PDA

View Full Version : I Might Have Voted for Bernie



Ethereal
10-22-2016, 05:01 AM
Not that I agree with everything Bernie said, because I don't.

But in purely pragmatic terms, I can see what Bernie was going towards.

I feel similarly about Stein.

Yes, they are socialists, but so is Canada, UK, Denmark, Sweden, Australia, Norway, Switzerland, etc.

But what people seem to forget is that they want to spend less on domestic police statism and foreign imperialism.

That's smaller government, in case you were wondering.

And this is one reason why I'm slightly optimistic about the future.

Sanders, Johnson, Stein. These are reasonable, principled people who have pragmatic paths forwards. And this is what the millennial generation represents. Smaller government, but done reasonably and compassionately.

It can be done. And it WILL be done. If you're older, then you will enjoy a golden libertarian-progressive era. It's going to be epic. Just sit back and enjoy the show.

donttread
10-22-2016, 07:33 AM
Not that I agree with everything Bernie said, because I don't.

But in purely pragmatic terms, I can see what Bernie was going towards.

I feel similarly about Stein.

Yes, they are socialists, but so is Canada, UK, Denmark, Sweden, Australia, Norway, Switzerland, etc.

But what people seem to forget is that they want to spend less on domestic police statism and foreign imperialism.

That's smaller government, in case you were wondering.

And this is one reason why I'm slightly optimistic about the future.

Sanders, Johnson, Stein. These are reasonable, principled people who have pragmatic paths forwards. And this is what the millennial generation represents. Smaller government, but done reasonably and compassionately.

It can be done. And it WILL be done. If you're older, then you will enjoy a golden libertarian-progressive era. It's going to be epic. Just sit back and enjoy the show.

As crazy as it may sound I'd like to see a Paul/ Stein ticket with her envirnmental laws enacted at the state level while the feds are down sized and local economies stressed. Sanders I respected, until he sold out, but would not have voted for.
Anyway, I agree with your point the sheep are starting to stir , they are starting to see that Bush and Obama were essentially the same. We must help ward off donkephant attacks on the third parties and prevent them from cheating them out of votes for the next 4-8 years and start building coalition state legislators, then federal congress. We really need to go ground up not top down. But the potential is there.

Ransom
10-22-2016, 07:42 AM
Coalition state legislators.....and "building them" rather than electing them fairly interesting as well....then build a "federal congress?

Want to elaborate there...donttread?

donttread
10-22-2016, 08:34 AM
Coalition state legislators.....and "building them" rather than electing them fairly interesting as well....then build a "federal congress?

Want to elaborate there...donttread?

Sure, we need to elect more third party reps at the local and state levels first. Once there they will be able to force the donkephant's hand by suggesting solid, honest ,practical solutions the dems and repubs must either support or very publically come out against and explain themselves for doing so. Then we need to do the same thing in the federal Senate and House.
The sheep are ready to follow a different lead, all we have to do is present one, or two , or three non donkephant paths to a better America.

Green Arrow
10-22-2016, 12:08 PM
Ethereal, I've long preached a libertarian-progressive alliance. This cycle, Johnson is slated to get 8-10% and Stein 2-5%. If they ran a fusionist ticket, that's 10-15%. A fusionist ticket would have us beating Rs and Ds in several states. It would change the narrative even more.

The Xl
10-22-2016, 12:10 PM
Sanders would have gotten my vote as well.

donttread
10-23-2016, 06:32 AM
@Ethereal (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=870), I've long preached a libertarian-progressive alliance. This cycle, Johnson is slated to get 8-10% and Stein 2-5%. If they ran a fusionist ticket, that's 10-15%. A fusionist ticket would have us beating Rs and Ds in several states. It would change the narrative even more.

