US Politics Mega-thread - Page 391

Amid Struggle For 'Soul' Of GOP, Libertarians Take Limelight

"There is no question that there is a civil war that is waging within the party."

That Republican conflict, political science professor David Cohen says, is not between just two sides, but a number of factions, including libertarians.

One of the most public battles has involved national security and civil liberties. Leaks about the National Security Agency's surveillance programs raised alarms for libertarians about the government's reach. ...

Cohen, professor at the University of Akron in Ohio, says libertarianism is becoming appealing to more Republicans because of its popularity with a younger generation of voters.

"And that is a demographic that they desperately need to do better with. That socially liberal, economically conservative, non-interventionist policy stance popular among libertarians is very appealing to younger, college-age people," he says. "You know, and some of these people are disaffected Obama voters who have been turned off by the Obama administration's national security policies and foreign policies and interventionism."

In its summer meeting, the Republican National Committee discussed — if circuitously — how it plans to broaden its base in the years to come. Amid calls for strengthening the party, Chairman Reince Priebus encouraged debate. ...

On August 18 2013 05:47 Danglars wrote:
I really thought gays had their righteous battle with civil unions. They were crusading for letting themselves have their own unions and equal access to the right of contract and all that. Well, that at least was the thought at first. Later, those puerile views yielded as the realization dawned: gay rights did not end until the language was bastardized. Civil unions was never an end goal. Equality under the law for their unions was never the end goal. Seizing the language of marriage was the goal.

I'm at least old enough to know the lies told that it would end with civil unions. Activists move one step at a time so the next is just a little more until the end resembles nothing like what you signed onto in the beginning. DOMA prevented the state-by-state strategy of subverting state law by getting married in one state, moving to another, and forcing the government to recognize that marriage (as well as end questions on tax returns for gay couples living in a state that didn't recognize the marriage). Civil unions were never given a chance to offer those rights because they were a stepping stone and the activists were looking to climb to the next step. Extending those rights would be an easy battle in most states. That wasn't the battle being fought.

If you want to argue spousal privilege, we can do that. That's case law and not written into the fifth amendment (fifth amendment protects individuals). Seeing how well the gay marriage activists have organized around course cases, I don't think anybody's voice would stop a new effort to grant spouses in civil unions that privilege. It isn't about elected bodies these days.

On August 18 2013 05:55 OuchyDathurts wrote:
People didn't get behind the "Separate but equal" thing? Shocking! I mean that's always worked so amazingly in the past. Unless both are 100% the same across the board in every single aspect, including the name as far as the government is concerned it was never stopping. As well it shouldn't. You can come up with your own super awesome religious term for your marriage that makes it a class above in your eyes. But as far as the government is concerned it has to be a marriage is a marriage is a marriage.

14th century literature eh? Ain't nothing like it when one needs to demonstrate that BastardiSed language is perhaps the single worst argument for denying gay rights imaginable.

WASHINGTON -- Get your face on TV and write a book: Check. Start meeting the big money people: Check. Visit Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina – Israel, too: Check.

Deny any of this has to do with running for president: Check.

For politicians planning or tempted to run for the presidency in 2016, the to-do list is formidable. What's striking is how methodically most of them are plowing through it while they pretend nothing of the sort is going on.

Somehow, it has been decreed that politicians who fancy themselves presidential timber must wear a veil concealing the nakedness of their ambition. They must let the contours show through, however – more and more over time – while hoping everyone doesn't tire of the tease.

Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan, Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley and Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, among others, are hewing closely to the scripted chores of soon-to-runs. Hillary Rodham Clinton and New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo are among those coming out with a book, almost a perquisite these days, while otherwise diverting from the usual path of preparation, for reasons that make strategic sense for them (and, you never know, could merely reflect indecision).

There is so much to do: Polish a record, for those in office; network with central constituencies of the party; take a serious stab at social media; start dealing with pesky baggage; and get going with a shadow campaign, which can mean bringing on national advisers, powering up a political action committee, or both. The little-knowns must get better known. The well-knowns must shape how people know them.

Governors Chris Christie of New Jersey and Bobby Jindal of Louisiana say it's crazy to be preparing for a campaign this soon.

If so, then Christie, Jindal and the whole lot of them are crazy.

On August 18 2013 09:07 Danglars wrote:

Marriage is not a religious term, didn't you know? It's now a state term in its functional form. The people here are fully equating this to the struggle of slavery and segregation, and that isn't an opinion I'm likely to have any success budging. I'll take another agree to disagree. Defending 200 year old institutions are left to the dinosaurs. The notions of rights and equalities have morphed and continue to morph beyond recognition, so one day I'll have to find new language as the old meanings are forgotten.


