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
The thing about libertarianism is that I've only really seen it being supported among the GOP's primary demographic anyway. It's good for firing up the base and presenting at least a passing effort at intellectual honesty in a political platform, but I see zero reason why someone who votes left traditionally would want to vote libertarian now - especially so soon after a serious financial bust that was directly caused by lack of regulation.
It's like the Tea Party - it looks new, but it's the same old when it comes down to it.
edited 10th Jul '13 8:19:01 AM by Karkadinn
Furthermore, I think Guantanamo must be destroyed.Justin Bieber Urinates Into Mop Bucket While Yelling ‘F*ck Bill Clinton’
This is relevant because of Bill Clinton.
edited 10th Jul '13 8:20:27 AM by deviantbraeburn
Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016I'd vote for a candidate who considered them a libertarian socially, and not necessarily fiscally.
In other words someone who is pro-choice, pro-gay, pro-gun, pretty much pro-everything when it comes to letting people do shit. I'm not a fan of social regulation, but I am a fan of regulating big-business.
And Bieber is only 19. I would totally be the guy who arrested him for underage drinking if I were a civvie cop in that situation. I'd love doing my level best to throw the book at celebs around here, especially since I live about 20 minutes from Malibu.
edited 10th Jul '13 8:33:52 AM by Barkey
![]()
Um...I'm actually agreeing with that. All these ridiculous bans on 'gun-like objects' are doing is showing the kids that adults are terrified of guns. Once the kids are old enough to actually own a gun, they'll have the wrong message about what to use it for.
EDIT: Wow, look at the comments. There's an argument in them about how the schools should be run on a state level. Because that won't be a disaster at all!
edited 10th Jul '13 8:59:42 AM by Zendervai
Well it's at least consistent with say, leaving marriage to the states, despite the federal funding.
I understand the bill, best as I can from a country with no gun culture, but it should except toy guns that aren't obviously toys enough. Some don't have coloured caps or other "This is a toy" identifiers.
DumboSchools *are* run at a state level. That's part of the problem.
I would put Japan as the golden model. Very strict standards and universal curricula set at the national level, but let schools compete for tuition dollars how they see fit beyond the strict core curricula requirements. The strict requirements make sure that everyone, public or private schooled, meets the same basic standards, so that a Mississippi high school diploma is worth just as much as a Rhode Island diploma. Meanwhile, free competition forces schools to constantly self-evaluate and self-improve, shaking the public school system out of its own lethargy, and to do so freely, allowing "local values" to still play a part in the process. Essentially, the Feds tell you "what" and the schools determine "how."
Senator Harry Reid Rips John Boehner Over Out Of Control House GOP: ‘I Feel Sorry For The Speaker’
I wonder how a genuine libertarian (pro-gun, pro-choice, pro-gay, anti-business regulations, anti-business subsidies, anti-government spending in both directions; just pure antigovernment) would fare in either party?
I'd bring up Ron Paul, except he's always been more states-rights than actual libertarian.
The issue of play guns in a school setting is tricky - we expose our kids to media that is rife with weapons and violence but tell them that it's not okay for them to use said ideas in their imaginative play. Is it any wonder that they get confused?
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"![]()
![]()
Barry Goldwater?
edited 10th Jul '13 9:44:28 AM by deviantbraeburn
Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016Probably. Still, if one could get any kind of grassroots support, it might be worth seeing the panic before the unified political establishment came down on his ass.
The Republicans were able to get away with ignoring Ron Paul, sadly, and Rand learned that lesson too well.
We need more big-name libertarians to break left in the coalition-building, instead of breaking right; then we might be able to build some useful support for the libertarian ideas that need to be implemented (like torching the War on Drugs).
Again, "states' rights" is not libertarian but antifederalist.
edited 10th Jul '13 9:47:05 AM by Ramidel
@Ramidel: By your phrase, "ignoring Ron Paul, sadly", I assume you're referring to the social liberalism that is attached somewhat loosely to his vanilla states' rights position and his isolationism. A package like he espouses has no chance to achieve any kind of significant voice in our elections precisely because it represents such a mishmash of the political landscape. Everyone can find something in his politics to hate, and for that reason he'll never attract enough votes.
For me, Paul's view on drugs is irrelevant; he has that weird "libertarian populism" thing going on where he wants to get the common people to rise up and hand more of their money to rich people in the name of freedom, and as long as that's his game, he's dead to me.
Paul Krugman doesn't get into political science that much, preferring to address things from an economic perspective, but his blog today on income, race, and voting
is very interesting. His conclusion is that the Republican-Democrat divide at the voting booth is indisputably not just about rich vs. poor, but very very much about race and religion.
Quoting rather broadly:
1. African-Americans “should” lean Democratic, given their low incomes, but they are much more Democratic than this alone would predict.
2. Southern whites are just as much of an anomaly; they have close to the national median income,and “should” be pretty evenly split between parties, but instead are almost entirely Republican.
3. Asian-Americans are relatively high-income, but also strongly Democratic. Although I don’t have the data, Jews would surely look similar.
There really isn’t any mystery, of course, about these anomalies. Despite occasional attempts to widen its appeal, the GOP has effectively defined itself as the party of white Christians — and there are still a lot of historical memories that go with that definition.
edited 10th Jul '13 9:56:09 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"edited 10th Jul '13 10:04:15 AM by deviantbraeburn
Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016

Libertarians can't win Presidential elections in the U.S., period.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"