3rd party presidential debate (Jill Stein, Gary Johnson, etc) starting now!

[Dusty Bake Activate]

I get that, but isn't the same type of militarism that we abhor coming from the seed of that type of thought?

With that said, I'm of the type that says the very structure of the nation state and its governments engenders that type of thought ad nauseam, and that won't change until the very form of democracy itself changes. That's not happening in this election. Even these guys are still firmly supporting the basic structures of capitalism, a nation state in which people willingly concentrates power in the hands of a select elite and antagonistic (even mildly so) foreign policy based on essentialist definitions of nationality rooted in the myths of the nation state consisting of one type of people. Not a damn one of those things are changing in this election.

But within all of that, I can understand why a Jill Stein wouldn't measure up to some people.

(I need to go to fukking sleep already. I'm rambling...)

I don't think so at all. The choice isn't a binary one of imperialism vs. pure pacifism to me. And foreign policy isn't just about deployment of military resources. You have to be able to perform diplomacy from a position of strength because there are some people on the world stage who are going to try you like a neighborhood bully whether it's sabre-rattling, or funding of terrorism, threatening of geopolitical allies, hostage-taking, currency or trade manipulation, embargos, or what have you. You have to be pragmatic and have steely resolve. Based on what I saw tonight, Jill Stein as President during the Cuban missile crisis or 9/11? That's a scary sight.

 

[Type Username Here]

I don't think so at all. The choice isn't a binary one of imperialism vs. pure pacifism to me. And foreign policy isn't just about deployment of military resources. You have to be able to perform diplomacy from a position of strength because there are some people on the world stage who are going to try you like a neighborhood bully whether it's sabre-rattling, or funding of terrorism, threatening of geopolitical allies, hostage-taking, currency or trade manipulation, or what have you. You have to be pragmatic and have steely resolve. Jill Stein as President during the Cuban missile crisis or 9/11? That's a scary sight.

Weren't you just defending Carter in the other thread though?

Carter shares a lot in common with Stein on these matters.

Besides, Congress declares Acts of war, treaties, etc..

We just have gotten to accustomed to the Dictator President.

 

[88m3]

On Bayonets

This is all so stupid. From the transcript:

Romney: "...our Navy is smaller now than at any time since 1917"

False. The Navy had only 278 active ships under Bush in 2007. Source: http://www.history.navy.mil/br...

Romney: "The Navy said they needed 313 ships to carry out their mission."

Mostly false. They did, but that was back in 2006. Source: http://www.policyarchive.org/h...

Romney: "We're headed down to the low 200s if we go through a sequestration."

False. Obama has added several destroyers despite winding down operations in Iraq. Congress has submitted a proposal to retire a number of craft, but Obama has explicitly stated he would veto that plan. Source: http://www.history.navy.mil/br...

Romney: "Our Air Force is older and smaller than at any time since it was founded in 1947."

True but irrelevant. In the 40's and 50's we had a bizarre hodgepodge of aircraft that were incredibly limited and unbelievably expensive to maintain. The USAF has been shrinking its overall size by design since the Reagan administration. Source: The Air Force Association (AFA)...

 

[Dusty Bake Activate]

Weren't you just defending Carter in the other thread though?

Carter shares a lot in common with Stein on these matters.

Besides, Congress declares Acts of war, treaties, etc..

We just have gotten to accustomed to the Dictator President.

And Carter fukked up the hostage crisis did he not? And strong foreign policy is about more than bussin your gun.

 

[Type Username Here]

And Carter fukked up the hostage crisis did he not? And strong foreign policy is about more than bussin your gun.

Carter actually sent special forces to handle the rescue. The mission ran into issues.

That shyt was a backdoor deal between the Iranians and the GOP all the way down breh. Those a$$holes committed treason during Reagan's presidency.

 

[TrueEpic08]

I don't think so at all. The choice isn't a binary one of imperialism vs. pure pacifism to me. And foreign policy isn't just about deployment of military resources. You have to be able to perform diplomacy from a position of strength because there are some people on the world stage who are going to try you like a neighborhood bully whether it's sabre-rattling, or funding of terrorism, threatening of geopolitical allies, hostage-taking, currency or trade manipulation, embargos, or what have you. You have to be pragmatic and have steely resolve. Based on what I saw tonight, Jill Stein as President during the Cuban missile crisis or 9/11? That's a scary sight.

I understand that, but I never mentioned, nor meant to imply imperialism. In the context of the global political economy we live in, a "position of strength" really means two things (which are not really that different): Strength of Arms and the willingness to operate, to some extent, on the same level of war as they are, actual or merely affective (economic, media, information, clandestine, really the true wars of the last 70 years are merely spectacular and affective). Regardless of whether you call it "pragmatism", "militarism" or "imperialism", the fundamental basis of it is still coercive and even reactionary to some extent.

(Sidenote: You could say that there is no such thing as a left-wing foreign policy to some extent. Just a right-wing one. Or you could even say that the very notion of "foreign policy" is inherently reactionary in practice. This is because foreign policy in the modern political economy is defined by borders, military strength, coercion, flows of capital vs flows of people across those borders and the willingness to use all of those specifically to the advantage of your country. Even instances of foreign aid, to the extent of something like the Marshall Plan, operate on this principle)

If this is the softest foreign policy that can exist in the current political world, then wars and conflict will never end (pipedream...) or at least calm themselves. In this world, unfortunately, it's almost necessary, if completely detrimental to the interest of countries working together. I know you're a center-left type of guy Vic, if this is true, don't you think there is a need for at least a theory of a new type of foreign policy?

 

[No1]

I'm sure that makes you tingle with excitement.

Electoral College has to go anyway. Let's Amend the constitution and be on our way to join the rest of the civilized world.

Lose the attitude. It was almost cute when you had it 3 weeks ago. Maybe at some point you'll grow up a bit and stop overgeneralizing everyone who doesn't agree with you. I never said how I feel either way about it.

As for amending the constitution, I've said before that Canada had the right idea when they re-did their constitution. Quite frankly, they have a superior constitution.

 

[FAH1223]

You could go and be the only black man in the room.

i know, right... i ain't going to stay in the city that late though

 

[No1]

Term limits on Congress

That's probably troublesome. I've had that discussion with people in Congress and people who had just left Congress before. They always point me to states as the example of what happens when those things are imposed. You end up with less getting done because you have a bunch of new people in leadership positions and none of them know how to get anything done. It's too late for me to type up essays, but things like budgets end up being harder to get passed and it just tends to lead to too much acrimony.

I'm almost not certain if people would be less likely to be beholden to special interests. Though it certainly becomes more likely the more entrenched one becomes. One person suggested increasing the terms of members of the House so that they didn't spend 70% of their time campaigning and at donor dinners so they can be reelected. Someone also suggested that it might be unconstitutional to prevent someone from being able to run for that office, but I never got into it.

I never understood what's the difference between that and imposing term limits on the presidency.


With all that said, I'm going to ruffle your feathers again (because you tend to get upset whenever I rain on your idealist and "refreshing" parade) with real implications). If you got these people at the debate, most of these issues would be talked about, but that doesn't mean anything would be done about them. For the most part, it would be the first time anyone heard about any of it. Just like 95% of what was talked about yesterday doesn't matter today to most voters. I'd prefer it if these people were there, but let's not overstate the political efficacy of such a maneuver. It would still boil down to the economy.

Though, I do like what I heard about public education. The best way to get the voices of third parties heard is to change to a popular vote representative system that way every corner would have to be catered . I don't know if we'll see that in our lifetimes. You know our country only reacts when something monumental happen. Like it took 3 straight wins for us to get a presidential term limit.

 

[Serious]

subs missed this thread

 

[Mook]

That's probably troublesome. I've had that discussion with people in Congress and people who had just left Congress before. They always point me to states as the example of what happens when those things are imposed. You end up with less getting done because you have a bunch of new people in leadership positions and none of them know how to get anything done. It's too late for me to type up essays, but things like budgets end up being harder to get passed and it just tends to lead to too much acrimony.

I'm almost not certain if people would be less likely to be beholden to special interests. Though it certainly becomes more likely the more entrenched one becomes. One person suggested increasing the terms of members of the House so that they didn't spend 70% of their time campaigning and at donor dinners so they can be reelected. Someone also suggested that it might be unconstitutional to prevent someone from being able to run for that office, but I never got into it.

I never understood what's the difference between that and imposing term limits on the presidency.


With all that said, I'm going to ruffle your feathers again (because you tend to get upset whenever I rain on your idealist and "refreshing" parade) with real implications). If you got these people at the debate, most of these issues would be talked about, but that doesn't mean anything would be done about them. For the most part, it would be the first time anyone heard about any of it. Just like 95% of what was talked about yesterday doesn't matter today to most voters. I'd prefer it if these people were there, but let's not overstate the political efficacy of such a maneuver. It would still boil down to the economy.

Though, I do like what I heard about public education. The best way to get the voices of third parties heard is to change to a popular vote representative system that way every corner would have to be catered . I don't know if we'll see that in our lifetimes. You know our country only reacts when something monumental happen. Like it took 3 straight wins for us to get a presidential term limit.

it was 4 straight wins from the goat and if he had lived he woulda made it to 6

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

 

[Julius Skrrvin]

VOTE FOR THE WINNER

Free & Equal Live 3rd Party Presidential Debate

 

[88m3]

VOTE FOR THE WINNER

Free & Equal Live 3rd Party Presidential Debate

done

 

[zerozero]

 

[Dusty Bake Activate]

Look up.