What presidential candidate would be most beneficial to the climbing community and land access?

Tim Lutz wrote: A field of one. super valid bro.

yo bro brah, I'm totally stoked that you commented on my comment. That is so gnar.

The point I was trying to make is that to say there is some conspiracy and that only 3 companies control the meat in the entire country is entirely false. There are plenty of independent farmers out there. Do the companies control what get's sold at the supermarket? Possibly. You can always go directly to the farm or to a farmers market. There's always a choice.

Stanford economics professor Thomas Sowell: The most fundamental fact about the ideas of the political left is that they do not work. Therefore we should not be surprised to find the left concentrated in institutions where ideas do not have to work in order to survive.

Todd Graham wrote:Milton Friedman: Indeed, a major source of objection to a free economy is precisely that it... gives people what they want instead of what a particular group thinks they ought to want. Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself.

To quote spiderman: "With great freedom comes great responsibility"

Unfortunately I don't think most Americans are responsible enough to handle it. Case in point:

We are free to watch whatever we want on TV. We could choose to watch educational TV: PBS, History Channel, Nat GEO, etc; instead we (as a country - not me personally) choose to watch Kim Kardashian.

The freedom to choose includes the freedom to chose unwisely.

Mathias wrote: This is a big issue because thinking along these lines fail to take into consideration what the government should and should not be doing with our taxes. Waging wars in other countries; keeping hundreds of military bases open world wide; giving large sums to countries such as Pakistan so that we can use their airspace; increased regulation and an increased law enforcement system (such as the DEA and the war on drugs); imprisoning no-violent offenders; the, historically, ever expanding welfare system; gas and oil subsidies; agricultural subsidies; bail-outs for the auto industry and banks; hand-outs to "preferred" renewable energy companies; etc, etc. Then they claim they need more money and if they can't get it from us they have the federal reserve create it (which can be argued cause inflation). The federal government needs operating capital to perform certain functions that are necessary or preferable to our society. But a lot of what they do just isn't helping anyone they claim it is supposed to help. The States, meanwhile, are losing sovereignty and meaning. I'm told there once was a time you could "vote with your feet" if you didn't like a new state law,and just move to another state. But with the overbearing federal government legislating everything, that's no longer an option. They won't stop spending more or grabbing power and control until we vote in people who feel the government has too much power. Our current system requires you to choose between power-grabber'D' and power-grabber 'R'. These options are not the solution we need, in my opinion.

I did say "sometimes," if you recall. The issue of what the government should do with taxes and whether or not a tax hike is the proper solution for a funding issue is much more nuanced than "Taxes go up because government needs money." I'm not so naiive that I believe that tax increases are the solution to every government funding issue, nor do I believe that the government makes the correct decisions with taxpayer money 100% of the time. But again, that wasn't really my point. I was more trying to convey the idea that wanting lower taxes is easy to understand, but knowing that in some instances an increase in taxes is the right decision is a better belief system. I'm not making a statement on the specific instances this is the case, just making a general statement.

Although, if you're upset with the "current system" (I'm assuming you mean the voting system, correct me if I'm wrong), do you consider yourself an advocate for things that can create a more diverse political environment? Things like Mixed-Member Proportional Representation coupled with an Instant Runoff (or Single Transferable Vote, very similar in function) voting system encourage political diversity and better represent the will of the people, in theory. Do you consider these worthy alternatives to the current system, or would you say that more proportional systems encourage the "tyranny of the majority?"

I'm not trying to advocate for either side or start an argument, just curious as to what your beliefs are, given your statements above.

Black Stanford economics professor Thomas Sowell: If you have always believed that everyone should play by the same rules and be judged by the same standards, that would have gotten you labeled a radical 60 years ago, a liberal 30 years ago and a racist today.

