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.

 BrotherGecko wrote:
I find it interesting how quiet the Democrats are. No huge publicity stunt debates on major TV (that I'm aware of). Its like they are actually a little worried to get in the open right now.

The Democrats picked their 2016 candidate in 2008, so there hasn't been much need to have debates or any of that stuff.

It isn't quite going to plan, because it turns out Hillary has picked up her 2016 campaign pretty much where she left 2008.

Saddly I agree that they chose her back in 2008.

Interesting I think I finally realized of how Trump has so much appeal. He doesn't know anything and a large chunk of his supporters don't either so they never notice his gaffs. Honestly he gave THE worst foreign policy plan I have ever witnessed. It was so blindly stupid I almost peed myself and attacked my TV. Yet he takes no damage because a large chunk of his fan base either doesn't care and want to watch the world burn or simply do not understand what is foreign policy or why it matters.


*note* I'm an international relations major lol

Prestor Jon wrote:
Not sure where you get your information about US politics but the Republican party has always chosen to portray itselfin the modern era as the party of limited government.

Republicans do say 'limited government', they say it a whole lot. I thought about explaining to you why libertarianism and limited government aren't actually one in the same, but trying something as dry as that in response to a guy who listed Ron Paul in between Reagan and Eisenhower probably wouldn't achieve a hell of a lot.

Instead I'll just repeat the point you were responding to "It seems the life of libertarians to be endlessly frustrated that politicians don't dedicate themselves to ignoring the vast majority of their voting base to instead follow the whim of this tiny fringe of extreme ideologues."

To explain that more completely - small government is just one thing Republicans talk about. They also talk about wanting all kinds of laws for nothing more than moral reasons, reductions in personal privacy, and increased military operations overseas. There can be lots of good reasons for many of these things, but they're in direct opposition to even the mildest form of limited government, let alone actual libertarianism.

Libertarians, bless every single one of them, seem to believe that when a Republican candidate says 'limited government' he doesn't just mean reduced spending and a tax cut, as everyone else interprets that, but as a complete reform of government. Then they seem shocked when this doesn't happen, and more incredibly that everyone outside of the libertarian bubble just isn't that bothered that it isn't.

This happens so often that, when combined with the complete impracticality of libertarianism, I'm left to conclude that the whole exercise isn't about actually producing a libertarian state.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ahtman wrote:
You know Santorum can both be for his 'tribe' and an idiot. No need to limit him.

Sure. I mean, he is an idiot in that he frequently says idiotic things. But my point, I guess, is that by raw intelligence he's by no means limited to the idiotic comments he's made. He didn't summon all of his thinking power to reach the conclusion that a SC ruling was unconstitutional. The guy ties a pretty neat tie, he's clearly got more capability than that.

 BrotherGecko wrote:
Saddly I agree that they chose her back in 2008.

Interesting I think I finally realized of how Trump has so much appeal. He doesn't know anything and a large chunk of his supporters don't either so they never notice his gaffs. Honestly he gave THE worst foreign policy plan I have ever witnessed. It was so blindly stupid I almost peed myself and attacked my TV. Yet he takes no damage because a large chunk of his fan base either doesn't care and want to watch the world burn or simply do not understand what is foreign policy or why it matters.


*note* I'm an international relations major lol

As an international relations major I'm sure you can appreciate that pretty much everyone, including the politicians and bureaucrats in charge dont fully appreciate the complexity nuance and long standing history of interrelated actions that need to be accounted for in foreign relations. The vast majority of everyone is ill informed because there is a lot of information and a myriad of factors to take into consideration and few people have the time and desire to track it all down themselves because the media sure has no interest in providing an educational in depth contextual report on the matter. To really understand the situation in areas like the ME you pretty have to do all the research yourself and that first requires you to even know where to look.

All the politicians will do is offer sound bites that are oversimplifications and generalizations designed to pander to a given crowd by promoting an agenda or reinforcing their preconceived notions or both.

http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/09/16/439574726/how-asian-american-voters-went-from-republican-to-democratic

Interesting piece on the Republicans and the Asian American vote, which went from 55% in 1992 to 26% in 2012. It's the story you see across all demographics, as Republicans have looked to do whatever they can to shore up the votes in their white base, they've haemoraged everyone else. The graph in the link is quite interesting, as it shows the issue with Asian American voters actually got better for Republicans from GW Bush's first term to his second term, which reflects on what I've heard elsewhere - that Bush was the last Republican to effectively argue for a more inclusive approach. From 2004 to 2012 the Asian American vote has been in freefall.

