US Politics Mega-thread - Page 556

On October 22 2013 14:33 Wegandi wrote:


It seems you don't know much about GOP history. Of course the GOP holds a ton of unconscionable views as do the Democrats. I'm sure those role-reversals will happen real quick when one party gains power and the other loses it. Partisanship for sake of partisanship is about the dumbest shit I've ever seen. If you were a person of any ethical fiber then you would take a look at both parties and hoist the Black Flag as Mencken quipped.

If anything current society is trending more libertarian. More people are against the NSA surveillance, against Government-run/managed healthcare, against Foreign Wars, against expanding Welfare, against violations of Civil Liberties, and for more local power and sovereignty and completely turned off of both parties. Of course, that's the natural course when Government takes more and more power and people find out what that means. Of course, Americans in general are very apathetic so they'll bitch and complain and the status quo will keep on marching until the circus and bread runs out. I can't wait to that day when this abysmal 'union' is broken and this insane jockeying for power is over with. You can have your utopia if you just let the 'red states' leave, or you can leave them, and us libertarians can have our purple state in NH. Of course, people on either side can't stand the idea that people disobey their imposed authority (or more correctly, their tax farm - all about money and power).

On October 22 2013 14:15 Doublemint wrote:


And that is one of the main problems right there. Society changed, and you won't score points with the majority of today's electorate with a social policies platform from the 80s.

On October 22 2013 13:53 xDaunt wrote:

Unless you're an established politician, going independent is political suicide.

Also, I don't get where all this crap about how far the republican party has moved is coming from. Take it from a republican -- the party's platform has barely changed since Reagan, particularly on social issues. What has changed is the electorate, and liberals have taken over the democrat party. The "conservative democrat" is basically extinct. There are still plenty of liberal republicans out there to go along with the hardline conservatives.

On October 22 2013 09:19 coverpunch wrote:

This isn't a fight about identity, in fact most Republicans agree on their core beliefs and the goals they have in mind. This is a battle about strategy, about what obstructionism can achieve and how tenacious the GOP should be about fighting for its goals. Moderates don't have the appetite for long wars of attrition, which upsets the Tea Party. The Tea Party painted the Republicans into a corner in the last budget fight by making anything less than total victory a loss, which upset moderates and old hands who think that's bad and naive politics.

As for Cruz, he's done a lot of publicity stunts without much substantive results, but I think many people are tolerant of it because they know he's positioning himself for a 2016 presidential run. Cruz is painting himself as a guy who can stand up to Congress/Democrats and who's willing to dig in and do the dirty work. He's also clearly building a coalition within the GOP for that run.

On October 22 2013 10:00 DoubleReed wrote:
lol Danglars. You don't think the tea party is extreme. I must ask what you consider extreme. They're the definition of extreme! You look up extreme in the dictionary, and you get this picture:

+ Show Spoiler +

No wait... bad example...

On October 22 2013 14:41 Wegandi wrote:


What's funny is that the Progressive elements in the Democrat Party hate the people in the GOP who share supposed common views with them on those issues (e.g. Drug War, Government intervention in contract, etc.) the most. Us libertarians who have used the GOP purely as a political mechanism (good luck w/ 3rd party or independent), have always worked with folks like Dennis Kucinich and such on common issues and aren't at all partisan, yet, on the other hand the base of Progressives are like petulant little children who don't care about the issues at all, but about petty power and voting blocs. I read something today from Tom Watson on Salon and I couldn't facepalm quick enough (re: Progressives boycotting the anti-NSA rally in DC because libertarians are a major co-sponsor/part of it). It's funny when I hear Progressives lauding McCain and Graham and Peter King and hating Thomas Massie, Justin Amash, and Rand Paul. I guess it just highlights which issues are really more important (kill some brown folks in the Middle East is just fine as long as the Welfare money keeps flowing).

Students for Liberty, meanwhile, offers “resource kits to pro-liberty high school students” filled with slogans, stickers and palm cards from partners like the Cato Institute, The Atlas Network, and the Seasteading Institute (an anti-government group that that encourages the establishment of libertarian offshore nirvanas where survival of the fittest trumps American laws). And gee, isn’t it great that Students for Liberty has distributed 150,000 copies of After the Welfare State on campuses around the country, a book that helpfully explains how social programs are “used as an immoral tool of state control and subjection.”

On October 22 2013 14:55 aksfjh wrote:

Um, no. I have never before met or seen a "liberal Republican" since I started loosely following politics in 2006, with the exception of Olympia Snowe. About the closest you can get to one is the derogatory RINO term, but that is used to disown somebody in the party rather than show that they are ACTUALLY a liberal Republican.