They will be cheated out of nearly half of that percentage of the vote by the Donkephant and their voting machine flunkies. Sound crazy? Watch and see. Also , while I favor the LP/Green alliance , centering it's intial support around clean water, chemical free food , local energy and local economies ,: You cannot assume that the "fusionist ticket" would garner all of their votes, some would be so opposed to the other side of the ticket that they would bail.
It is however wonderful to know that others are starting to see the potential for third party coalitions.

Newpublius
10-23-2016, 07:33 AM
"But what people seem to forget is that they want to spend less on domestic police statism and foreign imperialism."

When you see the NYPD choking the life out of Eric Garner, the public issue is 'excessive' force without any question as to whether force should be utilized at all, in the first place. That is still the liberal regulatory state enforcing the massive cigarette tax in NYC.

Democratic socialism still turns into taxing and spending and the liberals will need to enforce the taxation, because trust me, if they don't, I'm not going to pay them, and then on the other hand to vette beneficiaries to ensure they aren't claiming benefits fraudulently. There's no way around that.

Docthehun
10-23-2016, 07:56 AM
How is it that doing the "Bern" apparently has this new found enthusiasm? Obviously, we can do worse..............

Chris
10-23-2016, 10:10 AM
I like Sanders for his honesty but would never vote for a populist, nationalist or mercantilist.

exploited
10-23-2016, 11:48 AM
@Ethereal (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=870), I've long preached a libertarian-progressive alliance. This cycle, Johnson is slated to get 8-10% and Stein 2-5%. If they ran a fusionist ticket, that's 10-15%. A fusionist ticket would have us beating Rs and Ds in several states. It would change the narrative even more.

If the Constitution of the party limited it to pursuing a clear set of policy goals that are commonly agreed on by the membership, it is a good idea. For instance, abolishing the War on Drugs would be a major achievement. Reigning in the national security apparatus would be another. However, I would want to see these limits in place for the simple reason that once you get past a bit of common ground, those who vote Johnson and those who vote Stein have a very different perspective on things. Particularly when it comes to the environment. If those disagreements were allowed to become a central part of how the Party functioned, that party would be doomed for failure.

Green Arrow
10-24-2016, 02:20 AM
If the Constitution of the party limited it to pursuing a clear set of policy goals that are commonly agreed on by the membership, it is a good idea. For instance, abolishing the War on Drugs would be a major achievement. Reigning in the national security apparatus would be another. However, I would want to see these limits in place for the simple reason that once you get past a bit of common ground, those who vote Johnson and those who vote Stein have a very different perspective on things. Particularly when it comes to the environment. If those disagreements were allowed to become a central part of how the Party functioned, that party would be doomed for failure.

I'm not talking about them merging into one party. I'm talking about running fusionist tickets (meaning every Jill Stein vote counts for Gary Johnson, and vice versa) and a coalition (where each party retains their independence but works together for a common goal).

*EDIT* I see the confusion. Fusionism isn't the right word. I know the word for it I just can't drag it out of the recesses of my mind. It's very frustrating.

Green Arrow
10-24-2016, 02:27 AM
I like Sanders for his honesty but would never vote for a populist, nationalist or mercantilist.

Naturally, you'd just never vote.

Chris
10-24-2016, 07:02 AM
Naturally, you'd just never vote.

For the right candidate I would. I voted for Badnarik.

Chris
10-24-2016, 07:08 AM
I'm not talking about them merging into one party. I'm talking about running fusionist tickets (meaning every Jill Stein vote counts for Gary Johnson, and vice versa) and a coalition (where each party retains their independence but works together for a common goal).

*EDIT* I see the confusion. Fusionism isn't the right word. I know the word for it I just can't drag it out of the recesses of my mind. It's very frustrating.



The New Conservatives in the 50s, following the lead of Buckley Frank Meyers, attempted a fusion with libertarians, against big government, but Kirk and other ex-libs rejected it.

Rothbard in the 60s attempted a fusion with the left against the collusion of corporations and the government, but that never went any where, the left not seeing the government as part of the problem.

A fusion now between libertarians and Greens would fail for the same reason, the size and role of the government.