Quinn Baker wrote: I did say "sometimes," if you recall. The issue of what the government should do with taxes and whether or not a tax hike is the proper solution for a funding issue is much more nuanced than "Taxes go up because government needs money." I'm not so naiive that I believe that tax increases are the solution to every government funding issue, nor do I believe that the government makes the correct decisions with taxpayer money 100% of the time. But again, that wasn't really my point. I was more trying to convey the idea that wanting lower taxes is easy to understand, but knowing that in some instances an increase in taxes is the right decision is a better belief system. I'm not making a statement on the specific instances this is the case, just making a general statement. Although, if you're upset with the "current system" (I'm assuming you mean the voting system, correct me if I'm wrong), do you consider yourself an advocate for things that can create a more diverse political environment? Things like Mixed-Member Proportional Representation coupled with an Instant Runoff (or Single Transferable Vote, very similar in function) voting system encourage political diversity and better represent the will of the people, in theory. Do you consider these worthy alternatives to the current system, or would you say that more proportional systems encourage the "tyranny of the majority?" I'm not trying to advocate for either side or start an argument, just curious as to what your beliefs are, given your statements above.

My apologies, Quinn. I wasn't trying to suggest that you thought more taxes and more government were preferable, just that it seems to be a very popular thought right now.

As far as voting systems go, I think the Electoral College is awful. It's a terrible mixture of an attempt to allow the States to retain influence whilst taking into account population proportions from state to state. The 'winner take all' system per state (though not all states do this) makes it even worse. "Tyranny of the Majority" is a strange concept because our current system, is seems to me, is capable of electing someone that is not wanted by the majority of states or the majority of voter. So a system such as the 'popular vote' where each vote counts individual, doesn't seem bad at all. The states still have representation in the legislature, where all the laws are made, and the President would be elected by the people. If the federal government is going to be as powerful as it is, it makes perfect sense to me that the people choose their President. And it every vote counts individually, 3rd parties would gain some ground. Our current system makes any 3rd party vote worthless because that vote is invisible, no one sees the support for that candidate which just enforces the status quo that is wanted by our duopoly: a third party vote is a wasted vote.

T Roper wrote:Just to try and derail the whole "I'm this, you're that" BULLSHIT that people like to buy into, I notice nobody has said "I support Hillary Clinton". Did I miss any supporters? Who is voting Hillary?

I haven't read every post on this thread (& usually try to avoid discussing polotics) but that is a good point. How the heck is Clinton winning? Who really wants her to be president? I haven't seen anyone on this thread who seems to be supporting her

Mathias wrote: My apologies, Quinn. I wasn't trying to suggest that you thought more taxes and more government were preferable, just that it seems to be a very popular thought right now. As far as voting systems go, I think the Electoral College is awful. It's a terrible mixture of an attempt to allow the States to retain influence whilst taking into account population proportions from state to state. The 'winner take all' system per state (though not all states do this) makes it even worse. "Tyranny of the Majority" is a strange concept because our current system, is seems to me, is capable of electing someone that is not wanted by the majority of states or the majority of voter. So a system such as the 'popular vote' where each vote counts individual, doesn't seem bad at all. The states still have representation in the legislature, where all the laws are made, and the President would be elected by the people. If the federal government is going to be as powerful as it is, it makes perfect sense to me that the people choose their President. And it every vote counts individually, 3rd parties would gain some ground. Our current system makes any 3rd party vote worthless because that vote is invisible, no one sees the support for that candidate which just enforces the status quo that is wanted by our duopoly: a third party vote is a wasted vote.

The "Tyranny of the Majority" is an extension of the idea what an idea is not the best just because the majority supports it. The actual idea is that the larger states (being where more people live) will force ideas and ways of living onto smaller states, even if it is against their will or best interests. The Senate exists as a non-proportional governmental body to combat this, giving smaller states much more power in decision making than larger ones. As opposed to the House of Representatives, which is more proportional (though still slated in smaller states' favor).

Same goes for the electoral college: the electoral college gives more voting power to the smaller states specifically to combat the "Tyranny of the Majority". The electoral college allows a candidate to win without a true majority of the votes because when it was invented, the fastest way to send information was a guy on a horse. So, it was very possible that the voters did not have up to date information about the candidates and may have selected a candidate that they did not realize was actually a very poor decision. This rationale is less relevant today, given that we send information of beams of light and not horses. However, how much do you trust your fellow citizens to make a decision that affects everyone? How much do you trust the average American to know what makes someone fit to lead this country?

