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
![]()
Damn, every time I see this guy's face (and especially in the still picture), I think of former French #NotMyPresident Nicolas Sarkozy.
Edit: Tis a shame really, because this Seth Meyers sounds a lot cooler than Sarko. He deserves better than to look like him.
edited 5th Aug '16 3:13:20 AM by Medinoc
"And as long as a sack of shit is not a good thing to be, chivalry will never die."Your daily reminder that "Freedom of Religion" only protects Christianity
.
A Muslim woman said she was fired as she refused to remove her hijab at work.
On the third day at her new job at the Fair Oaks Dental Care clinic in Viriginia Najaf Khan decided to go into work wearing her head scarf.
She claimed her boss immediately took her aside and told her to remove it to keep a “neutral environment” and said that the dress item would offend patients.
She was allegedly told she would have to remove her hijab otherwise she would lose her job, and she refused.
Ms Khan said she was excited to begin work at the Fairfax-based clinic and that she wanted to become a dentist.
“I was astonished because he had been saying I was doing so well,” she told Fox News.
“I received an email the Friday morning saying how much positive enthusiasm I was bringing to the dental office.”
People have been visiting Captain Khan's grave to pay their respects.
http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/world/trump-captain-humayun-khan-1.3707101
They should check out the other tombs too.
You will see all faiths, genders and ethnicities.
Re New Jersey casinos: Minorish clarification in that all the new casinos suffocating AC gambling are in PA and NY. By NJ Constitution the only place where casinos are allowed to operate is within Atlantic City (pending a fall referendum that might allow them in North Jersey).
edited 5th Aug '16 6:06:05 AM by megarockman
The damned queen and the relentless knight.538 has some number changes, their poll-plus prediction (that accounts for not only the polls but economic forcast and such) now has Clinton winning North Carolina narrowly, their now-cast (so if the election was held today) also has her winning Georgia, Arizona and Nebraska's second district.
If Trump doesn't end this week now or has another one close to Election Day Clinton is going to win in a landslide (assuming that nobody gets complacent and that everyone makes sure they still go out and vote).
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranSpecifically, the question is thus (paraphrased): If maximizing the freedom of association/discrimination in a society reduces the net freedoms of certain people because a powerful coalition of private interests (e.g., a religious institution) believes that they are inferior, is this consistent with Libertarian first principles? If it is, is it not apparent how this inherently discredits those principles?
Put more applicably, are the people putting forth Gary Johnson as a candidate okay with organized discrimination against minorities (sexual, religious, and/or ethnic) as long as it's done by private individuals as opposed to governments? Does that discrimination not reduce net freedom?
Put more pointedly, if you are okay with that, does that not mark you as a bigot wearing Libertarian clothing to disguise your true intentions?
edited 5th Aug '16 7:19:12 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Well, if the Libertarian Party doesn't figure out how to solve that problem, they will lose any hope of claiming a significant following from the left wing, which they must have if they ever expect to be electorally viable. It's why I cannot support them even if I agree with some of their ideas.
I'm not okay with the idea of being pacifists on the world stage if we're going to keep ignoring climate change and police killing black people. But hey, maybe if everyone smokes enough weed we can forget all our problems in the nice mellow buzz.
edited 5th Aug '16 7:27:35 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"They idea is that as long as that discrimination is purely private and does not seep into government power and regulation, then it is just as valid to compete in the economic marketplace and the marketplace of ideas as anything else.
Essentially if the government gets out of the way, whatever ideas prevail in the long run are the "best" ideas by definition, because they are prevailing in a natural environment without the interference of a higher power playing favorites, and if those ideas are hideous bigotry, so be it.
You're right that how a libertarian answers that question shows their true character. They aren't racist if they think minorities would be better off under the system, because their assumption is human equality and that an open playing field will lead to equal outcomes (and their assumption that oppressed minorities these days are being held back by government and not unfairly supported by them). They are racist if they think a level playing field would put minorities back in their place due to their inferiority once government handouts are taken away, with the assumption that government is propping up the lazy and the unworthy.
However, this assumption is patently false to observed fact, so holding it marks one as a starry-eyed dreamer at best and an idiot at worst.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"What sort of policies would you say the Libertarians have are racist?
Personally, my opinion on the Libertarians is that it's kind of naive to say that if we became a minarchist non-interventionist state everything would just turn out fine.They also tend to make false equivalencies, calling the US a "Police State".
Leviticus 19:34The problem with the Cato Institute is that they engage in climate change denial. It is odd for a libertarian institute to weigh in on a climate question and it comes off like they are doing so in order to weaken a major point of opposition to libertarian ideology, not because their stance has any merit. An appeal to consequences in other terms which comes off as intellectually dishonest.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard FeynmanThere is an argument to be made there, it's just that people who make it usually end up on the radical left rather than the libertarian sphere. For instance, there is a belief in some circles that the concept of modern police forces is racist in its inception (that it was modeled after the slave-catchers of old Dixie), and we can observe a great many municipal laws designed to target and harass minorities, as well as state and federal drug and crime laws which do disproportionate impact to minority families and were likely intended to do so.
The thing you have to look at from a policy perspective is if the federal government legalized all drugs *and* ended all welfare programs, would black America end up better or worse off as a whole in 25 years? The leftist argument would be worse off, the libertarian argument would be better off, the racist argument would be worse off (because they're inferior and will flounder without government handouts)
![]()
![]()
Their "private companies should do whatever they want" mentality.
When you get right down to it, companies are run by flawed humans with prejudices. Which means they could either not hire or pay the minority much less.
Of course that would mean a minority owned business could legally discriminate the majority, but it's not like the minority exactly have much of the political/economical power in this country.
And that's just ONE of the many problems with the libertarian philosophy.
edited 5th Aug '16 7:43:26 AM by NoName999
It is incorrect to say that their policies are directly racist. However, by removing government institutions that seek to redress systemic racism and create a more level playing field, they would wash their hands of the consequences of doing so.
In essence, because white males currently (and still) occupy the dominant economic positions in this country, there is no reason to believe that the removal of controls on their behavior would suddenly cause them to start sharing.
edited 5th Aug '16 7:43:20 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Also there's the issue that libertarians support state's rights.
And we all know how a dangerous thing that is. Many libertarians don't understand that Ron Paul is only against the Drug War on the federal level. He's gonna have no problem with state level drug wars. Which mean that states can make up whatever is/isn't allowed and the proper punishment of carrying. And we all know the former Confederate States would love to target minorities.
Also with the libertarian philosophy of state's rights, a state can revoke gay marriage. Hell, if possible, a state can revoke straight marriage benefits so that the gays won't get them and then proclaim "we're being equal at least"
edited 5th Aug '16 7:53:58 AM by NoName999
Wouldn't the Libertarians remove laws that forbid racial discrimination? That's pretty overtly racist. They'd argue that it's because such laws are unnneeded and that discriminatory businesses would inherently go out of business, but that's bullshit.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranI'm slightly reluctant to call them racists per say, but I will say that they're "not-anti-racist enough". Personally, I support anti-discrimination hiring laws because discriminatory hiring practices are inherently a threat to meritocracy.
Leviticus 19:34

Trump's depravity truly knows no bounds...