US Politics Mega-thread - Page 2897

On February 12 2016 11:28 Introvert wrote:


Like the voters? People want to know, I certainly want to know. Not that any answer within the realm of possibility would make me vote for him.

It's small thing, but I like the question. It should be asked of every candidate.

On February 12 2016 11:34 Plansix wrote:

Big enough to address the problems facing the US. It is an overly broad question that robs any response of nuance or context. Big compared to what? What does big mean? What is a small government? Is the ACA big, or just a natural regulation of an industry that was eating away at the country?

Its a shit question. The better question is "What can government do for Americas? What is your plan for government? What issues face America that the government can address today?"

On February 12 2016 11:37 Introvert wrote:


Perhaps in the context of the Democrat debate, where the default answer is government. But that is presumed. The moderators question didn't make that assumption, surprisingly enough. I was hoping to hear something new, but as expected there was no such thing.

On February 12 2016 11:34 Plansix wrote:

Big enough to address the problems facing the US. It is an overly broad question that robs any response of nuance or context. Big compared to what? What does big mean? What is a small government? Is the ACA big, or just a natural regulation of an industry that was eating away at the country?

Its a shit question. The better question is "What can government do for Americas? What is your plan for government? What issues face America that the government can address today?"

On February 12 2016 11:38 ticklishmusic wrote:
Basically rephrasing P6, but the size of government is light a weight measurement. It doesn't mean anything without context. You could be a obese 100 pound 10 year old or an anorexic 100 pound teenager. Or, you could be a morbidly obese 300 pound guy or a 300 pound world-class weight lifter.

@Introvert: the candidates are not exactly pandering, but playing to their audience. very few are concerned about the size of government as an issue in and of itself, or at least more concerned about it that other things.

On February 12 2016 11:39 cLutZ wrote:

No its not, its an important philosophical question. First of all it's great for comparing to other countries, and second of all its a more honest description of the tax burden of your plan, instead of saying "Millionaires and Billionaires" a couple of times.

On February 12 2016 11:38 ticklishmusic wrote:
Basically rephrasing P6, but the size of government is light a weight measurement. It doesn't mean anything without context. You could be a obese 100 pound 10 year old or an anorexic 100 pound teenager. Or, you could be a morbidly obese 300 pound guy or a 300 pound world-class weight lifter.

@Introvert: the candidates are not exactly pandering, but playing to their audience. very few are concerned about the size of government as an issue in and of itself, or at least more concerned about it that other things.

On February 12 2016 11:42 ticklishmusic wrote:


Those reforms were made as a compromise with the Republican Congress and with the support of many, many black community leaders. It was a failed experiment where people failed to predict the consequences, but not one where racism or there was intention to do harm. I highly doubt Hillary (or anyone else for that matter) knew that mandatory minimum were going to disproportionately impact minorities.

On February 12 2016 11:47 cLutZ wrote:

But going with your analogy, America's government is already an obese 200 lb teen, why should we trust it that its going to be a chiseled 7'0" 300 lb NBA center instead of a doughy 5'5" 300 lb wal mart greeter once we authorize that extra 300 lbs? Particularly when we have seen what it has done with what we already authorized?

On February 12 2016 11:49 IgnE wrote:


Your apologism is sickening. Everyone knows that black elites are on the same neoliberal bandwagon that white elites are. Combating racism for many black folks is simply combating discrepancies in relative participation in the upper middle class between races, while ignoring bigger picture issues about the size and situation of lower and middle class people generally. Whether or not they "knew" that it would impact minorities disproportionately is completely irrelevant.

On February 12 2016 11:53 ticklishmusic wrote:


If you haven't noticed, I've decided generally not to respond to you anymore. But since this is a live debate thread, I'll bite.

I'm providing context, and since it seems I have to state it outright, let me do so: the outcome fucking sucked.

However if you do something with the best of intentions but it has unintended and unexpected consequences you're an awful human being? Yes, it's your fault, but it doesn't mean you're an awful human being. It means you made a mistake. You have to acknowledge that (Hillary has acknowledged it's a mistake, though I wish she'd acknowledged it's one of hers) and try and fix it (which she will).

On February 12 2016 11:54 IgnE wrote:


She either didn't make it with the best of intentions, or, if she did, she's an idiot who shouldn't be in office.