2020 election thread

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.

steross

he/him
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
29,344
31,646
1,743
oklahoma city
I don’t think that someone who is ardently anti-Trump is “undecided.”

It’s similar to disliking both team in the OU-Texas game: You can say that you just won’t watch or that you hope that a big bird swoops down, steals the ball and the game doesn’t count; but in reality one team or the other will win.

A sane person roots for OU to lose every time, even though it’s against Texas. That’s not really undecided.
Fair enough. I have decided that despite some good policy, Trump is harmful our nation and I simply cannot support that. The paucity of other good options is why I am "undecided."
 

steross

he/him
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
29,344
31,646
1,743
oklahoma city
Vote Libertarian! A 5% finish would do wonders for ballot access and give us public matching funds for the next election. Change has gotta start somewhere.
Libertarians taking public matching funds?:D
Isn't that like democrats taking money from big pharma? Oh yeah, they do that.

If the Libertarian party would listen to me, which they won't, they need to get away from this BS that seems like a libertarian litmus test. I think many Americans lean libertarian. But, very, very few Americans believe in libertarian answers to every single problem. At times, government is needed. When libertarians give answers like, "There is no need for pollution regulation as it is not in the best interest of an individual to be a polluter as that will become known and hurt the person's business....blah, blah" they hurt their own cause. Libertarian should be an ideal, not a mandate.
 

Jostate

Bluecolla's sock
A/V Subscriber
Jun 24, 2005
20,890
14,741
1,743
Libertarians taking public matching funds?:D
Isn't that like democrats taking money from big pharma? Oh yeah, they do that.

If the Libertarian party would listen to me, which they won't, they need to get away from this BS that seems like a libertarian litmus test. I think many Americans lean libertarian. But, very, very few Americans believe in libertarian answers to every single problem. At times, government is needed. When libertarians give answers like, "There is no need for pollution regulation as it is not in the best interest of an individual to be a polluter as that will become known and hurt the person's business....blah, blah" they hurt their own cause. Libertarian should be an ideal, not a mandate.
I've discovered saying you are a libertarian is like saying you like jazz music. It means a lot of different things to a lot of different people. I say I'm kind of a libertarian, then my Bro in law who is a Democrat and a half says "I'm a libertarian". I enjoy the common ground feel to it so we high five and move on. We agree on very little so we can't both be right.
 

pokes16

Territorial Marshal
Oct 16, 2003
7,435
6,425
1,743
Tulsa
Biden wanted breaks every 30 minutes. Trump said No (And that has never been the case anyway)
And Trump wanted both candidates checked for electronic devices/ear piece etc. Biden said No

https://twitter.com/ScottAdamsSays/status/1310968669694865408?s=20
 

steross

he/him
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
29,344
31,646
1,743
oklahoma city
I've discovered saying you are a libertarian is like saying you like jazz music. It means a lot of different things to a lot of different people. I say I'm kind of a libertarian, then my Bro in law who is a Democrat and a half says "I'm a libertarian". I enjoy the common ground feel to it so we high five and move on. We agree on very little so we can't both be right.
Libertarian if you look at it means very small government. Libertarian if you don't bother to really look but are hipster means that you want legal drugs.
 
Mar 11, 2006
2,910
1,887
1,743
I've discovered saying you are a libertarian is like saying you like jazz music. It means a lot of different things to a lot of different people. I say I'm kind of a libertarian, then my Bro in law who is a Democrat and a half says "I'm a libertarian". I enjoy the common ground feel to it so we high five and move on. We agree on very little so we can't both be right.
I consider myself a libertarian (albeit a law and order libertarian). But it does seem to mean different things to different people.
 

Rack

Legendary Cowboy
Oct 13, 2004
22,898
9,846
1,743
Earth
Fair enough. I have decided that despite some good policy, Trump is harmful our nation and I simply cannot support that. The paucity of other good options is why I am "undecided."
The problem I have is that I see the D's, at least the loud voices currently, as even more destructive to the nation. I felt we needed a purge in terms of Washington DC because Obama had 8 years of stacking things one way and we needed to move the other way. Trump has had some time to restack the deck for the R's but I'm not ready to stop winning in terms of appointments and others (not named Trump) that are in charge of things on the Hill. I'm particularly impressed with the William Barr and the VP both. This is my issue with the other side, not Biden, he's surrounded by radicals who have gobbled up power because of TDS rather than any real policy needs, wants or decisions. So, once again, it's very likely I hold my nose and vote for Trump...I can't cast a vote for the other side because I see them as very damaging.
 
Last edited:

okstate987

Territorial Marshal
A/V Subscriber
Oct 17, 2009
7,944
4,800
1,743
Somewhere
Libertarians taking public matching funds?:D
Isn't that like democrats taking money from big pharma? Oh yeah, they do that.

If the Libertarian party would listen to me, which they won't, they need to get away from this BS that seems like a libertarian litmus test. I think many Americans lean libertarian. But, very, very few Americans believe in libertarian answers to every single problem. At times, government is needed. When libertarians give answers like, "There is no need for pollution regulation as it is not in the best interest of an individual to be a polluter as that will become known and hurt the person's business....blah, blah" they hurt their own cause. Libertarian should be an ideal, not a mandate.
I disagree. It is important to gatekeep to an extent, as so many people like to claim that they are libertarian, when they support a whole number of policies that are the antithesis of libertarianism, or support Trump, who again is a socially conservative, economically liberal politician. Literally the opposite of a libertarian.

