(03-01-2016 02:40 AM)OhioBobcatJohn Wrote: For those of us that will never vote for Hillary Clinton and are offended by Trump trashing the establishment of the party there is the option of former Republican governor Gary Johnson and his Libertarian party. Very easy option for those that respect Senator Rand Paul contributions to the debates. Small government two term NM governor who vetoed spending. This could be the year the libertarian party gets over 10% from Republicans who are not pleased with the Tea party wing hijacking the party and nominating Trump. Trump will have to worry about Hillary and defections from the Republican side to the libertarian party.
I don't like to throw my vote away so I may have to pinch my nose this time around. My libertarian vote in 2012 did no good.
Did Obama win your state by 1 vote?
Not sure why you think an R vote would be so much more meaningful..
Did the libertarians use my 1 vote to set up a groundswell of support for 2016?
(03-01-2016 06:11 PM)Kaplony Wrote: How are you going to have a military capable of protecting a country that's as large as the US, two isolated states and multiple isolated territories when you are going to cut taxes and cut spending?
Increase the part that is actually protecting the country, and cut out the part that is getting our young men and women killed in the process of making the Middle East worse. Never fight a war that you don't intend to win.
Quote:How are you going to assure public safety when you are just going to cut budgets, neuter law enforcement, and make drugs legal? When (and it will be when, not if) there is another terror attack like the Boston Marathon Bombing or San Bernardino are you going to force law enforcement into facing terrorists armed with rifles and bombs with hand guns and regular cars?
Law enforcement is not what we cut. That's a perfectly legitimate government function. We're going to increase their ability to deal with real criminals who hurt other people by not forcing them to waste time screwing around with victimless "crimes." What we are going to cut is all of the failed social engineering experiments that have made the situation worse.
Quote:How is isolationism going to work this time when the only time it has worked in history is for a small Alpine country that's practically a natural fortress and is armed to the teeth?
Number one, it's not isolationism, it's non-intervention. Isolationism is North Korea. Libertarians will have very active trade and other involvement with those countries. And if they piss us off, we will go kill them. But otherwise we won't mess in their business. And we plan to be a large American country that has considerable natural defenses (called Atlantic and Pacific) and is armed to the teeth.
a friend of mine said to me after i made fun of his bernie sanders shirt, "you don't really care who wins do you? you just want to **** burn down." that'd be ideal and i think four years of trump would do that. it's either a viable third party in whatever year that would be or it's stink's first line of his sig and we start electing celebrities for prez. politics would be so important for the average citizen. they'd be super f*cking informed if however your celebrity du jour is but boo clint eastwood! boo clint eastwood! he doesn't speak for me!
(03-01-2016 06:11 PM)Kaplony Wrote: How are you going to have a military capable of protecting a country that's as large as the US, two isolated states and multiple isolated territories when you are going to cut taxes and cut spending?
Increase the part that is actually protecting the country, and cut out the part that is getting our young men and women killed in the process of making the Middle East worse. Never fight a war that you don't intend to win.
Quote:How are you going to assure public safety when you are just going to cut budgets, neuter law enforcement, and make drugs legal? When (and it will be when, not if) there is another terror attack like the Boston Marathon Bombing or San Bernardino are you going to force law enforcement into facing terrorists armed with rifles and bombs with hand guns and regular cars?
Law enforcement is not what we cut. That's a perfectly legitimate government function. We're going to increase their ability to deal with real criminals who hurt other people by not forcing them to waste time screwing around with victimless "crimes." What we are going to cut is all of the failed social engineering experiments that have made the situation worse.
Quote:How is isolationism going to work this time when the only time it has worked in history is for a small Alpine country that's practically a natural fortress and is armed to the teeth?
Number one, it's not isolationism, it's non-intervention. Isolationism is North Korea. Libertarians will have very active trade and other involvement with those countries. And if they piss us off, we will go kill them. But otherwise we won't mess in their business. And we plan to be a large American country that has considerable natural defenses (called Atlantic and Pacific) and is armed to the teeth.
(03-01-2016 06:11 PM)Kaplony Wrote: If this were 1980 you might have a point, but with the explosion of non-traditional media sources today that's about as lame of an excuse as one can put out.
