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
Um, no, I said the exact opposite of that. I said that Stein would admit it while Trump probably wouldn't. I may not like Stein, but that was intended to be complimentary towards her.
Oh God! Natural light!Why wouldn't NATO go east? The Baltics, Poland, all had to be ruthlessly suppressed by the USSR in order to kowtow to demands from Moscow.
I mean, in light of Poland's history it seems pretty natural to want to ensure they have allies at their back in case a war breaks out.
You know. In case there's no peace in our time.
Still not embarrassing enough to stan billionaires or tech companies.
Russia, at present, has the seventh largest economy in the world, dwarfed by four European countries. Its growth has stalled, it's in the middle of a nasty economic recession, and it's engaged in two expensive military conflicts.
Russia isn't a superpower. It isn't going to be a superpower any time soon. WW3 won't be a conflict with Russia.
Still not embarrassing enough to stan billionaires or tech companies.
x2 And 50 years ago China was poor and backwards. In 1920 Russia was a poor country, with limited infrastructure, a largely illiterate or semi literate population and torn by civil war. In 1945 it was one of the worlds only two superpowers. Russia is twice the size of the US, has an abundance of natural resources and the worlds largest nuclear arsenal. In the long run, America's going to have to get out of Russia's sphere.
Libertarians are against wars of choice, not trade and international diplomacy. They're not the same thing.
edited 21st Sep '16 1:30:00 AM by 940131
This isn't the 1950's. There's no USSR anymore. Russia isn't going to suddenly balloon out of control. Especially if it faces international pressure (like it does) and economic woes (like it does) or lowering gas prices (like it does.)
And what God decided Poland, Romania and the Baltic States were in Russia's sphere? Considering most of them wanted the USSR out before Mr. Gorbachev tore down that wall, it seems like most of them would rather extend a middle finger than an olive branch.
Still not embarrassing enough to stan billionaires or tech companies.Actually the Russians have been picking up a lot of power lately and their recent conflict in Syria is serving as a test bed for most of their new equipment more than anything. And it's got most of NATO pretty damn scared.
The Russians are far from a nobody, this isn't the 90s.
Which is all the more reason to deal with their expansion while we can.
edited 21st Sep '16 2:19:18 AM by LeGarcon
Oh really when?
x3 What does the Soviet Union have to do with this? Even with out the other Soviet states Russia is the largest country in the world by far with an abundance of natural resources. It won't be weak forever and when it rebuilds it's strength the US will be forced out of their sphere. Do countries in Eastern Europe want to be in Russia's sphere? No. Not any more than the Latin American countries want to be in the sphere of the United States. But they're to close to Russia to permanently be in the courner of the US.
edited 21st Sep '16 3:12:41 AM by 940131
You're saying it like said countries don't have a choice. Or that their populace thinks very highly of the Soviet era.
Also, I'm fairly certain that most self-proclaimed American libertarians are closer to anarcho-capitalists than classical libertarian. Less peace, more "I'm armed, keep your hands off of my stack".
EDIT: I apologise for linking The Intercept, but here's an interesting little tale about the man who invented the predecessor of that Skittles metaphor
. He was a Nazi who wound up getting hanged at Nuremberg
edited 21st Sep '16 3:23:09 AM by Krieger22
I have disagreed with her a lot, but comparing her to republicans and propagandists of dictatorships is really low. - An idiotAlso that a state only exists to limit individual freedom rather than the state being an organ responsible for limiting certain types of freedom and enabling others.
Of course 'freedom' is abstract to the point of uselessness as an idea, so building a political ideology entirely around it is tough.
Still not embarrassing enough to stan billionaires or tech companies.
x3 They have about as much of a choice as Cuba. America won't be there forever. Russia will force them out. It's untenable and provocative.
Really? Because "freedom" has been the mantra of American proponents of the Bush doctrine.
I'm not a libertarian, but the movement doesn't seem bad. They want small government, freedom and peace.
edited 21st Sep '16 4:02:35 AM by 940131
Quite frankly, I don't trust people enough to go with small government. Without proper regulation, standards of living vary wildly, and bigotry starts to seep in.
