Get your conservative and liberal ideas approved or shot down here

Discussion in 'Politics' started by TheGreatGatsby, Apr 10, 2012.

  1. TheGreatGatsby
    Offline

    TheGreatGatsby Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2012
    Messages:
    20,434
    Thanks Received:
    2,365
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Location:
    California
    Ratings:
    +6,569
    OP will reflect approved and shot down ideas.

    [​IMG]

    Approved

    * A law that requires the federal govt. to pass a balanced budget.
    * Repeal the 17th amendment (Allow states to decide appointment/election procedures of Senators).

    [​IMG]

    Shot Down

    * Doing away with the Libertarian Party.
    * Public Campaign Financing.
    * Same sex marriage in all 50 states.
     
    Last edited: Apr 11, 2012
  2. SniperFire
    Offline

    SniperFire Senior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2012
    Messages:
    13,627
    Thanks Received:
    1,219
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Inside Your Head
    Ratings:
    +1,223
    Libertarianism, as an actual political party, is an exercise in mental masturbation.

    We will never return to the Deadwood, and it really didn't work out that well to begin with.


    Approve or disapprove?
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  3. TheGreatGatsby
    Offline

    TheGreatGatsby Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2012
    Messages:
    20,434
    Thanks Received:
    2,365
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Location:
    California
    Ratings:
    +6,569
    [​IMG]

    If anything, economic minded Republicans, Constitutionalists, and anti state control independents and democrats need to flock to the Libertarian Party to send a real message that they are not pawns of a political party.

    Economically and Constitutionally speaking, the Tea Party movement was much akin to libertarianism.

    You may say, wouldn't less Republicans give the Dems too much power if we split? The answer is a sad probably. The Dems would initially have more power. But out of the ashes, the libertarians would prevail.

    The problem is that the GOP loves to talk a good libertarian game to the base, but few of them are anything but Republicrats. My Congressman Ed Royce is the perfect example of that. When he does speaking lectures around town, you'd think he was a Ron Paul clone. But then he goes out and puts his yay vote for Obama's bloated budget. WTF is that all about? Most of the Republicans do that too.

    Thank you for submission :D
     
    Last edited: Apr 10, 2012
  4. SniperFire
    Offline

    SniperFire Senior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2012
    Messages:
    13,627
    Thanks Received:
    1,219
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Inside Your Head
    Ratings:
    +1,223
    We are an entire communist revolution and subsequent totalitarian regime collapse away from an ash-heap from which Libertarianism could actually be born, with millions dead in the process.

    Me, I would rather see Romney and the Ryan budget.
     
  5. TheGreatGatsby
    Offline

    TheGreatGatsby Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2012
    Messages:
    20,434
    Thanks Received:
    2,365
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Location:
    California
    Ratings:
    +6,569
    LOL. I share your sense of pragmatism.

    Honestly, I can't speak to the Ryan budget b/c I haven't studied it. But I do agree with Newt that his Medicare plan was social right wing engineering. It was not made to lower health cost; but rather to pander to his corporate interests. Based on that, he has lost my faith.

    As for Romney; I'm pretty excited. I wanted Paul but when I think that it could've been Newt or Santorum, I am thankful. Santorum especially would have really tested my anybody but Obama philosophy.
     
  6. konradv
    Offline

    konradv Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2010
    Messages:
    22,552
    Thanks Received:
    2,555
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Location:
    Baltimore
    Ratings:
    +5,666
    Public financing of elections

    A. Stops the legal bribery of our representitives.

    B. Saves money in the long run, because our representitives will have fewer expensive promises to keep.

    C. Saves time spent begging for campaign cash, so our representitives can actually read a few bills.

    D. Improves citizen participation as open mike nights, debates and sub-primaries are instituted to determine who gets campaign funding.
     
    Last edited: Apr 10, 2012
  7. TheGreatGatsby
    Offline

    TheGreatGatsby Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2012
    Messages:
    20,434
    Thanks Received:
    2,365
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Location:
    California
    Ratings:
    +6,569
    [​IMG]

    Public campaign financing sounds great on paper (if you disregard the Constitution that is; like so many libs and presumably a few Rinos have done).

    It sounds like, level the playing field and let the best ideas win right? You run into a few problems though.

    Even if we were to pretend for a moment that the Constitution were not a factor; let's look at the practical reality. Will it stop politicians from playing politics? Look at Obama in 2008. To that point, he had championed public financing. But when he saw that he would get one or two billion dollars then he declined and grand standed about how the system was broke. He then had cart blanch to spend all he wanted while McCain who did accept the public financing, was subject to spending restrictions. Hardly seems fair right?

    You could argue, close the loopholes. Don't allow for private financing. Okay, well that's what the government was supposedly doing before and they did not really do it. We heard whining all day long from Dems about money creating an unfair advantage for the GOP but the second it was in their advantage they threw that talk into the garbage can.

    And here's a practical question. Who would be eligible for the public money? Do you want your hard earned money going to just anyone? And would the government make it practical that anybody could attain financing? And if anybody could attain financing then there would likely be all manners of abuses.

    Practically, it'd be best to eliminate campaign financing all together and have a cheap low cost network that touted ideas. But if you did that and it was literature driven, would people rail that it only benefited intellectuals? Would they argue that it was a new age lit test?

    And to get to practical Constitutional matters. Does public financing not infringe upon your first amendment rights. Do you want the government to tell you that you have no right to financially support the candidate of your choice?

    As I alluded, do you want the government being compelled to give away your money to anybody with an idea? Such compulsory means seems to infringe upon liberty and possibly even the pursuit of happiness.

    Thank you for your submission. If you were to submit whether or not corporations should be allowed to donate to political happenings or campaigns then that would be something worth considering in my estitmation.
     
    Last edited: Apr 10, 2012
  8. NYcarbineer
    Online

    NYcarbineer Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2009
    Messages:
    95,903
    Thanks Received:
    11,256
    Trophy Points:
    2,060
    Location:
    Finger Lakes, NY
    Ratings:
    +30,181
    You have the gayest avatar on USMB.
     
  9. TheGreatGatsby
    Offline

    TheGreatGatsby Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2012
    Messages:
    20,434
    Thanks Received:
    2,365
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Location:
    California
    Ratings:
    +6,569
    Jesus loves you.
     
  10. konradv
    Offline

    konradv Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2010
    Messages:
    22,552
    Thanks Received:
    2,555
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Location:
    Baltimore
    Ratings:
    +5,666
    Of course there would have to be a Constitutional amendment. If money isn't speech, there would be no First Amendment problem. Giving money isn't Constitutionally protected, so that argument would require an amendment in itself, since we already have laws about donating to campaigns. That being said, NO, being able to give money is nowhere near as important as making sure more people have a voice and the budgetary savings we'd realize by reductions in favors to supporters. Giving money to people you don't like is specious as an argument, since that happens everyday with all sorts of things government does. You may not like it, but it's a fact regardless of whether public financing became law.

    Thank you for your response, but it doesn't seem well thought out.
     
    Last edited: Apr 10, 2012

Share This Page