{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
originally posted in:Secular Sevens
Edited by Quantum:
7/11/2013 4:47:49 AM
13
And the American right wing libertarians are worse. Green Party FTW! (Even if they aren't perfect).
English
-
Maybe when they learn how to do foreign policy, they'll become serious candidates for me.
-
Let me guess you think they are all a bunch of isolationists right?
-
Edited by Dr. Phil: 7/12/2013 10:07:14 PMGreen Party? No. Pretty opposite in fact.
-
Libertarians.
-
That's just to vague. I know Libertarians who have similar/equal social/domestic policies, but different views on foreign. In theory, libertarianism covers so a lot of different forms. But when it comes to the popular U.S./Ron Paul Libertarianism, I wouldn't say it's 100% isolationism, buuuut it's ridiculously close and there could definitely be an argument making it to be isolationism (I say this because there were many people doing just that in my IR Theory class).
-
It's not isolationism it's non-interventionism. We would still do trade with other countries we just wouldn't get our military involved in so many conflicts where our nation isn't in danger. More troops are killed themselves last year than from enemy combatants. It's obvious occupying all these countries is a bigger threat to our military and nations lives than the actual enemies.
-
Edited by Dr. Phil: 7/13/2013 12:41:43 AMYes, I know. And don't get me wrong, I strongly dislike both isolationism and noninterventionism. I've heard this plenty of times. Idealistically speaking, it sounds like a solid plan in theory. But in reality though, it's not good at all. First thing, we don't go to war for no reason. There's always an agenda, some self-interest that will in time, benefit the nation. Whether it be nation building, securing resources, or establishing spheres of influence. All of which are important. Second, non-interventionism would not benefit the U.S. Participating in global engagements and "intervening" is necessary to sustain the U.S. hegemony. Closing the military bases, withdrawing all troops abroad, and only focusing on National Defense weakens our geopolitical influence abroad and our allies. On top of that, reverting to the gold standard would severely damage our global economic participation. Not to mention the drastic military cuts. By trying to implement noninterventionism, you'd result in implementing isolationism. Not to mention you wouldn't really have the ability to intervene if you wanted to. I can guarantee you that installing a Ron Paul government would change the way Americans live their lives, and not in a good way. There's a reason why Paul gets little attention by the MSM, it's of common consensus to every foreign policy expert, that his foreign policy plans are seriously dangerous, or in internet crazy, batshit crazy.
-
[quote]Maybe when they learn how to do foreign policy, they'll become serious candidates.[/quote]
-
-
and the green party supports psuedoscience, YAY.
-
Link? I am unaware of this; do they support some random stupid scientific theory, or are you claiming that climate change is pseudoscience? If it is the latter I have a bridge to sell to you.
-
they support "alternative medicine" From their website: Greens support a wide-range of health care services, not just traditional medicine which too often emphasizes "a medical arms race" that relies upon high-tech intervention, surgical techniques and costly pharmaceuticals. Chronic conditions are often best cured by alternative medicine. We support the teaching, funding and practice of holistic health approaches and as appropriate, the use of complementary and alternative therapies such as herbal medicines, homeopathy, naturopathy, traditional Chinese medicine and other healing approaches.
-
Edited by Quantum: 7/11/2013 4:48:16 AMEhhh... thanks for informing me on that. I have supported their economic/social policy as a whole, or at least parts of it, but I was ignorant to that fact.