Oh God! Natural light!![]()
![]()
![]()
And I would hold that those libertarian ideals are as hypocritical as anything you have accused the US of. In many cases, strong federal government is the only thing protecting the freedoms we hold most dear, such as the right to vote. Many states would like to see a full return of Jim Crow, and in voter ID laws that mostly make it harder for lower-class people and minorities to vote in the name of combating the essentially nonexistent crime of voter fraud by voting more than once. And on peace, non-interventionism is fine if you only care about your own nation's peace, even if it means letting the rest of the world burn, but non-interventionism as a superpower in many ways undermines global peace. By saying "we will not intervene on behalf of another nation", we essentially give free rein to every nation that wants to carve a piece out of their neighboring nations, like how Russia wants to expand to the old Soviet or Imperial borders or China would like to gobble up or puppet many of the surrounding nations.
edited 21st Sep '16 6:10:31 AM by Balmung
Some of them are. The minor parties really don't really have a concrete identity.
![]()
As with all political leanings, there's a large range of opinions that fall within left libertarianism. I myself would consider that to be a reasonably accurate descriptor of my own political leanings, though with the caveat that I fully understand that steps in that direction will take decades to centuries to come to fruition, and that "abolish the state" at his time is no more constructive a suggestion than "build a wall".
edited 21st Sep '16 6:26:22 AM by CaptainCapsase
Generally speaking, on the far left, you have two strongly opposed ideologies: the anarcho-communists who want all authority torn down so we can live in small, egalitarian communities at peace with nature; and the authoritarian-communists who want the State to seize control of industry entirely and create a utopia devoid of the worship of money. Neither has a very large backing.
You also have some groups based around specific fringe ideas, like the anti-vaxxers, the alt-med types (homeopathic remedies, chakras, etc.), and whatnot. If they could all unite they might be a powerful political force, but unfortunately (or fortunately, since they tend to be as balls-out ignorant as they accuse their opponents of being), We ARE Struggling Together.
edited 21st Sep '16 6:26:11 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"I doubt they would be that powerful. They're fringe for a reason.
Most leftists in developed countries are still sold on the idea of the "American Dream," that if you work hard you can get the standard middle class existence: a nice home, a vacation or two every year, comfortable retirement, a future for your children, just within the bounds of an otherwise-capitalist society. The disagreement within mainstream leftism is merely how aggressive the state's redistributive functions need to be while striking the correct balance with respect for private enterprise and property.
The remaining Marx-Leninists are mostly deluded. Communism of that kind has a real appeal, but only to people who can never see themselves making it within the system, no matter how much the system might be able to be changed democratically. That's why it always thrived in more dispossessed societies.

2) Wasb't Bernie against it? Hillary had was a senator. She sat on the SASC. She supported the war. It was an illegal war. She supported it. And I'm not talking about the other senators that supported the war. They're irrelevant.
3) Gaddaffi was the recognized leader of Libya and the countries sovereignty was violated. If the US wanted to help people in the region, they could deal with the behavior of their closest allies. Saudi Arabia and Israel.
4) Turkeys been an ally forever. Poland was not. NATO wasn't supposed to expand East for obvious reasons, but did anyways. What Russia does in Ukraine is irrelevant. Ukraine isn't in the US' sphere of influence.
5) And you're acting like the US has clean hands.
6) I repeat, Crimea was Russian and the majority wanted to rejoin Russia.
7) I'm glad you agree that the US is a bigger warmongering state than the PRC.
8) That's kind of silly. A Civil War doesn't meas Assad stopped being the leader of Syria. He still is and he wants America to stay out of his country.
9) And what did they do about Israel using White Phosphorus. When did they militarily intervene? Did they cut off foreign aid? Did they remove their UN veto. What did they do about it?
2) You said the Bush family. How wefe Jeb, George the first and the rest involved? It's not just gullibility. She's a hawk and she didn't learn her lesson. Sanders and Chafee were against the war. The war was illegal.
3) There have been far more wars than that.
4) It's not about morality. It's about legality. The international community recognizes Assads government. He doesn't want America in his country. Intervention would be a violation of Syria's sovereignty.
5) When did I say the US should form alliances with dictatorships? They already are. And claims that you're fighting in the Midde East for freedom ring hollow when you're in bed with Saudi Arabia.
6) That's my line. Because I'm not defending America's illegal interventions, I've been called an apologist for dictators.
edited 21st Sep '16 1:08:13 AM by 940131