Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 reds8n wrote:
Stay classy GOP !

I don't know if I'm more amazed that some Republicans care so little about reality they'd attack a veteran over veterans, or the really obvious 'standing' pun.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Nostromodamus wrote:
Democratic People's Republic of America.

Has a nice ring to it!

Remember the travel advice - if a country has two of Democratic, People's and Republic in its name... do not visit that country.

 motyak wrote:

 TheMeanDM wrote:
SANDERS WINS MICHIGAN!!!

But overall today has been a loss for him right? Won by 10 delegates there, lost by 27 delegates in Mississippi. So it's a net loss today as Hillary gained 17 delegates further lead...right? If we ignore momentum, story, narrative, etc. In straight numbers it wasn't a good day? Or am I misunderstanding how delegates work.

Yes by the numbers it wasn't great for Sanders; although we can't ignore the story on this. Michigan was projected to go to Clinton and if she had won it it would prove her game is strong. But Sanders stole this in a big upset leaving Clinton's campaign scratching their head. This shows there is more weight to Sanders' campaign, and his message, then they are giving him credit for. This all proves it is still too early for Clinton to call it hers and think she can start running for president, she hasn't earned it yet.

As a Michigan resident, I've seen a lot more ads for Sanders than I have for Clinton. I wonder if something that simple had a big effect?

 Nostromodamus wrote:
As a Michigan resident, I've seen a lot more ads for Sanders than I have for Clinton. I wonder if something that simple had a big effect?

I think Sanders won Michigan in large part due to his anti-NAFTA, anti-trade agreement bona fides, which he put on display in the last Democratic debate.

 sebster wrote:

 reds8n wrote:
Stay classy GOP !

I don't know if I'm more amazed that some Republicans care so little about reality they'd attack a veteran over veterans, or the really obvious 'standing' pun.

The article I found about it has the Republicans response effectively being "Why are you annoyed about this when you should be annoyed about the veterans" LINK

 Nostromodamus wrote:
As a Michigan resident, I've seen a lot more ads for Sanders than I have for Clinton. I wonder if something that simple had a big effect?

I think it helps.

Also, as Jasper said, I think his anti-NAFTA stance helped him here as well.

Nostromodamus wrote:Democratic People's Republic of America.

Has a nice ring to it!

You mean THE Democratic People's Republic of all the Americas.

#makeamericagreatagain #allofthem

 djones520 wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:

 Da Boss wrote:
Unfortunately, I think that points more to Clinton's weaknesses than Bernie's strengths. She's not a very good campaigner.

The big concern for Clinton is that if Sanders can win in blue states running on a populist message, perhaps Trump can, as well.

I've seen some polls showing that Trump is drawing from the Democrats, while Clinton is drawing from Republicans, in a head to head. It's sad that the two "front running" candidates are that despised by their own party. Makes you wonder wtf is going on.

I don't believe that Hillary is really that hated by her own party. There are a lot of Democrats who like Bernie more without hating her, and then there are the Rand Paulites of the left, young white men all fired up for their darling Bernie and wrathful towards any contenders, but they'll either mellow out when he endorses her or they won't vote just like they never do. There has also been a concerted effort to smear her in the last year, which gained a bit of traction, but once the primary is over and the Democrats start countering the message, I think her favorability numbers will climb back up pretty fast. It helps that most of the attacks against her have been painfully transparent and impotent, making the Republicans look like children crying "wolf".

Still, it would be nice if she had some warmth of personality.

The important thing is that as long as Bernie is in, we can get more great Larry David impressions of him.

 Easy E wrote:
The important thing is that as long as Bernie is in, we can get more great Larry David impressions of him.

Definitely the best thing that has emerged from this campaign cycle so far.

Is anybody else here Libertarian?

 Nurgle wrote:
Is anybody else here Libertarian?

I don't fall under a partical political party. I'm a pretty conservative fellow, but I hate the Libertarian stick your head in the sand stance on foreign policy.

Pure libertarianism is about as functional as pure socialism or pure capitalism.

I'm libertarian when it comes to the government getting involved in lifestyle issues like what you ingest, who you lay with, whether you must carry babies to term, etc. But that's about as far as it goes. Total Libertarianism is too cruel for the "have nots" in society for me to get behind.

My experience with Libertarians (friend's dad runs for various public offices on the Libertarian party of Canada ticket) is that they generally have no ability to discern fact from fantasy.

Things like voluntary taxes would work. Immigration is bad for society. Guns make us safer.

We would all be land-owning millionaires, if not for the durn government keeping us down.

Generally speaking, in my experience Libertarian policy is cowboy masturbatory fantasy at best, and dangerous dismantling of society at worst.

Where does the line between libertarianism and anarchism get drawn? I have never seen a satisfactory answer on this one and, historically, it seems they are two sides of the same coin. And I would guess in the modern setting there is overlap, but I have a hard time envisioning self proclaimed libertarians identifying with anarchism and vice versa. But they both oppose coercive power systems and formalized government. American libertarians seem to have accepted property ownership and capitalism and largely ignore the coercive governmental systems that make those two things tick in the real world.

 Nurgle wrote:
Is anybody else here Libertarian?

Still working out my political views in the US system, but when I am able to register to vote it'll be as an independent.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Nurgle wrote:
Is anybody else here Libertarian?

Still working out my political views in the US system, but when I am able to register to vote it'll be as an independent.

Depending on where you live, you might not have to register as anything.

 ProtoClone wrote:
Yes by the numbers it wasn't great for Sanders; although we can't ignore the story on this. Michigan was projected to go to Clinton and if she had won it it would prove her game is strong. But Sanders stole this in a big upset leaving Clinton's campaign scratching their head. This shows there is more weight to Sanders' campaign, and his message, then they are giving him credit for. This all proves it is still too early for Clinton to call it hers and think she can start running for president, she hasn't earned it yet.

That Sander's won is driving the media narrative, but is actually meaningless because delegates are awarded on a proportional basis. Both candidates ended up with just about the same number of delegates.

The real issue is that Clinton was up by around 20% in polling, so we’re looking at an amazing swing. If it was just bad polling in one state, then it’s a weird blip (a very weird blip in a campaign already well underway), but that’s all it will end up being. It’ll enter electoral folklore and be mentioned anytime someone is miles behind in polls, but that’s all, but be forgotten about as Clinton continues on her merry way to the win.

But the other possibility is that maybe the polls were right… last week when they were asked. If that’s true, and Sanders actually managed to win a 25% swing by attacking Clinton on trade, then maybe that opens the door to a strategy that could see him overcome Clinton. And it’s likely that the issue won’t have the same impact outside of Michigan, but if it’s worth 20% in Michigan it might be worth 10% in a lot of other states, and that makes the campaign very close.

It’d be amazing if it were true, that a candidate somehow found and sustained a 10% gain this late in the campaign. But Michigan was extraordinary one way or another, so let’s find out.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Nurgle wrote:
Is anybody else here Libertarian?

Still working out my political views in the US system, but when I am able to register to vote it'll be as an independent.

I was independant for 20 years, and it's the way I align, but depending on your state, you should know you'll (probably) get screwed out of primary voting and caucuses.

I finally switched this year so I could go to Iowa caucuses (out of curiously, certainly not because I was excited about a candidate). Turns out they are very, very boring and full of old people.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Nurgle wrote:
Is anybody else here Libertarian?

Still working out my political views in the US system, but when I am able to register to vote it'll be as an independent.

Depending on where you live, you might not have to register as anything.

Indeed. Here in MI there is no requirement for party affiliation.

 Ouze wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Nurgle wrote:
Is anybody else here Libertarian?

Still working out my political views in the US system, but when I am able to register to vote it'll be as an independent.

I was independant for 20 years, and it's the way I align, but depending on your state, you should know you'll (probably) get screwed out of primary voting and caucuses.

I finally switched this year so I could go to Iowa caucuses (out of curiously, certainly not because I was excited about a candidate). Turns out they are very, very boring and full of old people.

Hold the phone...Iowa caucuses...? (caucai?)

I thought I was the only Haskeye state rep round these parts!

 Nostromodamus wrote:

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Nurgle wrote:
Is anybody else here Libertarian?

Still working out my political views in the US system, but when I am able to register to vote it'll be as an independent.

Depending on where you live, you might not have to register as anything.

Indeed. Here in MI there is no requirement for party affiliation.

I think it's the same in Indiana, but our primary isn't until May so by that stage it is usually wrapped up

Some tough questions that go unanswered....by both.

I especially thought Sanders had an opportunity pass him by when he kept talking about not being involved in regime change in latin america...instead of explaining or apologizing for his 1985 remarks about Ortega and Castro...as well as how "his" socialism is different than the ideas of latin american socialists.

