Is it time for a legitimate third party?

[bendog]

I've lived in countries with four parties.

They are more dysfunctional than we are.

Normally I'd agree with you. How would having a party devoted to a third encourage unity? BUT that isn't what dblack is suggesting.

Reagan. He was elected at age 69, but what people may forget is that at age 65 he remade the gop by going on the state party rubber chicken meetings. I recall when he tossed out Colorado's socially moderate, small govt party.

Trump's a conman just looking for shills. I'm good with selective tariffs, but that's not an econ plan. It's a wall. We were an exporting nation even when we had tariffs because we had fresh off the boat immigrants who worked literally for pennies.

So now to be a social moderate one has to support child care tax credits and EV. That doesn't seem to me to be small govt.

 

[dblack]

I've lived in countries with four parties.

They are more dysfunctional than we are.

 

[g5000]

Normally I'd agree with you. How would having a party devoted to a third encourage unity? BUT that isn't what dblack is suggesting.

Reagan. He was elected at age 69, but what people may forget is that at age 65 he remade the gop by going on the state party rubber chicken meetings. I recall when he tossed out Colorado's socially moderate, small govt party.

Trump's a conman just looking for shills. I'm good with selective tariffs, but that's not an econ plan. It's a wall. We were an exporting nation even when we had tariffs because we had fresh off the boat immigrants who worked literally for pennies.

So now to be a social moderate one has to support child care tax credits and EV. That doesn't seem to me to be small govt.

I think I've made it abundantly clear on this forum how I feel about tax credits, deductions, and exemptions.

As a conservative, I fucking detest them.

So did Reagan. As part of his tax reform, he eliminated a shit ton of them. That enabled him to lower tax rates.

EV's? You mean electric vehicles? I don't think that's a conservative thing. That's a liberal thing.

I think EV's are currently impractical. They certainly should not be receiving any government incentives.

Elon Musk has received billions in subsidies, and I hate subsidies as much as I hate tax credits.

 

[g5000]

Have you even seen how a multiparty country works and how dysfunctional they are?

 

[bendog]

Well, Trumptards would not be able to understand the first sentence out of Bill's mouth, for one thing. His vocabulary was leagues and leagues over their heads.

Furthermore, Chairman Bill would shred Trump to pieces and that would guarantee he would be instantly relegated to the RINO dustbin even though he is the actual founder of the conservative movement.

People say Jesus would be crucified by his followers were he to appear today. Especially by these MAGA Christians.

Just so with Buckley.

yeah buckley and goldwater would be hounded.

 

[bendog]

I think I've made it abundantly clear on this forum how I feel about tax credits, deductions, and exemptions.

As a conservative, I fucking detest them.

So did Reagan. As part of his tax reform, he eliminated a shit ton of them. That enabled him to lower tax rates.

EV's? You mean electric vehicles? I don't think that's a conservative thing. That's a liberal thing.

I think EV's are currently impractical. They certainly should not be receiving any government incentives.

Elon Musk has received billions in subsidies, and I hate subsidies as much as I hate tax credits.

I meant Trump has to demonize EVs. The reason is they only appeal to a subset of drivers, and generally from blue states.

His entire econ program is based on tax cuts for a few thousand of us, deficit spending, and using taxes to punish "his enemies."

 

[Curried Goats]

To expand more on dblack silly, misconceived ideas on negative and positive liberties, let's look at the example of not punching each other in the face. There are no stipulations there. It's just, don't punch one another in the face.

With regards to property rights there are. It's about letting some people punch others under certain stipulations.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

To expand more on dblack silly, misconceived ideas on negative and positive liberties, let's look at the example of not punching each other in the face. There are no stipulations there. It's just, don't punch one another in the face.

With regards to property rights there are. It's about letting some people punch others under certain stipulations.

With the law of "dont punch people in the face", if you are punched in the face first, you are allowed to punch back.

Same concept with private property.

 

[dblack]

To expand more on dblack silly, misconceived ideas on negative and positive liberties, let's look at the example of not punching each other in the face. There are no stipulations there. It's just, don't punch one another in the face.

With regards to property rights there are. It's about letting some people punch others under certain stipulations.

Dude - we're just repeating ourselves. You repeated yourself last, so that makes you the winner. The winner of the internet! Congratulations!

 

[Curried Goats]

With the law of "dont punch people in the face", if you are punched in the face first, you are allowed to punch back.

Same concept with private property.

1. He made no such stipulation in his original argument.

2. The concept expressed there is that it's okay to use force against others if they use force against you. Using force because someone didn't respect your claim to exclusivity is you using force against them to serve your interests. The same thing he said a positive right was.

 

[Curried Goats]

Dude - we're just repeating ourselves. You repeated yourself last, so that makes you the winner. The winner of the internet! Congratulations!

Dude, I'm just expressing ideas. You feel free to feel salty about them.

 

[Curried Goats]

I am your champion dblack. Thank you!

 

[Harpy Eagle]

1. He made no such stipulation in his original argument.

2. The concept expressed there is that it's okay to use force against others if they use force against you. Using force because someone didn't respect your claim to exclusivity is you using force against them to serve your interests. The same thing he said a positive right was.

1. That is how laws work. it is against the law for me to kill you, yet if you try to kill me first I can then legally kill you.

2. I could refuse to respect the claim that hitting your face is wrong, then you could legally use force to stop me from doing so. No different than if you refuse to respect that my house is indeed my house.

 

[Curried Goats]

1. That is how laws work. it is against the law for me to kill you, yet if you try to kill me first I can then legally kill you.

Laws work however we design them to.

2. I could refuse to respect the claim that hitting your face is wrong, then you could legally use force to stop me from doing so. No different than if you refuse to respect that my house is indeed my house.

You could choose to hit my face but then you would be using force against me. Not respecting that your house is your house is not using force against you. I question what even makes it your house. dblack never got around to defining what private property even is. If it's at the heart of your argument can you define for me what it is? What establishes that anything belongs to you?

 

[JoeB131]

This response basically says "I'm taking my ball and going home".

No, dummy, the problem with Libertarians is that they think civilization happens by magic fairy dust.

You want civilization, you need government, and you need rules to make it fair for everyone.

Shit on the floor and fall back in it. Your call.

The only shit I see is what the Libertarian Children play in. Oooh, our big goal is to hit 5% of the electorate so we can get some of that sweet election money (that the main parties stopped taking because they are too limiting on waging real campaigns!)

 

[Harpy Eagle]

You could choose to hit my face but then you would be using force against me. Not respecting that your house is your house is not using force against you.

Of course not respecting that my house is my house is using force against if you act on that and try to walk into my house

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

That's because there are no such things as gay rights.

There are only Individual rights.

Rights don't come as groups.

The problem is that many, your thought being a prime example, simply lack even a fundamental understanding of what liberty actually means in the context of the traditional American philosophy of governance.

I think it's why so many fear it and fight against it so much. It's because they do not understand liberty.

Of course there are also those who encourage the electorate to view Individuals only as members of groups rather than as Individiuals as a matter of activism. These are the proponents of so-called ''diversity,'' mainly operating through modern cable news entertainment media. And that's actually what perpetuates all of the so-called ''racism.'' Which is really only a form of collectivism in itself.

So I suppose the moral of the story is that collectivists just gonna collective...

Hidden in Plain Sight

Yet nobody notices that the successful scheme of making people use "they" with a singular, as in "If an individual does this, they get dumbed down," subconsciously forces collectivist thinking.

 

[jc456]

I'm fine with acknowledging that property rights is, at some level, and arbitrary line. All but the most extreme libertarian will acknowledge the legitimacy of a commons. Not everything is assigned to people as "property". The atmosphere, for example. So, somewhere between assigning every molecule in the universe as someone's property, and saying that the every molecule in the universe is "public property", we draw a line. Republicans want to draw that line inside a person's body, and claim the womb as state property. Hopefully we can agree that goes too far.

But the air is owned by government. Aren't there no fly zones? So air is treated as land property. One could get shot down if one violated the zone law.

 

[jc456]

I'm good with selective tariffs, but that's not an econ plan. It's a wall. We were an exporting nation even when we had tariffs because we had fresh off the boat immigrants who worked literally for

Well first off, it is revenue. so it is in fact economic. Second, the result of the tariff could open up job opportunities which would benefit the economy. I don't see it any other way. You're just wrong.

 

[LibertyKid]

No, dummy,

And you wonder why you have no respect.

the problem with Libertarians is that they think civilization happens by magic fairy dust.

No, that is an overgeneralization, that you're perfect at. You're thoughts are as bloated as your own cyber ego, yet at the same time, carries no substance.