NationStates

Jefferson and Madison wrote:

Patridam wrote:
It's not a rule, just an observation. Look back through the thread, there a good number of people on the thread simply to assert how much all of the candidates suck.

As for you; obviously no candidate is going to wholly fit your ideology no matter what it may be (true for me too), so it often comes down to who serves as the most ameloriable compromise. I'd rather support an imperfect candidate than abstain from any support because I didn't find one exactly suited to me. If that would be too much compromise for you to support Rand the best I can suggest is Gary Johnson, but he's an unabashed hardliner and has a snowball's chance of even getting on the debates let alone a win.

Gary Johnson?

My ideal candidate would support the Libertarian Party line, except that he would also support vouchers (in the fields of health care, housing, and education) to guarantee equal market access for individuals who are employed but low income.

That puts me closer to Democrats than to someone like Rand Paul or Ted Cruz. Even though I think we should decentralize schooling and voucherize Medicaid, I still support a universal health system of sorts.

Problem is that it is not in the business of Government to dictate anything relating to Health Care, or Health Insurance.

Shazbotdom wrote:

Jefferson and Madison wrote:
Gary Johnson?

My ideal candidate would support the Libertarian Party line, except that he would also support vouchers (in the fields of health care, housing, and education) to guarantee equal market access for individuals who are employed but low income.

That puts me closer to Democrats than to someone like Rand Paul or Ted Cruz. Even though I think we should decentralize schooling and voucherize Medicaid, I still support a universal health system of sorts.

Problem is that it is not in the business of Government to dictate anything relating to Health Care, or Health Insurance.

Then we have an irreconcilable difference despite being very close in political positions. I would encourage you to be more pragmatic.

Jefferson and Madison wrote:

Patridam wrote:
It's not a rule, just an observation. Look back through the thread, there a good number of people on the thread simply to assert how much all of the candidates suck.

As for you; obviously no candidate is going to wholly fit your ideology no matter what it may be (true for me too), so it often comes down to who serves as the most ameloriable compromise. I'd rather support an imperfect candidate than abstain from any support because I didn't find one exactly suited to me. If that would be too much compromise for you to support Rand the best I can suggest is Gary Johnson, but he's an unabashed hardliner and has a snowball's chance of even getting on the debates let alone a win.

Gary Johnson?

My ideal candidate would support the Libertarian Party line, except that he would also support vouchers (in the fields of health care, housing, and education) to guarantee equal market access for individuals who are employed but low income.

That puts me closer to Democrats than to someone like Rand Paul or Ted Cruz. Even though I think we should decentralize schooling and voucherize Medicaid, I still support a universal health system of sorts.

Have you heard of Bleeding Heart Libertarians? (the site). Gary Johnson says he's one, he's definitely more liberal than the usual paleocon they get.

Also look up Mike Gravel.

Edit: You'll probably end up as a liberal or social democrat after being here long enough, if you support those positions already.

Most of the options are mediocre, but if I were American, I'd be hesitant to vote Democrat, and voting Libertarian is equivalent to throwing your vote down a garbage chute and hoping that what you did mattered.

Hmmm....Jon Huntsman? He's moderate, centre right, sort of libertarianish, such as myself. You Yanks need a conservative party like the old ProgCons we Canucks used to have.

Jefferson and Madison wrote:My ideal candidate would support the Libertarian Party line, except that he would also support vouchers (in the fields of health care, housing, and education) to guarantee equal market access for individuals who are employed but low income.

What about unemployed and disabled people?

Atlanticatia wrote:

Jefferson and Madison wrote:My ideal candidate would support the Libertarian Party line, except that he would also support vouchers (in the fields of health care, housing, and education) to guarantee equal market access for individuals who are employed but low income.

What about unemployed and disabled people?

What about them?

The Liberated Territories wrote:

Jefferson and Madison wrote:
Gary Johnson?

My ideal candidate would support the Libertarian Party line, except that he would also support vouchers (in the fields of health care, housing, and education) to guarantee equal market access for individuals who are employed but low income.

That puts me closer to Democrats than to someone like Rand Paul or Ted Cruz. Even though I think we should decentralize schooling and voucherize Medicaid, I still support a universal health system of sorts.

Have you heard of Bleeding Heart Libertarians? (the site). Gary Johnson says he's one, he's definitely more liberal than the usual paleocon they get.

Also look up Mike Gravel.

Edit: You'll probably end up as a liberal or social democrat after being here long enough, if you support those positions already.

Mike Gravel's policy positions seem to be very interesting, though I have many disagreements (especially with that direct democracy).