 BrotherGecko wrote:
Saddly I agree that they chose her back in 2008.

Interesting I think I finally realized of how Trump has so much appeal. He doesn't know anything and a large chunk of his supporters don't either so they never notice his gaffs. Honestly he gave THE worst foreign policy plan I have ever witnessed. It was so blindly stupid I almost peed myself and attacked my TV. Yet he takes no damage because a large chunk of his fan base either doesn't care and want to watch the world burn or simply do not understand what is foreign policy or why it matters.

I think a large part of the appeal is that he pisses off people who do know what they're talking about.

 sebster wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
Not sure where you get your information about US politics but the Republican party has always chosen to portray itselfin the modern era as the party of limited government.

Republicans do say 'limited government', they say it a whole lot. I thought about explaining to you why libertarianism and limited government aren't actually one in the same, but trying something as dry as that in response to a guy who listed Ron Paul in between Reagan and Eisenhower probably wouldn't achieve a hell of a lot.

Instead I'll just repeat the point you were responding to "It seems the life of libertarians to be endlessly frustrated that politicians don't dedicate themselves to ignoring the vast majority of their voting base to instead follow the whim of this tiny fringe of extreme ideologues."

To explain that more completely - small government is just one thing Republicans talk about. They also talk about wanting all kinds of laws for nothing more than moral reasons, reductions in personal privacy, and increased military operations overseas. There can be lots of good reasons for many of these things, but they're in direct opposition to even the mildest form of limited government, let alone actual libertarianism.

Libertarians, bless every single one of them, seem to believe that when a Republican candidate says 'limited government' he doesn't just mean reduced spending and a tax cut, as everyone else interprets that, but as a complete reform of government. Then they seem shocked when this doesn't happen, and more incredibly that everyone outside of the libertarian bubble just isn't that bothered that it isn't.

This happens so often that, when combined with the complete impracticality of libertarianism, I'm left to conclude that the whole exercise isn't about actually producing a libertarian state.

I'm not sure what conclusion you chose to draw from my inclusion of Ron Paul in a list of well known modern day Republicans that have espoused libertarian ideals but I included him because that's what he is, well known, Republican and he takes libertarian positions. Anything else is what you chose to read into it.

I've yet to meet a small l or capital L libertarian that actually believes transforming the USA into a true libertarian state is possible but I'm sure some exist somewhere.

The issue that is of primary importance to me and to like minded individuals I know is to find politicians willing to push back against a federal govt that constantly seeks to grow more powerful and intrusive by attempting to solve problems beyond its ability while creating negative unintended consequences and reducing individual liberty in the process. There are already a host of problems that the govt is in the midst of failing spectacularly at solving to the detriment of society. The War on Poverty, the War on Drugs, the War on Terrorism, its all manifestations of the same failed premise, that a cumbersome far reaching one size fits all answer implemented by a massive intrusive faceless bureaucracy is the best way to help solve the problems faced by specific individuals. The federal govt is only aware of individuals in the aggregate and using it as a tool to create solutions that to be most effective require the tailoring to specific individual circumstances is illogical and doomed to failure.

Desiring that the govt limit itself to taking responsibility only for what it can do effectively, intelligently and within the confines of the Constitution may be a utopian pipe dream but even limited success toward that goal would yield tangible benefits for society.

 BrotherGecko wrote:

Interesting I think I finally realized of how Trump has so much appeal. He doesn't know anything and a large chunk of his supporters don't either so they never notice his gaffs.

Trump knows many things, but the one which is most currently relevant is how to appeal to people who want to be entertained; that's the basis of his campaign.

 dogma wrote:

 BrotherGecko wrote:

Interesting I think I finally realized of how Trump has so much appeal. He doesn't know anything and a large chunk of his supporters don't either so they never notice his gaffs.

Trump knows many things, but the one which is most currently relevant is how to appeal to people who want to be entertained; that's the basis of his campaign.

Are you not entertained!?!

 Frazzled wrote:

Are you not entertained!?!

He has always been predictable, and therefore boring, but I've also never been part of target audience.

 sebster wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
No experience though, she hasn't even been a senator.

Experience is really just a thing people like to say about other people's favourite candidates. If the other guy's candidate was a senator they've got no 'executive experience'. If the other guy's candidate was a governor then they 'don't know how to get things done in Washington'. Nobody ever considers the government experience of their guy when deciding where their vote goes.

