PDA

View Full Version : Idea: Johnson/Stein 2016?




Athena
10-24-2012, 08:52 PM
No matter who wins in 2012, there are going to be more people joining the anti-Dem/GOP camp, I think. If Obama wins, you'll have more anti-Dem leftists, and if Romney wins, more GOPers will defect to Libertarianism. Most people hate fascism, and what we have here is presently a fake-democracy that is increasingly totalitarian.

Lefties and libertarians already agree on all the civil liberties stuff (2/3rds of the 3rd party debate.)

Could we, like, compromise on economics? Like, Stein wants free college, and Johnson rightly pointed out that Pell Grants, etc inflate the Higher Education bubble. Could we agree to, say, ditch Pell Grants and instead divert at least SOME of the money to at least one free public university?

It's not what either of "us" wants, but it would be an improvement over the current situation.

Likewise with health care. Stein wants single payer for all. Johnson (again, rightly) points out that Medicare will bankrupt the country soon. So, the UK's NHS covers 100% of the population for what we pay for Medicare and Medicaid alone (basically half the costs per person.) It's kind of shabby, but it would be affordable if we converted the current Medicare private system to a NHS for older people and the very poor.

Again, not what either of "us" wants, but it would be an improvement over the current situation.

And if lefties and Libertarians joined forced, we very well might be able to smash the DemGOP hybrid beast.

Could we really join forces and compromise on economic stuff?

tttppp
10-24-2012, 08:54 PM
I would be willing to compromise on economic stuff if Stein would get out of the way and let Johnson handle economics.

Athena
10-24-2012, 08:55 PM
I would be willing to compromise on economic stuff if Stein would get out of the way and let Johnson handle economics.

That would not be a compromise.

tttppp
10-24-2012, 08:58 PM
That would not be a compromise.


Let Stein handle foreign policy or break up companies like Bank of America. But you can't compromise two exact opposites.

Athena
10-24-2012, 09:04 PM
But you can't compromise two exact opposites.

Do you think the two economic examples I gave are WORSE than the current situation?

Athena
10-24-2012, 09:05 PM
Also, we're not EXACT opposites on economics. We all at least agree that corporatism economics and the Fed as it exists now sucks.

FrankRep
10-24-2012, 09:12 PM
Idea: Johnson/Stein 2016?

Edit: Disclaimer

I'm a Norway-style "socialist".


WTF?? Hell no.

Jill Stein, Green Party Candidate -- More Socialist Than Barack Obama
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?393448-Jill-Stein-Green-Party-Candidate-More-Socialist-Than-Barack-Obama


Please Ron Paul supporters, stop drooling over Socialism. Lets support small, constitutional government.

supermario21
10-24-2012, 09:13 PM
Also, we're not EXACT opposites on economics. We all at least agree that corporatism economics and the Fed as it exists now sucks.

Yes, but that's like saying Ron Paul and the rest of the establishment Republicans are for strong national defense, or low government spending. You can agree something's wrong but if your solutions are on two different planets then it's pointless.

Qdog
10-24-2012, 09:22 PM
I want to see Rand Paul/Jesse Ventura. I know a lot of people dont like ventura, but he has balls. I like balls.

Athena
10-24-2012, 09:23 PM
WTF?? Hell no.

Jill Stein, Green Party Candidate -- More Socialist Than Barack Obama
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?393448-Jill-Stein-Green-Party-Candidate-More-Socialist-Than-Barack-Obama


Please Ron Paul supporters, stop drooling over Socialism. Lets support small, constitutional government.

Yeah, whatever. RoBomney isn't either Norway-style "socialist" or "conservative." They're just neoliberal fascists.

Athena
10-24-2012, 09:23 PM
I want to see Rand Paul/Jesse Ventura. I know a lot of people dont like ventura, but he has balls. I like balls.

I LOVE Ventura. :)

I love RP, but not Rand, tho.

Athena
10-24-2012, 09:26 PM
Yes, but that's like saying Ron Paul and the rest of the establishment Republicans are for strong national defense, or low government spending. You can agree something's wrong but if your solutions are on two different planets then it's pointless.

It would be an admitted COMPROMISE for STRATEGIC reasons only. JUST to get a third party in the picture in a huge way. I think both Stein and Johnson could openly admit this, and openly speak the truth about their true beliefs, and the fact that it is nothing but a COMPROMISE to begin the process of killing the DemGOP.

FrankRep
10-24-2012, 09:32 PM
Disclaimer: Athena is a Socialist.



I'm a Norway-style "socialist".

Keith and stuff
10-24-2012, 09:35 PM
I'd rather vote for Romney than a communist or socialist. I will not vote for any ticket that Stein is part of.

Athena
10-24-2012, 09:37 PM
Disclaimer: Athena is a Socialist.

Wow, great sleuthing there!

lol

Athena
10-24-2012, 09:37 PM
Regarding socialism, is Norway a socialist/fascist state?

fr33
10-24-2012, 09:39 PM
This would make me not vote for Johnson.

AuH20
10-24-2012, 09:42 PM
No one but RAND PAUL!!! Stop scouring in the minor league dregs. :)

AuH20
10-24-2012, 09:45 PM
No matter who wins in 2012, there are going to be more people joining the anti-Dem/GOP camp, I think. If Obama wins, you'll have more anti-Dem leftists, and if Romney wins, more GOPers will defect to Libertarianism. Most people hate fascism, and what we have here is presently a fake-democracy that is increasingly totalitarian.

Lefties and libertarians already agree on all the civil liberties stuff (2/3rds of the 3rd party debate.)

Could we, like, compromise on economics? Like, Stein wants free college, and Johnson rightly pointed out that Pell Grants, etc inflate the Higher Education bubble. Could we agree to, say, ditch Pell Grants and instead divert at least SOME of the money to at least one free public university?

It's not what either of "us" wants, but it would be an improvement over the current situation.

Likewise with health care. Stein wants single payer for all. Johnson (again, rightly) points out that Medicare will bankrupt the country soon. So, the UK's NHS covers 100% of the population for what we pay for Medicare and Medicaid alone (basically half the costs per person.) It's kind of shabby, but it would be affordable if we converted the current Medicare private system to a NHS for older people and the very poor.

Again, not what either of "us" wants, but it would be an improvement over the current situation.

And if lefties and Libertarians joined forced, we very well might be able to smash the DemGOP hybrid beast.

Could we really join forces and compromise on economic stuff?

The entire fascist state is built on the economic "stuff." Jill Stein can't see it unfortunately. Free higher level education and free universal health care are the bait for Keynesian policies and an unbacked currency.

NIU Students for Liberty
10-24-2012, 09:57 PM
The only combo involving a liberal that I would have voted for would have been Kucinich or Gravel. But Ron Paul would have to be on that ticket. As president.

But in reality, this is how I envision such a scenario turning out:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tlg16A7Fk08

FrankRep
10-24-2012, 09:57 PM
Regarding socialism, is Norway a socialist/fascist state?

Wikipedia says this about Norway (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norway)'s Government:

Unitary parliamentary constitutional monarchy

Bastiat's The Law
10-24-2012, 09:58 PM
Stein sounded like the coming of Santa Claus during the debate promising full paid college for everyone and a whole host of other "freebies". She's economically clueless.

supermario21
10-24-2012, 10:24 PM
Stein sounded like the coming of Santa Claus during the debate promising full paid college for everyone and a whole host of other "freebies". She's economically clueless.

Too bad more people weren't watching, she'd steal all the brain dead Obama fans who are in college right now.

Athena
10-24-2012, 10:25 PM
Ok, I guess you guys aren't willing to compromise to defeat the current DemGOP fascist regime.

Question answered.

:(

I still think it was a good idea.

FrankRep
10-24-2012, 10:27 PM
Ok, I guess you guys aren't willing to compromise to defeat the current DemGOP fascist regime.

Jill Stein is way too Socialist for even for most Democrats.

acptulsa
10-24-2012, 10:31 PM
I love RP, but not Rand, tho.

Yeah, yeah. He makes the kind of noises that allows him to win a GOP primary, therefore he's easy to demonize. But his policies are Ron Paul's policies, and his honesty is Ron Paul's honesty. So, maybe it's time liberals learned who their friends are, no?

Look, we've been through this, and I thought the answer was obvious. The best thing for liberals--really, the best possible thing--is libertarians in Washington and your Dems or Greens or whoever down at the state capital. This is the best thing. Really.

If health care and regulation and all of that great stuff is handled on as local a level as possible, no libertarian will violate the Ninth and Tenth Amendments by interfering, and the corporations cannot easily distort the whole thing to their ends because to do it would require buying fifty state (and more than half a dozen territorial) legislatures. That's not easy. Washington, on the other hand, is easy. One stop shopping.

One stop shopping. There's your corporatism in a nutshell. Go to Washington and do one stop shopping. Just like that. Fill the legal code down in Washington and every mom and pop down at the farmer's market needs the same fourteen lawyers to do business that Monsanto needs to do business. Let the state legislatures handle it, and (depending on the state) mom and pop need one lawyer, while Monsanto needs at least fifty. One stop shopping.

Keeping Washington honest sounds good in theory. Didn't work. But if you keep Washington small, you don't have to convince twenty million voters nationwide that your local sewers are more important than gay marriage, abortion, and their own local sewers combined. You can just throw out the city council--and it doesn't take twenty million voters to do that.

"I do verily believe that..a single, consolidated government would become the most corrupt government on the earth." -- Thomas Jefferson

How much proof do we need that the man was absolutely right before we pull our heads out and believe him?


Ok, I guess you guys aren't willing to compromise to defeat the current DemGOP fascist regime.

No offense, but the Ninth and Tenth Amendments are a better compromise, and a better idea. They really are. We might not live in your liberal state after we work together to get libertarians in office, but no Constitutionalist worth his salt will stand in your way if the majority of the voters in your state want to experiment with socialism.

Hell, with a little healthy competition between the states, you might just make it work halfway well. Europe did, before they had a stupid attack and consolidated their efforts. Now it has all gone to hell...

Please, tell me how I'm wrong about this.

Athena
10-24-2012, 10:31 PM
Jill Stein is way too Socialist for even for most Democrats.

No, the Obamabots say it's a nice ideal, but we have to work her ideas in through "incremental-ism"" and "pragmatism". Ha! Joke's on us.

FrankRep
10-24-2012, 10:34 PM
No, the Obamabots say it's a nice ideal, but we have to work her ideas in through "incremental-ism"" and "pragmatism". Ha! Joke's on us.

I'd rather support Obama over Jill Stein.

Scary:



Jill Stein supports:

- FDR-like "Green New Deal" to end unemployment
- Government-stimulated Green economy
- Stopping Global Warming/Climate Change
- Global Peace
- Health care as a Human right
- Government (taxpayers) to pay for student loans
- Free college for everyone

Athena
10-24-2012, 10:35 PM
Yeah, yeah. He makes the kind of noises that allows him to win a GOP primary, therefore he's easy to demonize. But his policies are Ron Paul's policies, and his honesty is Ron Paul's honesty. So, maybe it's time liberals learned who their friends are, no?

Look, we've been through this, and I thought the answer was obvious. The best thing for liberals--really, the best possible thing--is libertarians in Washington and your Dems or Greens or whoever down at the state capital. This is the best thing. Really.

If health care and regulation and all of that great stuff is handled on as local a level as possible, no libertarian will violate the Ninth and Tenth Amendments by interfering, and the corporations cannot easily distort the whole thing to their ends because to do it would require buying fifty state (and more than half a dozen territorial) legislatures. That's not easy. Washington, on the other hand, is easy. One stop shopping.

One stop shopping. There's your corporatism in a nutshell. Go to Washington and do one stop shopping. Just like that. Fill the legal code down in Washington and every mom and pop down at the farmer's market needs the same fourteen lawyers to do business that Monsanto needs to do business. Let the state legislatures handle it, and (depending on the state) mom and pop need one lawyer, while Monsanto needs at least fifty. One stop shopping.

Keeping Washington honest sounds good in theory. Didn't work. But if you keep Washington small, you don't have to convince twenty million voters nationwide that your local sewers are more important than gay marriage, abortion, and their own local sewers combined. You can just throw out the city council--and it doesn't take twenty million voters to do that.

"I do verily believe that..a single, consolidated government would become the most corrupt government on the earth." -- Thomas Jefferson

How much proof do we need that the man was absolutely right before we pull our heads out and believe him?

I don't disagree with any of that. :)
(and conversations like these are another primary reason I hang out here sometimes)

acptulsa
10-24-2012, 10:39 PM
I don't disagree with any of that. :)
(and conversations like these are another primary reason I hang out here sometimes)

And the reason I've been around HuffPo, too.

This is really, really vital. This is the cure to corporatism. The Ninth and Tenth are all the compromise we need. And since I've yet to see the one size fits all social program that works equally well for Connecticut and Oklahoma, even with a perfect world and perfect politicians trying to help us and not the corporations, it will work better than Washington-based programs!

We'll compromise. Johnson for president, Stein for governor. Some here will stipulate Stein for governor of your state, not theirs. But it's a compromise that can work.

Athena
10-24-2012, 10:41 PM
I'd rather support Obama over Jill Stein.

Scary:
I have a LOT of respect for most posters here, but little for you.

I assume the feeling is mutual.

John F Kennedy III
10-24-2012, 10:54 PM
No one but RAND PAUL!!! Stop scouring in the minor league dregs. :)

This :)

John F Kennedy III
10-24-2012, 11:03 PM
I have a LOT of respect for most posters here, but little for you.

I assume the feeling is mutual.

Why are you replying that way to that specific post by FrankRep?

DeMintConservative
10-24-2012, 11:14 PM
I'd vote for an Obama/Clinton ticket before even thinking about voting for a ticket featuring Stein. Obama can't run. Clinton/Cuomo or Cuomo/Clinton or whatever Dem ticket.

angelatc
10-24-2012, 11:14 PM
No.

angelatc
10-24-2012, 11:17 PM
It would be an admitted COMPROMISE for STRATEGIC reasons only. JUST to get a third party in the picture in a huge way. I think both Stein and Johnson could openly admit this, and openly speak the truth about their true beliefs, and the fact that it is nothing but a COMPROMISE to begin the process of killing the DemGOP.

The problem is that socialists kill people who stand in the way of their power. While there are many problems with the proposed ticket, that's the biggest one. Stein's party would never be happy with a President Johnson administration, and so...

Keith and stuff
10-24-2012, 11:37 PM
I'd vote for an Obama/Clinton ticket before even thinking about voting for a ticket featuring Stein. Obama can't run. Clinton/Cuomo or Cuomo/Clinton or whatever Dem ticket.

You go boy!

acptulsa
10-24-2012, 11:42 PM
You go boy!

You'll note I got it carved in stone before he had a chance to edit it. :p

You did too. +rep for that.

tttppp
10-24-2012, 11:48 PM
Stein just needs to go away and stop stealing minimal support from real candidates like Johnson or Paul.

Athena
10-25-2012, 12:17 AM
I get it. It's a no-go.
Yáll won't compromise on economics, period.
You'd rather have ORomabama than an ideological compromise on economics.

Athena
10-25-2012, 12:19 AM
The problem is that socialists kill people who stand in the way of their power. While there are many problems with the proposed ticket, that's the biggest one. Stein's party would never be happy with a President Johnson administration, and so...

Does that happen in Norway?

Athena
10-25-2012, 12:22 AM
Why are you replying that way to that specific post by FrankRep?

He and I have a long thing where I detest him, and I assume the feeling is mutual.

acptulsa
10-25-2012, 12:33 AM
I get it. It's a no-go.
Yáll won't compromise on economics, period.
You'd rather have ORomabama than an ideological compromise on economics.

Many here believe, and with good reason, that despite what they teach in the No Child Left Behind schools, Roosevelt's policies prolonged the Great Depression. That's part of it. But there's more.

There are two major differences between this and the Great Depression. One is that the 1971 Bretton Woods agreement completely divorced our funny money from gold. So, now it can become completely worthless. The other is that back then, we had credit. Not any more. People all over the world are becoming very afraid of our bonds.

No, we won't compromise on economics, period. Not at this point in history. Coolidge didn't either, and he presided over the Roaring Twenties. And we really, really want another Roaring Twenties. There's no excuse for people in the streets. Any compromise of that sort would just be a confused, counterproductive policy. What's needed is intensive repair. Singlemindedly intensive, effective repair. And a currency that allows those of us who don't have insider stock market information to stuff our mattresses without fear that our savings will shrink like wool in a hot dryer.

As for ORomabama, find us a realistic way to avoid that fate for the next four years and you'll get a different answer. For I fear that even folding in those on each end of the false left/right paradigm together won't enable us to add up to enough to outnumber those raised on the 'third parties can't win' brainwashing. We've been working on that, but we haven't gotten that far with it just yet.

Besides, if Stein's the vice president (otherwise known as the most useless job on earth), who will you run for governor of your state?

FreedomFighter1776
10-25-2012, 12:52 AM
I want to see Rand Paul/Jesse Ventura. I know a lot of people dont like ventura, but he has balls. I like balls.

If we could pull Jesse to the side and convince him that health care is not a "right", I'd vote for him. Until then, no.
Stein isn't even an option.

nobody's_hero
10-25-2012, 04:07 AM
It is somewhat interesting that there are socialistic countries in Europe that seem to enjoy a greater degree of freedom than we do.

I'm not advocating for socialism, and wouldn't vote for Jill.

My point is that I just don't know how those European countries manage to pull it off. Those people must be REALLY involved in what their government does, and don't let their government get away with much. Of course, with the E.U. growing increasingly powerful, those few countries that seem to enjoy freedom will not hold out much longer.

There's a battle over gun rights in Switzerland right now, but if you want to know where the 2nd Amendment has been hiding for the past century, it's not in the U.S. If I could have this sort of freedom to carry firearms I have to admit that I'd be somewhat tempted to say, 'okay I can deal with a little economic socialism'. Too bad you can't seem to have it all anymore.

I'd be happy to ride a bike in Switzerland:

http://bunkerville.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/swiss2.jpg?w=780

If they tried that here in the U.S. they'd be run over by a SWAT armored personnel carrier.

Check out the The Swiss Gun Slide-Show:


http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/multimedia/picture_gallery/Gun_loving_folk_.html?cid=29123560

EDIT: See my next post:

nobody's_hero
10-25-2012, 04:37 AM
Well, here's a conflicting interview. Too good to be true?:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZRQi5TRxqVs

Victor Grey
10-25-2012, 04:52 AM
My point is that I just don't know how those European countries manage to pull it off.

On credit.

No wars.

Subsidized defense.

http://www.realclearworld.com/blog/military_spending_big.png

nobody's_hero
10-25-2012, 05:05 AM
On credit.

No wars.

Subsidized defense.


No I mean, how do some countries manage to maintain, in some cases, a higher degree of freedom than WE do here in the U.S., even though these countries have a socialist government?

I can' only assume it must be because people are really involved in their government, and don't just give them a free pass and a bunch of tax dollars like socialists do here in the U.S. when they elect our leaders.

I'm just perplexed: How do they do it?

cajuncocoa
10-25-2012, 05:12 AM
Nope. I can't imagine I would ever vote for a Green Party candidate...I don't support socialism.

ronpaulfollower999
10-25-2012, 05:24 AM
I get it. It's a no-go.
Yáll won't compromise on economics, period.
You'd rather have ORomabama than an ideological compromise on economics.

I don't care about the 2 party monopoly. I care about economics, and will NOT compromise. Once you understand the Austrian Business Cycle, there is no place for Jill Stein's BS...or Gary Johnson's really.

ronpaulfollower999
10-25-2012, 05:28 AM
Well, here's a conflicting interview. Too good to be true?:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZRQi5TRxqVs

Yeah, I wouldn't use the Swiss as an example. AFAIK, they have conscription and the guns the army gives you doesn't have any ammo.

angelatc
10-25-2012, 05:41 AM
I get it. It's a no-go.
Yáll won't compromise on economics, period.
You'd rather have ORomabama than an ideological compromise on economics.

IMHO, it's the left that won't compromise on economics. They won't agree to give up a single dime of entitlement spending, and in fact Stein wants to make that number even larger. The compromise you seem to be touting is "We'll agree on military spending, and be polar opposites on entitlements." That isn't as much compromise as it is schizophrenia.

angelatc
10-25-2012, 05:59 AM
Does that happen in Norway?

Eugenics aside, you mean?

Are you a socialist? Socialism has slaughtered over 100 million people in the last 100 years. That's not even a disputable figure.

Is Norway socialist? I thought they were a constitutional monarchy with a democratically elected government that sold oil to the rest of the world in order to fund their social programs. It's one of the most expensive places in the world to live.

And I dispute even that it's a proven success. It's current "success" is less than 60 years old. Before WWII, massive numbers Norwegians were coming to America to escape poverty. Give it some time - it will fail. Socialism always does.

I don't like Norway. It's dark, the people are hive-minded, and it smells like fish. If you prefer their model to freedom and responsibility, then go there. You get what you want, I get what I want. You get free stuff, I get liberty. The perfect compromise, no?

jkob
10-25-2012, 06:19 AM
There really is no point in trying to appease the far left. You can work together on issues that you agree with but there is no acceptable way to meet on the stuff you don't for either side.

angelatc
10-25-2012, 06:23 AM
There really is no point in trying to appease the far left. You can work together on issues that you agree with but there is no acceptable way to meet on the stuff you don't for either side.

Yeah, I've been listening to "Liberty Defined" again while working on the house, and am remembering his message. That it's more important to plant ideas than compromise simply for the sake of winning elections.

ALthough there's no chance in Hades that a Johnson / Stein ticket would win anything. The leftists would never pick Johnson over a Democrat, and the right would not touch Stein with the next guy's pole.

Athena
10-25-2012, 08:05 AM
IMHO, it's the left that won't compromise on economics. They won't agree to give up a single dime of entitlement spending, and in fact Stein wants to make that number even larger. The compromise you seem to be touting is "We'll agree on military spending, and be polar opposites on entitlements." That isn't as much compromise as it is schizophrenia.

Did you read my OP? I gave TWO examples of giving up money that's going to social programs for the sake of balancing the budget, in the name of compromise.

TheTexan
10-25-2012, 08:06 AM
Compromising with socialists generally has a net result of more socialism.

Athena
10-25-2012, 08:08 AM
The leftists would never pick Johnson over a Democrat, and the right would not touch Stein with the next guy's pole.

Where are you getting this from???
Lots of leftists were willing to support RP over Obama. American history has proven that drones and kill lists and gulags are coming for the lefties quite literally next.

Athena
10-25-2012, 08:11 AM
Eugenics aside, you mean?

Are you a socialist? Socialism has slaughtered over 100 million people in the last 100 years. That's not even a disputable figure.

Is Norway socialist? I thought they were a constitutional monarchy with a democratically elected government that sold oil to the rest of the world in order to fund their social programs. It's one of the most expensive places in the world to live.

And I dispute even that it's a proven success. It's current "success" is less than 60 years old. Before WWII, massive numbers Norwegians were coming to America to escape poverty. Give it some time - it will fail. Socialism always does.

I don't like Norway. It's dark, the people are hive-minded, and it smells like fish. If you prefer their model to freedom and responsibility, then go there. You get what you want, I get what I want. You get free stuff, I get liberty. The perfect compromise, no?

Norway is socialist depending on your definition of socialism. And everyone seems to have a different definition. Norway is solidly capitalist by Marx's definition of socialism.

ETA:
What are you meaning by eugenics?

Tod
10-25-2012, 08:45 AM
No one but RAND PAUL!!! Stop scouring in the minor league dregs. :)

^Yes!^

I could not vote for a ticket with Stein.

FrankRep
10-25-2012, 10:09 AM
I have a LOT of respect for most posters here, but little for you.

I assume the feeling is mutual.

I don't know anything about you, but I don't like that you support Socialism, especially on a Constitutionalist/Libertarian (small government) Forum.

tttppp
10-25-2012, 11:36 AM
Do you think the two economic examples I gave are WORSE than the current situation?

I could handle one free university, although I don't think its necessary. I just don't see any advantage to her policies. If she was agreeing to just overhaul foreign policy, Id be all for it. But its just a bad match economically. Frankly, I don't vote for people to compromise. I vote for them because I want them to get their agenda across.

John F Kennedy III
10-25-2012, 01:09 PM
We dont like socialism. Gary Johnson is the farthest left you will get me to compromise. And everyone here knows im not a fan of his.

John F Kennedy III
10-25-2012, 01:13 PM
He and I have a long thing where I detest him, and I assume the feeling is mutual.

Can I ask something? Since I know nothing about Stein...does she really support everything FrankRep listed in that post on page 3?

John F Kennedy III
10-25-2012, 01:23 PM
If we could pull Jesse to the side and convince him that health care is not a "right", I'd vote for him. Until then, no.
Stein isn't even an option.

He would only be VP. And as long as he gets to do all the pluses he has, I wouldn't mind him installing VenturaCare.

cajuncocoa
10-25-2012, 02:30 PM
Norway is socialist depending on your definition of socialism. And everyone seems to have a different definition. Norway is solidly capitalist by Marx's definition of socialism.

ETA:
What are you meaning by eugenics?http://heterodoxology.com/2010/04/11/eugenics-and-progressive-social-policies-in-norway/

DeMintConservative
10-26-2012, 05:50 PM
Athena, your obsession with Norway is ill-founded. Saying socialism - better yet, vaguely social-democratic policies within the frame of a parlamientary democracy - works because Norway is so great is akin to saying a mix between feudal monarchy and theocracy works because of Dubai and Qatar.

Norway isn't rich because of socialism. Norway became one of the richest countries in the world 300 years ago. It's a culturally homogeneous nation-state, with high-levels of literacy and work ethic due to cultural and religious reasons that have roots centuries ago.

Side note: once someone said to Milton Friedman "there's barely no poverty in Scandinavia". He replied, "That's interesting, because in America among Scandinavians, we have no poverty either."

So, you have a very wealthy and highly-educated society with high levels of work ethic. To that, you add astonishing natural resources: Norway is the 2nd biggest produced of natural gas and the 6th biggest oil producer. Besides the timber and the fish.