I disagree with ending up as a social democrat. I believe in deregulating markets and oppose single payer, for instance.

Jefferson and Madison wrote:

The Liberated Territories wrote:
Have you heard of Bleeding Heart Libertarians? (the site). Gary Johnson says he's one, he's definitely more liberal than the usual paleocon they get.

Also look up Mike Gravel.

Edit: You'll probably end up as a liberal or social democrat after being here long enough, if you support those positions already.

Mike Gravel's policy positions seem to be very interesting, though I have many disagreements (especially with that direct democracy).

I disagree with ending up as a social democrat. I believe in deregulating markets and oppose single payer, for instance.

Fair enough. I think he's a fair sight to see than all the Ron Paul types. Russell Means too, was pretty good.

Trust me, I've seen it happen a fair bit here.

Atlanticatia wrote:

Jefferson and Madison wrote:My ideal candidate would support the Libertarian Party line, except that he would also support vouchers (in the fields of health care, housing, and education) to guarantee equal market access for individuals who are employed but low income.

What about unemployed and disabled people?

Disabled citizens fall into a category where they cannot help themselves. Therefore, I would support direct vouchers for basic necessities of life, and faith-based medical facilities for permanent treatment (or secular ones for direct government funding).

Unemployed people who are perfectly capable of working wouldn't get the vouchers. Simple as that. I would account for special situations via policy exceptions.

The Liberated Territories wrote:

Jefferson and Madison wrote:
Mike Gravel's policy positions seem to be very interesting, though I have many disagreements (especially with that direct democracy).

I disagree with ending up as a social democrat. I believe in deregulating markets and oppose single payer, for instance.

Fair enough. I think he's a fair sight to see than all the Ron Paul types. Russell Means too, was pretty good.

Trust me, I've seen it happen a fair bit here.

Ah...Ron Paul.

You have to admit, he is a very honest man. Agreements or disagreements aside.

Geen Gelul wrote:Most of the options are mediocre, but if I were American, I'd be hesitant to vote Democrat, and voting Libertarian is equivalent to throwing your vote down a garbage chute and hoping that what you did mattered.

Hmmm....Jon Huntsman? He's moderate, centre right, sort of libertarianish, such as myself. You Yanks need a conservative party like the old ProgCons we Canucks used to have.

We need a paleoconservative party, because the Republicans are overrun with neocons and the libertarians are too out there to be truly mainstream.

Patridam wrote:

Geen Gelul wrote:Most of the options are mediocre, but if I were American, I'd be hesitant to vote Democrat, and voting Libertarian is equivalent to throwing your vote down a garbage chute and hoping that what you did mattered.

Hmmm....Jon Huntsman? He's moderate, centre right, sort of libertarianish, such as myself. You Yanks need a conservative party like the old ProgCons we Canucks used to have.

We need a paleoconservative party, because the Republicans are overrun with neocons and the libertarians are too out there to be truly mainstream.

Census says that 21% of America holds liberal social views and conservative economic views, 9% call themselves libertarian, and 1% are in the realm of hardcore libertarians. So maybe not mainstream, but not out there.

Paleocon Party? You are thinking of the Constitution Party. Although they are more hawkish than they admit.

Jefferson and Madison wrote:

Patridam wrote:
You have very specific (pragmatic as they are) solutions to polarizing problems so it shouldn't come as a surprise that there isn't someone who alligns with all of them. Politics often falls to choosing the least of several evils, unfortunate as it is. To have enough candidates to represent the opinions of every American would be to have 320 million people running for the presidency.

I get that, and I would never shirk from my duty to vote (I have a few years to go before I'm eligible, however). I'm probably going to support the Democratic 2016 candidate for pragmatic purposes.

In that case you are sacrificing your beliefs towards free industry, decentralized education, and a lack of government support for lazy people capable of working in favor of what, exactly? As far as I'm aware Hillary doesn't hold many of your opinions, either.

Patridam wrote:

Geen Gelul wrote:Most of the options are mediocre, but if I were American, I'd be hesitant to vote Democrat, and voting Libertarian is equivalent to throwing your vote down a garbage chute and hoping that what you did mattered.

Hmmm....Jon Huntsman? He's moderate, centre right, sort of libertarianish, such as myself. You Yanks need a conservative party like the old ProgCons we Canucks used to have.

We need a paleoconservative party, because the Republicans are overrun with neocons and the libertarians are too out there to be truly mainstream.

Pat Buchanan of the Reform Party was a paleocon to some extent. I think.

Patridam wrote:

Jefferson and Madison wrote:
I get that, and I would never shirk from my duty to vote (I have a few years to go before I'm eligible, however). I'm probably going to support the Democratic 2016 candidate for pragmatic purposes.

