Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/house-speaker-paul-ryan-employee-town-hall-meeting-wisconsin/
Paul Ryan held a town hall for employees at a technology company, with questions pre selected by a company official and where everyone gets health care through the company. The questions were about what you'd expect.
Amusingly:
But we didn't get very far, as Ryan ducked behind a curtain saying, "Gotta go!"
Speaker Ryan may be more forthcoming Friday, because that's when he's scheduled to hold a press conference in Madison, the state's capital.
Intelligence communities feel tense and paranoid as Trump targets them over information leaks.
Rachel Maddow also warns of fake leaks, citing at least one such leak that couldn't be verified and she suspects was deliberately fed to her with the intent to discredit her show.
serenity I'm sorry to hear you're stressed out, but the problem isn't you. It's the whole libertarian philosophy that we're criticizing, not you. The philosophy itself leads to selfishness because not everyone is as fai minded as you. And, then there's the trouble of major disagreements about what Fair is. There's a deep well of passive bigotry and assumptions in most major libertarians that cause all kinds of trouble.
Basically it's not you. It's a whole basket of things we've already observed in action that have proven harmful.
Honestly this conversation had made me come to see libertarianism as less inherently selfish and more naive. With selfishness perhaps entering the equation one reality and cynicism set in.
edited 7th Jul '17 11:06:31 AM by sgamer82
![[up]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_up.png "[up]"){kind=icon}
It's kind of hard to separate the two when a couple people here have been condescending to them. I'm just trying to think in Serenity's shoes for a moment.
That's what I think too, personally. It's a really nice ideal, but some people just don't want to act in the best interests of everyone else.
edited 7th Jul '17 11:06:51 AM by AqueousBunnies
Would that it were so simple.
There are a lot of people and institutions who are simply beasts. When the government removes the whip and releases the yoke, they start acting according to their nature once more.
"For all those whose cares have been our concern, the work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die."
Queen of Good Things, Honest
Quite. Every regulation was put into effect for a reason. The logic that those reasons aren't a factor anymore is simply naive. It's the same logical fallacy as saying, "I don't have to take my medication anymore because I feel better." It's divorcing cause from effect; assuming that the results of corrective action are naturally-occurring and will continue without the action that brought them about.
My Tumblr. Currently liveblogging Haruhi Suzumiya and revisiting Danganronpa V3.
Some Libertarians are undoubtedly naive but there is an undercurrent of selfishness and privilege behind much of their thought, their focus on federal 'oppression' while ignoring the much more real state oppression is a perfect example of that.
Exactly this, which is something that Libertarians either do not or choose not to understand.
...That wasn't my point.
A few personally interesting headlines from today's https://whatthefuckjusthappenedtoday.com/2017/07/07/Day-169/
The forest half is mostly stuff that's come up already.
3/ Trump tweets: "Everyone" at the G-20 is talking about why Podesta wouldn't give a server to the FBI and CIA.
7/ ICE officers were told to take action against all undocumented immigrants they encounter while on duty.
8/ A judge denied Hawaii's motion to limit the scope of Trump's travel ban.
9/ Trump still wants Mexico to "absolutely" pay for his border wall.
In the healthcare debacle, I mean... debate...
10/ Mitch McConnell: Republicans will be forced to compromise with Democrats to shore up Obamacare.
11/ Ted Cruz aligned himself with Trump, calling for a "clean repeal" of the ACA.
12/ Republican lawmakers are buying health insurance stocks as they attempt to repeal Obamacare.
https://t.co/s8Tw5q5Ahw
(Fair warning, this one's the Intercept)
poll/ 28.2% support the GOP health care bill – the most unpopular legislation in three decades.
edited 7th Jul '17 11:55:16 AM by sgamer82
Yes? What is your point then?
That you shouldn't drive others out just because they don't hold the same viewpoints as you do, if they're debating in good faith. And also that any school of thought isn't a singular monolith where everyone is the same.
I think that it's important to separate what someone's ideals are and what they actually do in practice, at least in some cases. It's a shame I didn't get the chance to ask Serenity theirs.
Pretentious Git
I said it before, and I'll say it again. At its most fundamental level, the purpose of government is to force asshole to play nice.
What matters in this life is much more than winning for ourselves. What really matters is helping others win, too. - F. Rogers.
Figure of Hourai
It's hard to not drive people out when the issue is, by and large, fundamentally disagreeing with their logic. The best that can be done is to try and minimise the dogpiling.
No one drove out anyone. Serenity stated their opinion and others disagreed with them and subsequently deconstructed them. If Serenity isn't interested in that then that's their prerogative but disagreement cannot be reasonably construed as driving someone out.
edited 7th Jul '17 12:38:45 PM by Fourthspartan56
"Sandwiches are probably easier to fix than the actual problems" -Hylarn
WHAT COULD GO WRONG??
New Survey coming this weekend!
Oh, bother.
...<slams head against desk repeatedly>
There are no words that can describe the antipathy I feel towards Trump.
Starting to think that Five Eyes isn't long for this world.
Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.
The headache that has been dogging me all day is suddenly being very smug at me.
Thanks, Trump. Letting the fox into the henhouse. What could possibly go wrong? 
>_<
I so want a beer, but have to wait for the pills to abate. Argh.
edited 7th Jul '17 12:46:48 PM by Euodiachloris
I'm sorry Tien, but I must go all out.
The problem is that "why can't I just be free to do what I want without anyone forcing me to do anything?" is an entirely self-centered argument, and Serenity ignored that it also either comes with the statement: "everyone should be free to do what they want without anyone forcing them to do anything", which is massively problematic because it gives that kind of unrestrained freedom to bad people in power, or "I, and only I, should be free to do what I want without anyone forcing me to do anything", which is an absurd ideal of exceptionalism, massively selfish that you and not everyone else deserves this kind of unrestrained freedom, and completely irrelevant to a conversation about widespread political policy.
edited 7th Jul '17 12:46:32 PM by PushoverMediaCritic
@Fourthspartan 56: Oversimplified example. Do I want to indiscriminately burn down the current administration sometimes? Yes. Would I actually do it? No, because that's not the best course of action, and it's also unrealistic.
@Raineh Daze: Is it really that fundamental, though? I mean, at least for me, I can see where they're coming from, even if I still disagree.
And I'm not talking about deconstructing their arguments. I'm talking about misrepresenting them and reducing them into a strawman. That would get on anyone's nerves pretty fast.
I'm talking about stuff like that.
That I can totally get on board with.
edited 7th Jul '17 12:48:03 PM by AqueousBunnies
I feel like there are at least two camps of people who say this. There are those who just want to wreck shit up, but then there are others who mean it literally, without any ill will. It's still a statement that needs a massive amount of refining like you elaborated on, but I don't feel that, by itself, it's inherently malicious.
I guess that's the main disconnect there. I wish someone just said this plainly earlier, though.
It may not be inherently malicious but it's inherently self-centered in that it involves not thinking beyond one's self. Which can be just as destructive as outright malevolence.
edited 7th Jul '17 1:00:13 PM by Fourthspartan56
"Sandwiches are probably easier to fix than the actual problems" -Hylarn
Interrogator: Did you do it?
Suspect: Of course not!
Interrogator: Right, then. Off you go.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"