Well, Gary Johnson wants to sell off the National Parks and generally leave the natural environment to the tender mercies of big business.
Retrospective US Presidential Election: 2012
- Thread starter Nerdlinger
- Start date
Well, Gary Johnson wants to sell off the National Parks and generally leave the natural environment to the tender mercies of big business.
Mathuen
Banned
Hmm... but how likely is it that he could actually pull that off? Also why should I care about national parks if I'm offered greater economic growth?
Obama, despite my strong reservations. If the GOP wins now, it would lose the House in 2014. After all, it already has no chance to recapture the Senate in another decade. I like Governor Romney, not the Romney now. Hopefully we will have Marco Rubio in 2016
BTW, I think Obama is doing fine. Osama bin Laden is gone, healthcare passed, and the United States is more respected than it was 4 years ago. He has shown his leadership when the US is still in a mess. He would probably be remembered as a near-great president, unless (though not unlikely) he screwed up his second term
BTW, I think Obama is doing fine. Osama bin Laden is gone, healthcare passed, and the United States is more respected than it was 4 years ago. He has shown his leadership when the US is still in a mess. He would probably be remembered as a near-great president, unless (though not unlikely) he screwed up his second termWell, there's no chance of him winning now, so none.
Because the growth will be meagre (and given his other policies, of no benefit to you) but the devastation will last for centuries.
Mathuen
Banned
Go on what?
Explain what previous experience and logical analysis leads you to believe that I could not benefit from libertarian economics.
Mathuen
Banned
I asked you how I could know something (the growth question) and you said from your previous experience and logic so I asked you to go on about that. I want to know what previous experience and logic leads you to think that.
Because I'm not convinced here.
You're asking me to address an entire ideology here, one that I don't really even recognise, and I'm just on my lunch break... but ok. On the whole, things exist for a reason. The perspective people like Johnson and Ron Paul put forward tends to be... aggressively ignorant of history, of the reasons why things are the way they are.
Take the Federal Reserve. Simple logic tells us that it exists for a reason and that therefore, when trying to solve problems associated with it, you should also look at the problems it was created to solve - the problems that would return if you simply got rid of it. When you look at the problems that existed before the Federal Reserve it seems fairly obvious that, as flawed as it is, it's better to have it than to not have it (two devastating financial crises in the space of a century under the Fed, as opposed to devastating financial crises at least once a decade for the century before the Fed).
Similarly, National Parks exist for a reason. The first one in America was created in Yellowstone expressly to prevent the repetition of what had happened in Niagra. What benefit would be gained by privatising such areas and developing them? If there's oil or gas to be had it's only adding a little bit extra to a finite resource, and therefore further discouraging the development of renewables that will have to happen eventually - at the cost of destroying a natural habitat that can't be recreated. It's like using the Mona Lisa for firewood - the benefit to you is limited and temporary, the cost to posterity is inestimable.
And so on. These "Libertarian" policies seem to identify a problem with something in the public sector and then propose abolishing the thing, without addressing the problem that existed before. They cling to theories and ignore reality.
That was a good "campaign" for once, Gregg. You convinced Mathuen in a civil, reasonable way instead of using the usual "slogans" like: Stein '12 and so on.
I voted Green from the beginning, anyway...
I voted Green from the beginning, anyway...
Although it seems the Democrats have something of a 'core vote' around 40% these days, which is pretty problematic for the fragmented opposition. You might see some odd Republican-Libertarian-Green alliances in Congress to try and Circumvent this.
Would the Greens ever ally with the Republicans or Libertarians, though? Both sides seem too uncompromising to cooperate, even if it's in their collective best interest. It seems more likely that the Greens would ally with the Democrats in order to reach a majority.
Look at Ireland... The conservative Fine Gael, most of the time allies with the socialist Labour Party.
In America, political parties cooperate very rarely. Especially those which have opposing ideologies.