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
that's what they were dealing with back in his time, and arguably even worse than today.
We had nearly wiped out the Buffalo, recklessly dilapidated our great forests, wiped out the Eastern Elk, befowled our streams and rivers.
He and Pinchot nearly singlehandedly, brought the word "conservation" into the American Conciousness, into a country where most people just assumed that resources were something to be used without question about whether it was sustainable and helped shape the way we think about natural resources today.
Edited by megaeliz on Jul 5th 2018 at 12:11:07 PM
AND IT'S ON!
The trade war with China has officially begun
.
We're even more dead now, aren't we?
Edited by TheWildWestPyro on Jul 5th 2018 at 9:06:55 AM
About the environment thing, I thought Right-Wing folks were supposed to be all about money; isn't renewable energy supposed to be a very profitable field nowadays? Then again, I'm thinking of classic, private/deregulated economy-focused Right-Wing, which isn't necessarily socially conservative or reactionary. Guess this is what happens when a European such as myself tries to understand American politics. :V
I still find it interesting that American Libertarians are usually assumed to be ultra-social conservatives, too. Though I suppose a socially-liberal Libertarian would be called an Anarchist instead.
Edited by PresidentStalkeyes on Jul 5th 2018 at 5:43:51 PM
Those sell-by-dates won't stop me because I can't read!The USA rightwing is greatly influenced by Big Oil and King Coal.
And the American Lolbertarian Party are a bunch of Austrian school goldbug Bitcoin mining Koch puppet cultists.
As you might have guessed, I'm not a huge fan of the Libertarians.
Edited by M84 on Jul 6th 2018 at 12:14:43 AM
Disgusted, but not surprisedMy own primary issue with Libertarians, gleaned from conversations on this thread, is that their views come off as more than a little naive. My understanding is that they want as little regulation and federal oversight as possible, and that things will work out because the market and economy will naturally drive competition rather than monopoly.
It seems to rely on an altruism that, by and large, simply isn't there.
@sgamer82: That's a charitable interpretation. They also tend to be so committed to their worldview that they accept outright pseudoscience because they desperately need to have someone tell them that their views are right. It's a fertile ground for affinity fraud (as well as getting tied in with racial bullshit due to the neo-Confederate link - this part is what drove me away), which further poisons the movement and drives the sane people away.
A lot of Libertarians really, honestly believe that, through some magic trick or other, the federal government and particularly the IRS can be made to vanish in a Puff of Logic. This is Not Hyperbole - this is the entire idea behind the "sovereign citizen" movement.
Small-l libertarians tend to want lower taxes and greater individual (negative) freedoms, and aren't as committed to the specific methodology of getting them.
Edited by Ramidel on Jul 5th 2018 at 8:42:54 AM
Negative freedoms mean the right to not be interfered with (as opposed to the right to be assisted with).
For example, libertarians of all stripes are big on drug legalization (there's some arguments on the details). They all want lower taxes if possible, though sometimes (as with a lot of libertarian environmental proposals) they prefer taxes to hard bans. They want less government bureaucracy and interference (UBI used to be a big thing in Libertarian circles before the kool-aid got too thick). They tend to favor isolationism and free trade in foreign policy, along with a draw-down of the defense budget.
Edited by Ramidel on Jul 5th 2018 at 8:51:34 AM
Indeed. The idea is that discrimination can be countered by market forces - those who are discriminated against or who object to discrimination can boycott discriminatory businesses, and the invisible hand will thus pressure against discrimination. In real life, of course, that doesn't work - though I note that part of that is that the actions of the government and police tend to reinforce discrimination, which proper libertarians absolutely oppose.
Regarding the splitting of the Republican Party.
I think that the Republicans would have to have several bad administrations one after the other before people started turning their back on them completely to the point where a new party could rise up to take their place.
I don't think a single bad administration, even Trump's, could tarnish the GOP reputation in the eyes of their voters.
As long as the democrats can wrestle control from the GOP every few years, their base will continue to defend them as their guys had to "fix the mess left by the dems" or because "the dems didn't let us govern". Not to mention, in 2021 or 2025 some Republicans could justify their vote for the GOP by blaming everything bad on Trump and his minions.
Just a thought I had, though. I could be wrong, hehe.
If we get some whitebread like Mitt Romney, maybe. If a "moderate" Republican even stands a chance anymore, maybe. It would be bad, but a step in the right direction, and I would take a moderate Republican over Trump again.
I won't be happy if that's what Election Night 2020 works out as, but I might breathe a sigh of relief when the Republican nomination is decided.
Though I guess that depends on the Republicans primarying their own incumbent, which will never happen. Disregard the rest of the post.
Edited by RedSavant on Jul 5th 2018 at 2:40:37 PM
It's been fun.Well, and with effect now, the trade war between China and the US has de facto started. Well, you could say it started a while ago with the steel and aluminium tariffs, but the real bilateral beef is just now beginning.
The US has put into force tariffs on 34 billion of chinese goods and china retaliated for the same amount. 16 further billion are pretty close in the pipeline for the US-program.
What's really worrying is that trump announced that, if China retaliates (which it just did), he will consider tariffs on an additional 200 billion of imports.Also, he winked at the possibility of putting tariffs on all imports from china (which would be another 300 billion after the 50 billion now and 200 billion already considered).
What is especially problematic about the latter prospect, is that China can't retaliate against that by putting tariffs on an equal amount of US-imports (as it doesn't have enough imports to do that), so it probably would have to retaliate in another way, which could lead tot he US doing the same thing, spilling the conflict over from tariffs to non-tariff trade obstacles.
Trump had another rally last night. Though we should really start calling it an "adulation fix" instead, since he has one of these damn things every week now.
This one was in Montana, where a GOP'er named Matt Rosendale wants to unseat Democrat senator Jon Tester. More about Rosendale.
Goes without saying that I hope Rosendale's defeated.
Edited by speedyboris on Jul 6th 2018 at 8:58:47 AM
It seems to rely on an altruism that, by and large, simply isn't there.

No, although there are exceptions, First Past the Post voting systems, as well as the general shape of American Politics, generally means a third party just ends up splitting the vote. Better to stand United and keep the crazies out.
Edited by megaeliz on Jul 5th 2018 at 12:00:32 PM