In such an affluent society, socialist policies won't do much damage in the short-term - the abundance of resources and the dominating ethics will trump the bad incentives. But very few countries in the world have the same type of conditions - it's just them, really. It'd be like picking up a state like Connecticut, with the financial industry and the colleges, or, maybe a better example, Utah, and give them Texas and Alaska natural resources. Then move Mexico a few thousand miles away and surround that state with other affluent or relatively wealthy countries so that undesired immigration becomes an impossibility and there's an easy access to export markets.

Now, in spite of all that, Norway's tax revenue is more than 41% of the GDP. In the US it's 25%. And they still run a perennial budgetary deficit that they cover with the gas and oil money. To bring Norway's socialism to the US, you'd need to raise taxes by 100%. Do you really think the American economy would survive that? If you do, then you're indeed a socialist.

idiom
10-26-2012, 05:53 PM
Can we pick candidates who can stick to principles and at least keep their campaigns in the black?

GeorgiaAvenger
10-26-2012, 05:57 PM
I honestly don't trust these greenies on foreign policy either. I think it's focused more on peacenik ideas than national defense so I'm not a big fan. And the civil liberties agreement only goes for a few issues.

FSP-Rebel
10-26-2012, 07:05 PM
I'm rolling with Rand.

fr33
10-26-2012, 09:59 PM
I honestly don't trust these greenies on foreign policy either. I think it's focused more on peacenik ideas than national defense so I'm not a big fan. And the civil liberties agreement only goes for a few issues.You can't trust a socialist with anything. If you concede that government force is a positive thing, there's no going back. It just grows and grows.

angelatc
10-26-2012, 10:22 PM
Norway is socialist depending on your definition of socialism. And everyone seems to have a different definition. Norway is solidly capitalist by Marx's definition of socialism.

ETA:
What are you meaning by eugenics?

WWII.

Capitalism isn't the opposite of socialism. Capitalism is a means of distribution, while socialism is a form of government. Norway is probably closer to a social market economy than a free market. But taking money out of the pocket of the person that earned it and using it to provide services that could (and should) be provided by a free market is how I'm defining socialism.

Norway would be an awesome example to follow if we were the size of Norway. Alaska could probably get away with a similar structure if the federal government would allow them exclusive rights to their oil. But we don't. And there's simply no way that Alaska can produce enough oil to support the whole nation.

Norway has a fairly strict immigration policy, and in exchange they promise a job for anybody that wants one. That's not sustainable.

mport1
10-26-2012, 10:33 PM
A socialist and a LINO? No thanks.

The Free Hornet
10-27-2012, 01:00 AM
I get it. It's a no-go.
Yáll won't compromise on economics, period.
You'd rather have ORomabama than an ideological compromise on economics.

a) The point of principles is to not compromise them.

b) Your premise is false. Obama is gone in 2016 if re-elected. Romney is gone in 2012 if defeated.

c) As your strategy is flawed, anything you offer will not be delivered. I.e., you can't offer the choice.

Whether I prefer Johnson/Stein over ?/? doesn't matter if Johnson/Stein is an impossibility. You picked a political combo to your specific liking and now you feign aghastness upon rejection by non socialists.

Lastly, your premise is flawed. You cannot simply compromise "on economics" without affecting individual liberties including civil liberties. When I take away your right to advertise, I remove your right of free speech. Likewise, if you cannot speak freely, you cannot advertise that same opinion. Possibly, your notion of "on economics" may have a lot to do with non libertarian concepts which might make your confusion "on economics" more understandable. A libertarian does not seek the presidency to run the economy but to increase freedom. What comprise can you make "on economics" when it is not the focus of the ideology?

Stein: I seek to take from some and give to others.
Johnson: Uhhhhhhhhh, that's not my plan.

Where is the room for "compromise"? Will Stein accept desocialization to reduce the military industrial complex? Will Johnson accept further socialization of America to reduce the military industrial complex?

They can cooperate on reduction of the military industrial complex but that still leaves no room for compromise.