Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Come back! Need discussion...2020 PresidentialFollow

#252 May 13 2020 at 5:11 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,736 posts
Kavekkk wrote:
Quote:
To Demea and Kavekkkkk, We make laws and we enforce them. The law sucked apparently because it turns out that parents were breaking it and then becoming criminals. Unintended consequences - sure ok, maybe not. People who break laws go to jail - a known consequence. Who knew, though, that some parents would choose jail rather than educating their kid(s). Should kids be mandated to get educated or not?


Anyone who breaks the speed limit should be summarily executed.

What's that? You have some objection? Look, no-one's wants to break the speed limit more than they want to be execuited, so there's no possible problem here.

You break the speed limit and don't pay your fine (on the spot in some states), you go to jail.

Truancy is not a victimless crime. Humans are imperfect.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#253 May 14 2020 at 1:35 PM Rating: Good
Official Shrubbery Waterer
*****
14,658 posts
Elinda wrote:
If the dems want to win they have to get those fair weather voters back to the polls.

If the dems want to win they should stop nominating relics of a bygone era.

Quote:
Truancy is not a victimless crime. Humans are imperfect.

Please fuck, and I cannot emphasize this enough, all the way off with this glib bullshit.
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
I managed to be both retarded and entertaining.

#254 May 14 2020 at 5:44 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,488 posts
Elinda wrote:
Kavekkk wrote:
Anyone who breaks the speed limit should be summarily executed.

What's that? You have some objection? Look, no-one's wants to break the speed limit more than they want to be execuited, so there's no possible problem here.

You break the speed limit and don't pay your fine (on the spot in some states), you go to jail.


I think his point is that the penalty has to be appropriate to the crime. Justifying harsher and harsher penalties under the concept that "no one will want to suffer this penalty more than they want to commit the offense" is not valid logic. He's just using an extreme example (executions for speeding) to illustrate that point. You do hit a point where the punishment is absurd, no matter how much you might think it will act as an increased deterrent.

Quote:
Truancy is not a victimless crime. Humans are imperfect.


Yeah. It's also a complex issue, with lots of causes and outcomes involves. It's not as simple as "don't break into that store and steal stuff", right? Attempting to solve the problem by just increasing the criminal penalties may work to some extent, but will create additional victims of the solution itself. Which is exactly what happened.

In this case, you also can't ignore the political aspects of this. While briefly mentioned in the article, the funding issue is more powerful in California than you might think. The teachers union is one of the most powerful blocks in the state, and has a huge hold over what I would refer to as "machine politicians" in this state. Harris is one of those sorts of politicians, owing much of her career to playing to those powerful backing organizations. So yeah, the supposed side effect of increasing attendance and thus increasing funding to the schools, from which the unions then negotiate their pay is not an irrelevance here. It's not unlikely that her rise to Senator was helped quite a bit by exactly that sort of money pump into the very groups that later supporter her to that position. How do you think a relatively unknown person suddenly rises out of the pack of other unknowns among the Dem party and takes the top spot in that race? No one knew who she was 6 months before she appeared on the primary ballot in this state. So support from the right groups got her her seat. Kind of a bought and paid for candidate IMO.

She's a controversial figure, even among liberal Democrats in this state. Her past as AG puts a damper on her appeal to black voters, especially poor black voters who were most harmed by her actions (and poor Hispanic voters too, let's not forget them). And at the end of the day, what does she bring nationally to the ticket? California? Um... Don't you usually at least try to find someone from a state that might be in play? Or has policies and past that fills in gaps? I don't see this with Harris. No amount of labeling herself as a progressive after the fact makes it true in this case. Now maybe the national party can sell her in that role, but there are other better candidates for that.

Honestly, the real problem is Biden, not who he picks as VP. It's painful to watch the guy attempt to meander his way through a simple sentence, let alone an interview. Even the most hard core liberal has to acknowledge that the guy has lost some mental capacity in the last 4-5 years. The Biden we saw at the end of the Obama administration is not the man we're seeing today. I can't even imagine the slaughter that a debate with Trump would be. Say what you will about Trump, but he's able to actually talk off the cuff, without prompts, without someone whispering into an earpiece, etc. You may not always like or agree with what he says, but he doesn't come off like he forgot the question halfway through his answer. Biden does this all the time, and doesn't even seem to be aware that he's done it. He gets that kind of lost and confused look sometimes, that well... isn't good.


I'd follow that up with some kind of comment about how the Dem establishment knows this, knows they're dorked, and are praying for something that hurts Trump since they know Biden can't beat him otherwise, toss out a conspiracy theory about them using the covid-19 crisis to exaggerate economic impact as much as possible, blame Trump for as much as possible, etc. But that would just be crazy conspiracy theory right? Right? I mean, it's not like they started out claiming he was making the whole thing up in order to distract us from the impeachment, then switched to him being xenophobic for putting travel bans in place, then insisting that it's perfectly safe to walk around in public and go to large public gatherings, only to reverse course 2 months later and claim that Trump was "slow and sluggish" in his response to the virus. Um... What? Do they not realize we have this thing called video and can look at what they said and did just a couple months ago?

When your best shot to win an election is for a pandemic to hit, hundreds of thousands of people to die, and 10s of millions to lose their jobs, you might just have a bad candidate. Just a thought.

Oh wait! is that cross thread shenanigans? Bad me!
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#255 May 16 2020 at 9:45 AM Rating: Good
Official Shrubbery Waterer
*****
14,658 posts
So close, gbaji. So close to finishing a post without amateur psychoanalysis and talking points from The Federalist. Honestly, do you expect Democrats to cheerlead for a Republican president, especially when its Trump? It's called politics - chill.

Aspersions aside, I mostly agree. Hopefully this is the last time we have to choose between two aging Boomers.
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
I managed to be both retarded and entertaining.

#256 May 17 2020 at 11:03 AM Rating: Good
***
1,144 posts
Thanks for explaining that , Gbaji. I even tried to read the rest of your post out of gratitude, but I couldn't stick it at any price.

Biden and Trump are both stupidly old. Reasonably speaking, people over 65 shouldn't run for office. The chance of neurological degeneration of one form or another is simply too high. In the UK we have mandatory retirement for judges over 70 for this very reason.
____________________________
Timelordwho wrote:
I'm not quite sure that scheming is an emotion.
#257 May 18 2020 at 5:49 PM Rating: Excellent
Official Shrubbery Waterer
*****
14,658 posts
Justin Amash announced he's no longer seeking the Libertarian Party nomination for President only 3 weeks after announcing that he would seek it. Presumably he changed his mind after spending the intervening time actually talking to Libertarians.
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
I managed to be both retarded and entertaining.

#258 May 19 2020 at 1:03 PM Rating: Decent
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,230 posts
If the libertarians in the Senate and House actually ran as libertarians as opposed to republicans, they could actually take the White House. However, they sit back in the shadows and come out every 4 years as the alternative.
#259 May 19 2020 at 7:22 PM Rating: Good
Official Shrubbery Waterer
*****
14,658 posts
Almalieque wrote:
If the libertarians in the Senate and House actually ran as libertarians as opposed to republicans, they could actually take the White House. However, they sit back in the shadows and come out every 4 years as the alternative.

So Amash and Thomas Massie and I guess Rand Paul (before he folds like a cardboard box every time) and... Mike Lee? Yup, definitely a governing majority there.
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
I managed to be both retarded and entertaining.

#260 May 20 2020 at 1:35 PM Rating: Decent
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,230 posts
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If the libertarians in the Senate and House actually ran as libertarians as opposed to republicans, they could actually take the White House. However, they sit back in the shadows and come out every 4 years as the alternative.

So Amash and Thomas Massie and I guess Rand Paul (before he folds like a cardboard box every time) and... Mike Lee? Yup, definitely a governing majority there.


Point being, more people would become Libertarians if there were actual Libertarian representation as opposed to Libertarians pretending to be Republicans.
#261 May 20 2020 at 3:31 PM Rating: Good
Official Shrubbery Waterer
*****
14,658 posts
My point wasn't that there aren't Republicans who might more closely align with the Libertarian party (the few I listed have some small-L libertarian positions about very narrow issues, e.g. asset forfeiture), or that some voters wouldn't be happier voting for a more viable Libertarian party than the current Republican party (and who knows what a "viable Libertarian party" even looks like), but rather that there aren't enough of either to matter. Most people who run as Republicans and vote for Republicans actually are Republicans, and there's the rub; being a Republican nowadays basically means you're a social conservative who also nominally cares about budget deficits when a Democrat is in the White House. Once a Republican is in office, they couldn't give one pickled fuck about economic conservatism or the size and scope of federal government, which are kind of foundational for the Libertarian party.

Edited, May 20th 2020 4:33pm by Demea
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
I managed to be both retarded and entertaining.

#262 May 20 2020 at 7:36 PM Rating: Decent
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,230 posts
Demea wrote:
My point wasn't that there aren't Republicans who might more closely align with the Libertarian party (the few I listed have some small-L libertarian positions about very narrow issues, e.g. asset forfeiture), or that some voters wouldn't be happier voting for a more viable Libertarian party than the current Republican party (and who knows what a "viable Libertarian party" even looks like), but rather that there aren't enough of either to matter. Most people who run as Republicans and vote for Republicans actually are Republicans, and there's the rub; being a Republican nowadays basically means you're a social conservative who also nominally cares about budget deficits when a Democrat is in the White House. Once a Republican is in office, they couldn't give one pickled **** about economic conservatism or the size and scope of federal government, which are kind of foundational for the Libertarian party.


I understand your point, I simply disagree. People are not executing any true beliefs (as you pointed out). The GOP and DNC today aren't the same as 10 years ago. The point that I'm making is that people are unfamiliar with the Libertarian platform and if people actually ran as Libertarian (and Green party for that matter) at local levels (as opposed to popping up every 4 years), then we could actually create third party options.
#263 May 21 2020 at 10:13 AM Rating: Good
Official Shrubbery Waterer
*****
14,658 posts
Almalieque wrote:
... we could actually create third party options.

Extremely unlikely given the winner-takes-all format of US elections, but here's hoping. Smiley: chug
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
I managed to be both retarded and entertaining.

#264 May 21 2020 at 1:36 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,488 posts
Demea wrote:
So close, gbaji. So close to finishing a post without amateur psychoanalysis and talking points from The Federalist. Honestly, do you expect Democrats to cheerlead for a Republican president, especially when its Trump? It's called politics - chill.


Of course i don't expect Democrats to cheerlead for Trump. That's was kind of the point of the last part of my post. I think there are a heck of a lot of Dem voters who are extremely concerned about Biden as a viable candidate against Trump. It's not a great leap to suspect that many of them are/were hoping for "something" to change that dynamic. That hope was put on either Biden not winning the nomination (which rapidly vanished, and I'm still baffled by that), or that "something" would happen to hurt Trump. That something was initially the whole impeachment thing, which fell flat. Then covid-19 comes along. Is it really so strange to think that the same folks who grasped desperately to the impeachment (and let's not recall that came after a couple years of Russia collusion nonsense so it's not like this isn't a pattern at this point), might grasp equally strongly to the hope that if covid-19 could cause enough harm, it would be Trump's Katrina, and hurt him in the election. Heck, that's exactly what a ton of pundits on the left have said, openly and directly.

I'm not saying that rank and file Dem voters want tons of people to die, or lose their jobs, businesses go belly up, etc. I'm just saying that to any degree that they can create the perception of Trump to be at fault for every death, loss of job, or belly up business, it's pretty much a political imperative that they do so.

Of course, the downside to that is you're still stuck with... Biden. Seriously not sure what the "plan" is for that. Honestly, if I were a Democrat, I'd be hoping for some miracle to remove Biden from the running, and somehow broker a convention result to someone more reasonable. Somehow. But for some reason it seems as though the party powers are still backing Biden. Not sure if they just think they'll have an easy puppet to control or what, but that's what the rank and file folks are having to deal with right now.

I don't know a single Democrat voter who is enthusiastic about Biden. It's always this kind of muted support simply because if he's the Dem nominee, they'll vote for him, or out of a hatred for Trump. Never because they are happy that it's Biden on their side of the ticket. And quite often I get the strong impression that whey they say something like "if he's the nominee...", they're really really wishing something would happen to make him *not* be that nominee.

Maybe I'm imagining things though.

Quote:
Aspersions aside, I mostly agree. Hopefully this is the last time we have to choose between two aging Boomers.


You'd hope so. But somehow they still manage to find folks in that same age range every 4-8 years. I'd mumble something about inter party politics and turn taking, earning spots, gaining seniority, etc, but this post is long enough as it is.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#265 May 21 2020 at 1:55 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,488 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Demea wrote:
My point wasn't that there aren't Republicans who might more closely align with the Libertarian party (the few I listed have some small-L libertarian positions about very narrow issues, e.g. asset forfeiture), or that some voters wouldn't be happier voting for a more viable Libertarian party than the current Republican party (and who knows what a "viable Libertarian party" even looks like), but rather that there aren't enough of either to matter. Most people who run as Republicans and vote for Republicans actually are Republicans, and there's the rub; being a Republican nowadays basically means you're a social conservative who also nominally cares about budget deficits when a Democrat is in the White House. Once a Republican is in office, they couldn't give one pickled **** about economic conservatism or the size and scope of federal government, which are kind of foundational for the Libertarian party.


I understand your point, I simply disagree. People are not executing any true beliefs (as you pointed out). The GOP and DNC today aren't the same as 10 years ago. The point that I'm making is that people are unfamiliar with the Libertarian platform and if people actually ran as Libertarian (and Green party for that matter) at local levels (as opposed to popping up every 4 years), then we could actually create third party options.


First off, I think you'd be surprised how many libertarians (small l) are in the Republican party and vote Republican. I lean pretty heavily in the libertarian direction, but I have never even considered the Libertarian party. As a friend of mine (which is very very libertarian) once put it "Those people are crazy!". Libertarianism is a good guiding ideology. It's not really workable as a party platform though. Especially as a national platform. So many people who espouse libertarian ideals take the parts that work, and find themselves in the GOP, because that's the only party that has a reasonable chance of any of those ideals actually coming to fruition.

I actually think that's a good thing. Since when most people speak of Social Conservatism, what they really mean is "religious folks in the GOP", usually followed up with some fear that religious beliefs will be forced on the population somehow. But as long as there is a decent amount of libertarian thinking within the GOP, those people prevent that outcome, and limit it to protection of religious liberties rather than enforcement of religious ideas. That's a line that small government types understand.

And I think that's one of the most fundamental differences in thinking between the left and right in this country (and by extension the Dems and GOP in terms of operating methodology). The left believes in using the power of government to impose their ideas on the country. The right believes the opposite, that the government should not be telling people how to live. Those are the whole "social liberalism" vs "classical liberalism" ideas. The "fear" of Social Conservatism" is often driven by folks on the left, who assume that the folks on the right believe just as strongly as they do in using government to impose social outcomes, and thus assume that this would mean religious beliefs forced on them by the right.

The marriage of small government ideology and traditional religious belief in the GOP was driven by the rise in the Dem party of secularism and socialism. Religious folks found their right to worship under attack and drove to the party in opposition to the one doing it (the GOP). Small government types found their ideals under attack by the same party, and thus also flocked to the GOP. This has been the case in the GOP probably since the mid 70s.

Anyone who espouses small government ideals but votes Libertarian on a national ticket is just hurting their own cause at this point. We can pine away for third parties all we want, but as Demea properly points out, it doesn't work in a winner takes all scenario. Also doesn't really work in terms of congressional seats, where you're just splitting the two "factions" of the GOP voter pool, likely resulting in a Democrat winning that seat. Which just hurts you.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#266 May 21 2020 at 7:30 PM Rating: Decent
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,230 posts
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
... we could actually create third party options.

Extremely unlikely given the winner-takes-all format of US elections, but here's hoping. Smiley: chug


That should change anyway. The irony is that the DNC primary (which was called rigged) is not winner take all and is the fairest electoral process that we have.
#267 May 21 2020 at 7:53 PM Rating: Decent
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,230 posts
Gbaji wrote:
I lean pretty heavily in the libertarian direction, but I have never even considered the Libertarian party.
That's my point. When you have crazies representing the party, there is no interest.

Gbaji wrote:
and limit it to protection of religious liberties rather than enforcement of religious ideas
That doesn't happen. Almost all opposition of enforcing religion is from the left.

Gbaji wrote:
The left believes in using the power of government to impose their ideas on the country. The right believes the opposite, that the government should not be telling people how to live.
Close, but not actual. The left believes that the Federal government should have a larger role, while the right believes that the states should have a larger role. The "belief" of government "controlling" people is hogwash that the right makes up when a scenario does not work out the way they want. Else, the right will happily use the "rule of law" to dictate how people should or should not behave.

Gbaji wrote:
The marriage of small government ideology and traditional religious belief in the GOP was driven by the rise in the Dem party of secularism and socialism.
???? None of this is true. The Democrats of yesteryear are/were openly religious. The older black population (Democrats) are largely religious. Both parties have been supporting Christian concepts well before the secularism started attacking religious holidays, etc.

