Anyone watching the debates tonight?

[guerilla]

No one thinks he's going to win. But making the Libertarian candidates have some visible level of support at least makes it slightly easier to get their message out. There is no slam dunk victory. If it just means that next time a Libertarian candidate gets in the main debate, that's a victory. If it means they get enough funding to put some commercials on the air, that's a victory. If it means that they can afford to do a college campus tour that brings new people into the fold, that's a victory. It's all about incremental improvement and getting the perspective more and more into the open.

Sure, this may get more people into the LP. And it may even one day get a LP candidate into the debates.

But that's politics, that's not liberty. This makes my point that people have trouble seeing any other way to impact society than to participate in politics.

Politics is the problem!

I don't think it keeps you from doing anything. It's just adding another item to the list.

But all "items" aren't equal, are they? Does political power actually serve libertarian ends?

Btw, Gary Johnson is a terrible candidate. Marginally better than Bob Barr, but he's no Harry Browne. This is essentially, voting for the lesser of three evils.

 

[xmcp123]

Sure, this may get more people into the LP. And it may even one day get a LP candidate into the debates.

But that's politics, that's not liberty. This makes my point that people have trouble seeing any other way to impact society than to participate in politics.

Politics is the problem!

But they are a fact of life. Whether or not you like it, they control our world right now. Shoving your head in the sand achieves nothing.

But all "items" aren't equal, are they? Does political power actually serve libertarian ends?

Yes. Having power doesn't mean you have to use it. It would also give us an opportunity to shut down large parts of the surveillance state, the patriot act, and a litany of other similar programs.
That's neither here nor there though, because the LP will not be winning elections any time soon.

Btw, Gary Johnson is a terrible candidate. Marginally better than Bob Barr, but he's no Harry Browne. This is essentially, voting for the lesser of three evils.

I like Gary Johnson. He's far from perfect, but he's not bad at all. People have been dealing with a corrupted version of Capitalism for a long time now. Part of the job of Libertarianism - in my opinion - is to show people that the market can work, that natural controls do exist, and that the way of Liberty is a good way forward. That can't happen all at once. People won't accept it right now.

Would it have been awesome to win with a slam dunk? Yeah. It would have been. But we didn't, and we didn't because people aren't fully ready for what libertarians are selling yet. A Libertarian-lite candidate is not a horrible thing for introducing the ideas to the general population.

 

[pinchyfingers]

It's great that people get so pumped up over the dog and pony show going on right now, 'cause it means major, major money is being spent on advertising. All the major TV networks are killing it with political commercials and bought news stories. Likewise, props to any IM'ers out there running a politically themed site for the sweet campaign ad $$$.

My frustration with the irrationality and out-right stupidity of people was a great source of pain in the past. Now I re-direct the frustration by asking myself, "how can I profit?"

 

[pixelo]

First time in Obama's life that he got directly challenged on his communist record. I don't like Mitt, but his aggression surprised me. The result was predictable.

The only thing I can't figure out is what they do for the next two debates. It looks like Romney is much nimbler and faster on his feet; he was negating every attack Obama threw at him.

I would expect Obama to throw the woodshed at him next debate; Bain, 47%, outsourcing, yada yada yada. Of course a friend of mine thinks the communists behind Obama have something planned along the lines of the DHS insider, scheduled for this upcoming Friday, but who knows.

The.......communists?!

Wtf.

 

[guerilla]

But they are a fact of life. Whether or not you like it, they control our world right now. Shoving your head in the sand achieves nothing.

Why throw out a false dichotomy like that?

Regardless, you continue to prove my point that you don't actually see value in doing things non-political. To you, that's "doing nothing".

Yes. Having power doesn't mean you have to use it.

LOL. Right. People who seek power don't use it.

And apparently I have been called a Utopian before.

You want them to gain power explicitly so YOU can use it for what YOU think is GOOD. Because unlike other men, YOU are a good person, and YOU won't be corrupted by the ring.

It would also give us an opportunity to shut down large parts of the surveillance state, the patriot act, and a litany of other similar programs.

If the will of the people could shut those down, they would already be shut down. Again, voting gives you no power. These politicians have zero accountability if what they say and do doesn't match up.

I like Gary Johnson. He's far from perfect, but he's not bad at all. People have been dealing with a corrupted version of Capitalism for a long time now. Part of the job of Libertarianism - in my opinion - is to show people that the market can work, that natural controls do exist, and that the way of Liberty is a good way forward. That can't happen all at once. People won't accept it right now.

