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
As to the list, it's a bunch of Libertarian crock blowing out their ass. I've learned to stop listening to Libertarians in general.
@Braeburn
It's actually funny that way, when ever the Legislative and the Executive branch butt heads (which is more and more these days) it's the judicial that gains all the power. Just take a look at Judicial Review
a power the Judicial branch gave to themselves.
I know exactly two Libertarians, one believes we should have nuked Libya in response to our Ambassador's death and the other is a thinly vied anarchist.
edited 7th Nov '12 7:59:58 PM by LMage
@dp: I know Starship subconsciously wants to be a democrat/liberal (which is why he mostly agrees with Potatoes), and would be one if he could fight off his manipulation. It's why I like him, but we'll have to constantly beat it into him that conservative ideals are mostly bullshit with facts, logic, and pointing out the implications of his conscious views (see, again, logic).
edited 7th Nov '12 8:03:38 PM by Ekuran
Gary Johnson, by everything I've heard, isn't the nutcase Ron Paul is, and some of his ideas are good. He's from the saner end of the Libertarian spectrum.
As to the immigration issue, I would have more sympathy for the "They should follow the legal immigration path!" argument if, y'know, there was a legal immigration path for most people who want to enter and will find work and be productive residents (or, eventually, citizens). I'm an immigrant to the US. I know just how fucked up the system is and (a) I was one of the lucky ones with an "easy" path in, and (b) it's gotten worse since then.
In today's globalized economy, denying skilled, hard-working people their preference to live and work in America just means that they will live and work somewhere else and the jobs will go there. But those people won't get what they want (a country they decided they would prefer to live in than where they were born), and America doesn't get what it should want (those people paying American taxes, helping the American economy, and creating other American jobs through their needs and payments).
A brighter future for a darker age.@L Mage: Now the Supreme Court is something I like having power. Dunno why, though. Just like it.
@Ekurian: No, just Democrat. He's still a conservative, but so are the Democrats.
@♥Mor-mor♥: I know that Johnson's approach is to support giving out more Green Cards, rather than giving out more citizenships. I'm in favor of the latter, not the former, but I find Johnson's approach to be reasonable.
edited 7th Nov '12 8:03:57 PM by deathpigeon
Number seven on that list is about the erosion of the Bill of Rights and stuff. To which I am reminded of Ted Nugent's rant about being dead this time next year if Obama is reelected and just laugh at the stupidity.
At five: yeah, how dare they say you need to vaccinate your children when they could potentially spread deadly diseases to other people's children and your reasons against it are based on bullshit psuedoscience? I just don't understand the virulent hatred against healthcare or the idea that maybe your child's health affects others.
Holy shit please stop colorcoding the words. It's distracting.
edited 7th Nov '12 8:05:54 PM by AceofSpades
YES PLEASE
I WANT TO SEE MORE 24-HOUR SPEECHES
The "stay in the kitchen" crap is not going to be directly offered by the candidates (unless they're dumb, which is not out of the question), but rather, it will be suggested by various leaders and then memetically necromanced by small-time supporters, the ones who actually do the dirty work of cracking very offensive jokes on internet comment sections.
You talking about Warren? I thought she said she never did and no one really knew about her 1/32 heritage until she told them.
I damn well hope so! At the very least, I'm tired of having (a bit more than) half the Congress claiming or tacitly agreeing with the notion that climate change isn't happening, or that it's not anthropogenic.
2. Government should exist to enable people to take care of themselves and pursue their own destiny. Once social welfare erodes self-responsibility, it needs to be redressed.
3. There's nothing wrong with making lots of money and people and businesses should be allowed to do so.
4. Undocumented residents shouldn't be given carte blance to simply remain in the country and completely ignore the established rules for gaining citizenship.
5. Saying that men shouldn't marry men doesn't constitute hate speech.
6. The United States has the right, and the obligation, to use lethal force to defend it's citizens.
I know this isn't really relevant to the flow of conversation, but for what it's worth, I just feel like replying to these.
- I agree that murder of defenseless humans is an affront to the very concept of civilization. However, I do not believe that a human zygote counts as a human, for legal or ethical purposes. It may at a later point in time before its birth, but I am not sure. However, while I am uncertain of the philosophical question of the beginning of human life, I am aware that there are cases where real, confirmed-as-existent human lives are at stake. Given the choice between what might be a human life and what is definitely a human life, I would choose the one that is definitely a human life. Furthermore, I recognize that the question of when "humanhood" begins is one of philosophical/ethical grounds currently, not something that science can yet dictate to us a clear suggestion about, and based on that, I would rather err on the side of caution regarding it, and leave to others the liberty—and the personal responsibility—of choosing an abortion for themselves.
- I completely agree that government should exist to enable people to take care of themselves and pursue their own destiny. There are two addenda to this:
- First, the provision of medical care at reasonable cost is part and parcel of enabling people to take care of themselves, and only when people have good health can they pursue their own destinies to the best of their abilities.
