A Sane and Moral Choice for Prez

[Ben Kenobi]

Not what we're talking about

Which is my point, entirely. You believe that some choices are wrong, just like I do. The only difference is that you and I believe that different things are wrong. It's not about choice, but about morality.

[Dinner]

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-06-03/in-polls-with-trump-and-clinton-libertarian-johnson-has-a-pulse-barely

Rasmussen polling has Johnson at 8% but Rasmussen usually also scews right and produces a lot of outlayer polls (like in 2012 thry kept claiming Romney was ahead of Obama when every other polling company said Obama in a landslide) most other polls have Johnson at 2%-4%.

[C0ckney]

I recently had some thoughts about the whole my vote doesn't matter thing, but the current form of those thoughts is a stream of consciousness rant saved in notepad. We'll see if I have the energy to make it coherent. Should be writing.

vote or don't vote, it doesn't make any difference.

[Ben Kenobi]

I actually wouldn't be surprised if Johnson were at 8. Nobody really likes either nominee.

[rah]

Which is my point, entirely. You believe that some choices are wrong, just like I do. The only difference is that you and I believe that different things are wrong. It's not about choice, but about morality.

So what. WE were talking about ABORTION. I believe in the right to choose whether you do or not. (pro choice) You believe that people shouldn't have a choice. (no choice)
We're not talking about some choices, we were discussing Abortion. Don't change the subject. You do believe that people shouldn't have a choice where abortion is concerned. Correct?

[Aeson]

The problem with Libertarians is their platform includes stuff like an end to all forms of welfare, (effectively ... see court congestion) no environmental protections, no imminent domain. Application of their platform would mean children and elderly living on the street and starving ... except there are no streets because building a road of any appreciable length without imminent domain is often impossible. And everyone wearing gas masks/radiation suits if they're brave enough to venture out of their bunkers.

The courts would be eternally clogged no matter how many courts you have. For instance, the state can't force parents to immunize their children. So some child gets sick and starts an epidemic, at which point each individual affected has claims against all other individuals who were infected. And "justice" ... which invariably ends up with someone not being able to pay their obligations ... ends up waiting for hundreds years to see court because there's 300 million * 300 million cases already on the books where everyone is suing everyone for destroying their air quality ... because air quality controls have been dropped in favor of individuals suing other individuals if they harm other individuals air quality. Repeat for water quality. Repeat for food quality. Repeat for manufacturing defects. Repeat for every last little niggling detail in life. Effectively there are no laws because the courts can never get around to trying even a very small % of the cases that would be required for such a system to have a chance in hell of working.

[Ben Kenobi]

except there are no streets because building a road of any appreciable length without imminent domain is often impossible. And everyone wearing gas masks/radiation suits if they're brave enough to venture out of their bunkers.

Complete and utter rubbish. The US built plenty of roads prior to 1913. Private property is a fundamental freedom. People even built roads themselves

[Ben Kenobi]

So what. WE were talking about ABORTION. I believe in the right to choose whether you do or not.

But to choose, what? Abortion. Ergo you're pro abortion whereas I am prolife.

We're not talking about some choices, we were discussing Abortion. Don't change the subject.

You're the one who keeps changing the subject, claiming that you don't support abortion when you do.

[rah]

I STATED

I believe in the right to choose but would never choose that option unless the mother was at risk

Then I said you were for no choice. Which you are. Which was the only point I was making. I am for choice and you are not.

I have never once said that I don't support the right for a women to choose abortion. I have never chosen abortion and never will have to.

Geeze

[Aeson]

The US built plenty of roads prior to 1913. Private property is a fundamental freedom. People even built roads themselves

1913 doesn't matter, eminent domain existed well before then. It's even addressed (implicitly allowed under restrictions) in the original Bill of Rights. Also the idea that there were "plenty of roads" in 1913 is ridiculous even before you get to the huge changes in relevant factors since then.

[Aeson]

As for building a road without eminent domain ... you just need one ******* in your way and it's LITERALLY IMPOSSIBLE ... there are a lot of *******s in this world. Libertarians also want to privatize public lands, meaning even fewer options on where to build roads, and more *******s in the way, with each ******* being able to drive prices higher due to lack of options. All while Libertarians also neuter government's ability to tax.

Nothing of note in regards to large scale infrastructure would ever get done ever again.

[Aeson]

Ayn Rand's super-steel railroads couldn't have happened without eminent domain and/or public property ...

[MichaeltheGreat]

Gary Johnson and Bill Weld, 2 two-time governors from NM and MASS are that choice

Put an end to foreign wars, put an end to the drug war, corporate welfare, eliminate deficit spending and start reducing the debt we're burdening children with, shrink the federal govt...

Uh, if you remember, there's that other branch of government called the Congress. Funny how the liberterrarium mirrors the Berniverse - the occupants of both seem to think their guys can just wave a magic wand and everyone in DC will hold hands and sing Kum-ba-ya while watching Mr. Smith goes to Washington.

[MichaeltheGreat]

1913 doesn't matter, eminent domain existed well before then. It's even addressed (implicitly allowed under restrictions) in the original Bill of Rights. Also the idea that there were "plenty of roads" in 1913 is ridiculous even before you get to the huge changes in relevant factors since then.

You're trying to use facts to argue a point with Ben. You feelin' ok?

[Ben Kenobi]

1913 doesn't matter, eminent domain existed well before then.

Uh, no it didn't.

It's even addressed (implicitly allowed under restrictions) in the original Bill of Rights.

I checked. I don't see the words "eminent domain" anywhere in the constitution. I do however, see a right to own property.

Also the idea that there were "plenty of roads" in 1913 is ridiculous even before you get to the huge changes in relevant factors since then.

The point stands. How many roads were there in the US by 1913? Over 5 million miles.