Gbaji wrote:
you're just splitting the two "factions" of the GOP voter pool, likely resulting in a Democrat winning that seat
That's because you're looking at this purely from the right. The same exact thing happens from the left with the Libertarian party. It's not a 50/50 split, but if you have a *real* candidate then you're evenly impacting both parties. If you have a Republican with Libertarian views, then yes, you will be hurting the GOP ticket. Amash is a great example of that.
#268 May 22 2020 at 1:32 AM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,488 posts
Almalieque wrote:
[That's my point. When you have crazies representing the party, there is no interest.


Yup.

Quote:
Gbaji wrote:
and limit it to protection of religious liberties rather than enforcement of religious ideas
That doesn't happen. Almost all opposition of enforcing religion is from the left.


Sure. I'm not saying that opposition to enforcing religion isn't from the left. What I'm saying is that there is very very little actual enforcement of religion going on at all to oppose. What also happens is that the left, under the guise of said opposition actually attempts to impose restrictions on religious freedoms that aren't in any way about forcing religion on other people. When free speech is allowed in public spaces *unless* it is religious in nature (say holiday displays in public spaces), that's not protecting people from having religious views forced on them (much less forcing someone to convert or die or something, unless you think merely being exposed to religious concepts somehow magically forces people to become religious), but preventing religious people from expressing their belief in the public square. Forcing people to violate their own personal religious tenants (say by forcing them to purchase health insurance which pays for abortions and/or birth control) is not protecting the masses from religious indoctrination either. It's purely about sticking your finger in the eyes of people who have faith you don't agree with. The pendulum has swung very far in the wrong direction on this.

That the GOP has become the party that protects those religious beliefs and freedoms does not in any way mean that the GOP is itself about enforcing religion. They just are willing to stand up and protect people's personal beliefs., whatever they may happen to be. It's just that for the last several decades that has tended to be Christian beliefs, so that's who will tend to migrate to the GOP for that reason.

Quote:
Gbaji wrote:
The left believes in using the power of government to impose their ideas on the country. The right believes the opposite, that the government should not be telling people how to live.
Close, but not actual. The left believes that the Federal government should have a larger role, while the right believes that the states should have a larger role.


That's not quite true either though. The right believes in the principles of small government, at all levels, specifically the concept behind the 10th amendment. Powers not vested in the federal government pass to the sates, and those not to the states, pass to the people. We believe that power should rest at the "lowest" level possible. With the lowest of all being the individual making a choice at that moment. The left believes it should rest most at the highest level possible, with as many decisions being made and enforced from the federal level as possible. Trying to make it purely about states versus federal is not true at all. We also don't like state governments having too much say either, preferring local city or county ordinances for many things (and again, preferring as few of those as is practicable as well).

It really is about how much government, not just where the government power lies. That latter part is only a concession to the need for government at all, in which case it should rest at the lowest level. And I suppose where the GOP differs from the Libertarian party is where that level of concession lies. Again though, the underlying concept is "as little government and laws as possible".

Quote:
The "belief" of government "controlling" people is hogwash that the right makes up when a scenario does not work out the way they want. Else, the right will happily use the "rule of law" to dictate how people should or should not behave.


it's funny you should scoff at the idea of the government controlling people at a time when it is literally telling people who can go to work, what businesses can operate and which can't, and jailing people who don't comply.

I'll also point out that our belief in following rule of law is based on a respect for the law, and the concept of applying the law equally. That does not preclude minimizing the amount and extent of law though. We want just the laws that are needed, but that those laws should then be enforced, equally and fairly. What we don't like is a government that passes a zillion crazy laws, and then selectively enforces them, more or less making it about arbitrary punishment at that point. If you cross the wrong politician or express the wrong opinion, suddenly laws that everyone breaks but are never enforced get applied to you. That's not justice.

Quote:
Gbaji wrote:
The marriage of small government ideology and traditional religious belief in the GOP was driven by the rise in the Dem party of secularism and socialism.
???? None of this is true. The Democrats of yesteryear are/were openly religious. The older black population (Democrats) are largely religious. Both parties have been supporting Christian concepts well before the secularism started attacking religious holidays, etc.


Huh? Yeah, the "Democrats of yesteryear", as in "no longer support that". Yes, "older black population", as in "younger people don't support that either. The Democrats have become increasingly anti-religion for the last 40+ years. That was my point. It's not like a switch was flipped, but that a process began and has continued over time. I've seen it progress over my lifetime and it's quite obvious.