- We must recognize that pretty much any government policy will have both people who game the system and needy people who fall through the cracks. The question is which one you prioritize more, and thus which sort of "error" one is more willing to tolerate. I am willing to give people the benefit of the doubt, on par, and tolerate a few cheaters in order to help more people. Though ideally, I would design rules designed specifically to target mechanisms of cheating, as I fully acknowledge the existence of moral hazards in any provision-based policy.
- There is nothing wrong with making money, but there is something wrong with harming others in the course of one's doing anything and not taking responsibility for causing that harm. There also needs to be a recognition that money is not made in a vacuum, and the societal infrastructure and stability that one depends on to become financially/enterprisingly successful are public goods that must be paid for somehow; I believe it makes sense that those who benefit more from such public goods ought to be responsible for paying for their provision more so than those who are less able, though I admit that this is not a perfect system. Additionally, those who generate public bads ought to be responsible for paying for their consequences, preferably under a similar scheme, though again I admit this is not a perfect system. Finally, the rigging of systems to favor oneself (or one's allies) unfairly may count as a harm to others.
- Undocumented immigrants should not be given carte blanche to run wild in this country, but one cannot simply erase their existence and assume there will be no economic or social repercussions. Policymakers should understand the costs and benefits of undocumented immigration more thoroughly before making decisions about them based merely on simple-minded values enforcement.
- Saying men shouldn't marry men isn't hate speech, but harrassing men who want to marry other men because they want to marry men may be hate speech. Unfortunately, this involves a determination of motive, which is not perfectly possible in real life.
- The United States has the right to use lethal force to defend its citizens, but that does not mean it ought to use lethal force when it would be safer and wiser to use alternative means. Having a right does not imply prudence.
Teddy ran on his own party line though.
Most people want Social Welfare to help ENABLE their lives and get jobs and education they want. Hell, Canada did a freakin' study on this in the 70s/80s. You give people government guaranteed aid as far as education, medicine and some small money? They're much much happier because social welfare gives them the ability TO pursue their own destiny.
Yes, as the "social safety net" is a term for those services that help meet people's most basic needs (such as food, water, shelter, and good health) in order for them to pursue their own destiny.
There are abuses, such as those poor old folks whose children drive off in rich cars and leave their parents in the dust because the government will take care of them. Yes, I am aware of what a "moral hazard" is. However, the proper solution is not to wholesale remove the safety net, because that would cause more harm than good (throw the baby out with the bathwater, so to speak). Instead, one should think of what policies might target these specific cases; one should not use a machete in a surgery.
Does this mean we'll start churning out better videogames and cartoons?
Yes, please. They become read with very strange emphases.
Furthermore, it seems as if you are very unnecessarily emphasizing partisan affiliations and labels. Is this your intention?
@dp: Probably should have put it in "". My bad.
And I don't think Obama is an actual conservative. I know you have this thing where you think he is, but I think the vast majority of his seemingly conservative stances/actions are either due to the reality of being a viable politician in the US or being fucked over by republicans/regressionists in congress. I'm willing to bet his actual views are center-left, or at least in the center.
Also, you don't have to apologize for the i, everyone makes mistakes.
edited 7th Nov '12 8:14:51 PM by Ekuran
edited 7th Nov '12 8:17:07 PM by PotatoesRock
@ Glenn: Japan is currently suffering from a problem of a declining birthrate. This, coupled with a highly restrictive immigration policy, makes it hard for them to keep their population up. This is going to have to change in the future, or they're going to have to start having a lot more kids somehow.
Gary Johnson got right around 1%, larger in absolute terms than any Libertarian candidate in history. He pronounced himself satisfied.
I've said my peace about Libertarian politics before, but I'll just continue to note that they occupy a profoundly idealistic notion of human self-reliance and individual responsibility, one that is unfortunately not backed up by facts. I say unfortunately because a Libertarian utopia would probably be a decent place in which to live... as long as you have the education, means, and inclination to be entirely self-reliant when push comes to shove. Unfortunately, real people don't work that way.
Edit: I feel like Obama wants to be more liberal than he is in practice, but I have to caution myself against wishful thinking in this regard. He ran and governed as a centrist and has shown no signs of budging from that position in this election cycle.
edited 7th Nov '12 8:18:49 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Ryan and Santorum are attractively pro-life, but in Santorum's case that's about all he is and in Ryan's case it's overshadowed by his economic views. All three men are Catholic, but Rubio is closer with the evangelical churches, having attended a Baptist church in the past and remained more ecumenical in attitude than the others.
As for Bachmann, aside from the anti-immigration people in Arizona we don't take her any more seriously than you do.
With all due respect, they can go jump in a lake.
<><

@Marc: Gary Johnson is indeed sane, and the Libertarian candidate. I feel like he'd be ok as president. Better than Obama and Romney, but worse than Jill Stein.
On the 10:
@L Mage: Could you not capitalize my name?
I actually like the disperement of power in the House and Senate. It prevents any one person from having too much power.
edited 7th Nov '12 7:57:01 PM by deathpigeon