It's really just an attack with no meaning. By definition anyone who wins through a primary and a general is connected enough, and experienced in running a huge juggernaut of an organisation.

It might be to some people, but it is important to me. Senator, governor, mayor even, I'd like someone who is running for president to have at least some experience in government.

Prestor Jon wrote:

I've yet to meet a small l or capital L libertarian that actually believes transforming the USA into a true libertarian state is possible but I'm sure some exist somewhere.

I think Ron Paul believes that, probably Rand Paul too. Then there are all the people who think Ayn Rand was awesome.

But of course all of those people are only interested in certain forms of liberty, which is the problem.

 dogma wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

I've yet to meet a small l or capital L libertarian that actually believes transforming the USA into a true libertarian state is possible but I'm sure some exist somewhere.

I think Ron Paul believes that, probably Rand Paul too. Then there are all the people who think Ayn Rand was awesome.

But of course all of those people are only interested in certain forms of liberty, which is the problem.

I think both would be personally happy in a true Libertarian USA but if asked directly I think both would admit that actually turning the USA into a true Libertarian state isn't politically feasible. Although maybe Ron does believe it's possible, he's a little crazy. Rand is probably too politically savvy to be naive enough to believe that such a transformation is possible.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 sebster wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
No experience though, she hasn't even been a senator.

Experience is really just a thing people like to say about other people's favourite candidates. If the other guy's candidate was a senator they've got no 'executive experience'. If the other guy's candidate was a governor then they 'don't know how to get things done in Washington'. Nobody ever considers the government experience of their guy when deciding where their vote goes.

It's really just an attack with no meaning. By definition anyone who wins through a primary and a general is connected enough, and experienced in running a huge juggernaut of an organisation.

It might be to some people, but it is important to me. Senator, governor, mayor even, I'd like someone who is running for president to have at least some experience in government.

Having an accurate understanding of how governance works is what's really important, moreso than experience in doing it. A candidate could have some experience in Congress or as a governor and still not really understand how to effectively implement policy from the executive branch. Candidates can campaign well, win the election and fail miserably at actually delivering legislative results for the policy solutions he/she promised to deliver in the campaign because he/she doesn't know how to leverage congressional support.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 BrotherGecko wrote:
Saddly I agree that they chose her back in 2008.

Interesting I think I finally realized of how Trump has so much appeal. He doesn't know anything and a large chunk of his supporters don't either so they never notice his gaffs. Honestly he gave THE worst foreign policy plan I have ever witnessed. It was so blindly stupid I almost peed myself and attacked my TV. Yet he takes no damage because a large chunk of his fan base either doesn't care and want to watch the world burn or simply do not understand what is foreign policy or why it matters.


*note* I'm an international relations major lol

As an international relations major I'm sure you can appreciate that pretty much everyone, including the politicians and bureaucrats in charge dont fully appreciate the complexity nuance and long standing history of interrelated actions that need to be accounted for in foreign relations. The vast majority of everyone is ill informed because there is a lot of information and a myriad of factors to take into consideration and few people have the time and desire to track it all down themselves because the media sure has no interest in providing an educational in depth contextual report on the matter. To really understand the situation in areas like the ME you pretty have to do all the research yourself and that first requires you to even know where to look.

All the politicians will do is offer sound bites that are oversimplifications and generalizations designed to pander to a given crowd by promoting an agenda or reinforcing their preconceived notions or both.

I do appreciate that it is something important to me so I have the time and energy to delve into it. Yet, all of the candidates at least gave the ghost of a policy except Trump...he had none...zero. I don't even count not agreeing with it, I can at least respect an understanding of foreign policy. I will know that individual is capable of at the minimum of strategy and critcal thinking. Rubio and Kaisch gave fairly intelligent foreign policy stances in the time alloted that displayed that they understand it very well.

Trump's plan amounted to,"we would be totes bros." How is that anything? Anybody not asleep at the wheel should of been aghast at how dense Trump was during the debate. Yet, his rating endure like he didn't just stand on stage and display his ability to be the most dangerous man in the world to America's security.

I just don't get it.....

Trump has outlined a more comprehensive description of his stance on gun-control and immigration, as well as the policies he'd like to enact.

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/immigration-reform

Prestor Jon wrote:

I think both would be personally happy in a true Libertarian USA but if asked directly I think both would admit that actually turning the USA into a true Libertarian state isn't politically feasible. Although maybe Ron does believe it's possible, he's a little crazy. Rand is probably too politically savvy to be naive enough to believe that such a transformation is possible.