I think that pollution is a violation of the NAP, which would then mean that some standards and restrictions should be in place.

I don't like the idea of taking public matching funds, but they already face such an uphill battle, so a few concessions must be made.
 

steross

he/him
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
29,344
31,646
1,743
oklahoma city
I disagree. It is important to gatekeep to an extent, as so many people like to claim that they are libertarian, when they support a whole number of policies that are the antithesis of libertarianism, or support Trump, who again is a socially conservative, economically liberal politician. Literally the opposite of a libertarian.

I think that pollution is a violation of the NAP, which would then mean that some standards and restrictions should be in place.

I don't like the idea of taking public matching funds, but they already face such an uphill battle, so a few concessions must be made.
Well then, I think that needs to be explained better as that is a frequent banner of libertarians that I talk to. Just as you want to toss people who want some policies, maybe you should toss those that break the NAP. Often, they claim that the courts would take care of it. But that is too late for that type of thing.

I'll vote for JJ as I like you and want other real choices. But, without someone like Yang coming in and getting RCV and a real change in campaign finance, I can't ever see libertarians breaking 5%.
 

okstate987

Territorial Marshal
A/V Subscriber
Oct 17, 2009
7,944
4,800
1,743
Somewhere
Well then, I think that needs to be explained better as that is a frequent banner of libertarians that I talk to. Just as you want to toss people who want some policies, maybe you should toss those that break the NAP. Often, they claim that the courts would take care of it. But that is too late for that type of thing.

I'll vote for JJ as I like you and want other real choices. But, without someone like Yang coming in and getting RCV and a real change in campaign finance, I can't ever see libertarians breaking 5%.
I would agree, but you also have to consider the libertarians you talk to are likely from Oklahoma, so they are going to be more conservative than the average libertarian--if they are one at all. :p

On social issues, there is a good amount of overlap with progressives, and both libertarians and progressives are in favor of RCV.

Where they differ is on economics, where the libertarian party is the only economically conservative party left in the country. There are some libertarian arguments for a UBI, but typically they would involve replacing existing programs with it, rather than adding the UBI to them.
 
Last edited:

okstate987

Territorial Marshal
A/V Subscriber
Oct 17, 2009
7,944
4,800
1,743
Somewhere
I consider myself a libertarian (albeit a law and order libertarian). But it does seem to mean different things to different people.
A law and order libertarian doesn't exist. "Law and Order" is a less pejorative way of saying authoritarian or statist. You don't mind crushing others as long as your side is not the one being crushed.

Those values are at odds with libertarianism, which value civil liberties and individualism. Based on your post history, you are clearly a paleoconservative.
 
Last edited:

CocoCincinnati

Federal Marshal
Feb 7, 2007
15,993
16,950
1,743
Tulsa, OK
From the article: Joe Biden’s handlers several days ago agreed to a pre-debate inspection for electronic earpieces but today abruptly reversed themselves and declined.

So does this mean that they plan to use an earpiece to tell him what to say during the debate?
If they are not, it seems silly to allow this conspiracy theory to continue. It only hurts Biden.
 

steross

he/him
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
29,344
31,646
1,743
oklahoma city
From the article: Joe Biden’s handlers several days ago agreed to a pre-debate inspection for electronic earpieces but today abruptly reversed themselves and declined.

So does this mean that they plan to use an earpiece to tell him what to say during the debate?
I can't imagine if something like this was planned it would be planned in a few days and after the opposing side has made a spectacle of it. If it was a plan, they never would have agreed in the first place.
 

Bay Area Poke

Banned
Banned
May 31, 2007
1,759
440
1,713
Edmond, OK
From the article: Joe Biden’s handlers several days ago agreed to a pre-debate inspection for electronic earpieces but today abruptly reversed themselves and declined.

So does this mean that they plan to use an earpiece to tell him what to say during the debate?
He doesn’t need an earpiece. I’m sure he already has the debate questions which is why he wants the breaks (to refresh himself in between).
 

Binman4OSU

Legendary Cowboy
Aug 31, 2007
30,910
10,160
1,743
Stupid about AGW!!
From the article: Joe Biden’s handlers several days ago agreed to a pre-debate inspection for electronic earpieces but today abruptly reversed themselves and declined.

So does this mean that they plan to use an earpiece to tell him what to say during the debate?
The Biden camp backed out of the electronic device check thing after they asked for 2 breaks during the 90 min debate and Trump's camp refused...so they backed out of the search by a 3rd party. Biden camp asked for a break at 30 min in and one 60 min in to allow each candidate to confer with their teams.
 

pokes16

Territorial Marshal
Oct 16, 2003
7,435
6,425
1,743
Tulsa
The Biden camp backed out of the electronic device check thing after they asked for 2 breaks during the 90 min debate and Trump's camp refused...so they backed out of the search by a 3rd party. Biden camp asked for a break at 30 min in and one 60 min in to allow each candidate to confer with their teams.
The Debate Commission mandates the 90 minutes with no breaks. No debate in the past has had breaks. So that argument was a non starter.