In that case you are sacrificing your beliefs towards free industry, decentralized education, and a lack of government support for lazy people capable of working in favor of what, exactly? As far as I'm aware Hillary doesn't hold many of your opinions, either.

That is true, but barring the possibility of lunar nomination, I will be closer to Clinton than to anyone in the GOP field.

Ted Cruz? No, by no means.
Jeb Bush? No.
Marco Rubio? No.
Scott Walker? Absolutely impossible.
Rand Paul? Maybe...probably not.
Carly Fiorina? No.
Ben Carson? No.

At least with Hillary Clinton we'll have a slightly less interventionist foreign policy (not by much, but diplomacy with Iran and Cuba is a start), and some form of universal college/child care system. I would prefer deregulating and providing subsidies from there, but we know none of the Republicans will do that.

Jefferson and Madison wrote:

Patridam wrote:
In that case you are sacrificing your beliefs towards free industry, decentralized education, and a lack of government support for lazy people capable of working in favor of what, exactly? As far as I'm aware Hillary doesn't hold many of your opinions, either.

That is true, but barring the possibility of lunar nomination, I will be closer to Clinton than to anyone in the GOP field.

Ted Cruz? No, by no means.
Jeb Bush? No.
Marco Rubio? No.
Scott Walker? Absolutely impossible.
Rand Paul? Maybe...probably not.
Carly Fiorina? No.
Ben Carson? No.

At least with Hillary Clinton we'll have a slightly less interventionist foreign policy (not by much, but diplomacy with Iran and Cuba is a start), and some form of universal college/child care system. I would prefer deregulating and providing subsidies from there, but we know none of the Republicans will do that.

You are screwed if you do, and you are screwed if you don't. I just wouldn't vote, or vote for Gary Johnson because I fuggin hate the two-party state, although the latter can be seen as irrational.

The Liberated Territories wrote:

Patridam wrote:
We need a paleoconservative party, because the Republicans are overrun with neocons and the libertarians are too out there to be truly mainstream.

Census says that 21% of America holds liberal social views and conservative economic views, 9% call themselves libertarian, and 1% are in the realm of hardcore libertarians. So maybe not mainstream, but not out there.

Paleocon Party? You are thinking of the Constitution Party. Although they are more hawkish than they admit.

I am among those 21%, so I don't argue that there's a market for that sort of thinking in modern politics - that's the biggest reason that Rand Paul remains popular in a sea of neocons. But the Libertarian party is more hardcore than most of that demographic, myself included. It also has a major image problem, relating to the association with gun nut survivalists. Not that they couldn't become mainstream, given that people are disillusioned with the bipartisan system more than ever, but changes would need to be made. However, it would be just as plausible for the GOP to rebrand and become inclusive of moderate libertarians not in whole agreement with the fairly hardcore views espoused by Johnson and the like.

Patridam wrote:

Dyakovo wrote:Boo-hoo.

This is the exact sort of maturity and recognition of opposing viewpoints I've come to expect from leftists on NS.

I'm oh so sorry that you are put in the position where you have to hear the opinions of people you disagree with. You're just going to have to deal with the fact that you can't restrict who can post in the thread.

Shazbotdom wrote:

Jefferson and Madison wrote:
Gary Johnson?

My ideal candidate would support the Libertarian Party line, except that he would also support vouchers (in the fields of health care, housing, and education) to guarantee equal market access for individuals who are employed but low income.

That puts me closer to Democrats than to someone like Rand Paul or Ted Cruz. Even though I think we should decentralize schooling and voucherize Medicaid, I still support a universal health system of sorts.

Problem is that it is not in the business of Government to dictate anything relating to Health Care, or Health Insurance.

The constitution disagrees.
http://www.scotusblog.com/2011/08/the-h ... itutional/

Dyakovo wrote:

Patridam wrote:
This is the exact sort of maturity and recognition of opposing viewpoints I've come to expect from leftists on NS.

I'm oh so sorry that you are put in the position where you have to hear the opinions of people you disagree with. You're just going to have to deal with the fact that you can't restrict who can post in the thread.

In all fairness, he wasn't referring to your opinion in that post.

"Boo-hoo." <----------------- That's not legitimate and will open the door to criticism.

Jefferson and Madison wrote:At least with Hillary Clinton we'll have a slightly less interventionist foreign policy (not by much, but diplomacy with Iran and Cuba is a start), and some form of universal college/child care system. I would prefer deregulating and providing subsidies from there, but we know none of the Republicans will do that.