I agree with your differentiation between the two, but what do you mean by "true Libertarian"?

 BrotherGecko wrote:

Anybody not asleep at the wheel should of been aghast at how dense Trump was during the debate.

But lots of people are asleep at the wheel, because most of the political process is boring. A significant number of people talk about wanting to hear about issues, but that isn't reflected in election results.

The lack of debates and how poorly timed they are falls squarely on Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, maybe she was trying to protect Hilary? She has been like a dictator and all Democratic voters and politicians running are demanding a better debate schedule.

Bernie has gotten serious, and Time even ran an article on him, and put him on the cover. Media is starting to see he has a chance, and he has done it w/o as much money or TV ads as the rest.

I have seen Biden is looking to run, but sadly, he is still in mourning, and honestly, he would be little better than Obama or Hilary imho

Bernie has a momentum that is not going away, no matter how much pro-Hillary news outlets have tried to ignore him.

That debate was just more empty piffle as the questions were so low ball and not hard to answer, so they gave vague and empty responses, besides beating on each other

The 'beating on each other' was actively encouraged. The majority of the questions seemed to be variations on one of the two:

Candidate A thinks you are a jerk. Do you think candidate A is a jerk?

Candidate A said you think he is a jerk. Is he a jerk?

Add in the inability or unwillingness of the moderators to maintain even a tiny bit of control except to insert themselves long enough to kick the bee hive and I think the debate was a farce. I bet the CNN crew doesn't run it the same way for the Ds.

 BlaxicanX wrote:
Trump has outlined a more comprehensive description of his stance on gun-control and immigration, as well as the policies he'd like to enact.

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/immigration-reform

So he has no foreign policy laid out what so ever. Unless people honestly think we can force Mexico to build a wall between itself and us while we ignore the wide open boarders between us and Canada?

I figured his platform was dumb but I guess I didn't realize how dumb it actually was.

 CptJake wrote:
The 'beating on each other' was actively encouraged. The majority of the questions seemed to be variations on one of the two:

Candidate A thinks you are a jerk. Do you think candidate A is a jerk?

Candidate A said you think he is a jerk. Is he a jerk?

Add in the inability or unwillingness of the moderators to maintain even a tiny bit of control except to insert themselves long enough to kick the bee hive and I think the debate was a farce. I bet the CNN crew doesn't run it the same way for the Ds.

It is most likely a result of having 400,000 candidates (I might be exaggerating slightly) seeking the R nomination. The Ds only really have two running atm so it isn't really that strange that the questions at this point are a bit different as well. Once both parties have a nominee I'm sure they will lambaste each other to no avail.

There are two others than Bernie and Hillary, it's just you never hear anything about them because all the time it taken up by the repulican circus.

Bull crap, they could have stayed with position points for the questioning instead of purposely playing the 'Well he said you're a jerk, how do you react to that' track they took.



It was pathetic. Amateur hour. I expected a lot better of CNN.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
There are two others than Bernie and Hillary, it's just you never hear anything about them because all the time it taken up by the repulican circus.

Thus the 'really' part of the statement. Anyone can run, but that won't mean it matters. At this point the only ones that matter that are actively running are HRC and Bernie, and Bernie probably doesn't really have a realistic shot, but then it is far enough off that anyting can happen. It doesn't change that the Republicans have a lot more openly seeking the office at this point than the Democrats.

 CptJake wrote:
Bull crap, they could have stayed with position points for the questioning instead of purposely playing the 'Well he said you're a jerk, how do you react to that' track they took.



It was pathetic. Amateur hour. I expected a lot better of CNN.

It's CNN.

 CptJake wrote:
Bull crap, they could have stayed with position points for the questioning instead of purposely playing the 'Well he said you're a jerk, how do you react to that' track they took.



It was pathetic. Amateur hour. I expected a lot better of CNN.

I didn't CNN saw the circus that happened on FoxNews and jumped on that sweet sweet advertisement money too. The whole thing was supposed to be a circus. I remember Kaisch getting kind of pissed in the beginning with what was going on but eventually he had to play ball to talk. Which of course was what people want to see. Politics turned into a bad reality show where candidates one up each other with who can say the most unrealistic idea possible (always Trump).

 CptJake wrote:
Bull crap, they could have stayed with position points for the questioning instead of purposely playing the 'Well he said you're a jerk, how do you react to that' track they took.



