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
Even Hillary is jumping in to the covfefe jokes train
.
![]()
Anarchy means the end of hierarchy, not government.
You can have a government without hierarchy and you can have hierarchy without a government.
He's an anti-Fedralist. Not that he still wants state government to exist.
edited 1st Jun '17 3:22:16 PM 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![]()
![]()
![]()
Heh, nothing personal. My father's also Libertarian, but fundamentally I believe that American Libertarinism is a cancerous movement that would prove just as destructive as the Republicans if it ever had control.
On the issue of Anarchism I would not consider him one because he most certainly not opposed to Hierarchy or a supporter of radical egalitarianism. Like the Libertarian Party as a whole he's simply a defacto supporter of Corporatocracy.
edited 1st Jun '17 3:28:58 PM by Fourthspartan56
"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji YangSince I skipped a bit with my earlier post(I left the page open for a few hours and forgot to reload), now that I'm up to speed allow me to plug this 538 article again
on the issue of whether Biden's running or not, and remind you all that he had done 5 of the 7 things listed there when the article was written, and has since done a 6th. So Biden might as well have already announced a run.
And Sanders will probably try to run too, seeing as many times the candidate who ends up second place in one primary season tries again (and wins) the next cycle.
1 2 We are what we pretend to be, so we must be careful about what we pretend to be. -KV
I don't mind Biden running but I would be lying if I said that Sanders running would make me anything other than unhappy. I just don't think that he would be a good candidate or a good president, that said I would vote for him over Trump any day (which doesn't really say much).
Sanders is pretty old already.....
Anyway, a number of democratic states have declared that no matter what Trump says or does, THEY will try to fulfil the agreement.
In short, after the US enemies have started to push the boundaries and the US allies have more or less said "yeah, have fun, we will move forward in the direction WE like no matter what you demand" now even the US states have stopped listening to the President. What a strong leader.
Fuck no, on Biden. It was ONLY because of extremely specific circumstances that I fully supported Hillary even though she was 68, going on 69. Otherwise, I would've said no to her running.
A man in his mid 70s? Lord have mercy, no.
edited 1st Jun '17 3:51:48 PM by TacticalFox88
New Survey coming this weekend!Pai being a asshole, trying to justify killing Net Neutrality by saying that Broadband isn't Telecommunications: https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2017/06/to-kill-net-neutrality-rules-fcc-says-broadband-isnt-telecommunications
That's a generous interpretation of his actions. All those CEO's stayed because they didn't want to drive Trump voters away from their business or thought they could take advantage of him to get some sort of regulation they wanted.
Everything about the man during the campaign should have told them that he was a dangerous lost cause.
edited 1st Jun '17 4:26:30 PM by bobwolf
That is a fair point, it would be irrational to assume they're doing it for altruistic reasons. But that doesn't mean that the Presidential advisory council was a bad thing, still I would argue that it's solidly a non-issue in that I doubt Trump gave a damn what they said.
I think you can count the number of CE Os who are explicitly pro-Trump, on two hands or so.
New Survey coming this weekend!

And what would you call the 'orderly' destruction of the Federal Government? It's not even Minarchism to actively destroy a Government!