Though, honestly, it's ludicrous to believe that 150 years of interventionist government can be trimmed back, and liberty restored to people who barely even recognize the word, in a mere 4 years.
Or, for that matter, that the president has the authority to do it. Face it, a third party president, who had no ties to either of the parties controlling most of the seats in congress, would have no ability to prevent congress from simply steamrollering over him by passing bills with such margins as to make them un-veto-able.
I'm not saying that a libertarian president couldn't affect the direction of the vessel, but you don't spin an aircraft carrier around the way you do a surfboard. While Libertarians seem to want candidates that espouse fiery rhetoric about "fixing the governemnt", we'd be fucked if one tried to turn things around that fast.
Ah, but a president elected on a platform that clearly states that's the plan can claim "the will of the people" and dare Congress to oppose him. Two years later, one third of the Senate and all of the House will be up for grabs, based on how things go.
The power of spoiling.buddhafiddleAugust 29 2004, 19:34:40 UTC
Now that interventionist government is almost equal between the two major parties, an LP candidate could affect public policy almost as much by making the GOP candidate lose the election as by winning the election.
As I have often said, the LP, with less than 1 percent of the population registered as members, has a platform that represents at least 20 percent of the population, and probably more like 30. By using anti-tax, anti-government rhetoric, the GOP has obtained the lion's share of these people's votes while being responsible for electing 3 of the 4 most statist and protectionist regimes since WWII (Reagan and the two Bushes
( ... )
Comments 4
Too bad the game is rigged so we can't win.
Though, honestly, it's ludicrous to believe that 150 years of interventionist government can be trimmed back, and liberty restored to people who barely even recognize the word, in a mere 4 years.
Or, for that matter, that the president has the authority to do it. Face it, a third party president, who had no ties to either of the parties controlling most of the seats in congress, would have no ability to prevent congress from simply steamrollering over him by passing bills with such margins as to make them un-veto-able.
I'm not saying that a libertarian president couldn't affect the direction of the vessel, but you don't spin an aircraft carrier around the way you do a surfboard. While Libertarians seem to want candidates that espouse fiery rhetoric about "fixing the governemnt", we'd be fucked if one tried to turn things around that fast.
-Ogre
Reply
Reply
-Ogre
Reply
As I have often said, the LP, with less than 1 percent of the population registered as members, has a platform that represents at least 20 percent of the population, and probably more like 30. By using anti-tax, anti-government rhetoric, the GOP has obtained the lion's share of these people's votes while being responsible for electing 3 of the 4 most statist and protectionist regimes since WWII (Reagan and the two Bushes ( ... )
Reply
Leave a comment