes for the rich.

And no, a muslim ban isn't constitutional. There is something called "freedom of expression" and "freedom of speech". If you ban a religion, you don't have freedom of religion. Simple right?

The President is allowed to ban anyone from immigration for any reason. The Constitution does not apply to non citizens. Regardless as I said he would have more support if he had a list of countries in which not to accept immigration from on a limited basis. Remember Carter had a ban on immigration from Iran for a time.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182

[BannedForViews]

Isn't the first amendment basically saying that no law will prohibit the free exercise of religion?
If people have to hide their religion in order to enter the US that would be a law to prohibit the free exercise of it.

It's a good argument if said politician has been bragging that he won't take it and that he's not influenced by companies (which is not really believable if said politician runs a company himself).

The first amendment is not a universal law. It is a law that protects Americans and nothing more. It is completely legal for the US to ban entry to any group, for any reason they see fit, provide that group is not American.

[Jokerfiend]

I see it as, if you don't represent your people, your people will smack you down.

Doesn't matter what you see it as. The reality is that Brexit is the perfect example of how to troll your country. Voting third party is a vote for Trump. Like it or not.

[Deleted]

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.




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.

You're completely wrong, can you please read a bit about the subject before you comment? Neo-liberalism =/= libertarianism, classical liberalism =/= libertarianism, fiscal conservatism =/= libertarianism. Republican =/= libertarianism. Get that through your head, please!

Anarchists want no state, while libertarians want a small/next to no government. The fact that you don't know this simple, basic fact in political science, really discredit you.

And yes, libertarians only defend negative rights. Being pragmatic defeats this purpose, and make you a moderate/Republican/classical liberal.. If you are a pragmatist, you're not a libertarian, but a classical liberal. Take the same example with socialism and social democracy. If you're pro socialism, you can't be pro free market reforms (because that defeats the very purpose of being a socialist). However, social democracy is the more pragmatic version of it. We should use the correct term, not mix them all together like you do.

And I would love to get into a discussion why libertarianism sucks. But you, however, can't even learn what libertarianism is (although I've repeatedly informed you what it is). Although, I will say that the poster that had medical bills around tens of thousand dollars a month would be dying on the street, unable to pay anything. You're just blind if you think a god or the market would intervene and help.

[Deleted]

So, its often said by a lot of pseudo-liberals that if your not "#WithHer," you are voting for Donald Trump. Allusions are obviously made to the 2000 election and the alleged impact Ralph Nadar had on the Gore-Lieberman ticket.

That X number of Democrats in Florida voted Nadar and it led us to George W. Bush. However, this is complete nonsense, .

I am not sure what your point is here. Your logic escapes me. Nader got 100,000 votes in Florida. Gore needed 564 to win. Of course, the Democrats would have won if Nader had not ran. There's no "alleged" impact.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-z...b_4235065.html

Any one who does not vote for Hillary is not voting for Trump, but they are implying they are indifferent between which one wins the election. The mind boggles at the idea a Bernie Sanders supporter would be indifferent between Hilary and Trump.

[BannedForViews]

Doesn't matter what you see it as. The reality is that Brexit is the perfect example of how to troll your country. Voting third party is a vote for Trump. Like it or not.

Brexit is a good thing for the UK, end of story.

[Dextroden]

I am not sure what your point is here. Your logic escapes me. Nader got 100,000 votes in Florida. Gore needed 564 to win. Of course, the Democrats would have won if Nader had not ran. There's no "alleged" impact.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-z...b_4235065.html

Any one who does not vote for Hillary is not voting for Trump, but they are implying they are indifferent between which one wins the election. The mind boggles at the idea a Bernie Sanders supporter would be indifferent between Hilary and Trump.

Oh, Bernie was just a vehicle for Anti-Hillary people to pretend they had a weapon against her. Now that he has bent the knee, there is terror as their only true choice to stop Hillary now is to pick Trump, as Jill Stein and Gary Johnson are flaccid as fuck compared to limp noodle Sanders.

