The world should vote in the US elections

[DirtyDishSoap]

Even with that mentioned, I would still vote for GJ over Trump and Hillary. By miles. Hundreds.

[warmonger1981]

We're fucked either way. America loses it sovereignty to mega corporation. Next step a corporate world government. It's sad when corporation have more rights and leverage than the host citizens.

[tzor]

I'm more worried that some ass hat will get in office and start ruining diplomatic trade agreements. *CoughTrumpCough*

As opposed to some ass hat getting into office and approving diplomatic trade agreements like the TPP *CoughClintonCouth*

The sad truth is that a lot of so called "trade agreements" are not really about "trade." Instead they are about global control and the movement of money in such a way that a portion of that money can be siphoned off for personal gain. Bilateral agreements are a thing of the past, huge agreements where smaller parties can gang up against a larger party because of the way the agreement is allowed to be self modifying is the new thing and in general they tend to not be all that good for international trade or the international traders; just for the powers that created the new agencies.

[tzor]

Even with that mentioned, I would still vote for GJ over Trump and Hillary. By miles. Hundreds.

From what I have seen, Trump is more conservative than Johnson is libertarian.

The best example is the open borders issue. The libertarian position is open borders but it is also strongly against the welfare state. To be in favor of open borders now while keeping the welfare state in place is not only not libertarian, it's suicide. But Johnson has to be in opposition to someone and since Trump wants to build a wall, he fixates on that while ignoring the welfare state problem since he can't pander to a community by advocating for the elimination of the welfare state.

[BoganGod]

Australians should vote in the US farce non event. We have a history of electing the hair challenged.

[Symmetry]

Even with that mentioned, I would still vote for GJ over Trump and Hillary. By miles. Hundreds.

Isn't Gary Johnson the cop-out vote? I really don't get why people who are basically Republicans, but hate it when they see how their inclinations end up in practice, want to spill their seed on Gary.

Is it a protest? An avoidance of responsibility? It mostly seems like a cop-out. An inability to balance weaknesses and strengths.

[tzor]

Isn't Gary Johnson the cop-out vote? I really don't get why people who are basically Republicans, but hate it when they see how their inclinations end up in practice, want to spill their seed on Gary.

As much as I hate to write this, I'd rather see some "Republican" vote for Gary than not vote at all. You see, there probably aren't many candidates running on the Libertarian line. There is still the Congress, the Senate (in some states) and if a person votes strict Republican and then votes for Johnson it's still better than not showing up at all.

[DirtyDishSoap]

Even with that mentioned, I would still vote for GJ over Trump and Hillary. By miles. Hundreds.

Isn't Gary Johnson the cop-out vote? I really don't get why people who are basically Republicans, but hate it when they see how their inclinations end up in practice, want to spill their seed on Gary.

Is it a protest? An avoidance of responsibility? It mostly seems like a cop-out. An inability to balance weaknesses and strengths.

It's me washing my hands clean from Hillary and Trump. If either of those two are elected, which at this point, I'm sure one of them will be, I can say I voted for Libertarian and had nothing to do with either twat.

[warmonger1981]

I can respect that Dirty.

[Symmetry]

Even with that mentioned, I would still vote for GJ over Trump and Hillary. By miles. Hundreds.

Isn't Gary Johnson the cop-out vote? I really don't get why people who are basically Republicans, but hate it when they see how their inclinations end up in practice, want to spill their seed on Gary.

Is it a protest? An avoidance of responsibility? It mostly seems like a cop-out. An inability to balance weaknesses and strengths.

It's me washing my hands clean from Hillary and Trump. If either of those two are elected, which at this point, I'm sure one of them will be, I can say I voted for Libertarian and had nothing to do with either twat.

Sometimes, as an adult, you have to pick the best out of two bad options. I get the desire for voting Repub-lite, or whatever current offshoot of the Republicans is cool on the internet, but let's face it, the weird insults against Clinton only diminish the right.

[jgordon1111]

Isn't Gary Johnson the cop-out vote? I really don't get why people who are basically Republicans, but hate it when they see how their inclinations end up in practice, want to spill their seed on Gary.

As much as I hate to write this, I'd rather see some "Republican" vote for Gary than not vote at all. You see, there probably aren't many candidates running on the Libertarian line. There is still the Congress, the Senate (in some states) and if a person votes strict Republican and then votes for Johnson it's still better than not showing up at all.

My thoughts on trump were never,same with Hillary, now I am actually thinking yes to one, only because alot of the career politicians are switching sides pubicly. I see that as they are actually scared he might win and do what he says he will. The only reason I can see them doing that is because they are ok with Hillary continuing Barry's path to destruction of America, the new batch of emails coming out didn't help, nor the info about how strong Isis was being sugar coated to give Barry another term and Hillary for his third.
We will see first debate if Johnson makes the stage

[Bernie Sanders]

Trump ain't debating Clinton. He'll find an excuse to hide.

