| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#17
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
A bit of Hillary Clinton's past history
On Mon, 2 Nov 2015 07:54:30 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 11/1/15 10:30 PM, wrote: On Sun, 1 Nov 2015 14:09:03 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: Because, in the end, libertarians are Republicans just as Tea Baggers are Republicans. "Republican" seems to be anyone who disagrees with you. The fact remains almost half of all voting aged people are so disgusted with the process that they stay home. Are they all Republicans too? Maybe you are right. Is that why Nixon called them the silent majority. All the self-described "libertarians" I've heard of who *hold* elected federal office ran as and run as Republicans, and the self-described Tea Baggers do the same. Now, there are some self-described libertarians who eschew the Republican moniker and run as libertarians for federal office, but...they don't seem to get elected. It sounds like they have fallen prey to the same pragmatism that you posses. You have to go along to get along. I think that is mostly the stacked deck we have dealt to 3d parties. You need to pick a major party to even get a seat at the table. Yeah right "free elections". Years ago, I described libertarians as Republicans with even less of a sense of civic responsibility. I've not read anything that would make me change my mind. I understand self-described libertarians don't like foreign military adventures and are in favor of legalizing pot, and want to do away with all manner of regulations so the "free market" will prevail. Well, I've always thought libertarianism was way over the line on simplemindedness. I'm not a big fan of foreign military adventures, either, and I see advantages to decriminalizing pot, but I don't favor going back to the "wild, wild west" domestically. You ignored a number of issues that align closer to Bernie than Hillary or any of the republicans but I am not surprised. Even if we had a significant Libertarian membership in congress and holding the white house, I doubt they could make a serious dent in the 4th branch of government, US Civil Service. That is a reality that confronted Carter and Reagan significantly and all presidents to some extent. I remember Carter coming to town and how that reality bitch slapped him in the face. He had the goal of "streamlining government" and he created a few stream lined agencies but what he didn't understand was that it was "additive", hiring more people but the existing agencies were still there. They were not leaving. They just changed all of the signs. |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Some Clinton History for the True Believers | General | |||
| Blasts from the past! | General | |||
| Cannibals In The U.S. Congress, On Capital Hill! Meet George Bush, Jr., Bill And Hillary Clinton, Barrack Obama, Al Gore, And Capital Hill! | General | |||
| Blast from the Past | ASA | |||
| Yet another blast from the past | ASA | |||
Threaded Mode