Why would you use politics, which is anti-market, to show people the market can work? Wouldn't you just do more WRW, which is a genuine market institution, instead of investing your ideological energy into an enterprise that is the antithesis of what you do in society?

Would it have been awesome to win with a slam dunk? Yeah. It would have been. But we didn't, and we didn't because people aren't fully ready for what libertarians are selling yet. A Libertarian-lite candidate is not a horrible thing for introducing the ideas to the general population.

It can if people end up construing libertarianism to be about political power and voting, rather than ideas.

That's where Johnson comes up short. Did you hear the Bob Wenzel interview he did? He knows less about libertarian theory than most people on this forum. He doesn't even know basic American economic or political history accurately.

This is the sort of guy you want out there, promoting your message (granted, you're not exactly a philosophical principled libertarian) to people?

When one engages in politics, they compromise their principles. They start making rationalizations like Ron Paul does. Pretty soon, like Johnson who thinks marijuana should be legal but not heroin, "libertarians" end up with ad hoc philosophy and no consistent ethic.

And at that point, such a person isn't even recognizably libertarian anymore, because what they stand for isn't logically or rationally consistent. It's just the sum of a bunch of reactionary positions to arbitrary events.

 

[xmcp123]

You want them to gain power explicitly so YOU can use it for what YOU think is GOOD. Because unlike other men, YOU are a good person, and YOU won't be corrupted by the ring.

The system and the market are hopelessly corrupted. There is no way to prove or do anything until the system has been fixed. Without those fixes, people will keep perceiving the market as the thing that is screwing them, not understanding the mechanisms behind what is happening.

Why would you use politics, which is anti-market, to show people the market can work?

Because politics have impaired the ability of the market to function with it's natural controls. When you have government created monopolies everywhere, subsidies unbalancing the market place, and a dozen or so other forms of interference it's hard if not impossible to show what it is capable of.

Wouldn't you just do more WRW, which is a genuine market institution, instead of investing your ideological energy into an enterprise that is the antithesis of what you do in society?

Mostly I do just that. I see politics as a bizarre sideshow.

 

[jfizzle]

Why throw out a false dichotomy like that?

Regardless, you continue to prove my point that you don't actually see value in doing things non-political. To you, that's "doing nothing".


LOL. Right. People who seek power don't use it.

And apparently I have been called a Utopian before.

You want them to gain power explicitly so YOU can use it for what YOU think is GOOD. Because unlike other men, YOU are a good person, and YOU won't be corrupted by the ring.


If the will of the people could shut those down, they would already be shut down. Again, voting gives you no power. These politicians have zero accountability if what they say and do doesn't match up.


Why would you use politics, which is anti-market, to show people the market can work? Wouldn't you just do more WRW, which is a genuine market institution, instead of investing your ideological energy into an enterprise that is the antithesis of what you do in society?


It can if people end up construing libertarianism to be about political power and voting, rather than ideas.

That's where Johnson comes up short. Did you hear the Bob Wenzel interview he did? He knows less about libertarian theory than most people on this forum. He doesn't even know basic American economic or political history accurately.

This is the sort of guy you want out there, promoting your message (granted, you're not exactly a philosophical principled libertarian) to people?

When one engages in politics, they compromise their principles. They start making rationalizations like Ron Paul does. Pretty soon, like Johnson who thinks marijuana should be legal but not heroin, "libertarians" end up with ad hoc philosophy and no consistent ethic.

And at that point, such a person isn't even recognizably libertarian anymore, because what they stand for isn't logically or rationally consistent. It's just the sum of a bunch of reactionary positions to arbitrary events.

I'm pretty sure your entire view of politics is fairly radical. A governing body exists because of the following reasons: 1.) To have a higher body of people to take decisive action in the best interest of the nation. 2.) To guide the economy with certain economic principals to further strengthen a nation.

Although you may think that a government is corrupt, pointless, or doomed for failure, that entire argument is fundamentally flawed. The general population of America is too incompetent to know what is best. I assume, that like you, John Nash would claim that let the invisible hand guide it's course. That may be true, however, with the recent 2008 crisis, a quantitative easing prevented further implosion of the economy. These economic principals are what guides the economy to the goal of the president. However, sincere and corrupt, they may appear, restoring faith in the president, is only restoring faith in the economy. I understand, there might be some underlying interest of presidents, but what it really boils down too, is whether or not, you believe in the economic principals of the president.

 

[guerilla]

I'm pretty sure your entire view of politics is fairly radical.