Clinton actually has quite a hawkish record - it's not unreasonable to think she might even escalate certain ongoing conflicts. Do you think Rand Paul, who has on numerous occasions called out the mistakes the US made when we intervened and toppled regimes - would do anything but reduce interventionism? As for Iran and Cuba - the future of those relations will be predicated on what happens now, not the next president. The Iran deal will be either passed or killed under Obama; the same with Cuban relations. I don't think that Rand Paul will take the office and suddenly re-declare Cuba as embargoed and Iran as an enemy after positive relationships have been struck.

We know none of the republicans will deregulate business? What?

Dyakovo wrote:The constitution disagrees.
http://www.scotusblog.com/2011/08/the-h ... itutional/

You mean Erwin Chemerinsky disagrees.

Jefferson and Madison wrote:

Dyakovo wrote:I'm oh so sorry that you are put in the position where you have to hear the opinions of people you disagree with. You're just going to have to deal with the fact that you can't restrict who can post in the thread.

In all fairness, he wasn't referring to your opinion in that post.

"Boo-hoo." <----------------- That's not legitimate and will open the door to criticism.

His prior post, he was whining about the fact that we have come in and voiced our opinions about the candidates. So, yes, "boo-hoo" is a legitimate (if unhelpful) response to his complaint.

Patridam wrote:

The Liberated Territories wrote:
Census says that 21% of America holds liberal social views and conservative economic views, 9% call themselves libertarian, and 1% are in the realm of hardcore libertarians. So maybe not mainstream, but not out there.

Paleocon Party? You are thinking of the Constitution Party. Although they are more hawkish than they admit.

I am among those 21%, so I don't argue that there's a market for that sort of thinking in modern politics - that's the biggest reason that Rand Paul remains popular in a sea of neocons. But the Libertarian party is more hardcore than most of that demographic, myself included. It also has a major image problem, relating to the association with gun nut survivalists. Not that they couldn't become mainstream, given that people are disillusioned with the bipartisan system more than ever, but changes would need to be made. However, it would be just as plausible for the GOP to rebrand and become inclusive of moderate libertarians not in whole agreement with the fairly hardcore views espoused by Johnson and the like.

I honestly don't see an image of gun-nuts when I think of the LP, I am not sure where this stereotype you think comes from. As for the radicalness of the LP itself, I believe it unofficially kicked out all the anarchists in the last constitutional convention. Also, Gary Johnson is probably the most moderate candidate they put forward yet, advocating taxation via the FairTax, limited welfare, etc, perhaps more moderate than Rand Paul.

Marketing really won't change anything as long as the two party system exists, and even then it might not be worth it from a more radical standpoint. I used to be quite pro-Libertarian Party and pro-voting but as of late I've begun to see voting as a useless endeavor for eliciting change, and the Libertarian Party is a dead end for un mainstream views.

The GOP can't change without alienating what has become a rather large voting bloc. To become more libertarian is impossible so long as the religious right and neocons dominate. In fact, it is the very nature of the two-party system that causes such major polarizations, minority factions within the party views are partially assimilated into one giant ideology that may become at ends with the smaller of the factions.

Patridam wrote:

Jefferson and Madison wrote:At least with Hillary Clinton we'll have a slightly less interventionist foreign policy (not by much, but diplomacy with Iran and Cuba is a start), and some form of universal college/child care system. I would prefer deregulating and providing subsidies from there, but we know none of the Republicans will do that.

Clinton actually has quite a hawkish record - it's not unreasonable to think she might even escalate certain ongoing conflicts. Do you think Rand Paul, who has on numerous occasions called out the mistakes the US made when we intervened and toppled regimes - would do anything but reduce interventionism? As for Iran and Cuba - the future of those relations will be predicated on what happens now, not the next president. The Iran deal will be either passed or killed under Obama; the same with Cuban relations. I don't think that Rand Paul will take the office and suddenly re-declare Cuba as embargoed and Iran as an enemy after positive relationships have been struck.

We know none of the republicans will deregulate business? What?

1) Republicans will certainly deregulate business and reform welfare. I will be behind that as a firm supporter of free markets. But they probably won't compensate that with vouchers for low income but employed citizens for universal access to health insurance and decentralized education. The market choice wouldn't serve to benefit working poor Americans. We know the Cruz Republicans will not compromise on this.

2) We've seen many of the deals now coming to fruition established when Clinton was still Secretary of State. Rand Paul may support them after entering office, but at what cost to the problem I mentioned above?

Edit: And what happens if Rand Paul doesn't get the nomination? He has a better chance than his father, but he still has the likes of Bush to compete with.