Both parties may have equally supported Christian religious concepts "before secularism began attacking religious holidays", but that doesn't negate my point. Those secularists who do those attacks are overwhelmingly aligned with the Democratic party, are supported by the Democratic party, and are provided political cover by the Democratic party. That is where the secularism is. What's funny is that many Democrat politicians will still claim to be religious, but they are silent when various organizations who support their party attack religious institutions and/or beliefs. They insert or allow to be inserted language in legislation that is entirely about attacking religious freedoms. Of course, at the time when called on it, they will insist that the law doesn't actually say what it says, and wont actually be applied the way those crazy religious folks are claiming. But then, just as with a number of portions of Obamacare where actually applied in exactly the way religious groups were concerned about, and despite their promises to the contrary, they still remain silent on the fact that those groups have to go to court to force the protection of the religious freedom they were promised when the law was passed.

How many Democrats scoffed at the idea that faith based organizations would be forced under the ACA to buy insurance that paid for abortion and/or birth control. They spoke loudly of "religious exceptions" then and that it would just not happen and was just fearmongering by the Right, who didn't really care about freedom, but just wanted granny to die or something. And then exactly that happened. Exactly how many of those Democrats who made those statements then went on TV and publicly stated that the application of the law was wrong, or that they supported those religious groups, or even that they were wrong when they said that the law would never be applied that way.

Zero, right? So tell me again how much the Democratic party support religious freedom? Not much. So yeah, folks who do care about that tend to move to the GOP. As I said at the start, it's not that the GOP platform is particularly pro-religion, but that it's opposed to persecution of everyone, equally, including people of faith. I don't protect religious freedom because I'm religious (I'm not particularly), but because it's the right thing to do.

Quote:
That's because you're looking at this purely from the right. The same exact thing happens from the left with the Libertarian party. It's not a 50/50 split, but if you have a *real* candidate then you're evenly impacting both parties. If you have a Republican with Libertarian views, then yes, you will be hurting the GOP ticket. Amash is a great example of that.


Um... You actually think that people who are actual libertarians vote Democrat? That's... crazy. Now, I'll admit that I have run into a smallish number of liberals who call themselves libertarians, but that's largely because they don't actually know what libertarianism is. They think it's just a fancy term for liberal. Like "I'm liberal, but more cerebral or something, so I'll add some extra syllables to make people think I'm smarter". Bill Maher used to call himself a libertarian. Not sure if he still does. Um... He's not one. Not even remotely close.

Folks who actually understand and pursue the ideology of libertarianism will not *ever* vote for the Democratic party. At least, not in the form it has existed for the last 40ish years or so. The Dems have become the direct antithesis to every basic principle of the libertarian ideas. You *can't* support the Democratic party and be libertarian. Again, not unless you have either a completely wrong understanding of libertarianism or the platform of the Democratic party.

I suppose I could except some local races where national party platforms may not necessarily apply, of course. But I was speaking about applying libertarian principles to a national party platform, at and that level, pretty much 100% of any voter who votes for the Libertarian party would otherwise have voted Republican (or not at all). None of them would be moving from the Dems. You're thinking the Green party or some such.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#269 May 22 2020 at 8:00 AM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,854 posts
gbaji wrote:
It's just that for the last several decades that has tended to be Christian beliefs, so that's who will tend to migrate to the GOP for that reason.
Strict Fundamentalist Christian, but sure. If you think your average Catholic, Episcopalian or, hell, even Lutherans are on the same ship as the Fundies, you might want to visit a few churches. The Fundamentalists are the Wahhabi of Christianity.
____________________________
remorajunbao wrote:
One day I'm going to fly to Canada and open the curtains in your office.

#270 May 22 2020 at 8:30 AM Rating: Good
Official Shrubbery Waterer
*****
14,658 posts
Almalieque wrote:
The irony is that the DNC primary (which was called rigged) is not winner take all and is the fairest electoral process that we have.

Hah!
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
I managed to be both retarded and entertaining.

#271 May 22 2020 at 9:26 AM Rating: Decent
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,230 posts
Gbaji wrote:
What I'm saying is that there is very very little actual enforcement of religion going on at all to oppose
Quote:
That the GOP has become the party that protects those religious beliefs and freedoms does not in any way mean that the GOP is itself about enforcing religion.
If that is true, then the "counter balance" within the GOP from the Libertarian faction doesn't exist. There have been multiple talking points of Sharia Law "taking over the United States" and alike. If there is any change in the United States that contradicts their religious beliefs, the GOP fights not to "protect" religious beliefs (because no one is forcing them to do anything contrary), but to impose religious beliefs.