As the great salle once corrected me, there are a host of differences in spelling from across the pond. I invite you to gaze at how Americans spell some words. As rebel colonists, maybe all of our spelling improvements are bastardizations. To err is human; to forgive, is divine.

WASHINGTON -- Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) called for congressional hearings on the National Security Agency's data collection on Sunday, while saying that much of the program is unconstitutional and likely can't be improved by oversight.

"You know, I think it would be better with more oversight, but there are some things they are doing that I fundamentally think are unconstitutional," Paul said on "Fox News Sunday." "Our founding fathers, when they wrote the Fourth Amendment, said a single warrant goes toward a specific individual and what you want to look for. ... The constitution doesn't allow for a single warrant to get a billion phone records. ... They basically, I believe, are looking at all of the cell phone calls in America every day."

Paul, who has become one of the most vocal critics of the NSA's surveillance program, also lamented the one-sided nature of the discussion on the issue. He accused the president -- a former constitutional law professor -- of ignorance about the U.S. Constitution.

"You know, I think the president fundamentally missunderstands the constitutional separation of powers," he said. "Because the checks and balances are supposed to come from independent branches of government. So he thinks that if he gets some lawyers together from the NSA and they do a Power Point presentation and tell him everything is okay, that the NSA can police themselves. But one of the fundamental things that our founders put in place was they wanted to separate police power from the judiciary power."

On August 16 2013 13:12 DoubleReed wrote:


This is not accurate. The fact is that it was only recent history (post-1970) that the individual ownership of firearms ever was considered as the meaning of the second amendment, even by conservatives. This was a myth that was catapulted to the American stage by the NRA at this time and caught on. Your portrayal of this is incorrect.

Conservatives like Chief Justice Warren Burger explained that second amendment is not an individual right to gun ownership. He even described the NRA's subversion of the Supreme Court's interpretation to bear arms as "a fraud."

The 2008 Heller decision marked a substantial difference in how the courts had ever interpreted the 2nd Amendment. Obviously, the ACLU, which has been around during all this time, simply maintained the position it has always had, even pre-1970. So you calling them hypocritical is ahistorical nonsense, considering they're the ones that have maintained the longstanding consistent position.

It sounds like you expect them to completely change their position in 2008 to reflect the new court determination. If anything, that would have been completely inconsistent and hypocritical.

On August 16 2013 13:12 DoubleReed wrote:


No it wouldn't. I have no idea why you think it would. An organization would actually have to advocate for pro-life policies to be opposed to abortion rights.

Just because someone is against the death penalty does not mean they consider it unconstitutional under the Eighth Amendment.

On August 16 2013 13:12 DoubleReed wrote:


Exactly why I don't like you conflating the ACLU, liberals, and democrats together. They have different positions at different times and have different rates of change.

On August 16 2013 13:12 DoubleReed wrote:


But gun ownership is not an issue of "civil liberties vs security" because gun ownership is not a civil liberty. It's simply a pragmatism issue.

You keep saying it is, and I don't know why. You won't tell me why. Why won't you tell me why???

On August 16 2013 13:12 DoubleReed wrote:


No, the reason why they provide their opinion is because everyone keeps asking them their opinion. It's on their FAQ. I wanted to know their opinion on the 2nd Amendment when I looked at them. And I wouldn't be surprised if you did too. It's incredibly common question because it's such a hot topic issue.

On August 16 2013 13:12 DoubleReed wrote:
As far as other amendments, no one gives a shit what the ACLU has to say on income tax.

Politics doesn't work like that. In many cases, organizations (particularly ones that purport to be non-partisan, like the ACLU) don't openly declare their support or opposition on contentious issues, and instead use code words to declare their affinity. For example, conservatives might use "we support state's rights" to hint that they don't oppose racist policies and liberals might use "we support diversity" to hint that they support affirmative action. When applied to legal issues, conservatives might use "strict interpretation of the Constitution" to declare their opposition to the privacy rights more recently accepted by the Supreme Court. In the case of the Second Amendment in particular, stating that you believe it guarantees an individual right to own firearms is essentially declaring that you support gun rights, and stating that you believe it guarantees merely a collective right to own firearms is essentially declaring that you support gun control.

Given the level of intelligence you typically display, it should be pretty clear to you that the ACLU is tacitly, but clearly indicating their support for gun control policies by suggesting that they will not oppose them, on the basis that they do not recognize gun rights as a civil liberty. If the ACLU claimed that they do not recognize the right to an abortion as a civil liberty, it would be clear to you what their position was.

