The Official 2012 Presidential Election Obama v. Romney Thread

[wreck ship]

Heck isn't the Democratic party's slogan "We are smarter than you so we know what is best for you" ??

Nah, that's the Libertarian party's slogan.

What Libertarian is trying to make legislation because they know best?

Sounds like you're confused as to what a Libertarian is.

Trust me, I am not at all confused as to what a Libertarian is. I suspect I know more about Libertarianism than a good number of self-proclaimed Libertarians do.

Libertarians want to eliminate the Fed, because they are smarter than most of the world's economists and know what's best. Libertarians want to eliminate Social Security and entitlements, because they are smarter than the vast majority of Americans that favor them and know what's best. Libertarians want to eliminate all regulations on pretty much everything, from food and medications to the environment, to health care and more because they know what's best for us because they are smarter than us.

The federal gov needs to be brought down a peg or 12 but not eliminated. It starts with addressing not politics but politics as a career. Term limits and compensation/benefits is a good start.

[Chief Joseph]

 " Term limits and compensation/benefits is a good start."

As in higher salary and less perks?

[spartan]

 " Term limits and compensation/benefits is a good start."

As in higher salary and less perks?

I think they get paid enough. It's not like they are paupers @ 175K a year plus expenses. I think their turn up for a day and you get a ridiculously large pension for life is a bit over the top. That can be "assessed" IMO. If the 17th amendment is repealed, term limits on the Senate but not for Congress.

[Morgan]

Mr. Burns Endorses Romney
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltCIEbLMaQg&feature=youtu.be

[wreck ship]

 " Term limits and compensation/benefits is a good start."

As in higher salary and less perks?

I think they get paid enough. It's not like they are paupers @ 175K a year plus expenses. I think their turn up for a day and you get a ridiculously large pension for life is a bit over the top. That can be "assessed" IMO. If the 17th amendment is repealed, term limits on the Senate but not for Congress.

why not for congress?

[spartan]

 " Term limits and compensation/benefits is a good start."

As in higher salary and less perks?

I think they get paid enough. It's not like they are paupers @ 175K a year plus expenses. I think their turn up for a day and you get a ridiculously large pension for life is a bit over the top. That can be "assessed" IMO. If the 17th amendment is repealed, term limits on the Senate but not for Congress.

why not for congress?

Because if the 17th amendment is repealed Senators will be nominated by the States. I think that is good because it gives the States a voice in the running of the country, but it does open the door to malpractive; Nepotism, favoritism etc. Representatives are re-elected every 2 years. I kinda figure that if your Representative is a complete tosspot, term limits won't be an issue and if he hangs around for 12-15 years give or take he or she deserves a good pension. Bit like being in the military I guess.  I know there are certain districts that will always be one color or the other, but I figure that overall that is a pretty reasonable counter balance. The Senate on the other hand, 1 re-election and you are in for 12 years and a $2 million pay day BEFORE you talk about pensions and fringe benefits.

[Dolorous Jason]

Heck isn't the Democratic party's slogan "We are smarter than you so we know what is best for you" ??

Nah, that's the Libertarian party's slogan.

What Libertarian is trying to make legislation because they know best?

Sounds like you're confused as to what a Libertarian is.

Trust me, I am not at all confused as to what a Libertarian is. I suspect I know more about Libertarianism than a good number of self-proclaimed Libertarians do.

Libertarians want to eliminate the Fed, because they are smarter than most of the world's economists and know what's best.

The federal gov needs to be brought down a peg or 12 but not eliminated. It starts with addressing not politics but politics as a career. Term limits and compensation/benefits is a good start.

He was talking about the Federal Reserve , which it is true libertarians want eliminated . It is at the very root of most our problems. You should already know that being a "Ron Paul Fan "

[CBWx2]

Anarchy and thug rule by warlords is not Libertarian. Not even close.

What stops anarchy and thug rule in the Libertarian utopia?

you are quick to paint with a ridiculously broad brush when it suits you.

[dbucfan]

"What stops anarchy and thug rule in the Libertarian utopia?"  Easy, staying far from Chicago...

[wreck ship]

Heck isn't the Democratic party's slogan "We are smarter than you so we know what is best for you" ??

Nah, that's the Libertarian party's slogan.

What Libertarian is trying to make legislation because they know best?

Sounds like you're confused as to what a Libertarian is.

Trust me, I am not at all confused as to what a Libertarian is. I suspect I know more about Libertarianism than a good number of self-proclaimed Libertarians do.

Libertarians want to eliminate the Fed, because they are smarter than most of the world's economists and know what's best.

The federal gov needs to be brought down a peg or 12 but not eliminated. It starts with addressing not politics but politics as a career. Term limits and compensation/benefits is a good start.

He was talking about the Federal Reserve , which it is true libertarians want eliminated . It is at the very root of most our problems. You should already know that being a "Ron Paul Fan "

I was talking about the federal gov. But since you chimed in, what is your "post fed reserve" plan?

[CBWx2]

This is where our mindset is different. History will show, and you believe that Government acted, passed laws etc and the people were saved from a life of misery. A tad facetious but you get my drift. Yet, it was that same Govt that passed employment, voting and other civil laws that precluded the dissatisfaction in the first place. it wasn't until the general populace voiced their dissatisfaction, stood up for their liberty and essentially changed the Govt that those regulations that you speak of were implemented.

What you are describing isn't incorrect spartan, but you are stopping yourself short of admitting the obvious. Yes, the government was a big part of the problem, and yes, it was the citizenry that was ultimately responsible for the change. But what was the citizenry's recourse against the corporate interests that ruled the day? Lobbying their government to enact the change that they wanted to see. No government means no change, with the exception maybe of a Russian or French style revolution, which I'm pretty sure no one would view as a favorable alternative. As I said, in both of our scenarios, government was the solution.

You think of a collective as a group, I think of them as a bunch of citizens, each with individual rights. Protect the rights of the individual and they in turn will look after the group. If you look after the pennies the pounds will look after themselves. Much like the virtue of selfishness I guess. What is the difference at the end of the day I hear you ask? My thought process is based on liberty and protects the weakest among us, yours inevitably purges the weak for the greater good of the group because they don't fit in.

Here's the problem with your philosophy; if collectivism infringes on liberty, how would it be possible for individuals to work collectively without forgoing their liberty? The flaw within the Libertarian mindset is that they falsely view individualism as the definition of liberty. Individualism is merely one part of the broader concept of liberty, not the sole definition of liberty.

[CBWx2]

Trust me, I am not at all confused as to what a Libertarian is. I suspect I know more about Libertarianism than a good number of self-proclaimed Libertarians do.

Libertarians want to eliminate the Fed, because they are smarter than most of the world's economists and know what's best. Libertarians want to eliminate Social Security and entitlements, because they are smarter than the vast majority of Americans that favor them and know what's best. Libertarians want to eliminate all regulations on pretty much everything, from food and medications to the environment, to health care and more because they know what's best for us because they are smarter than us.

Do Democrat/Socialists/Progressives/Liberals have their political views because they "know best" too, or is that something that is just characterized by Libertarians?

Anyone who has a political ideology and pursues legislation or change to that end is doing so because they feel as though they know best, genius. The point of my statement was to illustrate that the charge levied on Democrats by JG? that they pursue their agenda because they "know what's best for everyone" fits any and every person who holds a political philosophy. You are having a tremendous deal of difficulty grasping basic concepts here, Biggs. Maybe you should sit out a few rounds.

[Dolorous Jason]

Anarchy and thug rule by warlords is not Libertarian. Not even close.

What stops anarchy and thug rule in the Libertarian utopia?

you are quick to paint with a ridiculously broad brush when it suits you.

Simple. Rule of Law.

"The Rule of Law. Libertarianism is not libertinism or hedonism. It is not a claim that "people can do anything they want to, and nobody else can say anything." Rather, libertarianism proposes a society of liberty under law, in which individuals are free to pursue their own lives so long as they respect the equal rights of others. The rule of law means that individuals are governed by generally applicable and spontaneously developed legal rules, not by arbitrary commands; and that those rules should protect the freedom of individuals to pursue happiness in their own ways, not aim at any particular result or outcome."
http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/key-concepts-libertarianism


As for Pot meeting kettle....I'm not the one known as the Parse King , that would be you Mr. Fan/Supporter. When I paint with a broad brush it's just a tool to make a point . When you do it you expose your hypocrisy ....again.

[ufojoe]

I think the political events surrounding Hurricane Sandy, plus a positive jobs report yesterday, have hurt Romney. Looks like Obama is going to win this. The swing states are more and more heading in the direction of Obama.

During the days after Sandy, Obama was basking in the praise of Republican Chris Christie. It was a love fest, with each man heaping praise on the other. The Romney folks must have been pissed.

I did my part and voted Gary Johnson. Now, if the 90 million non-voters change their mind and vote on Tuesday and vote for Johnson,
he's got a shot!!!

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/03/nov-2-for-romney-to-win-state-polls-must-be-statistically-biased

[spartan]

Here's the problem with your philosophy; if collectivism infringes on liberty, how would it be possible for individuals to work collectively without forgoing their liberty? The flaw within the Libertarian mindset is that they falsely view individualism as the definition of liberty. Individualism is merely one part of the broader concept of liberty, not the sole definition of liberty.

Because they identify and work towards a common goal. It is the premise upon which the UNITED STATES of America was founded.

Eventually a group mentality will make decisions that is best for the group at the expense of others. You see that in the policies and mindset of today. If you protect the liberties of the individual, it will by default reflect on the group. Not always, but by enlarge. But, more importantly it actively works against the majority gaining advantage at the expense of the weakest among us. And weak can be numerical, financially or influential; any number of ways.