On October 22 2013 15:19 Doublemint wrote:


Are you sure you were the ones "using" and not being "used"? Freedom and stuff is one of the most strained terms when listening to your generic republican. The same party undermining FREEDOM with this NSA bullshit.

Now I think libertarians actually believe that and are honest about this issue, heck I strongly approve of the anti NSA march myself.
What Watson is saying however is that based on principle, allying with the libertarian movements could prove disastrous in the long run. And I agree with that as well. I mean, abolishing the welfare state? Weakening failing government institutions even more? And I am NOT talking about the military and the intelligence community here - they don't lack any funding and resources whatsoever.

This part makes the point pretty clear, and there it also ends for me with the libertarian support:



Source

On October 22 2013 15:10 Danglars wrote:
Cruz's speech re-affirmed the opposition to Obamacare. Cruz and his allies finally forced Boehner to bargain from a position of strength. It was unnatural for such a long-tenured Republican to oppose anything without soon caving, so that ended on the quick side. Still, the action reminded voters that there are still Republicans willing to take action in Capitol hill (not get cold feet the day after getting elected).

On October 22 2013 15:24 Sub40APM wrote:

i think he means the ones that dont outright hate homosexuals or brown people.

On October 22 2013 17:13 Gorsameth wrote:


What? The Republicans took a terrible position with the shutdown and debt ceiling. They didn't operate from a position of strength. It was a desperation attack of last resort. They held the entire country, heck the world economy hostage and the public opinion burned them for it. The Democrats sat on there chairs and waited for the Republicans to cave because there was no way for them not to without causing a global recession.
Please explain to me how the shutdown was a position of strength.

Yes he re-affirmed his opposition, yes he showed people Republicans are willing to take "irresponsible" action and for it he energized the extreme right Republican base and alienated large portions of undecided voters.
Its the same problem Republicans have made time and time again in recent years. They are appealing to there base at the cost of moderates/undecideds. That does not win you national elections, it wins you gerrymandered districts and nothing else.

On October 22 2013 17:06 Wegandi wrote:


Yes, it is a running joke with us about the buffoonery and irony of a lot of the GOP. In fact, if you hop on over to Ron Paul Forums, Reason.com, Mises.org, Independent Institute, FFF, C4SS.org, etc. you'll see in in plain view. Also, our folks up in DC vote on principle and we give Rand enough shit about his pandering to keep him tethered to reality (it is a very loose relationship), so no I'm 100% sure we're not being used and co-opted, though I can't say the same for Progressives and Hippies. To keep it equal, the Democratic Party and its Progressive Wing is hilariously awful as well. Some of the worst actually who are nothing, but blind cheerleaders of death and destruction just like robotic GOP'ers during Bush. I can't stand these folks.

What Watson is saying is that he is an ignorant douche, and his same line of reasoning would lead him to indirectly or even directly support the continued massacring by the USG overseas and the continued militarization of the Police via the Military and Pentagon for War on Us if we decide to get uppity. That's ok, he supports that anyways if he had to make the choice between Welfare or Warfare.

As for the SFL (whom I support as well as YAL) what they say is absolutely correct. Being dependent upon Government leaves you servile and at the mercy of Government edicts. Support us or else. We saw it with the shutdown. Don't you dare fight me or else I'll be a vindictive asshole and shutdown things you use that you could use anyways without the Government tools around, meanwhile we're going to keep on chugging along spying on you, killing brown folk overseas, and paying off MIC. History bears this out too. Government didn't like people being independent and reliant upon themselves and their natural institutions (Mutual Aid Societies) so they promised paradise to the people (We'll take care of you! & we'll do all the thinking as well) in the early 20th, destroying the basic American fabric of voluntary association and institutions.

That's ok though, the average person when I say I want to end Government control of X or Y makes the fallacy of thinking I am against X or Y. If I say I don't want the Government in control of farming, does that mean I want everyone to starve, or even that everyone will starve? Absolutely not. So, when libertarians say we want to abolish the Welfare State, we're not saying we want to abolish assistance or help, but that we want voluntary institutions, individual motivation and ethics, and a freeing up of restrictions imposed and wealth stolen to bring more opportunity and just distribution of resources (e.g. you are remunerated for as much as value as you bring to others, instead of stealing from others via Government (Corporate Welfare, Individual Welfare, Military Industrial Complex Welfarism, etc.)).

This can be quite ironic when the common response is things are complicated, and their solution is the simple quip: hand that power and liberty over to Government! Perhaps if more Progressives and non-Classical Liberals read Hayek's work on Spontaneous Order / Voluntary Institutions, some of the Law and Ethics work of Bruce L. Benson, and the ethical/philosophical works of Roderick T. Long, then we might get somewhere.

On October 22 2013 17:30 Doublemint wrote:


Well, not gonna lie. Democrats are - at best - the lesser evil.
Though people like this Dianne Feinstein and other NSA loving lackeys in the Senate Intelligence Committee are plain dangerous and should be called out and fought by ALL people with some fucking sense.

Now to your point where you lose me.

What and where were those mutual aid societies? How long did they last and what did they achieve, in which timeframe and who was in charge? You make some decent points with the MIC and corporate welfare and that people like to give away their responsibility and I might add are just lazy thinkers and that benefits slimy and corrupt politicians. But your solution is lacking, and for me about as "far out" as a communist/socialist utopia.


//edit: and yes I also cannot follow you on the "the US was never going to default" position. That seems loony to me too.

On October 22 2013 17:44 Wegandi wrote:


Mutual Aid Societies were around since the beginning of the colonies. You know, Knights of, Order of, etc. They provided extremely cheap medical services, assistance, community, etc. They were voluntary organizations so they had to provide you value for what you payed (very little). For instance a lot of Doctors competing with the medical professionals in these associations complained that they were 'driving down our wage' and lobbied Government to intervene on their behalf. It's one reason why medical care is so expensive now-a-days (artificial inflation via AMA/Government edicts/FDA/proliferation of Copyright/Patents, etc.). For some reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benefit_society

David Beito also wrote a very good book on the subject (From Mutual Aid to Welfare).

As for my comment about not defaulting, it's the truth. Demagogues tried to use it to push their own agenda's, but the truth is that there are laws on the books that require the Treasury to pay debtors before any other receipt. The inlays to the Treasury from tax receipts is greater than its outlays to debtors. Perhaps you are confusing bankruptcy with default. The Federal Government is definitely bankrupt. We'll see how long they can continue their schemes until the brick walls come down.

On October 22 2013 17:25 Wegandi wrote:


People keep repeating this, but it isn't true. There was no default at risk. The Government is mandated to pay debtors before any other obligation. There was zero risk of a default because the tax receipts of the USG cover these payments. Now, ideally, we'd all stand up and tell the bastards that we're going to keep our own money and spend it much more wisely than they ever can hope to. (Imagine someone handed you a hundred bucks that you didn't work for. You going to spend that wisely and cost-effectively? Now, imagine this happens every day.) Paying 1400 dollars for a toilet, or 2.5 million dollars for a missile that will get blown up, or the billions and billions that is spent on bureaucracy is certainly not a positive for our standards of living. It certainly is good for those Government contractors and the politicians who reap the proceeds of power in DC though. Ask yourself why is Virginia/DC one of the most expensive places in the country to live in. Money is sucked from the rest of the country into that cesspool. Talk about redistribution of wealth!

That said, as a tactic purely about Obamacare, I thought was a bit...myopic. Then again, most of the Senators are the worst politicians in the country. They've never seen something they don't want to throw our money away at (while lining their own pockets). I can name the not completely terrible list of Senators on maybe two fingers. The House is far better.

On October 22 2013 14:55 aksfjh wrote:

Um, no. I have never before met or seen a "liberal Republican" since I started loosely following politics in 2006, with the exception of Olympia Snowe. About the closest you can get to one is the derogatory RINO term, but that is used to disown somebody in the party rather than show that they are ACTUALLY a liberal Republican.

On October 22 2013 20:59 coverpunch wrote:

How many actual Republicans do you know?

On October 22 2013 21:54 MoltkeWarding wrote:


Exactly. This is the question that none will answer, since any honest response will not reflect with flattery upon our independence of mind or character. Extending this question to the category of the Tea Party, the same conclusions can be drawn. What we all know of the Tea Party is an unreal, received caricature, and it is distance, rather than familiarity which vitiates our collective sneers. There may be libertarians creeping in to this forum, and their very proximity will be a presence which will divide their enemies. Some enemies will be content with the easy instrument of sarcasm to ridicule a preposterous ideology, others will feel compelled to engage closely, and discern the valid from the fallacious, curious to preen apart the morass and discover where the heresy had struck its roots. Yet no one here as far as I know, has here admitted to being a tea party member. To the collective community it seems hardly fathomable that such creatures should exist at all. Their existence for us is almost on the level of ghouls or daemons; in the apparition of some wild and malevolent force, more metaphysical than substantial.

Those lessons we all learned in kindergarten about not bullying those unable to fight back has not extended itself to officially unprotected categories of people.

As far as Doublemint's engagement with Wegandi goes, it shows the efficacy, almost complete triumph of the United Front principle, where a person discovers his own ideology by identifying his enemies. Ah, how many times have I been misunderstood, because of the elementary psychological habit that if you are against me, you are the same thing as that which I am against. A Third Force? Those succeed but in messianic ages. That is why the "moderates" deride the non-conformists as possessing the zealotry of a religious cult. Naturally they do, their faults are but the natural consequence of your own!