Your right to own anything is a civil liberty issue. Restricting your ownership of anything inherently reduces your freedom. This isn't a difficult thing to understand, unless you're deliberately pretending not to understand the definition or liberty, or freedom. That said, we do restrict freedoms all the time, on the basis of not infringing upon others' liberties, or as a pragmatic means to achieve others goals.

To put it another way, how would you view the following:

"But gay marriage is not an issue of "civil liberties vs security" because gay marriage is not a civil liberty. It's simply a pragmatism issue."

Can you see why the above clearly indicates that not considering something a civil liberty is essentially declaring your position on the issue?

It's a hot topic issue involving civil liberties. That's why the ACLU has a position on it.

Because taxes are not considered an issue related to civil liberties, aside from by a few fringe groups. By contrast, gun ownership is considered a civil liberty by a substantial portion of the population, as well as by the Supreme Court as of the Heller decision.

Less than a year after losing his bid for reelection, former Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.) is "curious" about pursuing a higher political office.

Closing out a weekend where he visited the Iowa State Fair, a key 2016 stomping ground, Brown said he is exploring the possibility of a 2016 presidential run.

In an interview published Sunday with the Boston Herald, Brown's comments gave a clearer picture of where his White House ambitions stand.

“I want to get an indication of whether there’s even an interest, in Massachusetts and throughout the country, if there’s room for a bi-partisan problem solver,” Brown said. "It’s 2013 -- I think it’s premature, but I am curious."

Brown's curiosity comes after passing on a run earlier in 2013 for the U.S. Senate seat vacated by Secretary Of State John Kerry. Brown has also not ruled out a run for Massachusetts governor in 2014, saying earlier this month that "whether it’s for governor or something else, we’ll soon find out."

New Jersey’s decision to outlaw gay conversion therapy will not only be looked upon as another major step in gay rights, but it will also be viewed through the prism of the 2016 race for the White House.

Christie, a centrist Republican, is considered a leading candidate for his party’s presidential nomination, and his decision to outlaw the practice for children under the age of 18 is likely to be viewed negatively by some social conservatives.

In explaining his decision to ban gay conversion therapy for minors, Christie is expected to emphasize that while he is wary of the “government limiting parental choice on the care and treatment of their own children,” on this particular issue he sided with the experts. The New Jersey senate passed the legislation in late July, but as with any legislation, it ultimately requires Christie’s final approval.

WASHINGTON -- The White House says the British government gave the United States advance notice that London police intended to detain the partner of an American journalist who has written articles based on leaks from former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden.

But White House spokesman Josh Earnest says the United States did not request the detention and was not involved in the decision.

London police detained David Miranda, the partner of reporter Glenn Greenwald, under anti-terror legislation at the London airport on Sunday. He was being held and has been questioned for nearly nine hours. Miranda said he was not threatened while detained but said personal objects were taken from him, including his computer, cell phone and digital memory sticks.

The Neoliberal Choice
...
So maybe it's all a lie? Maybe liberalized labor markets don't help any economy in any way? Maybe the choice Tabuchi depicts - between security and dynamism - is a false one?

The truth is: We'll never know. That's how history works. But it's certainly true that the U.S.took a far more neoliberal (laissez-faire) route in the 80s, 90s, and 2000s. The different paths taken by Japan and the U.S. are a sort of "natural experiment", if an imperfect one. It's hard to know which of the present-day differences between the two countries can be chalked up to this divergent path. But we can at least make some educated guesses. ...

On August 20 2013 12:21 DoubleReed wrote:
Can someone give me a concise, opinionated description of what 'neoliberalism' and 'liberalized labor markets' means in this context? I don't understand the terminology.

On August 20 2013 12:37 HunterX11 wrote:


Unregulated free markets, privatization, a reduction in worker protections, etc. Neoliberalism as the new dominant economic ideology is in some ways a backlash against Keynesianism. The latter asserts that government intervention can in many cases improve the economy, and the former essentially asserts that it can't. The details are more nuanced, but the actual policies that are advanced to promote neoliberalism tend to lack this nuance, so oversimplifying what it "means" is often accurate.

Related to "liberalized labor markets" is my favorite euphemism "flexible labor market" i.e. poor working conditions.

edit: to be charitable, there are real-world examples of labor markets being overregulated: for example, in response to the difficulty of firing permanent employees in France due to robust worker protections and a lack of at-will employment, French firms have responded by simply hiring more temporary employees, and fewer permanent ones.

On August 20 2013 11:17 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
I've seen it all Jonny taking a stand against Neoliberalism.