Oh, oh, oh, the media, oh, oh, oh, everything is rigged against me.

Trump is a loser and please vote for the silly libertarian candidates.

You boys need to learn these words, "Madame President"

[Symmetry]

Isn't Gary Johnson the cop-out vote? I really don't get why people who are basically Republicans, but hate it when they see how their inclinations end up in practice, want to spill their seed on Gary.

As much as I hate to write this, I'd rather see some "Republican" vote for Gary than not vote at all. You see, there probably aren't many candidates running on the Libertarian line. There is still the Congress, the Senate (in some states) and if a person votes strict Republican and then votes for Johnson it's still better than not showing up at all.

My thoughts on trump were never,same with Hillary, now I am actually thinking yes to one, only because alot of the career politicians are switching sides pubicly. I see that as they are actually scared he might win and do what he says he will. The only reason I can see them doing that is because they are ok with Hillary continuing Barry's path to destruction of America, the new batch of emails coming out didn't help, nor the info about how strong Isis was being sugar coated to give Barry another term and Hillary for his third.
We will see first debate if Johnson makes the stage

It'd be interesting to see Johnson debate. He knows he won't win, so basically he can promise anything as long as it raises his profile and keeps money rolling in. It's not as if he's really running for President.

Out of interest, why do you refer to President Obama as Barry, but use "Johnson" with Gary Johnson? I've noticed that you do the same kind of thing with Clinton. Maybe it's a Brit thing, but it seems like a bit of a double-standard.

[muy_thaiguy]

It, really is a double standard for many people. On both sides of the isle, so to speak.

But, I'm with DDS. I'll vote Johnson, partly because it won't feel like an alien would burst from my stomach like it would with the other two, and partly to say if Trump or Clinton screw up, I had no part in electing them.

In short, I'll at least have a clean conscience. Also to note; Utah may actually vote for Johnson (looking that way so far).

[Symmetry]

It, really is a double standard for many people. On both sides of the isle, so to speak.

But, I'm with DDS. I'll vote Johnson, partly because it won't feel like an alien would burst from my stomach like it would with the other two, and partly to say if Trump or Clinton screw up, I had no part in electing them.

In short, I'll at least have a clean conscience. Also to note; Utah may actually vote for Johnson (looking that way so far).

Kudos on the "isle\aisle" pun.

It sort of seems that a Johnson vote is a kind of way of avoiding responsibility though.

Outside of a presidential election, would you vote Libertarian?

[Falkomagno]

So, as expected, Americans screwed it up. Now, lets hope he goes to isolationism, and that the damage stays there, and not spread to the whole world. It can be a naive hope, but we can not do much more.

[warmonger1981]

Unfortunately without the US most other countries are fucked. We give away too many freebies and people are dependent upon us.

[BoganGod]

Unfortunately without the US most other countries are fucked. We give away too many freebies and people are dependent upon us.

Get off the crack pipe sweetie pie. Your gifts have barbs. How much are the Iraqi and Afghani people enjoying that democracy and freedom you gave them? What did it cost them? Don't give me that horse shit about it costing American lives. That is a load of shit, those lives come from the meat pool, not the elite pool. Your ruling class dodge fighting themselves, very happy to send other American's kids to die or come back damaged.

Charity begins at home. Don't export your <coughs> democracy, weapons, and influence peddling/lobbyist culture. Enjoy it at home.

[waauw]

Unfortunately without the US most other countries are fucked. We give away too many freebies and people are dependent upon us.

The reason the US gives out those freebies is because the US fears its allies might swap sides to competing powers. Russia and China do the same thing. Nothing special there, just typical superpower policy.

[KoolBak]

So, as expected, Americans screwed it up. Now, lets hope he goes to isolationism, and that the damage stays there, and not spread to the whole world. It can be a naive hope, but we can not do much more.

Actually there IS something quite beneficial you could do....

You could STFU That would be lovely. Oh, and come down and see some of the cool stuff in my shop....

[warmonger1981]

Bogan your mom has my pipe in her mouth. Iraq wasn't about democracy. I'm not riding horses on the backs of veterans with freedom as the excuse. Think loca not global. Democracy isn't for everyone when religion is a factor.




Waauw there are numerous reasons why the end US gives away free shit but yes typical superpower shit. The one I never understood was the giving the Panama Canal to the Chinese.