Radical comes from radic, which is Greek for "root". And you're correct.

A governing body exists because of the following reasons: 1.) To have a higher body of people to take decisive action in the best interest of the nation. 2.) To guide the economy with certain economic principals to further strengthen a nation.

This is what they teach in school. What it really exists for is to loot and plunder people who believe in nationalism and the prevailing propaganda.

To paraphrase the bible, "judge them by their fruits". Don't tell me what government is supposed to be, tell me what it is.

Although you may think that a government is corrupt, pointless, or doomed for failure

I think that is pretty easy to prove actually.

The general population of America is too incompetent to know what is best.

Ah, so you prefer outright monarchy or scientific dictatorship! I become more sympathetic to that idea every day tbh.

But seriously, if they are too incompetent to know what is best, why let them vote?

I assume, that like you, John Nash would claim that let the invisible hand guide it's course.

Adam Smith.

That may be true, however, with the recent 2008 crisis, a quantitative easing prevented further implosion of the economy.

No, it just kicked the can down the road. You can't SOLVE a debt problem by taking on more debt.

These economic principals are what guides the economy to the goal of the president.

The President of the United States has been owned by Wall Street since 1987. I have probably forgotten more about economics than Mitt Romney or Barack Obama ever knew, and I am not claiming to be an expert (although, I am pretty darn good).

However, sincere and corrupt, they may appear, restoring faith in the president, is only restoring faith in the economy.

Hope and Change don't put iPhones in your pocket and hot pockets in your microwave. The economy is based on capital, and without capital, people can love their DEAR LEADER until their eyes bleed, it won't make a damn difference. Example, see North Korea.

I understand, there might be some underlying interest of presidents, but what it really boils down too, is whether or not, you believe in the economic principals of the president.

People think economics is like choosing ice creams. Some Presidents like Vanilla, some like Chocolate. And it's all about getting the right flavor.

Economists on the other hand believe that when you act, there are consequences, and that the results of certain economic ideas are non-trivial, like communism for example.

What the President believes is irrelevant. Government produces nothing. It takes out of the private economy and consumes for political gain.

 

[infoslob]

I don't know who Mitt Romney is, because I don't think even he knows who he is, however, I'd like to see him continue to pretend to be the guy he pretended to be tonight until the election, because the guy he pretended to be tonight has a chance to beat Obama and I don't like Obama because I know who he is.

Mitt Romney is the hands on founder of Bain Capital, that's who the fuck he is.

To knee-jerk Democrats, this makes him evil.

To anyone else who takes a closer look - he would be, hands down, the most competent man in Washington, DC if elected president. And yes, his competency would eclipse that of Saint Ron Paul - by leap years.

Disagree with Romney, fine. But don't short change his abilities.

Anyone surprised by Romney's performance either has never paid much attention or is feeble minded enough to take everything Jon Stewart says at face value.

And, frankly, I'm not that surprised that Obama sucked. He blows everything else off. (Maybe I would too if I was handed the Nobel Peace Prize just for showing up for my first day of work).

And didn't Obama joke that all this debate prep was hard work?

 

[jfizzle]

Radical comes from radic, which is Greek for "root". And you're correct.


This is what they teach in school. What it really exists for is to loot and plunder people who believe in nationalism and the prevailing propaganda.

To paraphrase the bible, "judge them by their fruits". Don't tell me what government is supposed to be, tell me what it is.


I think that is pretty easy to prove actually.


Ah, so you prefer outright monarchy or scientific dictatorship! I become more sympathetic to that idea every day tbh.

But seriously, if they are too incompetent to know what is best, why let them vote?


Adam Smith.


No, it just kicked the can down the road. You can't SOLVE a debt problem by taking on more debt.


The President of the United States has been owned by Wall Street since 1987. I have probably forgotten more about economics than Mitt Romney or Barack Obama ever knew, and I am not claiming to be an expert (although, I am pretty darn good).


Hope and Change don't put iPhones in your pocket and hot pockets in your microwave. The economy is based on capital, and without capital, people can love their DEAR LEADER until their eyes bleed, it won't make a damn difference. Example, see North Korea.


People think economics is like choosing ice creams. Some Presidents like Vanilla, some like Chocolate. And it's all about getting the right flavor.

Economists on the other hand believe that when you act, there are consequences, and that the results of certain economic ideas are non-trivial, like communism for example.

What the President believes is irrelevant. Government produces nothing. It takes out of the private economy and consumes for political gain.