[petej0]

I am not sure what your point is here. Your logic escapes me. Nader got 100,000 votes in Florida. Gore needed 564 to win. Of course, the Democrats would have won if Nader had not ran. There's no "alleged" impact.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-z...b_4235065.html

Any one who does not vote for Hillary is not voting for Trump, but they are implying they are indifferent between which one wins the election. The mind boggles at the idea a Bernie Sanders supporter would be indifferent between Hilary and Trump.

That's true but you don't know how the Radar vote would have split between Bush, Gore and non voting. Regardless Gore couldn't win his home state which would have made the recount in Florida moot.

[Jokerfiend]

Brexit is a good thing for the UK, end of story.

HAHAHAHAHA. Sure thing, buddy.

[Deleted]

1) The president doesn't set wages, the free market does.
2) I won't argue global warming with you, but international climate agreements have no weight in our sovereign country.
3) Hyperbole about muslims
4) Nothing wrong with fracking
5) More hyperbole. The VP does basically nothing. There is no forcing here.
6) Privatizing schools would be a significant improvement over public schools
7) Heavily decrease taxes for everyone, but especially those that actually pay them. You can't really "heavily decrease" taxes for people who aren't paying them.

- - - Updated - - -



Actually a Muslim ban is totally constitutional, provide you aren't barring actual American Muslims from entering the country. There is no "Constitutional Right" for any non-American being allowed here though.

I think you should expand your vocabulary, as you're just constantly repeating "hyperbole" instead of presenting arguments.

1) It's the congress that sets minimum wage if approved by the president. There is no roof, however.
2) But your sovereign country will be affected when China, India and the developing world answer with the same coin. We're collectively screwed if we all increase our emissions like there is no tomorrow. That's why we need international agreements.
3)How is muslim ban "hyperbole"?
4)Exept for the people whose drinking water is being destroyed. I guess climate deniers wouldn't grasp that concept though. Let me recommend you to read about something called "externalities". A though word, I know, but can you try at least?
5)How is this hyperbole? VP does nothing, except when Trump's campaign calls Kasich and offer him control of foreign and domestic policies. Haven't you heard?
6) We've a privatized school system in Sweden. Our results are ever trending downwards while the private schools make huge profit. How can a company make profit when it's product is ever deteriorating? Because the good isn't suited to be traded on a free market in the first place.
7) You can't tax people who have nothing, but you can take their handouts and give it in tax breaks to the elite. Do you think this is a good policy?

[BannedForViews]

You're completely wrong, can you please read a bit about the subject before you comment? Neo-liberalism =/= libertarianism, classical liberalism =/= libertarianism, fiscal conservatism =/= libertarianism. Republican =/= libertarianism. Get that through your head, please!

Anarchists want no state, while libertarians want a small/next to no government. The fact that you don't know this simple, basic fact in political science, really discredit you.

And yes, libertarians only defend negative rights. Being pragmatic defeats this purpose, and make you a moderate/Republican/classical liberal.. If you are a pragmatist, you're not a libertarian, but a classical liberal. Take the same example with socialism and social democracy. If you're pro socialism, you can't be pro free market reforms (because that defeats the very purpose of being a socialist). However, social democracy is the more pragmatic version of it. We should use the correct term, not mix them all together like you do.

And I would love to get into a discussion why libertarianism sucks. But you, however, can't even learn what libertarianism is (although I've repeatedly informed you what it is). Although, I will say that the poster that had medical bills around tens of thousand dollars a month would be dying on the street, unable to pay anything. You're just blind if you think a god or the market would intervene and help.

So are we going to just name call here? You are wrong. You don't know what a classical liberal is, or a libertarian. You can say I'm wrong, I will say you're wrong. I know I'm right, you think you're right. so.....

