User Tag List

View Poll Results: I...

Voters
36. You may not vote on this poll
  • have changed allegiances

    12 33.33%
  • have not

    15 41.67%
  • am not American

    9 25.00%
First 45678 Last

Results 51 to 60 of 106

  1. #51
    Theta Male Julius_Van_Der_Beak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    MBTI
    CROW
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/so
    Socionics
    LII None
    Posts
    9,028

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marmotini View Post
    Hillary is a brilliant liberal conservative middle person. I love her IxTJ ass. (People debate over INTJ and ISTJ).

    She's fierce. She's on the defense. She's not about to make any stupid idealistic promises.

    Did Hillary lose the vote because of womanhood...or because she was less milquetoast than Obama?
    Oh no, not the "because she's a woman" thing.

    Hillary lost the vote because she thought it would be smart to be "tough on terror" and support a pointless war. I guess it's great that we have a woman that's fierce, but reckless fierceness was not what we needed at that time, from anyone. She didn't want to fit the "Democrat stereotype" of looking "soft on terror," so she joined the GWB marching band along with Kerry and all the other Democratic insiders. That's not being pragmatic, that's either being corrupt, or being an idiot.

    Maybe if the war hadn't been shown to have been a complete clusterfuck by that time (so much so that even Republicans could no longer deny it), we would have president Hillary.


    Obama is a milquetoast ENFJ diplomat. It's the one thing je deteste. It's why I voted Hillary in the Primary. She's not a milquetoast diplomat, and that pissed conservatives off too much.
    The only advantage to Hillary is that she may have been better on health care, but she would have been worse in foreign policy.

    Other than those two things, they have the exact same stances.

    This is why the discussion in 2008 was about "temperament" or "who is more oppressed", not policy.

    On the other hand, Hillary would have been a stronger leader. Like a "nice" Putin.
    Undoubtedly. I also want leaders to make good decisions, though. She still seems to believe you can give the world freedom if you send enough troops in.
    [Trump's] rhetoric is not an abuse of power. In the same way that it's also not against the law to do a backflip off of the roof of your house onto your concrete driveway. It's just mind-numbingly stupid and, to say the least, counterproductive. - Bush did 9-11


    This is not going to go the way you think....

    Visit my Johari:
    http://kevan.org/johari?name=Birddude78

  2. #52

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by msg_v2 View Post
    Oh no, not the "because she's a woman" thing.

    Hillary lost the vote because she thought it would be smart to be "tough on terror" and support a pointless war. I guess it's great that we have a woman that's fierce, but reckless fierceness was not what we needed at that time, from anyone. She didn't want to fit the "Democrat stereotype" of looking "soft on terror," so she joined the GWB marching band along with Kerry and all the other Democratic insiders. That's not being pragmatic, that's either being corrupt, or being an idiot.

    Maybe if the war hadn't been shown to have been a complete clusterfuck by that time (so much so that even Republicans could no longer deny it), we would have president Hillary.




    The only advantage to Hillary is that she may have been better on health care, but she would have been worse in foreign policy.

    Other than those two things, they have the exact same stances.

    This is why the discussion in 2008 was about "temperament" or "who is more oppressed", not policy.



    Undoubtedly. I also want leaders to make good decisions, though. She still seems to believe you can give the world freedom if you send enough troops in.
    But that's been the leitmotif of the US since the second world war, its amazing when you contrast that with the US attitudes to involvement in geopolitics and foreign wars prior to WW2.

    Although the US wasnt quite as addicted to militarism back then either.

    I think that Obama really will have made a difference if there are no fresh wars during his administration and the actual and effective winding up of foreign campaigning, those are not small beer, they are really significant but I doubt that it is something which couldnt be undone by subsequent republican or militarist administrations and publically supported alternative funding priorities, such as health spending, have not developed as they did in the UK at the time its role in world affairs changed at the end of the second world war.

    There's still massive open questions about how much of the worlds present armed struggles and tribulations have not been proxy campaigns or at least influenced by powerful, shady agencies who've grown up as legacies of the cold war, war on terror and neocons. The capacities of the same groups to manipulate US domestic and foreign policies, the political scene, elections is an open question too.

    A lot of the Reaganite philosophies about special interests etc. make sense to people for a reason but they've never targetted the special interests besides those which opposed the establishment or who were truly small beer and defeatable.

  3. #53
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    MBTI
    ESTP
    Enneagram
    8w7
    Posts
    2,319

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    I dont see how you're reason for voting for the libertarians is to break the supposed "one party" system in Washington, the libertarians actually epitomise the supposed ideology of the system you're talking about.
    How?

  4. #54

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DJ Arendee View Post
    How?
    You're joking right?

  5. #55

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DJ Arendee View Post
    How?
    You're joking right?

  6. #56
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    MBTI
    ESTP
    Enneagram
    8w7
    Posts
    2,319

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    You're joking right?
    Um, every party wants to be the only party in office.

  7. #57
    Theta Male Julius_Van_Der_Beak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    MBTI
    CROW
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/so
    Socionics
    LII None
    Posts
    9,028

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    But that's been the leitmotif of the US since the second world war, its amazing when you contrast that with the US attitudes to involvement in geopolitics and foreign wars prior to WW2.
    True. It's not that Bush started that kind of foreign policy.

