View Poll Results: Do you agree with the Retake Congress Platform?

Voters
17. You may not vote on this poll
  • Too liberal

    0 0%
  • Too Conservative

    2 11.76%
  • Too Libertarian

    4 23.53%
  • Too Moderate

    1 5.88%
  • Just Right

    3 17.65%
  • Other (explain)

    7 41.18%
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 13 of 13

Thread: Do you agree with this platform?

  1. #11
    King Of The Dog Pound
    Black Dog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    South Florida
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    34,497

    Re: Do you agree with this platform?

    I agree with some of it, but some of it is outlandish.

    The main reason I am not libertarian is they go overboard with no compromise on to many issues.
    Quote Originally Posted by Moot View Post
    Benjii likes the protests...he'd be largely irrelevant without them. So he needs to speak where he knows there will be protests against him and that makes him responsible for the protests.
    Quote Originally Posted by Absentglare View Post
    You can successfully wipe your ass with toilet paper, that doesn't mean that you should.

  2. #12
    Equal Opportunity Hater
    obvious Child's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
    Last Seen
    12-09-14 @ 11:36 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    19,883

    Re: Do you agree with this platform?

    Quote Originally Posted by Psychoclown View Post
    The problem I have with some of those treaties is we're obligated to follow the rules even when the other party doesn't.
    Hence why those policies needed better enforcement measures. For instance, the bioweapons convention that "made" the US and Soviets reduce their biological weapons. Except that there was absolutely no enforcement mechanism. Just because some treaties are poorly written does not mean that all treaties are poorly written.

    The conflict in Iraq, both when we were fighting Sadam's forces and insurgents is a prime example. We abide by the rules of war, but the other side does not. To me if the other side doesn't play by the rules, and it is detrimental to our troops or achieving our goals, we should be cleared of any obligation to follow those same rules.
    I was thinking more along the lines of larger conflicts. Like outright invasions. Treaties related to tactical issues on the ground during conflicts have always been difficult to enforce. That doesn't mean we abandon the NPT or the WTO.

    Bilateral treaties with other nations, where both sides agree to forego certain practices or freedoms for mutual benefit are fine by me. But us agreeing to take certain options off the table completely no matter what our opponents do, doesn't make sense to me.
    Then we shouldn't agree to treaties that have significant deficiencies in enforcement. That still doesn't provide an argument against my broader notion. By restricting the freedom of action of the US, we restrict the freedom of action of others. I'd really prefer not to have go to war to stop countries from engaging in things we don't want. That's an exorbitantly bad precedent to set.
    "If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu

  3. #13
    Clown Prince of Politics
    Psychoclown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Hiding from the voices in my head.
    Last Seen
    11-25-17 @ 12:37 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    1,738

    Re: Do you agree with this platform?

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    Hence why those policies needed better enforcement measures. For instance, the bioweapons convention that "made" the US and Soviets reduce their biological weapons. Except that there was absolutely no enforcement mechanism. Just because some treaties are poorly written does not mean that all treaties are poorly written.
    The problem I see is how do you create effective enforcement mechanisms? Since there is no international treaty police force to enforce them, I see only two options. Retaliation - you break the treaty, so I'm going to break it as well. This can be effective, but it can also lead to escalation of hostility over realtively minor issues. Or immediately using military force to enforce the treaty.

    Some treaties could be better served by increasing accountability through inspections or whatever, but as far as actually enforcing the terms of a treaty once its broken, I don't see many practical options.

    I was thinking more along the lines of larger conflicts. Like outright invasions. Treaties related to tactical issues on the ground during conflicts have always been difficult to enforce. That doesn't mean we abandon the NPT or the WTO.
    I don't advocate abandoning all international organizations or treaties. I'm not an isolationist by any stretch.

    Then we shouldn't agree to treaties that have significant deficiencies in enforcement. That still doesn't provide an argument against my broader notion. By restricting the freedom of action of the US, we restrict the freedom of action of others. I'd really prefer not to have go to war to stop countries from engaging in things we don't want. That's an exorbitantly bad precedent to set.
    I agree that surrendering a portion of our soverignty in exchange for other nations surrendering the same rights can be in our best interests. The problem is when we unilaterally surrender certain rights and our opponents or enemies do not. We're making things more difficult for us by taking certain options away, while the other side is not similarly restrained.
    Slipping into madness is good for the sake of comparison - Unknown.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •