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 would definitely call Libertarianism consistent, despite my own disagreements with it. I mean, take Libertarianism a few steps forewards and you get Anarcho-Capitalism, where businesses take on the role of the state. I'd argue that this simply wouldn't work for the same reason communism doesn't work-if business and state are controlled by the same entity, the result is always the same.
Personally, I'm not a huge fan of the term "Small Government", as it sounds anti-government. I don't view the state as inherently bad or even as a necessary evil per say. The guy who invented government, he deserves a medal.
edited 28th Feb '16 10:22:23 PM by Protagonist506
Leviticus 19:34@ Protagonist506
edited 29th Feb '16 5:40:53 AM by DrunkenNordmann
We learn from history that we do not learn from historyThat said, it's not entirely clear how large this group is, so it may not end up making much of a difference. In addition, it's important to keep in mind that general election season hasn't even started yet. As much as it's in the news, most people don't actually follow it very closely. It remains to be seen how the general populous will react to the eventual nominees, whoever they end up being, once the primaries are over.
Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.@Native Jovian - You're looking at the GOP and the Dems from the same lens, which you shouldn't. The GOP rot is more set in since it's been around longer so the dynamics of their presidential election are different, but the Democrats right now look like the GOP circa 2010 or so. The situation among the rank and file is more disfunctional than at the top, where we won't see it until the next or next to next cycle.
As for my red herring comment, I didn't mean to say the office itself is unimportant, but Dens obsession with it to the exclusion of everything else has made it a red herring in terms of objectives. Lack of practical power is bad in its own right, but it also dwindles the pool of potential candidates going forward, all because of this over focus on the presidency.
The Democrats are deciding where their future lies, but they're not splitting themselves apart in the process like the Republicans are.
Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.No, the unhealthy part is the DNC itself, trying to do the whole Party Boss deal like it always has, imagining that it can pull the strings to keep its donors in line and get its preferred candidates elected, while the party base gets increasingly restless.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Ron Paul says Ted Cruz is no libertarian and Bernie Sanders is the most free-market
“On occasion, Bernie comes up with libertarian views when he talks about taking away the cronyism on Wall Street, so in essence he’s right, and occasionally he voted against war,” the former Texas congressman said when asked if there was a candidate who was truly for the free market.
Antonin Scalia: The Billion-Dollar Supreme Court Justice
Dow was in the midst of appealing a $1.06 billion class-action antitrust ruling after a jury found that it had conspired with other chemical companies to fix prices for urethane, a material used in furniture and appliances.
But because of Scalia’s death and the sudden unlikelihood of finding five votes on the Supreme Court to overturn the case, Dow decided to settle for $835 million, the bulk of the original award.
“Growing political uncertainties due to recent events with the Supreme Court and increased likelihood for unfavorable outcomes for business involved in class-action suits have changed Dow’s risk assessment of the situation,” the company told Bloomberg News.
I've known people who contrast a free-market with Capitalism, identifying the latter as a non-egalitarian rule-by-Capital system. They seem to lean Sanders under the logic that trustbusting and income equality gets you a more competitive market in practice.
Do you highlight everything looking for secret messages?A completely free market stays free and competitive for exactly how long it takes for a "winner" to be decided, however temporary. Said "winner" then uses its power to keep competitors down and eventually becomes the de facto government.
In order to stay free, the market needs well-made regulations in order to curb the power of large corporations. In that sense, Sanders is, indeed, the most pro-free-market guy on the scene right now.
edited 29th Feb '16 9:27:40 AM by Kayeka
Wasn't that a different principle? I thought the "race to the bottom" was about a growing corporation reaching a plateau in market share, at which point they no longer have an incentive to keep up quality, yet still need to make their profits grow due to how stocks work. Which causes said corporation to lower production costs to the point where the quality suffers and no one is happy except the share holders. I was going for more of a "1984" kind of vibe.
Ugh, I gotta admit, I am very much anti-corporatism. I'm sure that corporatism has done a lot of good for the world at large, but I still and the idea of an entity with no motive beyond "profit" to be quite distasteful, especially when they grow to problematic sizes.
A company that literally only has profit as a motive probably won't function very well, especially if they don't pay too well. Walmart is a good example of this. They have a massive profit margin, but almost none of the store-level employees actually care about the company, because Walmart doesn't really care about their employees beyond the basic lip-service. It's a huge part of why Walmart customer service usually isn't very good.
edited 29th Feb '16 9:57:57 AM by Zendervai
See, that's exactly the thing. As a corporation, it's doing great! Largely because of their cost-saving shenanigans. They drove out local businesses, taking many local economies by the balls, and are now exploiting that power for the sake of more profit. It pretty much destroys any community they touch, but who cares as long as the profits keep coming in?
Don't like working there? They are the only employer in town. Don't like shopping there? Most competitors have either left for greener pastures, or are six feet under. The mart is all, and all is the mart. Praise be the mart!
edited 29th Feb '16 10:08:19 AM by Kayeka

better is relative only to the republicans though. This thing with DWS is going to cause more and more issues. She'll be ousted soon and replaced, true, but not til after the election, and in the meantime her position will cause problems. If they win, she'll have political cover to continue as normal for a bit longer, til the 2018 election. If they lose, she will be ousted at once, but then they'll also not have the white house which, coupled by their weaknesses in governors, house, senate, and other races, will open the doors to more fighting.
The presidency, for democrats, is increasingly going to become a red herring in terms of practical power.