"However, social democracy is the more pragmatic version of it. We should use the correct term, not mix them all together like you do." This just further supports my opinion that your only arguments are ad hominem. I never mentioned anything about what this. Straw man and ad hominem in two sentences. well done.

To your last little paragraph there, I know full well what a libertarian is. I am. You are not, and you are clearly uniformed. I'm not shocked though because you clearly where your opinion on your sleeve, stating right off the bat that "liberarianism sucks". As for some person with medical bills, that's not my fucking problem. I don't really care about it, but I can assure you that your argument of false dichotomy is beyond ridiculous. There are not two outcomes, one being federal social programs and the other being people dying in the streets. You are showing yourself to be the uneducated joke you really are. If you want to provide some facts, some citations, some proof to the absurdity you spew by all means I'll debate the shit out of you. If you're just going to give me your worthless opinion, I'll pass.

[Deleted]

The first amendment is not a universal law. It is a law that protects Americans and nothing more. It is completely legal for the US to ban entry to any group, for any reason they see fit, provide that group is not American.

A muslim ban applies to American muslims too. However, should you make it a "foreign muslim ban", or a ban on specific countries, it's consitutional.

Let me repeat it, it's not a ban on muslims if not all muslims are banned. Banning all foreign muslims is another thing completely, although just as bad.

- - - Updated - - -

So are we going to just name call here? You are wrong. You don't know what a classical liberal is, or a libertarian. You can say I'm wrong, I will say you're wrong. I know I'm right, you think you're right. so.....

"However, social democracy is the more pragmatic version of it. We should use the correct term, not mix them all together like you do." This just further supports my opinion that your only arguments are ad hominem. I never mentioned anything about what this. Straw man and ad hominem in two sentences. well done.

To your last little paragraph there, I know full well what a libertarian is. I am. You are not, and you are clearly uniformed. I'm not shocked though because you clearly where your opinion on your sleeve, stating right off the bat that "liberarianism sucks". As for some person with medical bills, that's not my fucking problem. I don't really care about it, but I can assure you that your argument of false dichotomy is beyond ridiculous. There are not two outcomes, one being federal social programs and the other being people dying in the streets. You are showing yourself to be the uneducated joke you really are. If you want to provide some facts, some citations, some proof to the absurdity you spew by all means I'll debate the shit out of you. If you're just going to give me your worthless opinion, I'll pass.

Your only argument is crying "ad hominem", "strawman" and "hyperbole". You might get something out of a conversation if you actually try to understand the person, or quit acting like a PC police.

Let me make this simple for you

Classical liberalism = Mainly negative rights, although pragmatic with positive rights.

Libertarianism = Only negative rights, do not believe in positive rights.

Anarchist = No rights at all.

Do you now understand that there is a significant difference between all of those three?

I'm definately not a libertarian (thank god), and I'm sure you aren't one either, because you mix it up with all other liberal ideologies.

"As for some person with medical bills, that's not my fucking problem", and that is the very reason why we will have people dying on the street. It's very common not to care about other people's problems. That's why Sweden rank higher in welfare indexes than the States, because we're not free market fundamentalists. Your welfare is poor because you simply don't give a shit about it.

[petej0]

A muslim ban applies to American muslims too. However, should you make it a "foreign muslim ban", or a ban on specific countries, it's consitutional.

Let me repeat it, it's not a ban on muslims if not all muslims are banned. Banning all foreign muslims is another thing completely, although just as bad.

- - - Updated - - -



Your only argument is crying "ad hominem", "strawman" and "hyperbole". You might get something out of a conversation if you actually try to understand the person, or acting like a PC police.

Let me make this simple for you

Classical liberalism = Mainly negative rights, although pragmatic with positive rights.

Libertarianism = Only negative rights, do not believe in positive rights.

Anarchist = No rights at all.

Do you now understand that there is a significant difference between all of those three?

I'm definately not a libertarian (thank god), and I'm sure you aren't one either, because you mix it up with all other liberal ideologies.