Well done sir, Well done.

 

[Kiopa_Matt]

Disagree with Romney, fine. But don't short change his abilities.

You mean his ability to totally fuck people over in order to benefit himself?

Greed and Debt: The True Story of Mitt Romney and Bain Capital | Politics News | Rolling Stone

 

[guerilla]

The system and the market are hopelessly corrupted. There is no way to prove or do anything until the system has been fixed. Without those fixes, people will keep perceiving the market as the thing that is screwing them, not understanding the mechanisms behind what is happening.

But again, you're going to use politics (the problem) to fix perceptions of the market (the solution).

There is a saying, "Do as I say, not as I do". It doesn't exactly inspire confidence.

Because politics have impaired the ability of the market to function with it's natural controls. When you have government created monopolies everywhere, subsidies unbalancing the market place, and a dozen or so other forms of interference it's hard if not impossible to show what it is capable of.

Actually, I think it is easy to demonstrate the resiliency of markets.

The reason why there are government monopolies, government power at all, is because people continue to participate in the charade that is government. You keep on voting, and watching the debates. That is a collective national delusion that guarantees you will forever be trapped participating in something designed to keep you from being able to exercise any power.

Mostly I do just that. I see politics as a bizarre sideshow.

Don't vote. It's bad for your soul.

 

[jsphfcll]

ohh no.... this thread is over

 

[HKSEO Jonbones]

I will not be watching debates tonight, as they were on last night. I will be watching servers and websites that I have bought from gay webmasters who have given up on SEO since they lost their EMD's

 

[dreamache]

I definitely took my drunkard debate ramblings to facebook last night, but certainly not as a left vs. right fuckhead. My brother chimed in on one of my posts..

pfft, nevermind.. "the reason we're in such a bad economic crisis is because people were reckless across the board".. not one mention of the federal reserve, who were the primary source of the crisis by tampering with interest rates. neither obama or romney would admit that, though.

He's slightly more informed than your average voter and this is what most of them say to people who don't/won't vote for either side:

Lets use some common since here! Those of you who can see that our current system is horribley corrupt are right! Both parties are to blame, i get that! But untill we have a Ron Paul type canidate that electible and can get his or her message out without looking like a half baked crazy old man we have to make the best choice that we can. If you plan on not voting or writing in a name or voting for someone who cant win, that is your choice! But please remember in doing that you will only help OBAMA win again! I would have to believe that a Ron Paul supporter would find more to agree with Romney about than OBAMA! YES YOU MAY NOT LIKE THE CHOICE BUT PLEASE USE SOME COMMON SINCE!

So I had to bust out a response or two..

^-The problem is, Romney says what people want to hear but won't actually execute it. The only thing that ever matters is voting record, and I'm not sure if you've seen the graphic I posted earlier, you'd see Romney and Obama are virtually identical. Sure, they might differ on some fringe issues, and *appear* to differ on major issues like war, economy, etc., but again, they vote nearly identical. These debates are meant to give us the illusion these two are different, which they really do appear different when they start talking and debating, but the voting records state otherwise. And I honestly believe that's by design, because the global bankers, the families controlling this oligarchy we live in, win regardless of which puppet is voted in as president.

Also, I really don't think voting for sociopath drug addicts is a good idea. I say drug addicts because it's been proven that dopamine (a chemical in the brain, addictive as cocaine) increases as a person exercises power over other people. Obama and Romney desperately want more power and more authority because they're drug addict fiends, hell bent on getting the biggest high of all by becoming president.

Ron Paul is the only exception to that, as he said time n' time again he doesn't want to be president. Some say that's weak and bad for a president, I say it's that's the most desirable quality to have in someone who supposedly holds so much power.

I will say this, if I were forced to choose between the two, of course I'd vote Romney. But I would do so knowing that virtually everything he says he'll do or not do is likely not to happen. I would also do so knowingly being against a lot of what he stands for. I just can't justify casting a vote, which is essentially an approval of the system and ensuring its survival, while disagreeing with nearly everything it's about and stands for. I honestly believe the movement against the two party system will grow more and more, as it has, especially with the internet and alternative news sources.. But it certainly won't grow if I cast a vote for either side, that's just ensuring the two party system stays in tact. I can still be proactive by doing other things while not voting for these guys. Discussing ideas /spreading ideas with others is one form, that vid I made awhile ago with over 30k views is another, an infographic I made is another, etc etc.. So, I'm certainly not some hippy asshole sitting on his ass refusing to vote who does nothing else, idly hoping things change on their own. And I know regardless of what I do, one of these guys will become president, and again after, and after, and after.. The movement against the two party system is one that will take at least a few more decades, but the one thing we have in our favor is the internet, a way to circumvent mainstream media; which is one of the reasons politicians on both sides want to restrict internet freedom with bullshit bills like SOPA/PIPA/ACTA.

/end too much time wasted

But yeah, people like him are entrenched in this idea that one side is just slightly better than the other, and that's reason enough to vote for them. It's very difficult to get the idea across that it's all bullshit, because changing belief systems based on decades of indoctrination is nearly impossible because people are fucking stubborn and closed minded.

 

[teck112]

bros

this election is now all about big bird

 

[MSTeacher]

he would be, hands down, the most competent man in Washington, DC if elected president.

Competent...at liquidating, asset stripping and racing to the bottom? Nice! As Ron Paul said, Romney's work truly is the spirit of the market. brb calling the rest of the world that hasn't bought up the US to let them know Romney's gonna hook it up for them.

PS Romney is a vapid halfwit silver spooning douchebag who would not know his ass from a hole in the ground as President of the United States. His handlers are largely warmongering neocons and his legacy is one of treason, subversion and secessionism.

 

[productionhead]

dang ya niggas is throwing knowledge

 

[noxit]

post-debate rally

I wish he was talking like that while debating with Mitt:


"Now, last night, we had our first debate. And when I got on stage, I met a very spirited fellow who claimed to be Mitt Romney. But it couldn't have been Mitt Romney -- because the real Mitt Romney has been running around the country for the last year promising $5 trillion in tax cuts that favor the wealthy. But the fellow on stage last night said he didn't know anything about that.
"The real Mitt Romney said we don't need any more teachers in our classrooms. But the fellow on stage last night said he loves teachers -- can't get enough of 'em.
"The Mitt Romney we all know invested in companies that were called "pioneers" of outsourcing jobs to other countries. But the guy on stage last night, he said he's never heard of tax breaks for companies that ship jobs overseas. He said if that's true, he must need a new accountant. Now we know for sure it wasn't the real Mitt Romney -- because he seems to be doing just fine with the accountant he has.
"You see, the man on stage last night – he doesn't want to be held accountable for what the real Mitt Romney's been saying for the last year. And that's because he knows full well that we don't want what he's been selling for the last year. Governor Romney may dance around his positions, but if you want to be President, you owe the American people the truth.
"So here's the truth: Governor Romney cannot pay for his $5 trillion tax plan without blowing up the deficit or sticking it to the middle class. And we can't afford to go down that road again. We can't afford another round of budget-busting tax cuts for the wealthy. We can't afford to gut our investments in education or clean energy or research and technology. We can't afford to rollback regulations on Wall Street banks or big oil companies or insurance companies. We cannot afford to double down on the same top-down economic policies that got us into this mess. That's not a plan to create jobs. That's not a plan to grow the economy. That's not a change -- that is a relapse.
"Denver, we've been there, we've tried it, and we are not going back. We are going forward."
​

 

[Moxie]

Indeed, in most countries, people don't even bother to vote, like Canada, where voter turnout has been falling precipitously each federal election, to the point they won't have a "democratic mandate" within another decade.

Outside the US, many people realize politics is a big time sink and full of liars. They won't change it, but they really want nothing to do with it.

In the US, everyone gets caught up in the dream of presidential aspiration. Again, to someone from outside, it seems bizarre.

You're a Canadian who once spent plenty of time commenting on US politics and campaigning for Ron Paul.
Meanwhile in the USA, a large percent of the public cannot name the vice president or their state's governor.


VOTER TURNOUT

Malta 94%
Chile 93%
Austria 92%
Belgium 91%
Italy 90%
Luxembourg 90%
Iceland 89%
New Zealand 88%
Denmark 87%
Germany 86%
Sweden 86%
Greece 86%
Venezuela 85%
Czech Republic 85%
Argentina 83%
Brazil 83%
Netherlands 83%
Australia 81%
Costa Rica 81%
Norway 81%
Romania 81%
Bulgaria 80%
Israel 80%
Portugal 79%
Finland 78%
France 76%
United Kingdom 76%
South Korea 75%
Ireland 74%
Canada 74%
Spain 73%
Japan 71%
Estonia 69%
Hungary 66%
Russia 61%
India 58%
Switzerland 54%
Poland 51%
United States 48%