2016 US Election


Off-Topic Discussions

5,401 to 5,450 of 7,079 << first < prev | 104 | 105 | 106 | 107 | 108 | 109 | 110 | 111 | 112 | 113 | 114 | next > last >>

I think the Republican voters also have just as many awkward divisions, but the leadership and propaganda arms of the right just do a better job of keeping them unified. The last couple of primaries though have shown that some of those tensions are becoming more apparent.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:


Trump is pretty much an outlier.

Well, an "outlier" that pulled 40% of the early primary vote.

Quote:
Most of the views he's espoused are ones that this current incarnation of the Republican party are perfectly happy with and have promulugated.

Not really, no. Some of the current Republican party are perfectly happy with his views, some are appalled to the point of staying home and/or voting for other candidates, and some are holding their noses and voting for them because they believe Clinton is worse.

Quote:
What the party leadership is upset about is that he's gone beyond them to attacking the very apple cart that the whole process rides on.

I suggest you try rephrasing that less metaphorically. The party leadership is upset about the fact that Trump's explicit appeal to a rather narrow subset of the Republican coalition is costing them support outside of that group. That's the "apple cart" he's upsetting.

Quote:
Trump has also been undercutting the Party's efforts to expand beyond the white male base by being such an obvious overt racist instead of the nuanced subtle variety the Party prefers.

Okay, almost there.... now ask yourself why the Party prefers nuanced and subtle racism. The answer is pretty self-evident; they want to keep the racists and white nationalists on-board with dog whistles while not driving off the voters that are actually disturbed by overt racism. And there's a larger fraction of those than you realize.

Quote:
The only real issue that the Republican Party has with Trump is that he puts his ego ahead of the Party interests... far far ahead.

Actually, I think they're used to that. What they're not uses to is someone who is so clueless he doesn't actually realize that he's putting his own ego ahead of his interests. Both parties love trainable egomaniacs, because you can generally trust them if you can persuade them that their interests run with yours. But Trump isn't house-trained, and doesn't even seem trainable.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I see that Trump is still saying he'll do (help the working class) the exact opposite of what he has actually done (screw the working class...e.g. use Chinese steel, offshore jobs, use dodgy visas to avoid hiring Americans). That isn't really surprising. What's more surprising is that the working class still appears to believe him.

**********************
**********************

Dear working class:

News flash: Trump is going to lose. Lucky for you, his impending loss is in your best interest...whether you realize it or not.

You're welcome.

Sincerely,

College-educated America


bugleyman wrote:

Sincerely,

College-educated America

We don't need no book learnin'! We came up by the school of hard knocks (and pretend like that ain't such a tired cliche that it should have gone into the dustbin years ago)!

I reckon the only book we need is this here Good Book, and we need common sense a lot more than book sense!


Trump screws the working class because he is smart.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
bugleyman wrote:
I see that Trump is still saying he'll do (help the working class) the exact opposite of what he has actually done (screw the working class...e.g. use Chinese steel, offshore jobs, use dodgy visas to avoid hiring Americans). That isn't really surprising. What's more surprising is that the working class still appears to believe him.

To be fair (although this is probably inappropriately even-handed), Trump is a businessman, and he has an obligation to his partners (and arguably to himself) to maximize his profits to the extent the rules permit.

In other words, "don't hate the player, hate the game." As a businessman, he'd be remiss in his duties if he used more expensive US-made steel or paid full US wages for jobs that can be done by cheap immigrants with dodgy visas.

As President, he would (presumably) be in a position to fix the loopholes that he himself knows so well from the other side.

Think of the "Buffett rule"; Warren Buffet pays less income tax, as a percentage of his income, than his secretary, but very few people are blaming him for that (or saying he should write a check for more than his legal obligation). Buffett himself has acknowledged that the rules are stacked in his favor and should be changed. [Personally, I feel that if Buffett were appointed Treasury Secretary, he would have a very interesting and detailed set of proposals for reforming income tax laws, proposals that I would be very much in favor of, and proposals that would die a horrible death on Capitol Hill.]

Whether we trust Buffett, whether we trust Trump, and whether we trust Trump as much as Buffett is, of course, up to the credulity of the individual voter.


On the other hand, his "proposals" mostly read like a list of things that would benefit Trump and screw over everyone else, so...


2 people marked this as a favorite.

The rules are stacked in my favor, and I promise that if you give me control of the rules I will unstack them so that they are not in my favor

Riiiiiigggghhhhhttttt


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Terquem wrote:
The rules are stacked in my favor, and I promise that if you give me control of the rules I will unstack them so that they are not in my favor.

As I pointed out earlier, when Buffett says a similar thing, people tend to believe him.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

It surprises me there isn't a "Hard Work Party." They could tap into the bootstrap myth but appeal to a broader base. They'd have a platform that looked something like this:

  • Job creation
  • Reduce "entitlement" programs
  • Eliminate large corporate subsidies & loopholes; tax breaks for small businesses only
  • Less overseas adventurism to focus on internal infrastructure
  • Non-career politicians claiming to present "common-sense" bills that "make sense" as opposed to making back-room political deals with other "insiders."
  • Renewable energy recast as job creation for American know-how, sidestepping the whole anthropogenic climate change vs. denialist issue.
  • Hot-button religious topics like abortion and evolution/creationism left to lower courts as a means of conspicuously avoiding having a stance.
  • Claims of being in favor of "small government"

    You could tap into the disaffected jobless base that Trump is relying on, but without the overt racism. You'd also appeal to the Sanders people/OWS contingent.


  • 1 person marked this as a favorite.

    I thought it was very odd that Clinton would go after Trump for using Chinese steel.

    Clinton Grants China MFN, Reversing Campaign Pledge

    That article is so full of gems, it is hard to not repost the whole thing. Here is a highlight or two:
    "President Clinton Thursday reversed course on China and renewed its trade privileges despite what he said was Beijing's lack of significant progress on human rights.

    Echoing the case made by George Bush when he was president, Clinton said he was convinced the Chinese would take more steps to improve human rights if the issue were separated from the threat of trade sanctions."
    ...
    "Clinton had been the subject of heavy lobbying by American business interests and his economic advisers to continue China's trade privileges. With China now the world's fastest growing economy, the United States exports $8 billion a year there, which sustains up to 150,000 American jobs. Many major American businesses see even greater potential in Chinese markets, expecting China to become a massive purchaser over the next decade of the phones, electronic gadgets and thousands of other products made in America."

    "...At one point, the president was leaning toward extending the trade privileges, but putting sanctions on a range of military-made products. The Treasury and Defense departments vehemently objected, and from the outset the president's economic advisers argued that trade and human rights should not be linked."

    [bold added by Fergie]
    Just think about how Wal Mart benefited from this arrangement. Hillary was on their board of directors back in the 80's when she was First Lady of Arkansas.

    Dear "College Educated America", please take the pompous attitude and neo-liberalism that has been pucking over the vast majority for decades, and shove it where the sun don't shine.

    You're welcome.
    Sincerely,

    People who work for a living.

    [Just kidding around Bugleyman. No offense intended]

    Sovereign Court

    Orfamay Quest wrote:
    Terquem wrote:
    The rules are stacked in my favor, and I promise that if you give me control of the rules I will unstack them so that they are not in my favor.
    As I pointed out earlier, when Buffett says a similar thing, people tend to believe him.

    Well Buffett is a vastly different person then Trump. Buffett isn't flashy, he doesn't flaunt his wealth, and has earmarked the majority of it to charity. Plus he isn't running for office.

    Sovereign Court

    Pathfinder Adventure Path, Card Game, Companion, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
    Orfamay Quest wrote:
    Terquem wrote:
    The rules are stacked in my favor, and I promise that if you give me control of the rules I will unstack them so that they are not in my favor.
    As I pointed out earlier, when Buffett says a similar thing, people tend to believe him.

    Warren Buffett has principles that he's demonstrated over years of investing. If Trump has principles, they aren't the ones that will help Americans.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Kirth Gersen wrote:
    It surprises me there isn't a "Hard Work Party."

    There hasn't really been a need for one up until this cycle. Next cycle, there may well be, depending upon how the Republicans react.

    Of course, the "eliminate large corporate subsidies" plank would cut strongly into the amount of corporate money that would flow into the party coffers. That's basically the problem in a nutshell: the party you propose is essentially Republican-light ("A third less voters than the regular Republican party!")

    In a normal cycle, this would be a death sentence, because of the number of voters that stayed home. Unfortunately, the Tea Party started (and Trump continued) almost the reverse process -- Republican-alt.light ("A third less voters and three-quarters less sense!") -- which is biting them in the ass now and will probably continue to do so for a while.


    Orfamay Quest wrote:
    Of course, the "eliminate large corporate subsidies" plank would cut strongly into the amount of corporate money that would flow into the party coffers. That's basically the problem in a nutshell: the party you propose is essentially Republican-light ("A third less voters than the regular Republican party!")

    It seems to me the Tea Party and the Sanders/OWS people actually have a lot in common on some issues; the party would be looking to capitalize on that. Republicans - 1/3 of the voters + the independents/superleft Democrats = possible win, if you sold it well.


    Kirth Gersen wrote:
    Orfamay Quest wrote:
    Of course, the "eliminate large corporate subsidies" plank would cut strongly into the amount of corporate money that would flow into the party coffers. That's basically the problem in a nutshell: the party you propose is essentially Republican-light ("A third less voters than the regular Republican party!")
    It seems to me the Tea Party and the Sanders/OWS people actually have a lot in common on some issues; the party would be looking to capitalize on that. Republicans - 1/3 of the voters + the independents/superleft Democrats = possible win, if you sold it well.

    Trump has made a couple of half-hearted attempts to woo the Sanders people on the grounds of their common contempt for the status quo.


    Kirth Gersen wrote:
    Orfamay Quest wrote:
    Of course, the "eliminate large corporate subsidies" plank would cut strongly into the amount of corporate money that would flow into the party coffers. That's basically the problem in a nutshell: the party you propose is essentially Republican-light ("A third less voters than the regular Republican party!")
    It seems to me the Tea Party and the Sanders/OWS people actually have a lot in common on some issues; the party would be looking to capitalize on that. Republicans - 1/3 of the voters + the independents/superleft Democrats = possible win, if you sold it well.

    They have anger at corporate America in common. That's about it.

    Both are as much about social/values issues as economics. There they would clash violently.


    Orfamay Quest wrote:
    To be fair (although this is probably inappropriately even-handed), Trump is a businessman, and he has an obligation to his partners (and arguably to himself) to maximize his profits to the extent the rules permit.

    Then he's doing a terrible job.

    But point taken. He could act dramatically differently as president than he did as a CEO. But then there goes the whole "run the country like a business" mantra.


    Fergie wrote:
    [Just kidding around Bugleyman. No offense intended]

    None taken. I asked for it, and my tone was definitely pompous.

    I just can't see how anyone can believe that Trump is "for the little guy."


    Didn't he mention in the debate that he wanted to run the country the way he ran his businesses?


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    MMCJawa wrote:
    I think the Republican voters also have just as many awkward divisions, but the leadership and propaganda arms of the right just do a better job of keeping them unified. The last couple of primaries though have shown that some of those tensions are becoming more apparent.

    The republicans are more awkwardly split.

    The entire point of the republican party is to push none of the taxes and all of the government services to the .01%. You can't win an election if you admit that though. (Say on a hidden recording from Jimmy Carters Grandkid)

    In order to get the other 49% of the country they need to win they advocate

    -White evangelical christianity
    -Anti abortion
    -Southern white racists
    -Small government Libertarians
    -June and Joe cleaver, mom, apple pie, and nostalgia for the 1950s when everything was perfect
    -Anti intellectualism

    Some of these work together. If you cast doubt on science you help young earth evangelicals as well as the fossil fuel industry. When in doubt you cry "State's rights!" and let the state discriminate against people.

    Some of them don't. Having the war on drugs because drugs are bad and restricting abortion don't work with libertarians.

    Democrats aren't nearly as enthused but do work together, or tend not to work at odds. You have

    environmentalists

    minorities (because when a big part of the one parties strategy is
    blaming you for everything, you tend to go with the other guy)

    social justice types

    These work together or at the very least don't oppose each other. For most people, if you can empathize with the fact that a panda bear is dying out and needs government intervention to save their home you can empathize enough with a human being when they say their habbitat is FUBARed enough to rewquire government intervention: or you're far enough out in the woods not to care.


    Rednal wrote:
    Didn't he mention in the debate that he wanted to run the country the way he ran his businesses?

    Given his history on running buisnesses, he should not be trying to make that a selling point.


    Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
    Rednal wrote:
    Didn't he mention in the debate that he wanted to run the country the way he ran his businesses?
    Given his history on running buisnesses, he should not be trying to make that a selling point.

    For that to cross his mind, he would have to come to terms with the fact that he is not a good businessman. I don't think his ego could take it.

    He isn't that bad as a scam artist, though. Gotta give the man credit where credit is due. He might be able to "Make America Great Again, one Hustle at a Time"...do you think the press would go for that slogan?


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    BigNorseWolf wrote:
    MMCJawa wrote:
    I think the Republican voters also have just as many awkward divisions, but the leadership and propaganda arms of the right just do a better job of keeping them unified. The last couple of primaries though have shown that some of those tensions are becoming more apparent.

    The republicans are more awkwardly split.

    The entire point of the republican party is to push none of the taxes and all of the government services to the .01%. You can't win an election if you admit that though. (Say on a hidden recording from Jimmy Carters Grandkid)

    In order to get the other 49% of the country they need to win they advocate

    -White evangelical christianity
    -Anti abortion
    -Southern white racists
    -Small government Libertarians
    -June and Joe cleaver, mom, apple pie, and nostalgia for the 1950s when everything was perfect
    -Anti intellectualism

    Some of these work together. If you cast doubt on science you help young earth evangelicals as well as the fossil fuel industry. When in doubt you cry "State's rights!" and let the state discriminate against people.

    Some of them don't. Having the war on drugs because drugs are bad and restricting abortion don't work with libertarians.

    Democrats aren't nearly as enthused but do work together, or tend not to work at odds. You have

    environmentalists

    minorities (because when a big part of the one parties strategy is
    blaming you for everything, you tend to go with the other guy)

    social justice types

    These work together or at the very least don't oppose each other. For most people, if you can empathize with the fact that a panda bear is dying out and needs government intervention to save their home you can empathize enough with a human being when they say their habbitat is FUBARed enough to rewquire government intervention: or you're far enough out in the woods not to care.

    This is primarily based on my personal observations and experiences so it's in no way meant to be a universally true statement, but I've been a seeing a LOT of in-fighting among the "social justice types" over the past year or so. For some it's a contest of "who should we focus on/who is more or less privileged?", while others I'm seeing are squabbling among themselves over what the scope of their efforts should be (basically arguing over whether or not the other camp is getting bogged down in more trivial matters at the expense of "progress" on the bigger issues).


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    bugleyman wrote:
    I just can't see how anyone can believe that Trump is "for the little guy."

    I agree 100%. Actions speak louder then words, and clearly his actions show he only cares about Donald Trump.

    I don't see how anyone can think that any major party candidate for president in the last 30+ years is "for the little guy."


    And in more delightful news, Trump modifies his debate position somewhat and says he will accept the results if he wins.


    Kirth Gersen wrote:

    It surprises me there isn't a "Hard Work Party." They could tap into the bootstrap myth but appeal to a broader base. They'd have a platform that looked something like this:

  • Job creation
  • Reduce "entitlement" programs
  • Eliminate large corporate subsidies & loopholes; tax breaks for small businesses only
  • Less overseas adventurism to focus on internal infrastructure
  • Non-career politicians claiming to present "common-sense" bills that "make sense" as opposed to making back-room political deals with other "insiders."
  • Renewable energy recast as job creation for American know-how, sidestepping the whole anthropogenic climate change vs. denialist issue.
  • Hot-button religious topics like abortion and evolution/creationism left to lower courts as a means of conspicuously avoiding having a stance.
  • Claims of being in favor of "small government"

    You could tap into the disaffected jobless base that Trump is relying on, but without the overt racism. You'd also appeal to the Sanders people/OWS contingent.

  • Isn't this pretty much the Libertarian party minus the crazy?


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Caineach wrote:
    Kirth Gersen wrote:

    It surprises me there isn't a "Hard Work Party." They could tap into the bootstrap myth but appeal to a broader base. They'd have a platform that looked something like this:

  • Job creation
  • Reduce "entitlement" programs
  • Eliminate large corporate subsidies & loopholes; tax breaks for small businesses only
  • Less overseas adventurism to focus on internal infrastructure
  • Non-career politicians claiming to present "common-sense" bills that "make sense" as opposed to making back-room political deals with other "insiders."
  • Renewable energy recast as job creation for American know-how, sidestepping the whole anthropogenic climate change vs. denialist issue.
  • Hot-button religious topics like abortion and evolution/creationism left to lower courts as a means of conspicuously avoiding having a stance.
  • Claims of being in favor of "small government"

    You could tap into the disaffected jobless base that Trump is relying on, but without the overt racism. You'd also appeal to the Sanders people/OWS contingent.

  • Isn't this pretty much the Libertarian party minus the crazy?

    If you took the crazy out of the Libertarian Party, you'd have little left save the blatantly honestly selfish.


    2 people marked this as a favorite.
    Caineach wrote:
    Kirth Gersen wrote:

    It surprises me there isn't a "Hard Work Party." They could tap into the bootstrap myth but appeal to a broader base. They'd have a platform that looked something like this:

  • Job creation
  • Reduce "entitlement" programs
  • Eliminate large corporate subsidies & loopholes; tax breaks for small businesses only
  • Less overseas adventurism to focus on internal infrastructure
  • Non-career politicians claiming to present "common-sense" bills that "make sense" as opposed to making back-room political deals with other "insiders."
  • Renewable energy recast as job creation for American know-how, sidestepping the whole anthropogenic climate change vs. denialist issue.
  • Hot-button religious topics like abortion and evolution/creationism left to lower courts as a means of conspicuously avoiding having a stance.
  • Claims of being in favor of "small government"

    You could tap into the disaffected jobless base that Trump is relying on, but without the overt racism. You'd also appeal to the Sanders people/OWS contingent.

  • Isn't this pretty much the Libertarian party minus the crazy?

    Not really, no. The whole point of the Libertarian party is that the government should have no role in anything. For example, the government should not be in the business of "job creation" generally, and specifically shouldn't be in the business of selecting sectors (such as renewable energy or "small businesses"). The government should not be leaving hot-button issues like abortion alone; it should instead make it clear that the government at any level has no business whatsoever restricting abortion, or use of heroin, or personal possession and use of antitank artillery, et cetera.

    Even bills that "make sense" are usually overstepping their bounds.


    2 people marked this as a favorite.

    The Libertarian party strikes me as a fundamentally good idea taken to fundamentally irrational extremes. :P


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    bugleyman wrote:
    The Libertarian party strikes me as a fundamentally good idea taken to fundamentally irrational extremes. :P

    The Libertarian party: Lets not intervene for anyone.

    The republican party: Lets have government intervention for the rich and say we're not having intervention for anyone.

    The Democratic party: Lets have a lot of government intervention for the rich and a little bit for the poor and say we're only intervening for the poor.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    bugleyman wrote:
    The Libertarian party strikes me as a fundamentally good idea taken to fundamentally irrational extremes.

    I do not believe you are alone in that characterization. For myself, I don't share it; sometimes less government regulation is good, sometimes less government regulation is bad, and the "good" idea is to tailor the amount of regulation to the issue at hand.

    I had a discussion with a Massachusetts Libertarian some years ago where he explained to me that, in his version of liberty, the government would only act to prevent force or fraud. When I asked if the government would be able to act to prevent non-forcible murders (such as by poison), he said, "no." He further agreed that, if I were to use force to prevent someone from poisoning a third party, his ideal government would punish me for my unauthorized use of force.

    The fundamental problem (IMHO) with Libertarianism is that they seek principles over outcomes, and I've never seen a such a system work where humans are involved, because humans will always find loopholes.

    With that said, I don't see anything particularly objectionable about KG's "Hard Work Party," except by omission. One of the key points that distinguish modern Democrats from modern Republicans is the issue of protecting people's rights, particular the rights of vulnerable populations. Would the "Hard Work" party act to prevent states from disenfranchising minority voters? Would it act to make sure that schools in minority districts were fairly funded? Would it act to make sure that local police treated all citizens fairly? If these are among the "hot-button" topics that are left to the local governments to decide, then we've just allowed the racist dog whistles back into the "Hard Work" party.


    2 people marked this as a favorite.
    bugleyman wrote:
    The Libertarian party strikes me as a fundamentally good idea taken to fundamentally irrational extremes. :P

    What is the fundamentally good idea? I am by no means an expert, but from what little I have gathered Libertarianism is kind of like Communism in that it ignores the basic realities of human nature. Namely, that when presented an opportunity to screw others into the ground for one's own gain, a non-trivial fraction of people will jump at the opportunity to advance their own interests regardless of the damage it inflicts to their fellow man. The assumption that everyone should have as much liberty as possible but that they shouldn't use that liberty to do what they want if it comes at the expense of the liberty of others is a fundamentally broken assumption. It is unworkable. It falls under the same category as cold fusion, water fueled car engines and perpetual motion machines. It is complete nonsense with a very thin veneer of legitimacy.


    Orfamay Quest wrote:
    One of the key points that distinguish modern Democrats from modern Republicans is the issue of protecting people's rights, particular the rights of vulnerable populations. Would the "Hard Work" party act to prevent states from disenfranchising minority voters? Would it act to make sure that schools in minority districts were fairly funded? Would it act to make sure that local police treated all citizens fairly? If these are among the "hot-button" topics that are left to the local governments to decide, then we've just allowed the racist dog whistles back into the "Hard Work" party.

    The only stated aim was to leave out the "overt" racism. Poster said nothing about nuanced racism.


    2 people marked this as a favorite.
    Snowblind wrote:
    bugleyman wrote:
    The Libertarian party strikes me as a fundamentally good idea taken to fundamentally irrational extremes. :P
    What is the fundamentally good idea? I am by no means an expert, but from what little I have gathered Libertarianism is kind of like Communism in that it ignores the basic realities of human nature.

    Pretty much. Libertarianism is another version of Utopia, and suffers accordingly. In the extremely memorable words of G. K. Chesterton, "[T]he weakness of all Utopias is this, that they take the greatest difficulty of man and assume it to be overcome, and then give an elaborate account of the overcoming of the smaller ones. They first assume that no man will want more than his share, and then are very ingenious in explaining whether his share will be delivered by motor-car or balloon."


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Snowblind wrote:
    bugleyman wrote:
    The Libertarian party strikes me as a fundamentally good idea taken to fundamentally irrational extremes. :P
    What is the fundamentally good idea? I am by no means an expert, but from what little I have gathered Libertarianism is kind of like Communism in that it ignores the basic realities of human nature. Namely, that when presented an opportunity to screw others into the ground for one's own gain, a non-trivial fraction of people will jump at the opportunity to advance their own interests regardless of the damage it inflicts to their fellow man. The assumption that everyone should have as much liberty as possible but that they shouldn't use that liberty to do what they want if it comes at the expense of the liberty of others is a fundamentally broken assumption. It is unworkable. It falls under the same category as cold fusion, water fueled car engines and perpetual motion machines. It is complete nonsense with a very thin veneer of legitimacy.

    Every Libertarian I've ever met came from a white suburban family of privilege. Of those the bulk of them were devotees of Ayn Rand. I flogged myself through a weekend to read their principle Bibles, Atlas Shrugged, and the Fountainhead. (spoiler: the movie was a much better experience.)


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
    Orfamay Quest wrote:
    One of the key points that distinguish modern Democrats from modern Republicans is the issue of protecting people's rights, particular the rights of vulnerable populations. Would the "Hard Work" party act to prevent states from disenfranchising minority voters? Would it act to make sure that schools in minority districts were fairly funded? Would it act to make sure that local police treated all citizens fairly? If these are among the "hot-button" topics that are left to the local governments to decide, then we've just allowed the racist dog whistles back into the "Hard Work" party.
    The only stated aim was to leave out the "overt" racism. Poster said nothing about nuanced racism.

    Ah, so it is the Republican party of old.


    To me, Libertarianism is a game of Anarchy for everyone but the well-off. They get to spectate.


    Orfamay Quest wrote:
    Caineach wrote:
    Kirth Gersen wrote:

    It surprises me there isn't a "Hard Work Party." They could tap into the bootstrap myth but appeal to a broader base. They'd have a platform that looked something like this:

  • Job creation
  • Reduce "entitlement" programs
  • Eliminate large corporate subsidies & loopholes; tax breaks for small businesses only
  • Less overseas adventurism to focus on internal infrastructure
  • Non-career politicians claiming to present "common-sense" bills that "make sense" as opposed to making back-room political deals with other "insiders."
  • Renewable energy recast as job creation for American know-how, sidestepping the whole anthropogenic climate change vs. denialist issue.
  • Hot-button religious topics like abortion and evolution/creationism left to lower courts as a means of conspicuously avoiding having a stance.
  • Claims of being in favor of "small government"

    You could tap into the disaffected jobless base that Trump is relying on, but without the overt racism. You'd also appeal to the Sanders people/OWS contingent.

  • Isn't this pretty much the Libertarian party minus the crazy?

    Not really, no. The whole point of the Libertarian party is that the government should have no role in anything. For example, the government should not be in the business of "job creation" generally, and specifically shouldn't be in the business of selecting sectors (such as renewable energy or "small businesses"). The government should not be leaving hot-button issues like abortion alone; it should instead make it clear that the government at any level has no business whatsoever restricting abortion, or use of heroin, or personal possession and use of antitank artillery, et cetera.

    Even bills that "make sense" are usually overstepping their bounds.

    Like I said, minus the crazy. Most self-identified Libertarians I know take it no where near the extreme you are describing.

    Liberty's Edge

    Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
    Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
    Every Libertarian I've ever met came from a white suburban family of privilege. Of those the bulk of them were devotees of Ayn Rand. I flogged myself through a weekend to read their principle Bibles, Atlas Shrugged, and the Fountainhead. (spoiler: the movie was a much better experience.)

    I agree. The movie was shorter and stopped half way through the 'plot'... thereby improving the cohesiveness of the story while decreasing the duration of the mind numbing stupidity.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:

    ...

    Every Libertarian I've ever met came from a white suburban family of privilege. Of those the bulk of them were devotees of Ayn Rand. I flogged myself through a weekend to read their principle Bibles, Atlas Shrugged, and the Fountainhead. (spoiler: the movie was a much better experience.)

    So in other words, Libertarianism is the philosophy of "it's good for me, so it's good for everyone", if not outright "up yours, got mine"? Yay, just what we need more of.

    Quote:

    ...

    The fundamental problem (IMHO) with Libertarianism is that they seek principles over outcomes, and I've never seen a such a system work where humans are involved, because humans will always find loopholes.
    ...

    I don't even know of the term "works" can be applied to anything that puts principles over outcomes. I would describe "It works" or "It doesn't work" as an examination of the outcome. If the principles are upheld, then who cares if humans find loopholes and turn the entire system into a sham. It is technically correct that they have the right to do that, and technically correct is the best kind of correct, since it is always correct (technically speaking).