Gbaji wrote:
What also happens is that the left, under the guise of said opposition actually attempts to impose restrictions on religious freedoms that aren't in any way about forcing religion on other people.
I don't deny that, but that isn't the catalyst for the GOP religious actions.

Gbaji wrote:
That's not quite true either though. The right believes in the principles of small government, at all levels, specifically the concept behind the 10th amendment. Powers not vested in the federal government pass to the sates, and those not to the states, pass to the people. We believe that power should rest at the "lowest" level possible. With the lowest of all being the individual making a choice at that moment.
That's what I said.

Gbaji wrote:
The left believes it should rest most at the highest level possible, with as many decisions being made and enforced from the federal level as possible.
That's the bastardization of the view. This is not about keeping all authority at the Federal level. It's about having the federal law as a check and balance with the states. If the states have total control and power, then that is no different than the federal government having total control in respect to the citizen. I expect the state and federal entities to fight each other over my rights before I get involved. My taxpayer money pays them to do as much.

Gbaji wrote:
it's funny you should scoff at the idea of the government controlling people at a time when it is literally telling people who can go to work, what businesses can operate and which can't, and jailing people who don't comply.

I'll also point out that our belief in following rule of law is based on a respect for the law,
Thank you for proving my point. The government forcing you at home are local governors and mayors. The right only has problems with the government when it doesn't favor their cause. The "rule of law" doesn't apply when they are breaking into government buildings with firearms or creating gun sanctuary zones.

Gbaji wrote:
The Democrats have become increasingly anti-religion for the last 40+ years.
I'm not 40, I don't know what you're talking about. The Democrat leaders that I'm familiar with have been openly religious. You're focusing on a faction of the party.

Gbaji wrote:
How many Democrats scoffed at the idea that faith based organizations would be forced under the ACA to buy insurance that paid for abortion and/or birth control.
This was not in support of religious freedoms, it was opposition to abortion. The law did not force anyone to violate *their* religious belief. There is zero expectation that your workers or customers must follow your personal belief.

Gbaji wrote:
Um... You actually think that people who are actual libertarians vote Democrat?
Yes. If they are true Libertarians, it would depend on the individual running and not the party.


#272 May 22 2020 at 9:33 AM Rating: Decent
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,230 posts
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
The irony is that the DNC primary (which was called rigged) is not winner take all and is the fairest electoral process that we have.

Hah!


Elected officials acting as oversight of their own party? I'm sure the GOP wish they had that in 2016. If I'm not mistaken, the Superdelegates have never nominated someone who lost the delegate vote. Hillary lost in 2008 and won the popular vote. In 2016, Sen. Sanders requested that the Superdelegates nominate him if he won California even if he lost the national popular and delegate vote. However, I don't know of someone one losing the delegate vote and then winning by the superdelegate vote. While Sen. Sanders tried, it didn't happen.

Edited, May 22nd 2020 5:34pm by Almalieque
#273 May 22 2020 at 3:32 PM Rating: Good
***
1,144 posts
Libertarians are all traitors and, frankly, something should be done about them.

Something should be done.
____________________________
Timelordwho wrote:
I'm not quite sure that scheming is an emotion.
#274 May 22 2020 at 4:52 PM Rating: Excellent
Official Shrubbery Waterer
*****
14,658 posts
Kavekkk wrote:
Libertarians are all traitors and, frankly, something should be done about them.

Something should be done.

The ultimate form of punishment: elect them.
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
I managed to be both retarded and entertaining.

#275 May 25 2020 at 8:40 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Demea wrote:
Justin Amash announced he's no longer seeking the Libertarian Party nomination for President only 3 weeks after announcing that he would seek it. Presumably he changed his mind after spending the intervening time actually talking to Libertarians.

Jo Jorgensen is going to win it for the Libertarians this year.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#276 May 25 2020 at 2:33 PM Rating: Good
***
1,144 posts
Quote:
The ultimate form of punishment: elect them.


If we could elect them all, maybe. Unfortunately, we can't. We can't elect any of them, because they suck too much. They are the Platonic loser, and all we can see is them playing shadow puppets like the ******* clowns they are.
____________________________
Timelordwho wrote:
I'm not quite sure that scheming is an emotion.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 34 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (34)