Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
America will not be dissolved, in fact, soon enough it will grow to encompass the entire NA continent. Doubt it? Look around you, it is already happening for better or worse and it is officially and unofficially sanctioned. Globalization requires this merger just as it did in Europe.
Remember that a large market full with hubs of diversified interests fueling smaller sub-markets is the roost of the royal in this new age of the strictly financial kingdom. Physical territory means nothing; sales are all made at the cheapest possible cost.
I tend nowadays to refer to America privately as "Afoolica". In "Afoolica", no one is ever, ever left behind and everyone is due a happy outcome just because and all people are subsidized heavily by fedgov simply because they are too indolent/stupid to understand what they actually need in contrast to all that they are told they must have. Too many certainly have no clue whatsoever of history and how it repeats itself and their self-absorbed selves are too arrogant, summed up in the popular phrase that is also the motto of "Afoolica", "It's All Good". <Seriously, this will be on the money.
In "Afoolica", there is no need for responsibility, no reason to demand explanations because no one cares enough to hear it unless it gives them fame on social media. There are no citizens in this place only consumers, consumers who know that they will be 'liked' only when they are shopping or assenting to whatever it is they have been made to understand is what they want no matter how silly or contrived it may be.
We are held together by a subsidized laziness with the corporations buying power keeping the markets intact and the mess shambling on. It is cheaper to buy 1 president and 1 vice-president with a cabinet full of hand-picked company people and 535 congress-people than bothering with several smaller nations suffering temper tantrums and everyone couldn't care less as long as they are entitled to feel free.
You can call us anything you'd like, but Republican? Holy crap, now you've really shown how ignorant you are.
Yet socialism has historical proven itself to be regressive and repressive. As I said earlier, Progressivism is nothing more than a flavor of Marxism with a shiny new name.
Why don't you do a little research and review the history of progressivism. You'll find the definition of the term and the ideology are two entirely different things.
It is easy to do when you look at the percentage of people who vote for the Libertarian Party. Pretty much most people who claim to be Libertarian vote Republican. You can deny the truth all you want.
It is definitely true to me that you have no idea what Progressive or liberal is.
I know I'm not directly answering the question, but what would be the advantage of not remaining united? To me, the disadvantages of splitting up would be much greater than the advantages.
I agree there are advantages to remaining united. But I believe the disadvantages far outweigh the advantages. The advantages are largely economic/military, the disadvantages are largely social.
Basically, I think large companies find it more convenient to have a single currency, a single set of rules, and free trade. And in a world of increasing international trade, those issues are best addressed through a single political system. Be it the US federal government, or the European Union, or NAFTA, or whatever. And since corporations effectively run our government(and to some extent always have), you are seeing a move towards not only nationalism, but internationalism.
The question then is, do individuals actually benefit? Well, by catering to international corporations, you are actually taking the power out of the hands of individuals and small businessmen. Of course the argument is that the corporations will create more jobs and economic growth and that will trickle-down to the common man.
In which I have to ask, is this actually true? And even if it was true, does that mean the people are actually better off?
Look at it like this. Those countries in Europe which have either spurned the European Union(IE Switzerland and Norway), or spurned the Euro(those countries plus Denmark, UK, Sweden). Are generally doing better economically, and more importantly, also tend to be happier.
If you look only at happiness. There is no evidence whatsoever that either a big country, or for that matter a union of countries improves happiness at all. In fact, there is far more evidence that the larger and more centralized a country becomes, the less happy the people are.
It is easy to do when you look at the percentage of people who vote for the Libertarian Party. Pretty much most people who claim to be Libertarian vote Republican. You can deny the truth all you want.
It is definitely true to me that you have no idea what Progressive or liberal is.
Look, all election systems basically work the same way. In parliamentary systems, you vote for your party, then they make a coalition to run the government. In our system, the coalition is the party.
Since libertarians are a minority, they must form a coalition with those who are at least most similar to themselves to win an election. The Republican party isn't a monolithic group, it is a coalition of everyone to the right of center. The Democratic party is a coalition of everyone to the left of center.
