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
@FF Shinra10th Feb 2016 05:55:41 PM
Our politics seem to be pretty similar, he's also capable of being elected. As for his empty-suitedness, while that's not a great trait for a leader to have, I'd argue that's pretty light damnation and I can't find any candidate that's much better. Cruz is kind of a nutjob, Sanders is a socialist, Hillary's at best Obama 2.0, and Trump is simply a terrible human being and quite nearly represents the sides of both parties I like the least.
Leviticus 19:34![]()
I'd be curious to see you enumerate Rubio's policy positions to see if you know what they are, and knowing, really agree with them.
edited 10th Feb '16 9:10:18 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"If you quote one source and cannot provide another, it weakens the argument because it makes it seems like only one place is saying this thing.
Aren't most interviews exclusive to a single news outlet, though?
Ok, as for Rubio:
Rubio's foreign policy amounts to wanting to stand up to North Korea, Iran, and Cuba. I support this, we really shouldn't be appeasing any of these nations. He also wants to fight ISIS on the ground, which I also think is a great idea.
He's very anti-abortion, which I like quite a bit. Though, I've heard he wouldn't support it even in a medical emergency, which I disagree with.
He wants to reduce government spending, which I think is a good idea.
He has a flip-flopping stance on immigration, currently claiming that he wants to increase border security and deport criminal illegal immigrants. Personally, it's an issue I'm not especially decisive about.
Like all GOP candidates, he wants to halt refugees from coming into the US ("Until they can be vetted", though I'm not sure what that's supposed to mean). Personally, I think we should be letting in the refugees for several reasons, and is probably my biggest deviation from Republican policies.
So, there's a few of his policies and my thoughts on them.
Leviticus 19:34I do find it fascinating, and rather significant, that "socialist" has and still does mean "inherently bad" to many Americans, but now means practically nothing to many others. Sure, that could be blamed on youthful ignorance, but I wouldn't be surprised if the Republicans' ceaseless attacks on Obama's perceived socialist and communist tendencies have greatly dulled the effectiveness of that criticism. Thanks Obama.
While you're going to get a lot of push-back on those first two points note , I find your third point the most interesting. Which government spending are you okay with being reduced?
Also, a reminder to watch that Art of the Deal "adaptation" a couple pages back. It's a goddamn masterpiece.
edited 11th Feb '16 12:15:59 AM by Eschaton
![]()
To be honest, not entirely sure. My ideal hypothetical state would only have military, police, infrastructure, and science/education in its mandates and nothing else. However, I don't think it'd work in practice to just cut everything that doesn't fall into one of those four categories-or at least, things would get worse before they got better (and even that's a best case scenario).
edited 11th Feb '16 12:21:23 AM by Protagonist506
Leviticus 19:34![]()
And where in that small mandate does the government right to restrict what women do with their bodies come in?
Hell if 17th/18th centurary sized government is what's wanted (which it seems to be) then does that not come with the legalisation of abortion that existed at the time?
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran![]()
The EPA would probably fall into a combination of law enforcement and infrastructure (to be fair, this is a broad definition of both).
Labor Union Committees probably fit, too. In a just society, an employee is protected by law from his employer.
Ideally, no welfare, though I don't think that's realistic in practice for various reasons. I suppose it could be a fifth function of the state to ensure a minimum standard of living for people between jobs. There would, however, be a slippery slope involved here.
Restricting abortion would fall under "law enforcement".
edited 11th Feb '16 12:40:37 AM by Protagonist506
Leviticus 19:34That's a very broad definition of law enforcement. But seriously, all welfare? Even the VA? No welfare for the troops?
Okay onto forign policy, what does standing up to Iran (more democratic then Saudi Arabia and not after nuclear weapons until the US pretending it was drove it to change its mind), North Korea (being stood up to already, especially with the Asia pivot) and Cuba (what has Cuba done wrong exactly? I mean beyond refuse the US while being near it, the same crime Ukraine committed against Russia) actually mean?
edited 11th Feb '16 12:47:53 AM by Silasw
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran![]()
On abortion, restricting it only falls under law enforcement if it is actually against the law. Which it currently is not, because people took the issue to court (and won). So I imagine changing that would involve re-configuring a Supreme Court to be more favorable to overturning that ruling.
The question then becomes whether changing the law in this capacity falls under the "small government" mandate. note
edited 11th Feb '16 1:11:02 AM by Eschaton
![]()
![]()
Alright, I concede, you're probably correct about welfare.
As for appeasement, in the case of North Korea I don't think we're appeasing them per say (in their case, I mean to say "we shouldn't start appeasing them"), aside from tolerating their existence. Rubio wants to put even more pressure on North Korea, which sounds just fine to me.
As for Iran, it's been pretty hostile to the US. It's supplied terrorist groups with bombs and equipment, and IIRC has actually been officially at war with the US for some time. All in all, not really a group of people you should trust.
As for Cuba, Rubio's plan is to meet with democracy advocates and end diplomatic relationships with the nation. Fine by me.
![]()
As for the "small government" issues, in the case of Abortion I don't consider it a law like "no sodomy" and more like "protect people from physical harm". Though, I also usually like to think of it less as a "small" government and more of a "streamlined, aerodynamic" one.
edited 11th Feb '16 1:19:18 AM by Protagonist506
Leviticus 19:34
They could still do harm to US allies, though.
edited 11th Feb '16 1:22:08 AM by Protagonist506
Leviticus 19:34![]()
South Korea, Japan, and Israel would be the allies threatened by North Korea and Iran. Now, there's no way North Korea could actually conquer South Korea or Japan, but they'd still do some damage and there's no reason why the US should just sit around and let them do it.
edited 11th Feb '16 1:30:02 AM by Protagonist506
Leviticus 19:34

They were still there? lol
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"