[patches70]

Bogan your mom has my pipe in her mouth. Iraq wasn't about democracy. I'm not riding horses on the backs of veterans with freedom as the excuse. Think loca not global. Democracy isn't for everyone when religion is a factor.




Waauw there are numerous reasons why the end US gives away free shit but yes typical superpower shit. The one I never understood was the giving the Panama Canal to the Chinese.

The Chinese don't own the canal. They just have a contract to run the shipping container facilities at the Atlantic and Pacific end. The canal is owned and operated by the Panamanians.

The Chinese pay Panama to operate those shipping container ports, the Chinese don't own those either, Panama does. In the same way you would rent an apartment or house, you don't own it, the landlord owns it. You just signed a contract that allows you to use the property for a specified amount of time. In the case of the Chinese they signed a 25 year lease on those ports, at which time they'll either renew the lease or Panama will hold another auction and lease to the highest bidder, like they did with the Chinese. Heck, the US could pursue that lease we wanted to, but I don't see why we should. It's a neutral canal after all, and it's not like anyone could keep us from using it if push ever came to shove.

Part of the agreement in the hand over of the canal to Panama is that Panama guarantees the neutrality of the canal so everyone can use it. It's a neutral canal after all, and it's not like anyone could keep us from using it if push ever came to shove.
I don't know why anyone would get too bent out of shape about it, the Panamanians should have the canal, it's in their country after all. The Panamanians were never too keen on our control of it in the first place so it's win win situation, we can still use the canal (as can anyone else for that matter) and Panama has something else to generate income that helps the world.

Of all the things the US has done stupidly, handing over the Panama canal isn't one of them, IMO.

[warmonger1981]

We build it then let another country take control renting the space out to the Chinese. Sounds like a shitty deal. How about you build a home give it to me then I rent the space to an informal enemy of yours. Your the sucker the new homeowner is smart and the enemy pays for it. IMO.

[mrswdk]

lol. China the 'informal enemy' of the US. If there's one thing warmonger's learned from reading Hamlet, it's that the only way to prevent yourself being betrayed is to kill absolutely everyone you know.

[patches70]

We build it then let another country take control renting the space out to the Chinese. Sounds like a shitty deal. How about you build a home give it to me then I rent the space to an informal enemy of yours. Your the sucker the new homeowner is smart and the enemy pays for it. IMO.

Well, how many Panamanians do you consider it acceptable to kill every year to keep control of the canal? Every few years or so while we were in control the Panamanians would riot and violence would happen. Panamanians die, and in some cases a few Americans die. How many deaths, injuries, bad feelings, national tensions are worth keeping control of an increasingly irrelevant and less valuable asset?
Let us not forget that it was Martyrs' Day that sealed the deal so to speak and probably the main reason for the US to give up on the "in perpetuity" lease we had on the canal zone.

Then when you look at what happened with the Suez Canal and what happened there you can see how this kind of thing can spiral out of control and the next thing you know you find yourself in a shooting action over a canal.

Do you seriously think Chinese ships should be banned from using the canal? That they be limited in peaceful trade because they are an "informal enemy"?

Another aspect as to why the US turned over control of the Canal goes to show who is really in charge in the US anyway. Panama owed US banks a lot of money, nearly 2 billion dollars. Panama couldn't repay the loans. Giving them the canal gave them the revenue to pay back those loans. After all, we can't be having the bankers getting screwed over the loans they make.

The world didn't end, the Canal remains open for anyone to use as it should be, the Panamanians get some small measure of self respect, eases tensions between nations and we lose nothing of any vital importance. This is basically just a type of diversification, companies build assets, use them and at some point sell/liquidate ownership in said asset for lots of different reasons including public opinion.
Turning over the canal was probably the right thing to do when one considers the full history of the asset.
Don't get me wrong, IMO China is a greater threat to the US than, say, Russia, but getting bent out of shape over the freaking Panama Canal is kinda nutso IMO.


On a more anecdotal note, the Panamanian people are a good peoples IMO. They are pretty tough, love their country, a patriotic and decent people in general. They have a beautiful country, modest in means for the most part but rich in culture and history. America for all she has shouldn't be jealous or fearful for giving up the canal, I can think of a dozen other things right off the bat that the US has done for people who are of considerable less repute than the Panamanians.

No, giving control of the canal to Panama was the right thing to do and assisted US national interests far more than it could ever have hurt national interests. Any objective view not based on blatant nationalism and American superiority over other peoples of the Earth show that this is true, that giving the canal to the Panamanians was a positive thing.

Anyway, you are free to disagree of course, though I would ask you to answer one question that I posed at the beginning-
How many human beings, Panamanians and Americans, is it acceptable to kill in order to keep control of the Canal?
I'd like a specific number if you are able.