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
I do prefer Libertarian Party to some extent, mainly because they tend to speak out when liberty seems to be threatened, and to me they don't hesitate to speak out as a minority voice. Libertarian-leaning Republicans like Ron Paul tend to willingly dissent against the party majority. This is especially the case in bipartisan issues like SOPA.
Which is why, again, I was surprised when libertarians tended to react a lot more harshly to Obama's reelection than conceding Republicans.
Really?
I don't think you understand why they're doing what they're doing.
They are holding a protest election. They know they won't win, but having their name on the ticket is enough for the values and beliefs to be heard. That's not a waste of resources, it's using the system to stage their protest.
edited 7th Feb '13 9:27:42 PM by Completion
It's because they're also massively against socialism, or anything that even remotely looks like it. Also a lot of them are the ones that call themselves Tea Partiers. There is a lot of overlap there. And a heavy dose of Randianism, as has been mentioned ad nauseum already.
They just don't understand the idea that sometimes government interference is done to help raise people up instead of just arrest them for smoking pot or some shit. "government is the problem" and all that.
@Triv: They reacted harshly because they want to privatize everything that the government does, for some, the "anarcho"-capitalist faction, this includes the courts and police and other such stuff, while, for others, the minarchist faction, this doesn't include the courts and police and other such stuff. While they are for less control by the state over our personal life, they are also very strongly, much more so than they are for the less control by the state, right-wing economically. A Republican president would be much more right-wing economically than Obama, though even he is definitely not left-wing economically, so they reacted negatively.
It's ironic that they're so anti-socialist since they adopted as their name, libertarian, a term created by socialists to describe socialists. :V
edited 7th Feb '13 9:28:57 PM by deathpigeon
@Completion: It's a lot easier to be heard and put policies you like into effect once you've accumulated power. Which you do by doing the years and years of gruntwork it takes to get elected into local and state positions. There is no party that got their guy into the president's chair in any country overnight. Protest elections serve no practical purpose when no one is paying attention.
@deathpigeon: it most certainly is. I think it illustrates their general deliberate ignorance of history. Right along with their denial that racism is still a factor in daily life.
They certainly do when Peace and Freedom/Green costs Gore Florida.
They're not expensive (with exception to the Libertarians who are trying to do a Perot) since they're not actually advertising that much. And they are completely aware of the two-party system and that the D/R balance will shift itself rather than bring another party in. It's about adjusting the Overton window, stealing protest votes, and to get their views heard.
edited 7th Feb '13 9:36:14 PM by Completion
It's not a very effective protest, IMO. People will once again remember from the 2012 election mainly the winner and somewhat the runner-up. Our university hosted the debate showings for Obama and Romney, but not the third party debates, even the most well-known one right after the final D&R debate. The upcoming State of the Union address by Democratic president would be answered by a Republican response. This shows pouring attention towards the major parties is encouraged by the common practices.
If they really care for their values, the minor parties should go for where they can make a difference. Go for the state offices and concentrate on state politics like Independence Party of Minnesota
. This party actually won a governorship
. I think best way to reform the United States is to reform a sizable number of states, which have the final say in federal checks and balances.
Actually, I think most activist organizations don't take advantage of the Internet to get their message heard, at least not to the extent that would make them successful. Just look at the SOPA protests or the effects Annonymous has had in the real world. Activism is just evolving through the use of technology.
Wizard Needs Food Badly@Ace: Indeed. They use the term, ignoring its history, and sometimes outright denying those who use the term as it was meant to be used are using it in a way that is valid, despite almost everyone, with a very small minority, from the movement they are stealing the term from reject that they have anything to do with the movement. :/
They hardly plan on using the Internet, so that's part of the whole "planning to scale". I figure, given the ease of word of mouth in netspace, that it can be relatively cheap to start out. Hell, they could even do a kickstarter. (Or maybe not, I'm not fully versed in how fundraising works or whether Kickstarter in any way allows that sort of thing.)
Seriously, Internet campaigning was part of why Obama's campaign was so successful. I don't know why more aren't looking at his tactics and learning from him in this regard.
To avoid another Sledgesaul debacle, I'll explain my six main issues with our usage of drones: extrajudicial killings, signature strikes, militarization of intelligence and police departments, usage of drones as surveillance on US citizens (hello Florida), double taps and the Disposition Matrix (which outlines who we target on vague, if nonexistent "evidence"). I also have an issue with how the soldiers dismissively nickname drone strikes "bug splats", but dehumanization is a fundamental issue with war in general, not just with drone strikes.
Why did I bring that up? I found a poll that says Americans support drone strikes
against suspected terrorists, even on fellow Americans living overseas. Now, we live in a bubble where we know the details of how drones operate. Regarding the ones who were surveyed, do you think they know as much as we do, or that they were given broader questions (which nonetheless leads to the same hideous result)?
edited 8th Feb '13 12:49:07 AM by Serocco
In RWBY, every girl is Best Girl.Yeah.
Edit: While I can't accurately comment on how well informed the ones surveyed on the issue were, it appears that whoever's talking about the drone strikes is good at spinning PR for it, at the very least. And, given the comment about the wars costing so many lives, it's possible that the ones surveyed think the drones are more effective at least partially because they don't threaten American drives so directly as putting boots on the ground. (I've commented before about how it's important for a leader to protect the lives of those under his command before.)
The article also points out how people aren't really paying attention. Can't drum up a lot of outrage over it if they're not paying attention. Which is kind of frustrating. I mean, I approve the strikes because they're pragmatic, but that doesn't mean I don't think we shouldn't be considering how they're supposed to fit in with our long term foreign policy. We can't just keep sending them over forever, that's unproductive and I want this stupid war over there to end sometime soon. (I think we're officially still at war? It's kind of hard to keep track because I don't think it's officially referred to as such.)
edited 8th Feb '13 1:02:22 AM by AceofSpades
The basic problem is the drones aren't being directly used against US citizens in a harmful, brutal manner. Until it happens, they're considered acceptable. And most of the countries they're being used in (and publicized) are considered to be scum of the earth/hell holes (See: Pakistan, which has a very unstable government)
I live in Miami. There are drones flying over my goddamned neighborhood.
No, they won't ever attack me, nor will they ever look through my curtains (at least, directly). On the other hand, the citizens of Pakistan do worry about death and surveillance on a much larger scale.
Dade-County is only going through a small example of what the Pakistani citizens are feeling right now, so it really strikes at my cords that my fellow Americans aren't as outraged as they should be.
edited 8th Feb '13 1:06:36 AM by Serocco
In RWBY, every girl is Best Girl.

I sort of feel like activist movements in America, and as a consequence any political party that forms from them, have lost their ability to A) organize in a significant way in order to make a difference on the local level and B) have lost their ability to plan to the scale of their locations. Which is part of why every single small party goes straight for the presidency and ends up wasting their time and other resources. Libertarians seem to avoid this largely because they're allied with the Republicans anyway and vote mostly in lockstep with them. (Because apparently the fiscal matters are far more important than the social ones to these guys.) And the Greens are also somewhat better, since they've managed to get in a few state officials.