    Yeah, Libertarianism is sounding like more and more like an inherently contradictory philosophy. Either everyone is free to do whatever they want so long as they don't want to do things they aren't allowed to (oh, the doublethink), or everyone is free to do whatever they want, including things which prevent other people from doing whatever they want, which means that a system of Libertarianism only lasts as long as it takes for someone to become top dog and substitute their own system.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    The problem here is the use of multiple different definitions and uses of the word "libertarian". The ideology is not necessarily the same as the party's platform. Many people here (and sadly in the Libertarian party) seem to think that libertarianism is the same as anarcho-capitalism, which isn't generally the case. To avoid the whole No-True-Scotsman issue, I'll just give the version of the term Libertarian which I use to describe myself (as do others that I read/talk to/etc.). Libertarianism is an ideology which supports government oversight and regulation on matters which otherwise couldn't reasonably be expected to happen in a privatized setting (public infrastructure, emergency services, etc.) which most people who label themselves as Libertarian agree, regardless how wacky their other positions may be. Additionally, libertarians generally are of the opinion that if it doesn't significantly impact another person beyond those willfully participating in whatever relevant act is being discussed, then the government has no business interfering with it. Where the definition of "libertarian" tends to break down is the almost arbitrary point at which you determine whether or not something has a significant impact on a 3rd party.


    Captain Battletoad wrote:

    ...

    Where the definition of "libertarian" tends to break down is the almost arbitrary point at which you determine whether or not something has a significant impact on a 3rd party.

    Is there a political system that can't be justified under Libertarianism by a carefully cherry picked definition of "significant impact on a 3rd party"? If there isn't, then what the heck is the point of the philosophy if it can be used to justify literally anything if you look at it the right way?


    Snowblind wrote:
    Captain Battletoad wrote:

    ...

    Where the definition of "libertarian" tends to break down is the almost arbitrary point at which you determine whether or not something has a significant impact on a 3rd party.
    Is there a political system that can't be justified under Libertarianism by a carefully cherry picked definition of "significant impact on a 3rd party"? If there isn't, then what the heck is the point of the philosophy if it can be used to justify literally anything if you look at it the right way?

    "Can't"? Maybe not. "Wouldn't"? Definitely. I doubt you'll ever see an actual, unironic libertarian claim that they would've supported Mao.


    Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens Subscriber
    Snowblind wrote:
    Captain Battletoad wrote:

    ...

    Where the definition of "libertarian" tends to break down is the almost arbitrary point at which you determine whether or not something has a significant impact on a 3rd party.
    Is there a political system that can't be justified under Libertarianism by a carefully cherry picked definition of "significant impact on a 3rd party"? If there isn't, then what the heck is the point of the philosophy if it can be used to justify literally anything if you look at it the right way?

    Non-adherence to the existing duopoly?


    The big problem with the ideology is its need to deal with everything on a case-by-case basis when determining if it should even be within the realm of power for a government. It's an issue which causes a lot of internal strife among libertarians (for example there are a lot of things on which I agree with Ben Shapiro [when he's debating, not when he's writing Buzzfeed-tier articles since he's essentially two different people in those cases], but there are other issues which he favors legally restricting which I don't, such as abortion).


    Orfamay Quest wrote:
    Terquem wrote:
    The rules are stacked in my favor, and I promise that if you give me control of the rules I will unstack them so that they are not in my favor.
    As I pointed out earlier, when Buffett says a similar thing, people tend to believe him.

    Well, Buffett doesn't ask to be put in charge of the government. He's just suggested rule changes that would mostly impact him (and those who are similarly wealthy).


    4 people marked this as a favorite.
    Turin the Mad wrote:
    Thomas Seitz wrote:
    I'm willing to start a twitter war with him....if I didn't think Twitter was stupid.
    Don't give in to the Derp Side, Obi-Tom Seitznobi.

    *chuckles* Obi-Tom. Obi-Tom. Now there's a name I've not heard in quite some time. ;)


    Snowblind wrote:


    What is the fundamentally good idea?

    Government which governs best is that which governs least.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    To me, the fundamental Libertarian point-of-view is "As few constraints on individual rights as possible." Which is sensible, but only with the caveat that "as possible" includes ensuring that the rights of others aren't violated.

    As to whether the actual Libertarian party actually supports that idea, I cannot say. But nonsense about poisoning other people is just that: Nonsense. Murdering someone obviously violates their rights (hence my mention of "irrational extremes").

    It is also possible my understanding of "Libertarian" is fundamentally flawed. :)

    5,401 to 5,450 of 7,079 << first < prev | 104 | 105 | 106 | 107 | 108 | 109 | 110 | 111 | 112 | 113 | 114 | next > last >>
    Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / 2016 US Election All Messageboards