It was pathetic. Amateur hour. I expected a lot better of CNN.

And the candidates could have refused to answer those personal attack questions, forcing the moderator to actually move onto something else.

The only reason those questions were asked is because many of the candidates are unprofessional enough to fall for it, or they feel like they can't let Trump talk for the whole show.

CNN was after ratings, BUT the Republican candidates seemed to also go along with the circus. American media is focused on distractions and fills

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
Bull crap, they could have stayed with position points for the questioning instead of purposely playing the 'Well he said you're a jerk, how do you react to that' track they took.



It was pathetic. Amateur hour. I expected a lot better of CNN.

And the candidates could have refused to answer those personal attack questions, forcing the moderator to actually move onto something else.

The only reason those questions were asked is because many of the candidates are unprofessional enough to fall for it, or they feel like they can't let Trump talk for the whole show.

Exactly. Expecting better from CNN is missing the point entirely, it's the candidates we should be expecting better from. They're supposed to be well-educated, experienced professionals with at least a decent skill level in public speaking and debate.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 shasolenzabi wrote:
CNN was after ratings, BUT the Republican candidates seemed to also go along with the circus. American media is focused on distractions and fills

It's because American media is focused on the ratings numbers and nothing else. As long as sponsors are needed to pay the bills, ratings will always be the overriding factor.

 dogma wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

I think both would be personally happy in a true Libertarian USA but if asked directly I think both would admit that actually turning the USA into a true Libertarian state isn't politically feasible. Although maybe Ron does believe it's possible, he's a little crazy. Rand is probably too politically savvy to be naive enough to believe that such a transformation is possible.

I agree with your differentiation between the two, but what do you mean by "true Libertarian"?

I'm not trying to dodge the question but I'll try to be brief, avoid ascribing my personal views to true Libertarians and not veer too far off topic. The meaning I meant to convey with " true Libertarian " is essentially a federal govt strictly confined to its responsibilities expressly laid out in the Constitution. No more War on Whatever policies, no more intrusive nanny state policies, no thought crime laws or attempts to legislate morality or use the tax code as a social experiment. It would definitely be consistent with the political stance that the civil rights act went to far as espoused by Rand in his infamous Rachel maddow appearance but not necessarily as far as open borders and the privatization of virtually all local, stats and federal govt services. A significant reigning in of the federal leviathan but not a total anarchic society of individual freedom.

Granted I'm making a differention between Libertarian and Anarchistic that is based solely on my personal view but I think anyone willing to join a political party even a Libertarian one is acknowledging a belief in working within the system and therefore accepts the existence of a system.

 BrotherGecko wrote:
Politics turned into a bad reality show where candidates one up each other with who can say the most unrealistic idea possible (always Trump).

Well when the leading candidate is a reality tv star, it makes a little more sense.

I live in a state where it really doesn't matter who I vote for (it'll be a Democrat who gets the Electrical College vote) but I kind of really do want Trump to win. I want America to admit to itself and the world that our politics are truly that ridiculous. Personally I think it's great. But I also have a huge case of schadenfreude. I guess it's not all that different from an Early Modern European nobleman buying his way into the court, but it still feels a bit more ridiculous to me that we have all this information at our fingertips, literally the sum total of human knowledge, mostly for free, and this is the best we can do.

I also enjoy telling my Mexican girlfriend that if he wins I'll have to put her on the train out of the US. She does not like these statements much lol.

DutchWinsAll wrote:

 BrotherGecko wrote:
Politics turned into a bad reality show where candidates one up each other with who can say the most unrealistic idea possible (always Trump).

Well when the leading candidate is a reality tv star, it makes a little more sense.

I live in a state where it really doesn't matter who I vote for (it'll be a Democrat who gets the Electrical College vote) but I kind of really do want Trump to win. I want America to admit to itself and the world that our politics are truly that ridiculous. Personally I think it's great. But I also have a huge case of schadenfreude. I guess it's not all that different from an Early Modern European nobleman buying his way into the court, but it still feels a bit more ridiculous to me that we have all this information at our fingertips, literally the sum total of human knowledge, mostly for free, and this is the best we can do.

I also enjoy telling my Mexican girlfriend that if he wins I'll have to put her on the train out of the US. She does not like these statements much lol.

I'd love to see the experiment in action and watch the complete collapse of the American political system. I just feel very strongly that he is a threat to American lives and security and the direct future of all that fall in the US's shadow.