New media has exceptionally poor penetration beyond the millenials. Also, you're assuming people are actively hunting new information. They're not. We both know 3 out of 4 people voting couldn't even NAME the third party candidates running. It takes a biblical amount of media (read: MONEY) to overcome apathy and disillusionment (see: Perot/Trump).
(03-01-2016 06:11 PM)Kaplony Wrote: Maybe when the Libertarian Party can come up with some actual substance and answers for questions like these:
How are you going to have a military capable of protecting a country that's as large as the US, two isolated states and multiple isolated territories when you are going to cut taxes and cut spending?
Entitlements. We both know that the lion's share of the budget goes right out the damn door in entitlements and debt service. The military gets most of what is left. You tackle entitlements you free up truly huge sums of money. An equally good question to ask the Republican Party, by the way:
How are you going to have a military capable of protecting a country that's as large as the US, two isolated states and multiple isolated territories when all the money goes to entitlements and debt and we can't even pay for that? Because that's where we'll be in another 10-20 years.
(03-01-2016 06:11 PM)Kaplony Wrote: How are you going to assure public safety when you are just going to cut budgets, neuter law enforcement, and make drugs legal? When (and it will be when, not if) there is another terror attack like the Boston Marathon Bombing or San Bernardino are you going to force law enforcement into facing terrorists armed with rifles and bombs with hand guns and regular cars?
Most public safety money (and I don't consider Pentagon paramilitary hand-me-downs pubic safety) comes from your local government. Stop asking the federal government to do things it was never intended to do and does not have the Constitutional authority to do (except in the very niche case of crimes across state lines and on federal property, and I got a bridge to sell you if you think the FBI doesn't already have the manpower to handle that specific mission). Speaking more specifically, I'd actually pay LEOs more and better equip them. I think a big problem we see with poor cop behavior is that we ask cops to put their life on the line, deal with the worst people in society every day, and then turn around and pay them crap for it. Of course you're going to attract power hungry and violent people under those cirumstances. Pay them more. Equip them better. And body cams for everyone. Body cams, btw, 95% of the time agree with the cop in court. The cops should be the very first ones asking for body cams. It's in their own interest.
(03-01-2016 06:11 PM)Kaplony Wrote: How is isolationism going to work this time when the only time it has worked in history is for a small Alpine country that's practically a natural fortress and is armed to the teeth?
You confuse isolationism with non-interventionism. I want the foreign policy George W. Bush campaigned on in 2000:
(03-02-2016 10:49 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:
(03-01-2016 06:11 PM)Kaplony Wrote: How are you going to have a military capable of protecting a country that's as large as the US, two isolated states and multiple isolated territories when you are going to cut taxes and cut spending?
Increase the part that is actually protecting the country, and cut out the part that is getting our young men and women killed in the process of making the Middle East worse. Never fight a war that you don't intend to win.
Quote:How are you going to assure public safety when you are just going to cut budgets, neuter law enforcement, and make drugs legal? When (and it will be when, not if) there is another terror attack like the Boston Marathon Bombing or San Bernardino are you going to force law enforcement into facing terrorists armed with rifles and bombs with hand guns and regular cars?
Law enforcement is not what we cut. That's a perfectly legitimate government function. We're going to increase their ability to deal with real criminals who hurt other people by not forcing them to waste time screwing around with victimless "crimes." What we are going to cut is all of the failed social engineering experiments that have made the situation worse.
Quote:How is isolationism going to work this time when the only time it has worked in history is for a small Alpine country that's practically a natural fortress and is armed to the teeth?
Number one, it's not isolationism, it's non-intervention. Isolationism is North Korea. Libertarians will have very active trade and other involvement with those countries. And if they piss us off, we will go kill them. But otherwise we won't mess in their business. And we plan to be a large American country that has considerable natural defenses (called Atlantic and Pacific) and is armed to the teeth.
Good responses, but point out anywhere on the official Libertarian Party platform page or Gary Johnson's own platform page where any of that is covered. I'll wait...
You can't because it's not. Maybe instead of blaming the media for not getting the message out the Libertarian Party needs to look inward a whole lot more. But it's much easier to blame someone else rather than admit you have failed.
(03-01-2016 06:11 PM)Kaplony Wrote: If this were 1980 you might have a point, but with the explosion of non-traditional media sources today that's about as lame of an excuse as one can put out.
New media has exceptionally poor penetration beyond the millenials. Also, you're assuming people are actively hunting new information. They're not. We both know 3 out of 4 people voting couldn't even NAME the third party candidates running. It takes a biblical amount of media (read: MONEY) to overcome apathy and disillusionment (see: Perot/Trump).
(03-01-2016 06:11 PM)Kaplony Wrote: Maybe when the Libertarian Party can come up with some actual substance and answers for questions like these:
How are you going to have a military capable of protecting a country that's as large as the US, two isolated states and multiple isolated territories when you are going to cut taxes and cut spending?
Entitlements. We both know that the lion's share of the budget goes right out the damn door in entitlements and debt service. The military gets most of what is left. You tackle entitlements you free up truly huge sums of money. An equally good question to ask the Republican Party, by the way:
How are you going to have a military capable of protecting a country that's as large as the US, two isolated states and multiple isolated territories when all the money goes to entitlements and debt and we can't even pay for that? Because that's where we'll be in another 10-20 years.
(03-01-2016 06:11 PM)Kaplony Wrote: How are you going to assure public safety when you are just going to cut budgets, neuter law enforcement, and make drugs legal? When (and it will be when, not if) there is another terror attack like the Boston Marathon Bombing or San Bernardino are you going to force law enforcement into facing terrorists armed with rifles and bombs with hand guns and regular cars?
Most public safety money (and I don't consider Pentagon paramilitary hand-me-downs pubic safety) comes from your local government. Stop asking the federal government to do things it was never intended to do and does not have the Constitutional authority to do (except in the very niche case of crimes across state lines and on federal property, and I got a bridge to sell you if you think the FBI doesn't already have the manpower to handle that specific mission). Speaking more specifically, I'd actually pay LEOs more and better equip them. I think a big problem we see with poor cop behavior is that we ask cops to put their life on the line, deal with the worst people in society every day, and then turn around and pay them crap for it. Of course you're going to attract power hungry and violent people under those cirumstances. Pay them more. Equip them better. And body cams for everyone. Body cams, btw, 95% of the time agree with the cop in court. The cops should be the very first ones asking for body cams. It's in their own interest.
(03-01-2016 06:11 PM)Kaplony Wrote: How is isolationism going to work this time when the only time it has worked in history is for a small Alpine country that's practically a natural fortress and is armed to the teeth?
You confuse isolationism with non-interventionism. I want the foreign policy George W. Bush campaigned on in 2000:
(03-02-2016 10:49 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:
(03-01-2016 06:11 PM)Kaplony Wrote: How are you going to have a military capable of protecting a country that's as large as the US, two isolated states and multiple isolated territories when you are going to cut taxes and cut spending?
Increase the part that is actually protecting the country, and cut out the part that is getting our young men and women killed in the process of making the Middle East worse. Never fight a war that you don't intend to win.
Quote:How are you going to assure public safety when you are just going to cut budgets, neuter law enforcement, and make drugs legal? When (and it will be when, not if) there is another terror attack like the Boston Marathon Bombing or San Bernardino are you going to force law enforcement into facing terrorists armed with rifles and bombs with hand guns and regular cars?
Law enforcement is not what we cut. That's a perfectly legitimate government function. We're going to increase their ability to deal with real criminals who hurt other people by not forcing them to waste time screwing around with victimless "crimes." What we are going to cut is all of the failed social engineering experiments that have made the situation worse.
Quote:How is isolationism going to work this time when the only time it has worked in history is for a small Alpine country that's practically a natural fortress and is armed to the teeth?
Number one, it's not isolationism, it's non-intervention. Isolationism is North Korea. Libertarians will have very active trade and other involvement with those countries. And if they piss us off, we will go kill them. But otherwise we won't mess in their business. And we plan to be a large American country that has considerable natural defenses (called Atlantic and Pacific) and is armed to the teeth.
Good responses, but point out anywhere on the official Libertarian Party platform page or Gary Johnson's own platform page where any of that is covered. I'll wait...
You can't because it's not. Maybe instead of blaming the media for not getting the message out the Libertarian Party needs to look inward a whole lot more. But it's much easier to blame someone else rather than admit you have failed.
We support the maintenance of a sufficient military to defend the United States against aggression. The United States should both avoid entangling alliances and abandon its attempts to act as policeman for the world. American foreign policy should seek an America at peace with the world. Our foreign policy should emphasize defense against attack from abroad and enhance the likelihood of peace by avoiding foreign entanglements. We would end the current U.S. government policy of foreign intervention, including military and economic aid. (LP platform)
Your idea of cutting law enforcement is just a strawman. Why would the platform address that when nobody associated with the party is advocating it?
The objective of both our foreign policy and our military should be straightforward: To protect us from harm and to allow the exercise of our freedoms. Looking back over the past couple of decades, it is difficult to see how the wars we have waged, the interventions we have conducted, the lives sacrificed and the trillions spent on the other side of the globe have made us safer. The chaotic, reactive military and foreign policies of the past two Presidents have, if anything, created an environment that has allowed real threats to our safety to flourish.
Radical Islam and sharia ideology were not created by our actions, but they have prospered in the wake of the instability to which our actions contributed. And while our leaders have thrust our military and our resources into regime changes, failed nation-building and interventions that have strained valuable strategic relationships, the murderers of ISIS, Al Qaeda and other violent extremes have found new homes, established the caliphate of their warped dreams and secured the resources to become very real threats to our lives and our liberty.
As President, Gary Johnson will move quickly and decisively to refocus U.S. efforts and resources to attack the real threats we face in a strategic, thoughtful way. The U.S. must get serious about cutting off the millions of dollars that are flowing into the extremists’ coffers every day. Relationships with strategic allies must be repaired and reinforced. And the simplistic options of “more boots on the ground” and dropping more bombs must be replaced with strategies that will isolate and ultimately neuter those who would, if able, destroy the very liberties on which this nation is founded.
(03-01-2016 06:11 PM)Kaplony Wrote: How are you going to have a military capable of protecting a country that's as large as the US, two isolated states and multiple isolated territories when you are going to cut taxes and cut spending?
Increase the part that is actually protecting the country, and cut out the part that is getting our young men and women killed in the process of making the Middle East worse. Never fight a war that you don't intend to win.
Quote:How are you going to assure public safety when you are just going to cut budgets, neuter law enforcement, and make drugs legal? When (and it will be when, not if) there is another terror attack like the Boston Marathon Bombing or San Bernardino are you going to force law enforcement into facing terrorists armed with rifles and bombs with hand guns and regular cars?
Law enforcement is not what we cut. That's a perfectly legitimate government function. We're going to increase their ability to deal with real criminals who hurt other people by not forcing them to waste time screwing around with victimless "crimes." What we are going to cut is all of the failed social engineering experiments that have made the situation worse.
Quote:How is isolationism going to work this time when the only time it has worked in history is for a small Alpine country that's practically a natural fortress and is armed to the teeth?
Number one, it's not isolationism, it's non-intervention. Isolationism is North Korea. Libertarians will have very active trade and other involvement with those countries. And if they piss us off, we will go kill them. But otherwise we won't mess in their business. And we plan to be a large American country that has considerable natural defenses (called Atlantic and Pacific) and is armed to the teeth.
Good responses, but point out anywhere on the official Libertarian Party platform page or Gary Johnson's own platform page where any of that is covered. I'll wait...
I think others are doing a pretty good job of that already.
(03-02-2016 12:54 PM)Kaplony Wrote: You can't because it's not. Maybe instead of blaming the media for not getting the message out the Libertarian Party needs to look inward a whole lot more. But it's much easier to blame someone else rather than admit you have failed.
First, Johnson's probably the strongest candidate in terms of pragmatism and successful resume (two-term governor with high approval rating) the LP's had in a long time. Usually, LP politicians and members are too "purist" for my taste.
Second, it's a vicious, unending cycle: Johnson won't get mainstream media attention until LP candidates get more than table scraps in election cycles, but LP candidates won't get more than table scraps until they get more mainstream media attention.
(03-01-2016 06:11 PM)Kaplony Wrote: If this were 1980 you might have a point, but with the explosion of non-traditional media sources today that's about as lame of an excuse as one can put out.
New media has exceptionally poor penetration beyond the millenials. Also, you're assuming people are actively hunting new information. They're not. We both know 3 out of 4 people voting couldn't even NAME the third party candidates running. It takes a biblical amount of media (read: MONEY) to overcome apathy and disillusionment (see: Perot/Trump).
(03-01-2016 06:11 PM)Kaplony Wrote: Maybe when the Libertarian Party can come up with some actual substance and answers for questions like these:
How are you going to have a military capable of protecting a country that's as large as the US, two isolated states and multiple isolated territories when you are going to cut taxes and cut spending?
Entitlements. We both know that the lion's share of the budget goes right out the damn door in entitlements and debt service. The military gets most of what is left. You tackle entitlements you free up truly huge sums of money. An equally good question to ask the Republican Party, by the way:
How are you going to have a military capable of protecting a country that's as large as the US, two isolated states and multiple isolated territories when all the money goes to entitlements and debt and we can't even pay for that? Because that's where we'll be in another 10-20 years.
(03-01-2016 06:11 PM)Kaplony Wrote: How are you going to assure public safety when you are just going to cut budgets, neuter law enforcement, and make drugs legal? When (and it will be when, not if) there is another terror attack like the Boston Marathon Bombing or San Bernardino are you going to force law enforcement into facing terrorists armed with rifles and bombs with hand guns and regular cars?
Most public safety money (and I don't consider Pentagon paramilitary hand-me-downs pubic safety) comes from your local government. Stop asking the federal government to do things it was never intended to do and does not have the Constitutional authority to do (except in the very niche case of crimes across state lines and on federal property, and I got a bridge to sell you if you think the FBI doesn't already have the manpower to handle that specific mission). Speaking more specifically, I'd actually pay LEOs more and better equip them. I think a big problem we see with poor cop behavior is that we ask cops to put their life on the line, deal with the worst people in society every day, and then turn around and pay them crap for it. Of course you're going to attract power hungry and violent people under those cirumstances. Pay them more. Equip them better. And body cams for everyone. Body cams, btw, 95% of the time agree with the cop in court. The cops should be the very first ones asking for body cams. It's in their own interest.
(03-01-2016 06:11 PM)Kaplony Wrote: How is isolationism going to work this time when the only time it has worked in history is for a small Alpine country that's practically a natural fortress and is armed to the teeth?
You confuse isolationism with non-interventionism. I want the foreign policy George W. Bush campaigned on in 2000:
(03-02-2016 10:49 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:
(03-01-2016 06:11 PM)Kaplony Wrote: How are you going to have a military capable of protecting a country that's as large as the US, two isolated states and multiple isolated territories when you are going to cut taxes and cut spending?
Increase the part that is actually protecting the country, and cut out the part that is getting our young men and women killed in the process of making the Middle East worse. Never fight a war that you don't intend to win.
Quote:How are you going to assure public safety when you are just going to cut budgets, neuter law enforcement, and make drugs legal? When (and it will be when, not if) there is another terror attack like the Boston Marathon Bombing or San Bernardino are you going to force law enforcement into facing terrorists armed with rifles and bombs with hand guns and regular cars?
Law enforcement is not what we cut. That's a perfectly legitimate government function. We're going to increase their ability to deal with real criminals who hurt other people by not forcing them to waste time screwing around with victimless "crimes." What we are going to cut is all of the failed social engineering experiments that have made the situation worse.
Quote:How is isolationism going to work this time when the only time it has worked in history is for a small Alpine country that's practically a natural fortress and is armed to the teeth?
Number one, it's not isolationism, it's non-intervention. Isolationism is North Korea. Libertarians will have very active trade and other involvement with those countries. And if they piss us off, we will go kill them. But otherwise we won't mess in their business. And we plan to be a large American country that has considerable natural defenses (called Atlantic and Pacific) and is armed to the teeth.
Good responses, but point out anywhere on the official Libertarian Party platform page or Gary Johnson's own platform page where any of that is covered. I'll wait...
You can't because it's not. Maybe instead of blaming the media for not getting the message out the Libertarian Party needs to look inward a whole lot more. But it's much easier to blame someone else rather than admit you have failed.
We support the maintenance of a sufficient military to defend the United States against aggression. The United States should both avoid entangling alliances and abandon its attempts to act as policeman for the world. American foreign policy should seek an America at peace with the world. Our foreign policy should emphasize defense against attack from abroad and enhance the likelihood of peace by avoiding foreign entanglements. We would end the current U.S. government policy of foreign intervention, including military and economic aid. (LP platform)
Your idea of cutting law enforcement is just a strawman. Why would the platform address that when nobody associated with the party is advocating it?
They support it, but how are they going to do it while cutting spending and taxes? We don't have the capability of defending our country as it is, but we are supposed to be able to do it with less?
(03-02-2016 03:34 PM)Motown Bronco Wrote: And from Gary Johnson's page:
The objective of both our foreign policy and our military should be straightforward: To protect us from harm and to allow the exercise of our freedoms. Looking back over the past couple of decades, it is difficult to see how the wars we have waged, the interventions we have conducted, the lives sacrificed and the trillions spent on the other side of the globe have made us safer. The chaotic, reactive military and foreign policies of the past two Presidents have, if anything, created an environment that has allowed real threats to our safety to flourish.
Radical Islam and sharia ideology were not created by our actions, but they have prospered in the wake of the instability to which our actions contributed. And while our leaders have thrust our military and our resources into regime changes, failed nation-building and interventions that have strained valuable strategic relationships, the murderers of ISIS, Al Qaeda and other violent extremes have found new homes, established the caliphate of their warped dreams and secured the resources to become very real threats to our lives and our liberty.
As President, Gary Johnson will move quickly and decisively to refocus U.S. efforts and resources to attack the real threats we face in a strategic, thoughtful way. The U.S. must get serious about cutting off the millions of dollars that are flowing into the extremists’ coffers every day. Relationships with strategic allies must be repaired and reinforced. And the simplistic options of “more boots on the ground” and dropping more bombs must be replaced with strategies that will isolate and ultimately neuter those who would, if able, destroy the very liberties on which this nation is founded.
So how is he going to accomplish this goal and his primary goal (as referenced with it's position on his platform listing) of cutting spending and reducing taxes? He stated in that section he's going to cut the defense budget, so how's he going to accomplish this goal? Do like every other Libertarian out there wants to do and privatize the military? Are we going to have Tigerswan, DynCorp and Blackwater/Xe/Academi protecting us?
(03-02-2016 04:09 PM)Motown Bronco Wrote: To put things in perspective:
Here's our defense spending relative to other countries, including heavyweights like Russia and China:
And countries like France, UK and Germany are thrifty spenders because we are their de facto department of defense.
Moreover, according to the Pentagon's own figures, the U.S. has 662 overseas bases in 38 foreign countries.
I think we could downsize a bit and still be the biggest, baddest kid on the block.
To add some perspective to that perspective:
Personnel costs are a huge component of defense costs and several of the countries listed--China, Russia, Saudi, and India--have substantially lower personnel costs per capita than we do. If they had the same labor cost as we do, China would be pretty close to us, and China and Russia together would be substantially larger than we are. Moreover, China is growing very rapidly and on the present trajectory would likely overtake us in about 10 years, even with the difference in labor costs.
One reason we spend so much goes back to the Bretton Woods agreements at the end of WWII. They were not just currency agreements. We also agreed pretty much to become the worldwide power projection force for all of western Europe so that their resources could be devoted to rebuilding from the war. Once UK pulled out of everywhere east of Suez (July 1971) we were pretty much left as the only overseas deploying military force in the world. Arguably, it is time to revisit those agreements.
That being said, there's still a heck of a lot that we can cut back. I personally think we could probably trim 1/4 while actually increasing defense capability and readiness. I've posted previously how I would get there.
(This post was last modified: 03-02-2016 04:44 PM by Owl 69/70/75.)
(03-02-2016 04:09 PM)Motown Bronco Wrote: To put things in perspective:
Here's our defense spending relative to other countries, including heavyweights like Russia and China:
And countries like France, UK and Germany are thrifty spenders because we are their de facto department of defense.
Moreover, according to the Pentagon's own figures, the U.S. has 662 overseas bases in 38 foreign countries.
I think we could downsize a bit and still be the biggest, baddest kid on the block.
So we are going to compare the budgets of a continental country like the US with a country that is smaller than our second biggest state (France) and one that is 85% the size of our third largest (Germany)? And where exactly do we have troops based in France? How about the garrisoned combat forces in Germany? Where are they at?
Russia and China have a huge advantage out the US in that they have huge amounts of undeveloped territory that allows them to trade time for space to consolidate their defenses. The Russians in particular have used this technique for centuries, just ask the Swedes, French, and Germans. Both of our coastlines are more highly developed and have major cities within easy striking distance. Unless someone invades us via Alaska we don't have that luxury.....unless you are willing to write off Boston, NYC, Philadelphia, San Diego, or any other coastal city. Is that OK with you? Just write off some of our cities while we consolidate fewer forces and equipment to confront an invasion? In my personal experience from disaster response don't expect to see the National Guard for at a minimum 12 hours, in most cases much, much longer. Maybe the fewer cops out there from budget cuts can hold them off with handguns.
A large portion of our military presence overseas is based in Japan. As part of surrender terms with Japan following WWII we took on initially full, and later partial responsibility for their defense in order to prevent a repeat of WWII. Another large portion of our overseas full time garrison is in South Korea, primarily because we are still at war with North Korea.
(03-02-2016 05:22 PM)Kaplony Wrote: So we are going to compare the budgets of a continental country like the US with a country that is smaller than our second biggest state (France) and one that is 85% the size of our third largest (Germany)? And where exactly do we have troops based in France? How about the garrisoned combat forces in Germany? Where are they at?
Russia and China have a huge advantage out the US in that they have huge amounts of undeveloped territory that allows them to trade time for space to consolidate their defenses. The Russians in particular have used this technique for centuries, just ask the Swedes, French, and Germans. Both of our coastlines are more highly developed and have major cities within easy striking distance. Unless someone invades us via Alaska we don't have that luxury.....unless you are willing to write off Boston, NYC, Philadelphia, San Diego, or any other coastal city. Is that OK with you? Just write off some of our cities while we consolidate fewer forces and equipment to confront an invasion? In my personal experience from disaster response don't expect to see the National Guard for at a minimum 12 hours, in most cases much, much longer. Maybe the fewer cops out there from budget cuts can hold them off with handguns.
A large portion of our military presence overseas is based in Japan. As part of surrender terms with Japan following WWII we took on initially full, and later partial responsibility for their defense in order to prevent a repeat of WWII. Another large portion of our overseas full time garrison is in South Korea, primarily because we are still at war with North Korea.
I'm a strong believer in Air Craft Carrier Task Forces. I wouldn't have a base ANYWHERE overseas I could instead place an ACCTF. And you could easily defend the continental coastline -- all of it -- and provide early warning with just 5 ACCTF. That assumes the Canadians don't have our back for anything which won't be the case. We can post a cruise missile to any mailbox in the world right now. Those bases have nothing to do with that operational ability. And most of your needs gripes are defensive in nature. A libertarian is only too happy to spend good money for a good defense.
And if you really want to ruffle some features, how about this ...
The Army and Air Force should have reduced roles and scope and the Marines and Navy should have increased ones to better match with the dynamics of matter warfare. I wouldn't bat an eye folding the Army into the Marines and the Air Force into the Navy.
(03-01-2016 02:40 AM)OhioBobcatJohn Wrote: For those of us that will never vote for Hillary Clinton and are offended by Trump trashing the establishment of the party there is the option of former Republican governor Gary Johnson and his Libertarian party. Very easy option for those that respect Senator Rand Paul contributions to the debates. Small government two term NM governor who vetoed spending. This could be the year the libertarian party gets over 10% from Republicans who are not pleased with the Tea party wing hijacking the party and nominating Trump. Trump will have to worry about Hillary and defections from the Republican side to the libertarian party.
Maybe he will crack 1% of the popular vote this time....
/
The libertarian option of Gary Johnson
on all points.
![[Image: B8MFbGx.gif]](http://i.imgur.com/B8MFbGx.gif)