Clinton was put on the spot a few times too....but I don't think as badly as Sanders was.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
I think he could have flipped the script a bit and said something like Ortega and Castro were impressive in the same way that Trump is impressive...huge personalities that have to resort to intimidation, etc to get their way.

 jmurph wrote:
Where does the line between libertarianism and anarchism get drawn? I have never seen a satisfactory answer on this one and, historically, it seems they are two sides of the same coin. And I would guess in the modern setting there is overlap, but I have a hard time envisioning self proclaimed libertarians identifying with anarchism and vice versa. But they both oppose coercive power systems and formalized government. American libertarians seem to have accepted property ownership and capitalism and largely ignore the coercive governmental systems that make those two things tick in the real world.

Generally speaking, Libertarians do agree there needs to be some government. Obviously most think we need a strong military (but no taxes or bureaucracy to support it) and other things that somehow, magically get paid for.... But with anarchists, obviously the goal is abolition of ALL government. So there's that.


As far as practical, grounded in reality opinions, I have no idea. As others have pointed out, Libertarians seem to have their heads up in the clouds idealistically, or perhaps up a much darker place.... who knows?

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Generally speaking, Libertarians do agree there needs to be some government. Obviously most think we need a strong military (but no taxes or bureaucracy to support it) and other things that somehow, magically get paid for.... But with anarchists, obviously the goal is abolition of ALL government. So there's that.

I think in practice libertarianism tends be something along the lines of ‘government is bad, mumble mumble, right wing paradise!’. While anarchism is more along the lines of ‘government is bad, mumble mumble, left wing paradise!’

As far as practical, grounded in reality opinions, I have no idea. As others have pointed out, Libertarians seem to have their heads up in the clouds idealistically, or perhaps up a much darker place.... who knows?

I read a nice phrase today, 'the luxury of irresponsibility'. Libertarian ideas have close to zero real world functionality or use, but it doesn't matter because they've never been anywhere close to actual power or influence. They'll happily wander off in to debates about whether a person should be allowed to sell themselves in to slavery, because that's the kind of abstract logic level that libertarianism works at, and they never have to ruin all that fun by worrying about how to operate government in the real world.

Anyone watched the Democrat townhall last night?

From my twittah feed... it looked disasterous...

 whembly wrote:

From my twittah feed... it looked disasterous...

I watched it while at the gym. Not sure what you mean by "disastrous," although the results I've been seeing today have basically come out to "Sanders mostly told the truth, Clinton mostly lied."

 sebster wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Generally speaking, Libertarians do agree there needs to be some government. Obviously most think we need a strong military (but no taxes or bureaucracy to support it) and other things that somehow, magically get paid for.... But with anarchists, obviously the goal is abolition of ALL government. So there's that.

I think in practice libertarianism tends be something along the lines of ‘government is bad, mumble mumble, right wing paradise!’. While anarchism is more along the lines of ‘government is bad, mumble mumble, left wing paradise!’

As far as practical, grounded in reality opinions, I have no idea. As others have pointed out, Libertarians seem to have their heads up in the clouds idealistically, or perhaps up a much darker place.... who knows?

I read a nice phrase today, 'the luxury of irresponsibility'. Libertarian ideas have close to zero real world functionality or use, but it doesn't matter because they've never been anywhere close to actual power or influence. They'll happily wander off in to debates about whether a person should be allowed to sell themselves in to slavery, because that's the kind of abstract logic level that libertarianism works at, and they never have to ruin all that fun by worrying about how to operate government in the real world.

What politics books have you been reading?

You are aware that the founders of the USA, created one of the most, if not the most libertarian nations on earth?

Giving your citizens the right to free speech (1st amendment) and the right to bear arms to back up those rights (2nd amendment) is one of the most libertarian things you can do IMO. So I don't know where you're getting this idea from that libertarians have never been in power or influence!

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Giving your citizens the right to free speech (1st amendment) and the right to bear arms to back up those rights (2nd amendment) is one of the most libertarian things you can do IMO. So I don't know where you're getting this idea from that libertarians have never been in power or influence!

Liberal yes, libertarian? Not really.... except maybe up to around 1804

It didn't take long for even the founding fathers to take a look at things the way they were, and realize some changes and additions needed to be made. Everything that's been done, from Washington denying the title "King" to the Louisiana purchase, to the rules and regulations regarding the admittance of a territory as a state in the union, has been done in the name of bettering the country.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 infinite_array wrote:

 whembly wrote:

From my twittah feed... it looked disasterous...

I watched it while at the gym. Not sure what you mean by "disastrous," although the results I've been seeing today have basically come out to "Sanders mostly told the truth, Clinton mostly lied."

As far right as whembly tends to lean, anything short of the DNC announcing the party's dissolution is "disastrous"