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
Let us not forget that protest votes delivered both Brexit and George W. Bush. This isn't a game of, "I'll hold my breath and turn blue in the face unless you give me what I want;" this is the future of our country.
edited 22nd Jul '16 10:47:07 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"![]()
Exactly. "Let the states decide" is code for "It's cool if you guys discriminate."
edited 22nd Jul '16 10:54:17 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Firstly, I'm not a big fan of protest votes myself
However, I think it's ridiculous (and a very anti-democratic statement) to keep blaming Ralph Nader or his voters for Bush. Ultimately, it was caused by Gore's unsuccesful campaign.
I have not really done research on Johnson's positions myself, but as far as I know he's one of the saner and more moderate libertarians.
Depends. I know a fair number of libertarians who aggressively support national gay marriage and are opposed to the war on drugs and bathroom bills, and speak scornfully of "socons" (social conservatives) but consider themselves libertarian for "anti-bureaucracy"/economic reasons. A lot of them are cushy Northeastern middle classers though.
![]()
That's a low standard. Libertarians are nutters as a point of pride.
edited 22nd Jul '16 11:00:00 AM by TheHandle
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.
I'm pretty sure that's the Reddit anarcho-capitalists insisting that they are libertarians and not those.
From War on the Rocks: A Letter to a Republican Friend About to Help Team Trump
.
![]()
![]()
![]()
He supports basic income(!!?) , legal protection of gay marriage and abortion, and IIRC legal protection of net neutrality, and as far as social issues go, his policy of decriminalizing victimless crimes would go a long way to help improve the situation of African Americans simply by reducing the number of blacks in prison for smoking pot and the like. It's not far enough, but it's far, far better than what the GOP has to offer. Since I'm in a state guranteed to vote blue, (and since the libertarians aren't capable of actually winning the presidency) I'd be tempted to vote for him if his environmental policy wasn't unthinkably bad, more out of a desire to have a right wing party that isn't flat out fascist than any love for their policy.
edited 22nd Jul '16 11:08:47 AM by CaptainCapsase
@Trump not actually calling illegal immigrants rapists: He Totally Did.
![]()
In short, he's barely caught up to Democrats on social issues (except maybe on drugs) and is off the deep end on economic and environmental issues. No, thanks.
edited 22nd Jul '16 11:09:14 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"![]()
Yes, he totally did, but his phrasing was deliberately such that he could weasel out of it by claiming "only some of them are bad people."
The question is not "are they a good party?" because they're not: rather it is: "Are they worse than Trump's GOP?" (which has all the voodoo economics and suicidal environmental policy with an ass backwards stance on social issues and an incrediblely blatant authoritarian streak bordering on fascism.) I can't say yes to that question with a straight face. I don't want them in power, but I'm wondering if arms be worse off with them as an opposition party than the GOP.
edited 22nd Jul '16 11:18:56 AM by CaptainCapsase
"Can a racistrapist be also a good person after all?" is an interesting question to delve into, but Trump is not qualified to ask it.
He likes to sound like the drunk bloke at the pub. So... relatable...
edited 22nd Jul '16 11:15:53 AM by TheHandle
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.Considering the way Trump treats women I would not at all be surprised if he knew rapists that he regarded as good people, it's hard enough to get actual good people to walk away from rapist friends, someone likeTrump would likely consider them fellow bros.
edited 22nd Jul '16 11:29:43 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.” ~ CyranAccording to On The Issues, Gary Johnson is also opposed to hate crime laws and 'student loans'.
Oh and he wants to abolish the department of education. Lovely. That will definitely help my local hellscape of education.
It's like the difference between getting arrested by the Gestapo, put up against a wall, and shot; and being murdered by your next door neighbor because there's no government telling him he can't.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

@Ambar: I know you weren't outright saying "people are only voting for Johnson because of sexism", but the context you said it in should at least raise an eyebrow. It's not like Trump actually said "illegal immigrants are all rapists and criminals", but the implication is blatantly obvious to those who would agree with the underlying racist sentiment, hence why this sort of statement is referred to as a "dogwhistle"; I'd argue the particular comment I singled out is also a kind of "dogwhistle", one coming from a completely different political inclination, but still eyebrow raising. Based on what you've said it wasn't intentional, but, in my opinion, that kind of attitude, where (implicit) accusations of sexism and racism are thrown about so casually leads to some very dangerous places. Firstly it fuels alt-right demagogues like Trump, since, generally speaking, most people don't take kindly to being accused of racism or sexism even if they know truly aren't racist or sexist themselves.
Secondly, I am worried that this sort of attitude could be seized upon by an opportunistic demagogue; social justice rhetoric reduced to the lowest common denominator in he pursuit of power, with anyone objecting on any grounds shamed as a bigot. My core point being that intellectual laziness in any context is dangerous.