"As for some person with medical bills, that's not my fucking problem", and that is the very reason why we will have people dying on the street. It's very common not to care about other people's problems. That's why Sweden rank higher in welfare indexes than the States. Your welfare is poor because you simply don't give a shit about it.

A Muslim ban can only apply to non American Muslims.

[BannedForViews]

I think you should expand your vocabulary, as you're just constantly repeating "hyperbole" instead of presenting arguments.

1) It's the congress that sets minimum wage if approved by the president. There is no roof, however.
2) But your sovereign country will be affected when China, India and the developing world answer with the same coin. We're collectively screwed if we all increase our emissions like there is no tomorrow. That's why we need international agreements.
3)How is muslim ban "hyperbole"?
4)Exept for the people whose drinking water is being destroyed. I guess climate deniers wouldn't grasp that concept though. Let me recommend you to read about something called "externalities". A though word, I know, but can you try at least?
5)How is this hyperbole? VP does nothing, except when Trump's campaign calls Kasich and offer him control of foreign and domestic policies. Haven't you heard?
6) We've a privatized school system in Sweden. Our results are ever trending downwards while the private schools make huge profit. How can a company make profit when it's product is ever deteriorating? Because the good isn't suited to be traded on a free market in the first place.
7) You can't tax people who have nothing, but you can take their handouts and give it in tax breaks to the elite. Do you think this is a good policy?

Maybe learn what hyperbole is and avoid using it.

1) Minimum wage doesn't do what you think it does. It is also only really relevant to high schoolers, who I could care less about their wages.
2)No, we are not. You Climate Alarmists would have me laughing out loud more if it weren't so sad how uniformed yet confident you all were.
3) killing innocent children, or whatever crap you said, is hyperbole
4) Fracking is not destroying peoples drinking water. More fear mongering here. Also it's funny how you use the word "externalities" like you just took an intro econ class and are here to educate the rest of us. Also what is a "though word". Tough maybe? You've had a ton of grammatical and typing errors though so I guess it's unfair for me to pick on this one, but it is funny in context.
5) What does Kasich have to do with Pence and the fact that VPs don't do anything. News flash: VPs don't do anything.
6) I don't really care about what you do in Sweden. You do a lot of very stupid shit, and I don't the causation you think you see is as clear as you want it to be. Private schools in the US are much better than public schools, but that aside, lets play a simple logic game. If you are able to choose where your kid goes to school, why do you think a private school that has to worry about ceasing to exist if you don't like how they educate your kids is a worse place than a public institution that has no fear of ever going away because it is a government run monopoly subsidized by tax dollars.
7) They aren't THEIR handouts. It isn't their money to begin with. It is benevolence. This last sentence is so telling about how intellectually corrupted you European socialists are.

[Hey There Guys its Metro]

Why who else is there to vote for?
No one?

[BannedForViews]

A muslim ban applies to American muslims too. However, should you make it a "foreign muslim ban", or a ban on specific countries, it's consitutional.

Let me repeat it, it's not a ban on muslims if not all muslims are banned. Banning all foreign muslims is another thing completely, although just as bad.

- - - Updated - - -



Your only argument is crying "ad hominem", "strawman" and "hyperbole". You might get something out of a conversation if you actually try to understand the person, or quit acting like a PC police.

Let me make this simple for you

Classical liberalism = Mainly negative rights, although pragmatic with positive rights.

Libertarianism = Only negative rights, do not believe in positive rights.

Anarchist = No rights at all.

Do you now understand that there is a significant difference between all of those three?

I'm definately not a libertarian (thank god), and I'm sure you aren't one either, because you mix it up with all other liberal ideologies.

"As for some person with medical bills, that's not my fucking problem", and that is the very reason why we will have people dying on the street. It's very common not to care about other people's problems. That's why Sweden rank higher in welfare indexes than the States, because we're not free market fundamentalists. Your welfare is poor because you simply don't give a shit about it.

I point out your fallacies to show out stupid you are. That is the argument. You need to rely on fallacies to push your agenda, because it can't stand up to logical scrutiny. That's not my problem, that's yours.

As to the rest of it, you are just pure wrong about your definitions of those things. I don't know why you think you're correct, but you are not. They are as I stated above, but I will repeat.

Anarchism advocates only the most basic and necessary of governance; things like roads or a minimum defense. People who actually consider themselves anarchists do not think there should be zero organized rules or laws. They wouldn't for example think murder is okay or that it shouldn't go punished.
"philosophical anarchism may accept the existence of a minimal state as unfortunate, and usually temporary, "necessary evil" but argue that citizens do not have a moral obligation to obey the state when its laws conflict with individual autonomy." You are misdefining Libertarianism with Anarchism, like I said.

As for our welfare in the US, it is beyond extensive. Not to the degree that Sweden's is no, but we also don't have huge costs of goods, low home ownership because of those high costs, nor nearly the systemic abuse of the welfare system you have either. You do realize that to give people who don't do anything something, you have to take it from someone else who earned it right? So you advocate robbing people of their individual freedom for what...people who don't have the common decency to support themselves? Also i'm sure you are unaware that the US is the MOST benevolent country on the planet. We give substantially more to charitable causes than anyone else does. There would never be people dying in the streets here no matter how much you want to push your stupid believes.

[Deleted]

Maybe learn what hyperbole is and avoid using it.

1) Minimum wage doesn't do what you think it does. It is also only really relevant to high schoolers, who I could care less about their wages.
2)No, we are not. You Climate Alarmists would have me laughing out loud more if it weren't so sad how uniformed yet confident you all were.
3) killing innocent children, or whatever crap you said, is hyperbole
4) Fracking is not destroying peoples drinking water. More fear mongering here. Also it's funny how you use the word "externalities" like you just took an intro econ class and are here to educate the rest of us. Also what is a "though word". Tough maybe? You've had a ton of grammatical and typing errors though so I guess it's unfair for me to pick on this one, but it is funny in context.
5) What does Kasich have to do with Pence and the fact that VPs don't do anything. News flash: VPs don't do anything.
6) I don't really care about what you do in Sweden. You do a lot of very stupid shit, and I don't the causation you think you see is as clear as you want it to be. Private schools in the US are much better than public schools, but that aside, lets play a simple logic game. If you are able to choose where your kid goes to school, why do you think a private school that has to worry about ceasing to exist if you don't like how they educate your kids is a worse place than a public institution that has no fear of ever going away because it is a government run monopoly subsidized by tax dollars.
7) They aren't THEIR handouts. It isn't their money to begin with. It is benevolence. This last sentence is so telling about how intellectually corrupted you European socialists are.

1) It depends on the hypothetical wages set by the free market. Sometimes this artificial minimum wage is higher, lower or equal to that wage the free market would set. The goal, however, is to make sure the every citizen can make a living while working. This isn't just good for income equality, but for economic growth as well. We know that a strong middle class is important to increase the demand in an economy.
2) That's because you don't believe in science. That's not my fault, it's yours.
3) It's a fact. 73 muslims were killed by USA airstrikes just days ago.
4) Again, your war on science is just tedious.
5) If you'd actually read the news, you'd have heard the offer given to Kasich.
6) You don't care about a lot of things it seems. Fact is that private schools did not improve quality, but still suck out money from the sector in forms of dividents and profit to rich people.
7) It is their handouts. USA is a Republic and a democracy first. One citizen, one vote. The capitalistic system is something you chose as a means to an end. If you decide that everyone is entitled to be fed, that is indeed the law of the country. How would the world look like if only rich people had power, like in a libertarian society?

[BannedForViews]

HAHAHAHAHA. Sure thing, buddy.

Okay joker, what fanciful knowledge do you think you posses that I don't. Laugh all you want, you're wrong. I can easily defend my position. Can you yours?