    I do get the sense that Clinton has not learned from her mistakes in the way even the freedom fries guy did.
    [Trump's] rhetoric is not an abuse of power. In the same way that it's also not against the law to do a backflip off of the roof of your house onto your concrete driveway. It's just mind-numbingly stupid and, to say the least, counterproductive. - Bush did 9-11


    This is not going to go the way you think....

    Visit my Johari:
    http://kevan.org/johari?name=Birddude78

  8. #58

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by msg_v2 View Post
    True. It's not that Bush started that kind of foreign policy.

    I do get the sense that Clinton has not learned from her mistakes in the way even the freedom fries guy did.
    Wow, a southern baptist who converted to roman catholicism, not done, that's surprising, really surprising.

    Actually this makes me happy.

  9. #59
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    MBTI
    ISFP
    Enneagram
    6w7 sx
    Socionics
    SEE Fi
    Posts
    25,301

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DJ Arendee View Post
    Ron Paul didn't invent libertarianism. No one did. Its principles are simply unproven theoretical logic based on game theory which is naturally predominant in the minds of Ti users, especially STP's.

    ie: if we introduce a second federal reserve, inflation will decrease as another currency competes. Most of this isn't proven in history (some bits are proven true), its all experimental Ti logic.
    There isn't strong evidence to support any of it. And it's actually more Si based that you realize. It's Ne taking Si and giving it a new face; instead of being ruled by kings and dictators now we can be ruled by megacorps.

    And even for the libertarians who are like "pshaw no no I am a Ron Paulite, not an anarcho-capitalist, I hate big corporations as much as you do!" I'd really love to know why they think humanity has magically changed so much in the last 80 years that the KKK wouldn't start hanging people from trees again and "personal defense" wouldn't turn into a wild west show of idiots shooting at each other.

    I think there's plenty of tangible evidence against it.

    I'm not saying I disagree with Paul 100 percent, but I think he's a deluded idealist with some really subconscious, unintentional racism and sexism running in his veins.

  10. #60
    Senior Member Lateralus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    3w4
    Posts
    6,276

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DJ Arendee View Post
    Ron Paul didn't invent libertarianism. No one did. Its principles are simply unproven theoretical logic based on game theory which is naturally predominant in the minds of Ti users, especially STP's.

    ie: if we introduce a second federal reserve, inflation will decrease as another currency competes. Most of this isn't proven in history (some bits are proven true), its all experimental Ti logic.
    My biggest beef with libertarianism is the idea that humans are rational calculators, and how so many policies are based upon that flawed premise. Humans are sometimes rational on an individual level, but as a group almost always behave irrationally. It's why booms and busts happen with the stock market, for example. Libertarians believe that deregulation of financial markets will lead fewer booms and busts, but that conclusion is reached by ignoring the irrationality of human behavior.

    Another issue I have with libertarian deregulation is the lack of perspective. A couple hundred years ago it made more sense to have less regulation, especially on consumer products because products were simple. It was easier to look at something and know the quality. You didn't need an advanced degree in engineering. Our technology and society has become so complex, it is literally impossible for any individual to be educated enough to make fully-informed decisions in the ideal libertarian context. Consumers would have to spend more than 24 hours a day on research before making any purchases. This is one of the reasons we need regulation. I would agree that the way regulation is currently handled by the US government sucks. But getting rid of regulation is not the solution to the problem. We need better regulation. And this is where a libertarian responds with "Well, whatever we do will get corrupted, so why try"? Because it is the duty of every generation to try.

    All that said, some libertarian ideals are worth striving for. I wouldn't like a government dominated by libertarians, but a libertarian influence can be a positive, especially in our current circumstance. Why? Because bureaucracies don't self-regulate and there are no market forces demanding efficiency. So government bureaucracies become these lumbering, inefficient behemoths. Ideally, we would find a way to simulate market forces in government bureaucracies, but it needs to be balanced because the purpose of government is not to make a profit, but to serve the people. Finding that balance won't ever be easy.
    "We grow up thinking that beliefs are something to be proud of, but they're really nothing but opinions one refuses to reconsider. Beliefs are easy. The stronger your beliefs are, the less open you are to growth and wisdom, because "strength of belief" is only the intensity with which you resist questioning yourself. As soon as you are proud of a belief, as soon as you think it adds something to who you are, then you've made it a part of your ego."

Similar Threads

  1. How many of you don't celebrate you birthdays?
    By Virtual ghost in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 66
    Last Post: 05-23-2010, 12:49 PM
  2. [ISTJ] ISTJs- How Many of you are sticklers for schedules?
    By IZthe411 in forum The SJ Guardhouse (ESFJ, ISFJ, ESTJ, ISTJ)
    Replies: 34
    Last Post: 07-31-2009, 12:32 AM
  3. How many of you don't have problems with nightmares?
    By Virtual ghost in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 86
    Last Post: 04-28-2009, 10:37 PM
  4. [SJ] SJs : how many of you are Okay with factory-job?
    By niki in forum The SJ Guardhouse (ESFJ, ISFJ, ESTJ, ISTJ)
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 09-13-2008, 12:32 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO