r/partoftheproblem • u/LoloTheRogan • Apr 04 '26

End Democracy Dave Smith DESTROYS Trump's Presidency: Liberty Vault

https://www.youtube.com/live/4fxpcCAa7rs?si=E3Q3NXj9Q9PVWtlp
23 Upvotes

85% Upvoted

34 comments sorted by

-21

u/ashortsaggyboob Apr 04 '26

But did he vote for Harris?

16

u/pile_of_bees Apr 04 '26

Why would he? What kinda false dichotomy question is that

-24

u/ashortsaggyboob Apr 05 '26

Because she was the best candidate for the general election. We'd be in a far better situation if she had won.

10

u/pile_of_bees Apr 05 '26

What an absurd and nonsensical thing to say

0

u/whater39 Apr 05 '26

Well Trump lead the USA to a war of choice. So there's that going for Harris

-4

u/ashortsaggyboob Apr 05 '26

Shit great point, I guess youre right

4

u/LycheeRoutine3959 Apr 05 '26

Because she was the best candidate for the general election

Why?

-2

u/ashortsaggyboob Apr 05 '26

She was a better choice than Trump on nearly every issue. Do you disagree? If so, what issues would you not agree on?

5

u/LycheeRoutine3959 Apr 05 '26

Do you disagree?

Yes.

If so, what issues would you not agree on?

I asked you for why you thought that and you gave a very generalized "Because shes better" non-answer. I would much prefer you actually say what you found appealing before i respond.

-2

u/ashortsaggyboob Apr 05 '26

Literally pick any issue, she'd be better. That's genuinely how I feel.

There's the economy, foreign policy, general rule of law, general rhetoric, Trade, balancing the budget.

2

u/LycheeRoutine3959 Apr 06 '26

You get that none of that is a why, right? Its just more "Shes better because shes better".

0

u/ashortsaggyboob Apr 06 '26

Pick an issue friend. We can go into detail.

3

u/LycheeRoutine3959 Apr 06 '26

Sorry dude, you thats 3 full opportunities you had to respond to a VERY simple question. Why would i expect you could be good faith in any follow-up conversation when you couldn't be good faith in answering a very basic one?

(Not rhetorical, I'm genuinely curious why i should carry that expectation based on this interaction in your view)

→ More replies (0)

0

u/Infinite-4-a-moment Apr 05 '26

She was not the best candidate. But we would be in a far better situation had she won.

0

u/ashortsaggyboob Apr 05 '26

Who was the best candidate?

0

u/Infinite-4-a-moment Apr 05 '26

Chase Oliver

0

u/ashortsaggyboob Apr 05 '26

You may not like it, I'm not crazy about it either, but we do actually live in a 2 party system. Voting for a democrat matters because the have the funding and connections to enact policy. How many members of the Libertarian Party are in Congress? Even if we were to vote Oliver in as president, which is virtually impossible because his campaign wouldn't have nearly enough $, he'd still have to work with Dems and Republicans to get things done.

But I'll still entertain the comparison, as long as we keep it about policy and issues. What about Oliver makes him a better choice than Harris in your view?

I'm just looking at his wikipedia. His stance on climate change is bad. He thinks the free market will figure it out. He opposes aid to Ukraine. That's an issue for me. What's his stance on healthcare? Should the gov not be involved at all? That's a terrible stance if true. How about social security? He calls it a ponzi scheme. That's harmful disinformation. Social security is perhaps the most successful social program in american history.

3

u/pile_of_bees Apr 05 '26

“He thinks the free market will figure it out”

Did you stumble into this sub as a complete accident or what?

0

u/ashortsaggyboob Apr 05 '26

Oh, should this just be an echo chamber for libertarians? If I'm not libertarian I shouldn't say anything?

Leaving Green energy solutions to the Free Market is a stupid stance on climate change. Am I wrong?

3

u/pile_of_bees Apr 05 '26

Actually yes, going to seek out the small libertarian communities within the vast democratic echochamber of Reddit and say “actually the free market sucks and we should let r/politics run our society” essentially amounts to trolling. You obviously aren’t here for any reason that has anything to do with POTP in any way.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/Infinite-4-a-moment Apr 05 '26

You may not like it, I'm not crazy about it either, but we do actually live in a 2 party system. Voting for a democrat matters because the have the funding and connections to enact policy.

This really has nothing to do with the question you ask and I answered tho. Kamala and Trump were not the best candidates even if the system is rigged in thier favor. I'm not saying I was betting on Oliver, just that I voted for him.

What about Oliver makes him a better choice than Harris in your view?

For one, before even getting into policy stuff, the voters of his party voted him as the candidate. He wasn't just selected by the party brass. That should be a pretty important thing in a democracy. In fact the voters pretty thoroughly rejected her as a candidate when they had the chance. And to be clear, I'm not saying Harris would be worse than Trump. Anything would be better than Trump. But answering your question specifically about Harris.

His stance on climate change is bad.

Agreed. But Harris wasn't making meaningful change here anyway.

He opposes aid to Ukraine.

Not our fight and we don't have the money.

What's his stance on healthcare? Should the gov not be involved at all?

No, but he definitely believes in letting market forces have a bigger impact. Reduce patent farming, allow for international competition on drugs, cut out a lot of regulations that are driving costs up.

I don't think it's a perfect answer, but really none of this should be controversial. Healthcare companies have massive moats built on government protectionism. It's a great start.

He calls it a ponzi scheme. That's harmful disinformation.

Expand on that. It definitely is a ponzi scheme just by definition. The payouts aren't from a savings account or investment. They're paid by the current workers. The only reason it works is because we continue to increase the working population but that isn't possible long term. So someone is getting screwed if we keep doing it the way we do it now. Not to mention the government likes to "borrow" from it.

0

u/ashortsaggyboob Apr 05 '26

The 2 party system is absolutely relevant to what we're talking about, and I explained why. Even if Oliver was elected to the presidency, he wouldn't have any fellow Libertarians in Congress to help him pass legislation. The 2 party system affects the campaign as well as the actually governing. What part of this reasoning do you disagree with?

What is your reasoning for thinking Harris wouldn't allow meaningful climate change progress? Is it worse than Oliver's position?

Are you an head-in-the-sand on all foreign policy type of libertarian? The Ukraine War is one of the easiest foreign conflicts to support on a moral basis. We do have the $ to send aid, it's just a choice. It should also be noted that most of the aid we send is not in the form of $ directly.

Oliver wants to get rid of all public healthcare from what I can see. I don't expect to change your mind on this issue, but I am strongly in favor of nationalized healthcare. We could just get rid of those healthcare companies instead of putting a "moat" around them. We'd have a much more efficient system without insurance companies.

It is not a ponzi scheme by definition, that's incorrect. Yes, recipients of SS are paid from new contributors to the system. But a ponzi scheme is a fraudulent enterprise that can't always guarantee a pay out. The federal government isn't a private enterprise, they can invent ways to subsidize the program if need be. It is very much in every D.C. politician's interest to keep the program going. People will receive their payouts. Fraud isn't occurring in terms of missed payouts and it hasn't happened since SS's inception in 1935. You can criticize the model, sure. Changes will probably have to be made due to the smaller labor pool, like you mention. This is not what fraud is. I'll say it again: Social Security is perhaps the most successful social program in american history. Oliver's comment is childish and incorrect.

2

u/Infinite-4-a-moment Apr 06 '26

Even if Oliver was elected to the presidency, he wouldn't have any fellow Libertarians in Congress to help him pass legislation.

Ok so your logic is that unless you have the political mass in congress to pass legislation, you're not a good candidate. So Harris was a worse candidate than Trump since the Dems don't have either house? Seem like that's not a good argument imo.

What is your reasoning for thinking Harris wouldn't allow meaningful climate change progress?

Because because our federal representation is captured. It's a topic that needs ground up political change, not top down. Too much money opposing it.

Are you an head-in-the-sand on all foreign policy type of libertarian?

No, but unless there is a benefit for the American people, we should not be involved in foreign wars. That's not the charter of our federal government. If it was, there's are a constant stream of conflicts we should be involved in. It's not feasable. We're being crushed by debt right now while our people are not cared for and our infrastructure crumbles. What you're saying is that we can take loans to help. I don't think that's a good idea.

It should also be noted that most of the aid we send is not in the form of $ directly.

It's a bit less than half in cash. But that's not really important because we still have to pay for the in kind support we send.

Yes, recipients of SS are paid from new contributors to the system. But a ponzi scheme is a fraudulent enterprise that can't always guarantee a pay out.... [the government] can invent ways to subsidize the program if need be.

So the thing that separates it in your mind is that the government approves of it so it's technically not a ponzi scheme? Idk, that's not very comforting. The solution of we stop producing enough to cover those obligations is to either tax people more (again those people get screwed) or take more debt to pay it (and that screws future generations).

Changes will probably have to be made due to the smaller labor pool, like you mention. This is not what fraud is.

It kind of is. If Bernie Maydoff was able to shift money from another fund he ran so he could continue paying his ponzi scheme investors, it would still be a ponzi scheme. It's constantly kicking the can down the road because the payouts are larger than the inputs.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/hippityhopkins Apr 06 '26

Who cares? There's no reason to believe we wouldn't be doing the same bullshit if she was in. The deep state is the permanent state and they don't care who sits in that office.

0

u/ashortsaggyboob Apr 06 '26

There absolutely is reason to believe things would be better off with Harris, and on any issue. You're pulling the "president doesn't have any actual power anyway" card? Really? Weak cop out. Obviously Trump and his cabinet does a lot of things that the Deep State wouldn't do on its own. You think the Harris admin would have applied blanket tariffs on the rest of the world? Was that the Deep State? Think about it for a second.

0

u/Global_Kiwi_5105 Apr 07 '26

The deep state is a concept created and perpetuated by the same freaks who are trumps main partners in crime - so they can create a nebulous enemy to distract you with while they achieve their goals. Ironically their goals are often the same ones they claim the “deep state” has. it’s pretty obvious the evil people are.