For presidential elections, the goal of either party is not to get 99% of the vote. It is only to get 51% of the vote. Which is why most presidential elections end up something close to 51% to 49%.
Each political party shifts their overall party platform over time to keep trying to form coalitions to encompass at least 51% of the electorate. For instance, people might complain about people like Mitt Romney for being too "liberal". But the Republican party had to nominate him, hoping that his more centrist views would pull votes away from democrats.
The point is, if the democrats put a Communist up as their presidential candidate, he would have as much a chance of winning a national election as if the Republicans put up an minarchist/libertarian. And for that matter, people voting for communists would have about as much chance as people voting for libertarians. None. Anyone who thinks a third-party is remotely possible, is a blankin moron.
Look, all election systems basically work the same way. In parliamentary systems, you vote for your party, then they make a coalition to run the government. In our system, the coalition is the party.
Since libertarians are a minority, they must form a coalition with those who are at least most similar to themselves to win an election. The Republican party isn't a monolithic group, it is a coalition of everyone to the right of center. The Democratic party is a coalition of everyone to the left of center.
For presidential elections, the goal of either party is not to get 99% of the vote. It is only to get 51% of the vote. Which is why most presidential elections end up something close to 51% to 49%.
Each political party shifts their overall party platform over time to keep trying to form coalitions to encompass at least 51% of the electorate. For instance, people might complain about people like Mitt Romney for being too "liberal". But the Republican party had to nominate him, hoping that his more centrist views would pull votes away from democrats.
The point is, if the democrats put a Communist up as their presidential candidate, he would have as much a chance of winning a national election as if the Republicans put up an minarchist/libertarian. And for that matter, people voting for communists would have about as much chance as people voting for libertarians. None. Anyone who thinks a third-party is remotely possible, is a blankin moron.
Well thank you for finally admitting Libertarians are just a right wing fraction in the Republican party and nothing more.
Third parties in this country don't get far past local elections because they are small groups of very specific ideology and tend to be very exclusive.
It's mostly RWNJs that hate the country, ironically enough. They love the Constitution so much that they want to secede from it in order to save it. You can't make this stuff up. The most anti-American posters on here are ALL right-wing neo-Confederates; they are STILL fighting the Civil War 150 years after it was over.
Well thank you for finally admitting Libertarians are just a right wing fraction in the Republican party and nothing more.
Third parties in this country don't get far past local elections because they are small groups of very specific ideology and tend to be very exclusive.
Well, you are wrong. Libertarians are an ideology of their own. In the same way that communists are an ideology of their own. To say that Libertarians are just a faction within the Republican party, would be like saying that communists or anarcho-socialists are just factions in the Democratic party.
No, regardless of my personal opinions about either political party, I am forced to vote for the candidate that is most like me, that actually has a chance of winning. If Libertarians are 15% of the population, what good does it do them to vote for a libertarian candidate? 15% does not win an election.
If a libertarian doesn't vote for a Republican, he is at best wasting his vote, and at worst guaranteeing a victory to those he disagrees with most. Only idiots or people who don't mind wasting their vote, actually vote for third-party candidates. Most of the people who vote for third-party candidates are are either trying to make a statement, or they don't see enough of a difference between the other two candidates to care who gets elected. Even more of these apathetic people simply choose not to vote at all. They don't even see the point.
Our Democracy is about as far from representing the interests of the actual people in this country as there can even be. But what choice do we have?
This is the reality of politics....
"It is to be considered that, without his consent having even been asked a man finds himself environed by a government that he cannot resist; a government that forces him to pay money, render service, and forego the exercise of many of his natural rights, under peril of weighty punishments. He sees, too, that other men practice this tyranny over him by the use of the ballot. He sees further, that, if he will but use the ballot himself, he has some chance of relieving himself from this tyranny of others, by subjecting them to his own. In short, he finds himself, without his consent, so situated that, if he use the ballot, he may become a master; if he does not use it, he must become a slave. And he has no other alternative than these two. In self-defense, he attempts the former. His case is analogous to that of a man who has been forced into battle, where he must either kill others, or be killed himself. Because, to save his own life in battle, a man takes the lives of his opponents, it is not to be inferred that the battle is one of his own choosing. Neither in contests with the ballot – which is a mere substitute for a bullet – because, as his only chance of self-preservation, a man uses a ballot, is it to be inferred that the contest is one into which he voluntarily entered; that he voluntarily set up all his own natural rights, as a stake against those of others, to be lost or won by the mere power of numbers. On the contrary, it is to be considered that, in an exigency into which he had been forced by others, and in which no other means of self-defense offered, he, as a matter of necessity, used the only one that was left to him."
Well, you are wrong. Libertarians are an ideology of their own. In the same way that communists are an ideology of their own. To say that Libertarians are just a faction within the Republican party, would be like saying that communists or anarcho-socialists are just factions in the Democratic party.
No, regardless of my personal opinions about either political party, I am forced to vote for the candidate that is most like me, that actually has a chance of winning. If Libertarians are 15% of the population, what good does it do them to vote for a libertarian candidate? 15% does not win an election.
If a libertarian doesn't vote for a Republican, he is at best wasting his vote, and at worst guaranteeing a victory to those he disagrees with most. Only idiots or people who don't mind wasting their vote, actually vote for third-party candidates. Most of the people who vote for third-party candidates are are either trying to make a statement, or they don't see enough of a difference between the other two candidates to care who gets elected. Even more of these apathetic people simply choose not to vote at all. They don't even see the point.
Our Democracy is about as far from representing the interests of the actual people in this country as there can even be. But what choice do we have?
This is the reality of politics....
"It is to be considered that, without his consent having even been asked a man finds himself environed by a government that he cannot resist; a government that forces him to pay money, render service, and forego the exercise of many of his natural rights, under peril of weighty punishments. He sees, too, that other men practice this tyranny over him by the use of the ballot. He sees further, that, if he will but use the ballot himself, he has some chance of relieving himself from this tyranny of others, by subjecting them to his own. In short, he finds himself, without his consent, so situated that, if he use the ballot, he may become a master; if he does not use it, he must become a slave. And he has no other alternative than these two. In self-defense, he attempts the former. His case is analogous to that of a man who has been forced into battle, where he must either kill others, or be killed himself. Because, to save his own life in battle, a man takes the lives of his opponents, it is not to be inferred that the battle is one of his own choosing. Neither in contests with the ballot – which is a mere substitute for a bullet – because, as his only chance of self-preservation, a man uses a ballot, is it to be inferred that the contest is one into which he voluntarily entered; that he voluntarily set up all his own natural rights, as a stake against those of others, to be lost or won by the mere power of numbers. On the contrary, it is to be considered that, in an exigency into which he had been forced by others, and in which no other means of self-defense offered, he, as a matter of necessity, used the only one that was left to him."
So Libertarians aren't right wing, but they vote for the right wing party so they don't waste their votes on their own ideology party...and you wonder why we think it is a joke when right wingers call themselves Libertarians while voting for Republicans.
Oh and voting for a party that you say you are not a part of is the same as throwing away your vote.
So Libertarians aren't right wing, but they vote for the right wing party so they don't waste their votes on their own ideology party...and you wonder why we think it is a joke when right wingers call themselves Libertarians while voting for Republicans.
Oh and voting for a party that you say you are not a part of is the same as throwing away your vote.
Look, Noam Chomsky is an anarchist, but he says he would vote for democrats. Does that mean he isn't allowed to call himself an anarchist? Does that mean that anarchists are nothing more than rank and file democrats? Does that make him a hypocrite?
Look, Noam Chomsky is an anarchist, but he says he would vote for democrats. Does that mean he isn't allowed to call himself an anarchist? Does that mean that anarchists are nothing more than rank and file democrats? Does that make him a hypocrite?
He and you can call yourself whatever you want but if you vote for the Republican party then you are a Republican voter, not a Libertarian voter. Put faith in the party you say you are for and start voting for Libertarian candidates rather than voting against your own interests.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