So I guess the real question is: Where is the balance between full control by the citizens (which is risky, since the overwhelming majority of people are not educated enough to be making decisions that impact the entire country) or control by a single person (which is also risky, as most dictatorships/absolute monarchies have been less than great for 99% citizens). America lies somewhere in the middle, as we democratically elect a small group of people to make our decisions for us.

What do you think?

ONE MORE THING: Abolition of the electoral college and a switch to a national popular vote does not eliminate the 3rd party candidate spoiler effect that you seem to want. To combat that, you would need to switch the voting system from First Past the Post to Instant Runoff or Single Transferable Vote. Look up CGP Grey on youtube and watch the "Politics in the Animal Kingdom" series, it will explain the mathematics of voting systems better than I can.

Jim Fox wrote: I haven't read every post on this thread (& usually try to avoid discussing polotics) but that is a good point. How the heck is Clinton winning? Who really wants her to be president? I haven't seen anyone on this thread who seems to be supporting her

It's old ladies and people that don't use the internet that support Hillary. Or the ones that buy into a decades old and soon to be defunct political process.

In all seriousness it takes about 5 minutes online to find about 30 years worth of corruption and collusion from the Clinton family. How anyone could cast a single vote for her is beyond me.

Scott McMahon wrote: It's old ladies and people that don't use the internet that support Hillary. Or the ones that buy into a decades old and soon to be defunct political process. In all seriousness it takes about 5 minutes online to find about 30 years worth of corruption and collusion from the Clinton family. How anyone could cast a single vote for her is beyond me.

Sad that the republicans can't find a single candidate that can beat her. Trump is really an outsider and it looks unlikely he can win agianst Hillary (if you believe the polls)

Quinn Baker wrote: The "Tyranny of the Majority" is an extension of the idea what an idea is not the best just because the majority supports it. The actual idea is that the larger states (being where more people live) will force ideas and ways of living onto smaller states, even if it is against their will or best interests. The Senate exists as a non-proportional governmental body to combat this, giving smaller states much more power in decision making than larger ones. As opposed to the House of Representatives, which is more proportional (though still slated in smaller states' favor). Same goes for the electoral college: the electoral college gives more voting power to the smaller states specifically to combat the "Tyranny of the Majority". The electoral college allows a candidate to win without a true majority of the votes because when it was invented, the fastest way to send information was a guy on a horse. So, it was very possible that the voters did not have up to date information about the candidates and may have selected a candidate that they did not realize was actually a very poor decision. This rationale is less relevant today, given that we send information of beams of light and not horses. However, how much do you trust your fellow citizens to make a decision that affects everyone? How much do you trust the average American to know what makes someone fit to lead this country? So I guess the real question is: Where is the balance between full control by the citizens (which is risky, since the overwhelming majority of people are not educated enough to be making decisions that impact the entire country) or control by a single person (which is also risky, as most dictatorships/absolute monarchies have been less than great for 99% citizens). America lies somewhere in the middle, as we democratically elect a small group of people to make our decisions for us. What do you think? ONE MORE THING: Abolition of the electoral college and a switch to a national popular vote does not eliminate the 3rd party candidate spoiler effect that you seem to want. To combat that, you would need to switch the voting system from First Past the Post to Instant Runoff or Single Transferable Vote. Look up CGP Grey on youtube and watch the "Politics in the Animal Kingdom" series, it will explain the mathematics of voting systems better than I can.

I understand that the Electoral College was established at a time when horseback was the fastest means of transportation and that states were more independent than they are today. And yes, it was designed to ensure that states with high populations did not make the voice of those in smaller states redundant. However, now the the number of Electoral votes one state has is more than another state, it somewhat defeats the purpose. The reason being that a candidate can be elected by a minority of states with a majority of votes. So it's become some bastardized system between the states having equal voting power, and the people having equal voting power. There's no way to look at this system that makes it appear superior to a 'popular vote' system except to say that people are stupid and uninformed. But they are still the ones voting at the lowest level. Ultimately,the ignorance of the voter pool is not overcome by the Electoral College, providing all the members of that establishment vote as the district's the represent have voted. And if they do not, but choose to vote as they see fit, then an even smaller minority decides who it is that becomes President.

How much do I trust the average voter? Not very much. But tell me how the Electoral College is any more intelligent within our current society. I can't see any way that it can be. It's just a cruder method that without a majority of states or citizens in support, can elect a candidate solely on the number of district votes. It's crazy! And if you don't think the citizens are the ones choosing the President (though the vote count is horribly distorted by this atrocious system) who do you think IS choosing?

Would a popular vote system encourage 3rd party voting? Yes it would. Ultimately when you see the election results in such a system, you'd see YOUR vote in those numbers. So would everyone else. That means next election,those independent voters would know their 3rd party vote would make a difference. Within 3 election cycles, we'd see a strong 3rd party. I have no doubt.

Mathias wrote: I understand that the Electoral College was established at a time when horseback was the fastest means of transportation and that states were more independent than they are today. And yes, it was designed to ensure that states with high populations did not make the voice of those in smaller states redundant. However, now the the number of Electoral votes one state has is more than another state, it somewhat defeats the purpose. The reason being that a candidate can be elected by a minority of states with a majority of votes. So it's become some bastardized system between the states having equal voting power, and the people having equal voting power. There's no way to look at this system that makes it appear superior to a 'popular vote' system except to say that people are stupid and uninformed. But they are still the ones voting at the lowest level. Ultimately,the ignorance of the voter pool is not overcome by the Electoral College, providing all the members of that establishment vote as the district's the represent have voted. And if they do not, but choose to vote as they see fit, then an even smaller minority decides who it is that becomes President. How much do I trust the average voter? Not very much. But tell me how the Electoral College is any more intelligent within our current society. I can't see any way that it can be. It's just a cruder method that without a majority of states or citizens in support, can elect a candidate solely on the number of district votes. It's crazy! And if you don't think the citizens are the ones choosing the President (though the vote count is horribly distorted by this atrocious system) who do you think IS choosing? Would a popular vote system encourage 3rd party voting? Yes it would. Ultimately when you see the election results in such a system, you'd see YOUR vote in those numbers. So would everyone else. That means next election,those independent voters would know their 3rd party vote would make a difference. Within 3 election cycles, we'd see a strong 3rd party. I have no doubt.

Getting rid of the electoral college does not solve the two party problem. First Past the Post voting systems trend towards two parties with or without the electoral college. Watch this video to understand why:

youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJf…

Another idea from the Libertarians is called Approval Voting. Adopting it would be a huge step in taking the negativity out of elections, as well as empowering those (us) who are outside of establishment politics (AKA the Duopoly).
Yet another thing to read up on.

Mike Lane wrote:Another idea from the Libertarians is called Approval Voting. Adopting it would be a huge step in taking the negativity out of elections, as well as empowering those (us) who are outside of establishment politics (AKA the Duopoly). Yet another thing to read up on.

Approval voting is a little better than FPTP but it still shares the problem of minority rule. Instant runoff solves this issue, so I think its the "better" voting system.

I'm a fan of voting systems that can guarantee a condorcet winner (a winner who would win one-on-one against all other running candidates), and Instant Runoff voting is incorporated into almost all condorcet methods, as far as I know.

Whilst either 'instant run-off' or 'approval voting' is preferable to 'first past the post', in the short term I still believe the popular vote would be beneficial for introducing the possibility of a multi-party system. Once established, there will be more voices in favor of a system such as the ones you have both put forward. Simply because no party wants to disappear.

The reason I feel the 'popular vote' will help create a multi-party system is this: In most voters eyes, there are only two parties. But once those voters see the election results coming in from the popular vote and (for example) the LP candidate is actually on the board, the concept that third party could really win and that their vote really could count towards it, will finally sink in. It will widen their horizon, just like that. The effect of that happening in a national election will seep into Senate and House elections because there will be more interest and awareness of what a third party could actually accomplish.

I have no doubt that 'first past the post' would, in time, take a negative toll on the number of new parties that may spring up. But who's to say the Democrats and Republicans wouldn't be so scared that they may be on the chopping block that they wouldn't also vote for a change in the system that would enable a multi-party government to continue to exist.

Mathias wrote:Whilst either 'instant run-off' or 'approval voting' is preferable to 'first past the post', in the short term I still believe the popular vote would be beneficial for introducing the possibility of a multi-party system. Once established, there will be more voices in favor of a system such as the ones you have both put forward. Simply because no party wants to disappear. The reason I feel the 'popular vote' will help create a multi-party system is this: In most voters eyes, there are only two parties. But once those voters see the election results coming in from the popular vote and (for example) the LP candidate is actually on the board, the concept that third party could really win and that their vote really could count towards it, will finally sink in. It will widen their horizon, just like that. The effect of that happening in a national election will seep into Senate and House elections because there will be more interest and awareness of what a third party could actually accomplish. I have no doubt that 'first past the post' would, in time, take a negative toll on the number of new parties that may spring up. But who's to say the Democrats and Republicans wouldn't be so scared that they may be on the chopping block that they wouldn't also vote for a change in the system that would enable a multi-party government to continue to exist.

You bring up an interesting point: the people who are in charge of changing the system were put into office by that system. So, unsurprisingly they don't seem to be keen on changing the rules so that it would be harder for them to get re-elected.

Quinn Baker wrote: You bring up an interesting point: the people who are in charge of changing the system were put into office by that system. So, unsurprisingly they don't seem to be keen on changing the rules so that it would be harder for them to get re-elected.

Very true. But from what I've heard, there are some Democrats interested in the 'popular vote'. Undoubtedly it's not got anything to do with a third party, but more to do with them thinking they have a stronger chance of being elected on that system. Which I suppose they may. I think the popular vote would increase voter turn out and possibly get more people engaged in elections. More engaged may even mean more informed.... if we're lucky.

Warrior wrote: youtube.com/watch?v=IKmQW7J… It's "with great power comes great responsibility", super fan... Sheesh. If u can't get that right...well...hrrrmmm...ahem.... I'm about to get on my soapbox, uh oh... One of the inherent problems in capitalism is the capitalist by no means wants competition, they want a monopoly...but if you guys know your Adam Smith, you guys know what he calls for in The Theory of Moral Sentiments....Bueller? Anyone?

It's been a while since I've seen that movie.

Jim Fox wrote: Sad that the republicans can't find a single candidate that can beat her. Trump is really an outsider and it looks unlikely he can win agianst Hillary (if you believe the polls)

I've been an independent voter since my first election in 92' and I've never seen such a horrific political sh*tshow as the republican party is right now. You have a pseudo-bigot, an evangelical booger eater (youtube it), and a guy who probably won't win the primary in his own state.

It is atrocious to say the least, and if the best we can do as a country is trump or hillary....good lord we are headed for bad times.

That being said I honestly believe Trump's campaign is a ruse. One he's more of a moderate politically, and there's no way that he's been hiding that level of Hilteresque racism for 40 years. I don't think he's a great human being, but I think he was supposed to make Hillary look like the obvious choice for voters. Now it's turned into a great social experiment perhaps spurned on by his own ego and the success of Bernie Sanders. I know it's sounds like some BS conspiracy theory, but I really am thinking that is was a ringer (or bad joke) gone wildly amok.

Colin R wrote: I had a much longer response written to this before but decided to tone it down. Regardless, can you please explain in what way Trump is like Hitler beyond "he is a racist" which is a label Liberals throw around everywhere like toilet paper?

Ummm besides the fact that he wants to ban Muslims from entering the country and build a giant wall across the entire southern border explicitly to keep out Mexicans? Or the fact that he wants Muslims to register in a database is especially Hilter-esque. You know the targeting and labeling of minorities.

Hopefully that will satisfy your question. He's no Hitler in respect to the fact that I don't think he's out to kill 6 million people, but he's certainly done a fine job of bringing all the bigotry and racism to the forefront. Kicking blacks out of his rallies, people getting beat up for dissenting. You know that kind of violent frenzy that certain types of leaders bring out....