Chris deleted his thread and said I could remake it if I spell all the words in the title correctly.
Discuss the presidential election, candidates, stances, and issues here. Also anything else you can think of. I'll be moderating the debate and keeping minors/foreigners from mucking up the discussion. Also if anyone gets too rowdy then I'll put them in temporary timeout.
Debates:
Monday, September 26, 2016
Tuesday, October 4, 2016 (Vice Presidential debate)
i'm gonna be totally honest with u here. libertarianism is utterly intellectually bankrupt. it's a philosophy of arrogance. and that's the correlation so far as IQ and adherence is concerned too, and only that. arrogance. it really irks me as an ideology
and i mean roads and things like that. you need government for that sht. or internet wouldn't exist without government. neither would space travel. government paves the way to industry, it's the only thing that can take on really big projects. it's good
governments owning sht can work out pretty good tbh. the only problem is central planning is burdensome. but like, water, electricity? those are obvious, our needs as far as they're concerned are rock-solid, never-changing. so government can easily cater to them. or like other little things too. there's a country that has a monopoly on gambling and zero taxes for it, the gamblers pay it all. would you be against that?
state owned services like gas, electric, water actually don't work out too bad dude. electricity is a semi-monopoly in my country, owned by the state, and it's worth a lot to us. and you still get competition, all it takes is for someone to undercut the prices. we have competition. i mean there's no problem there. it's just money going to the collective that would've otherwise went into some individual's pocket
again, the argument is efficiency. perhaps there's wastage in state owned services? money going into nothing that would've better went into creating greater infrastructure. but then there just isn't really
deletedover 8 years
Large interest groups and corporations use money and campaign funding to push their agendas.
Gary Johnson gave a good example: When he was Gov. of Nevada, and electric company proposed a bill to him, basically giving money to the city at the expense of lower rates to operate. Johnson vetoed it, because it was bad for the consumers, and would create a monopoly. (bad for business)
If the government is smaller, and term limits are placed on all positions, then what reason will politicians have to accept bad deals for the people? You do your job for a term or two, then you leave office and return to the private sector.
deletedover 8 years
i watched all of CGPGrey's videos on voting systems therefore i'm something of an expert on the subject of democracy
i really can't think of any way that millionaires buying politicians has any real negative effect tbh. if anything, it'd be to dodge some of the controls placed on them. but then that's like...you want to give the millionaires exactly what they want? the millionaires just bought u
the argument for limited government is that government doesn't efficiently use taxes/money is adequate enough and less intrusive a vote
