doc_strange: (Agamotto got nothing on this.)
[personal profile] doc_strange
At a time when 13% of registered voters polled showed a preference of having a giant meteor hit the Earth to having Trump or Clinton as president, the Libertarian ticket, starring former governors Johnson and Weld, hits it out of the park with a no-hype, plain-talking ad...



If they poll at 15%, they will be in the presidential debates this year. If they receive just 5% of the national vote total in the election, the Libertarian party will receive advance federal matching funds in the next presidential election, changing the election landscape.

(no subject)

Date: 2016-07-10 06:51 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] apostle-of-eris.livejournal.com
Environment? Sue for damages after things are fucked up.
Education? Buy it on the free market.
Sick? Buy health care on the free market.
Job? You are free to negotiate with Megacorp.
Guns? But whatever you want on the free market.

What could go wrong?

(no subject)

Date: 2016-07-10 03:33 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] docstrange.livejournal.com
Did you actually read the party's platform, or are you just projecting your idea of it?

Really, you're better than that. Please compare with Ms. Clinton's platform.

ETA: I ask because neither candidate has (ever) proposed the above. But if you're satisfied with the current two-party system and the positions and realities of the laws their representatives pass, then a third party - even one you do not agree with - won't attract you as a way to push your preferred party more in your direction.
Edited Date: 2016-07-10 03:49 pm (UTC)

Libertoonians

Date: 2016-07-10 05:54 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] apostle-of-eris.livejournal.com
Yes I did read the platform. Each of those absurdities is in it.

Re: Libertoonians

Date: 2016-07-10 07:39 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] docstrange.livejournal.com
First, I have, too, and that is more or less a caricature of it you present. More like a straw man edition than a serious rendition. Just picking one example, on the environment, the part about courts for redress is in reference to government-driven environmental damage today being performed by an unaccountable government. The party treats environmental damage as an externality, one of the few places overarching regulation is necessary - but they also believe in individual rights, and thus the individual right to seek redress for violations of those regulations. Maybe you could read up on them.

And second - you're convinced the current two parties offer better solutions? I am serious in asking that. Maybe you are capable of a serious answer.

All I see in the Democrats' platform of the proposed democratic "socialism" is government-blessed captains of industry, in which we will have more or less recreated Colbertism.

(no subject)

Date: 2016-07-10 06:28 pm (UTC)
ivy: (grey hand-drawn crow)
From: [personal profile] ivy
That's a pretty appealing ad. I bet it gets lots of people who are dissatisfied with their current options. (I enjoyed talking to New Mexicans about what they thought Johnson was like as a governor... pretty different from what happened when I talked to Chicagoans about what they thought about the President when he held local office, heh. That was surprising to me!)

(no subject)

Date: 2016-07-10 07:40 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] docstrange.livejournal.com
Yeah. Johnson was simply effective and didn't flinch from doing what was necessary, and still had state government doing the things that it is best at doing. With a surplus.

(no subject)

Date: 2016-07-10 08:45 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] khallis.livejournal.com
I am, predictably, all in.

I enthusiastically support Johnson, Weld, and this ad.



(no subject)

Date: 2016-07-10 09:15 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] docstrange.livejournal.com
Yes, the choice of Weld as a running mate is interesting. It would be very interesting to see the two parties dealing with a veto authority that signs and vetoes legislation on the basis of a very different calculus than either has dealt with before (and separately from party in-politics).

(no subject)

Date: 2016-07-10 10:10 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] apostle-of-eris.livejournal.com
I directly quoted or paraphrased the "libertarian" platform and you couldn't recognize the references.
Now you are arguing with assertions about the "Democrats" and "Republicans" which do not exist. I said nothing about them.

(no subject)

Date: 2016-07-10 11:23 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] docstrange.livejournal.com
Ok, I am starting to think you're not interested in dialog since you're engaging in meta-discourse only.

Meta dialog response: Turning multiple paragraphs into 6-8 word quips with loaded wording isn't paraphrasing in any honest way that can be distinguished from caricature.

Main dialog response: As to the parties and platforms, the very point of my original post was to point out that if they break 15% in the polls, you'll have a new voice in the debates, and a 5% popular vote will give them advance federal election funding, forcing the two parties to address issues from more than a "not the other team" perspective. I.e., "changing the election landscape." You mock the Libertarians, who, I think we all know, won't win anyway, but whose gain of just 5% of the electorate in this cycle could start the transformation of the US political arena into a true multiparty system. I ask what you like of the other big parties. If the answer is "not much, really" and that you prefer (say) the Green party or some other small-in-elections party, well, my very point is this election could crack the door. You may not like the party that has the chance to crack open that door, but once it's open, it'll provide a way for may others to get heard. And isn't that what we need?

Profile

doc_strange: (Default)doc_strange

July 2016

S M T W T F S
     12
345678 9
10111213141516
17181920212223
24252627282930
31      

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Sep. 23rd, 2017 09:50 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios