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.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 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:

The Louisiana purchase is often seen as an early example of American colonialism, but from a strategic view, it made perfect sense. America had a quasi-war with France, not that long before (as always Britain saves the day when Nelson sinks the French Fleet ) so there was a fear that Louisiana could be used as a base by the French for future wars against the USA.

 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"

 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."

Hillary's flat out said the mother of one of the Benghazi victims was wrong. Very callous...

Hillary's answer to emailgate was wrong... claimed "It was not in any way disallowed", which is full-on BS.

Hillary equating the Bush v. Gore SC case like 9/11... wut? (For the record, Gore still lost the unofficial recount).

Sander's high praise of Communist/Dictatorial regimes such as Cuba and Nicaragua.

Both claiming that they'll refuse to deport illegals.

Here's what the Washington Post has re: fact checking the debate.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/03/10/fact-checking-the-eighth-democratic-debate/

Why is Sanders getting backlash for his not so negative comments re: Cuba and Nicaragua? Aren't we normalizing relations with Cuba? And Nicaragua was pretty complicated with the US doing some shady stuff, so I don't know that is a great path to start going down. Plus, he never tried to claim he wasn't a firm lefty, so some support for Communists isn't a huge shock.

Heck, I disagree with Sanders on his pitch (that dog don't hunt in Texas!), but I do respect that he is an upfront, true believer. It amazes me that he doesn't get more Democrat support. Which just goes to show that the Democrats aren't really as far left as some claim. And that Clinton doesn't get called out on her misrepresentations. A lot.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


The Louisiana purchase is often seen as an early example of American colonialism, but from a strategic view, it made perfect sense. America had a quasi-war with France, not that long before (as always Britain saves the day when Nelson sinks the French Fleet ) so there was a fear that Louisiana could be used as a base by the French for future wars against the USA.

Yes, but the purchase does represent a sort of power that most Libertarians think that the Feds shouldn't have.

It definitely made sense as an expansion, because in the 1750s, Benjamin Franklin joked in a letter that the American population doubled every 20 years... The reality wasn't far off. It was actually just short of 25 years for a population doubling in the early years. And with there being no industrial revolution yet, agrarian economies still reigned supreme. That means farms producing food, that means people need space, and so on.

"The Sandinsistas were an environmentalist group in Nicaragua that were protesting the American companies that were poisoning their people.

The Contra's forbade them from meeting and drove them into the hills killing them.

Reagan wanted the rocket fuel the the Pennwald corp was making there among other war goods and refused to sell the Sandinsistas weapons, this forced them to buy weapons from Cuba.

Reagan then labeled them Communist. that was a lie. So when the mod. ask him the difference between Nicaragua and his Democratic socialism the question was based on a lie that the Reagan's told us and could not be answered."

Not up on my latin american history..I was still young when this was going on...but...sounds legit.

I heard a bit of the debate. It sounds like both candidates gave as good as they got. Hilary was definitely on the attack, but what I heard was mostly battered away by Sanders. Granted, I did not hear it all.

You can tell that Sanders is incredibly "on-message" all of the time, and is a very skilled debater and politician. However, Hilary's attack often fed into Sanders demagoguery. I'm suddenly not so sure she can dismantle Trump style demagoguery in a debate.

Watching the Democratic Debate, I agree both are giving as good as they're getting.

I think the questions are better than most of the previous Democratic debates.

 TheMeanDM wrote:
"The Sandinsistas were an environmentalist group in Nicaragua that were protesting the American companies that were poisoning their people.

The Contra's forbade them from meeting and drove them into the hills killing them.

Reagan wanted the rocket fuel the the Pennwald corp was making there among other war goods and refused to sell the Sandinsistas weapons, this forced them to buy weapons from Cuba.

Reagan then labeled them Communist. that was a lie. So when the mod. ask him the difference between Nicaragua and his Democratic socialism the question was based on a lie that the Reagan's told us and could not be answered."

Not up on my latin american history..I was still young when this was going on...but...sounds legit.

You forgot all the coke smuggling to Black Americans and Iranian arms shipments. A trifecta of everything America hated, and yet Reagan is still glorified by the Right. Astounding to me. I guess he talked tough, at least when he wasn't confusing his acting career with real life

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
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!

You are aware that there's a difference between having a society with some libertarian style freedoms, and having a libertarian society? Just as having social security for unemployed people doesn't make you socialist, having free speech and guns doesn't make you libertarian.

Go read the actual policy platform of the Libertarian Party. If you can get through without giggling I'll give you a dollar. A shiny gold one.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
Anyone watched the Democrat townhall last night?

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

Have you considered that says more about your twitter feed than it does about the actual debate?

 sebster wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
Anyone watched the Democrat townhall last night?

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

Have you considered that says more about your twitter feed than it does about the actual debate?

Sanders and Clinton are both fething kooks.

 jmurph wrote:
Why is Sanders getting backlash for his not so negative comments re: Cuba and Nicaragua? Aren't we normalizing relations with Cuba? And Nicaragua was pretty complicated with the US doing some shady stuff, so I don't know that is a great path to start going down. Plus, he never tried to claim he wasn't a firm lefty, so some support for Communists isn't a huge shock.

There's been a long issue on the left with having a certain kind of blindness towards awful regimes as long as they claim socialist values. Up until the fall of the Soviet Union there was still a faction of the left that continued to try and defend the purges (claiming they were exaggerated, or necessary).

Sanders support for the Sandinistas plays in to that, as his support came in spite of the thousands of people that were being disappeared, that were known about at the time. It shows he had the same blindspot that affected so many on the left.


That said, I don't think it's particularly relevant to Sanders today, or really to the left wing in general - a lot has changed since the fall of the Soviet Union. But that's kind of how presidential debates work, a lot of stuff gets dragged up from decades ago. It's really about as relevant as Obama's Ayers thing, or Trump's changed position on abortion. But that's how politics works.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
Sanders and Clinton are both fething kooks.

Here's Clinton's comment from a couple of debates ago that really sums up what is happening;
"And I just want to make one point. You know, we have our differences. And we get into vigorous debate about issues, but compare the substance of this debate with what you saw on the Republican stage last week."

And now, as it was always going to, that's flowed through to Republican supporters here. Just as Rubio, Cruz and Trump have rejected policy discussion and substance, and instead just relied on personal attack devoid of any actual meaning, now you're doing the same.

 sebster wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
Sanders and Clinton are both fething kooks.

Here's Clinton's comment from a couple of debates ago that really sums up what is happening;
"And I just want to make one point. You know, we have our differences. And we get into vigorous debate about issues, but compare the substance of this debate with what you saw on the Republican stage last week."

And now, as it was always going to, that's flowed through to Republican supporters here. Just as Rubio, Cruz and Trump have rejected policy discussion and substance, and instead just relied on personal attack devoid of any actual meaning, now you're doing the same.

It's a trap.

She has only one policy.

Empowering the Clinton legacy.

Sanders? Socialist loon with an admittingly heart of gold it appears.

Don't get me wrong, Trump's a goddamn freakshow. He's going to govern like an Obama.

Cruz is full-on righty. It's either going to Trump or Cruz. Pick your poison.

Kasich is that real moderate GOP governor who doesn't inspire. Making a VP plug...

Rubio's lost his chance.

 whembly wrote:

Sanders? Socialist loon with an admittingly heart of gold it appears.

except for that bit where he's not actually socialist....

But, we'll give you that.... Look at the guy's voting record. Everything he's campaigning about, he's voted in that same way. He's the ONLY candidate to actually support veterans by voting FOR VA legislation.

I know it must seem a dead horse by now, but the Republican party absolutely CAN NOT call itself the military/veteran friendly party, so long as it continually votes down any and all legislation that supports vets. We already know they are the party of warmongers who love nothing more than to send other people's kids off to be killed or maimed, they literally do not have to pay for it.

Jesus wept...Trump reverts to slamming all Muslims and defends war crimes.

 whembly wrote:

 sebster wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
Sanders and Clinton are both fething kooks.

Here's Clinton's comment from a couple of debates ago that really sums up what is happening;
"And I just want to make one point. You know, we have our differences. And we get into vigorous debate about issues, but compare the substance of this debate with what you saw on the Republican stage last week."

And now, as it was always going to, that's flowed through to Republican supporters here. Just as Rubio, Cruz and Trump have rejected policy discussion and substance, and instead just relied on personal attack devoid of any actual meaning, now you're doing the same.

It's a trap.

She has only one policy.

Empowering the Clinton legacy.

Sanders? Socialist loon with an admittingly heart of gold it appears.

Don't get me wrong, Trump's a goddamn freakshow. He's going to govern like an Obama.

Cruz is full-on righty. It's either going to Trump or Cruz. Pick your poison.

Kasich is that real moderate GOP governor who doesn't inspire. Making a VP plug...

Rubio's lost his chance.

Really, that's it, empowering her own legacy? That's weird because if you go to her website and actually read her policy positions (I know it sounds weird, coming from the far right like you do, but she actually has specific policy laid out for most of the issues right now) you might actually have a leg to stand on here. And here I thought you were politically informed. I will never vote for Trump, or Cruz or Rubio, but at least I know what their policy positions are (what little they have actually released at this point other than vague talking points) because I take the time to do so. Hell, I seem to know more of Trump's policy positions than he does.

 Gordon Shumway wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 sebster wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
Sanders and Clinton are both fething kooks.

Here's Clinton's comment from a couple of debates ago that really sums up what is happening;
"And I just want to make one point. You know, we have our differences. And we get into vigorous debate about issues, but compare the substance of this debate with what you saw on the Republican stage last week."

And now, as it was always going to, that's flowed through to Republican supporters here. Just as Rubio, Cruz and Trump have rejected policy discussion and substance, and instead just relied on personal attack devoid of any actual meaning, now you're doing the same.

It's a trap.

She has only one policy.

Empowering the Clinton legacy.

Sanders? Socialist loon with an admittingly heart of gold it appears.

Don't get me wrong, Trump's a goddamn freakshow. He's going to govern like an Obama.

Cruz is full-on righty. It's either going to Trump or Cruz. Pick your poison.

Kasich is that real moderate GOP governor who doesn't inspire. Making a VP plug...

Rubio's lost his chance.

Really, that's it, empowering her own legacy? That's weird because if you go to her website and actually read her policy positions (I know it sounds weird, coming from the far right like you do, but she actually has specific policy laid out for most of the issues right now) you might actually have a leg to stand on here. And here I thought you were politically informed. I will never vote for Trump, or Cruz or Rubio, but at least I know what their policy positions are (what little they have actually released at this point other than vague talking points) because I take the time to do so.

It's her default.

@Ensis: I'd vote for Sanders before Clinton. With a smile.

What's her default? Actually putting up policy positions? I agree. She is a wonk who doesn't really care for or is good at the whole people thing.

 whembly wrote:
She has only one policy.

Empowering the Clinton legacy.

The Clintons have a pretty consistent, and well defined set of policies going back to Bill Clinton's first term. And as Gordon Shumway points out, they're all there for you to read if you want to.

Don't get me wrong, Trump's a goddamn freakshow. He's going to govern like an Obama.

Cruz is full-on righty. It's either going to Trump or Cruz. Pick your poison.

Stop me if I'm wrong, but I really feel like the process you're going through is realising how weak the Republican choices are, and then committing to hating the Democratic alternatives even more.

Kasich is that real moderate GOP governor who doesn't inspire. Making a VP plug...

Kasich is a strong conservative who's playing as a moderate in this election. Remember he was a senator before he was a governor. Go look at his senate record, there's no hint of moderation.

I'm not sure if he's just hanging in for the VP, or genuinely believes that he'll win through a contested convention. The play for that now seems to be that he'll win Ohio, giving him credit as the man who stopped Trump winning outright. Rubio loses Florida and drops out. Then in the a three way race at the convention, people will pick him over Trump and Cruz. It's not that unreasonable when read like that, but still, the idea that a contested convention will end up favouring the guy who turns up with a bare handful of delegates seems kind of crazy.

Rubio's lost his chance.

Rubio never really built a core of voters, largely because he never developed a ground game. This was exacerbated by his positioning as the acceptable middle ground. It ended up meaning he positioned himself, possibly by accident, as everyone's second choice. And that meant the field had to winnow much more quickly, and it meant if anyone else showed strength against Trump, that person would quickly take Rubio's anti-Trump position, and that would be the end of him. Obvious in hindsight, of course, at the time it wasn't so clear. Except for neglecting to build a ground game, that was always a clear mistake.

Pretty much Seb.

Also, Cruz going in for the kill again... said something like "do you want obama-clinton foreign policy for another 4 years? vote trump."

Trump BP is visably rising


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Rubio is killing it with is Cuba answers... the crowd is lapping it up.

Trump... his Cuba answer? I think the crowd is openingly laughing at him. o.O


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Um...Trump just call the Tiananmen protests A RIOT????!!!!

Lawd...


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Heh... well played:



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Not sure if I heard this right...

Trump: I don't condone violence.
Tapper: There is violence.
Trump: They deserve it.

In reference to his supporters being violent at the rally.

I could post the response to they stupid Facebook meme "argument", but then I would be posting Facebook meme arguments...

 whembly wrote:
Pretty much Seb.

Yeah, I'm not sure if I made it clear enough, or you misread or what, but you probably wouldn't want to be admitting that your thought process was what I said

I basically said that given the mediocrity of the Republican candidates, you'd committed to convincing yourself that the Democrats must be worse, in order to justify the vote you'd already decided on.

Heh... well played:

Spoiler:

That is gold. I mean, whether someone agrees with it or not, you have to admire wit when you see it.

 sebster wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Pretty much Seb.

Yeah, I'm not sure if I made it clear enough, or you misread or what, but you probably wouldn't want to be admitting that your thought process was what I said

I basically said that given the mediocrity of the Republican candidates, you'd committed to convincing yourself that the Democrats must be worse, in order to justify the vote you'd already decided on.

Nope, I got ya and it's a little self-depreciation on my part.

Hey... I ain't perfect... only handsome.

Heh... well played:

Spoiler:

That is gold. I mean, whether someone agrees with it or not, you have to admire wit when you see it.

Indeedeo. Based on d's response, I'm guessing it got some play in facebook.

<---this guy doesn't facebook.

When they just talk and don't throw monkey gak at each other, the candidates are alright to watch.

I may not agree with every position and response...but at least when they are just talking I can at least feel like I can keep an open mind.

 whembly wrote:
Nope, I got ya and it's a little self-depreciation on my part.

Hey... I ain't perfect... only handsome.

Ah, cool





Anyhow, here's a terrific little thought bubble from one of the 538 contributors in the blog on the debate. I was surprised didn't start up any more discussion, it seems extremely perceptive to me.

"...Politics was driven by local concerns for a long time. But the nationalization of party politics has changed that. If GOP voters think it’s most important to oppose Obama (or Clinton), and Democratic voters think it’s more important to oppose George W. Bush or Trump or Cruz or whomever, then issues like ethanol in Iowa or Social Security in Florida may not be as important. This kind of nationally competitive politics, with less emphasis on pork-barrel spending to stimulate and sustain local economies (previously a bipartisan favorite), might be partly what’s driving the sense among angry voters that they’re getting a raw deal. Nationalized politics is fueled by ideas and anger. Obviously this can work pretty well to get people out to vote. But maybe it eventually backfires because it doesn’t help voters put food on the table."

 sebster wrote:

Heh... well played:

Spoiler:

That is gold. I mean, whether someone agrees with it or not, you have to admire wit when you see it.

That isn't witty at all. It's actually very stupid because it's based on the lie that socialism means taking your individual stuff. Workers owning the means of production means that the people who work the machinery should own the machinery and the products of their labour instead of having it taken from them in return for a wage that is less than the worth of what they make. "Private property" doesn't mean your couch or your jacket or any of that nonsense. It means land, factories, resources. Important things fundamental to the economic system, not whatever chaff it puts out.

Rosebuddy wrote:

 sebster wrote:

Heh... well played:

Spoiler:

That is gold. I mean, whether someone agrees with it or not, you have to admire wit when you see it.

That isn't witty at all. It's actually very stupid because it's based on the lie that socialism means taking your individual stuff. Workers owning the means of production means that the people who work the machinery should own the machinery and the products of their labour instead of having it taken from them in return for a wage that is less than the worth of what they make. "Private property" doesn't mean your couch or your jacket or any of that nonsense. It means land, factories, resources. Important things fundamental to the economic system, not whatever chaff it puts out.

So, under socialism as you describe it, who allocates the products of the factories and farms? Products such as the sign in the picture for example?

Is there some kind of suspension of the constitutional right to free speech when you go to a Trump rally?

I can't wrap my head around how people think that just because it is a (supposedly) " private" event that you are prohibited from expressing any kind of oppositional view....that somehow, you lose your freedom of speech when you walk through the door.

I have seen any number of people (elsewhere in the interwebz) responding with that fallacy.....

This is especially brought up when there is violence (like the sucker punched guy) at Trump rallies.

Expressing your opinion, and even giving the finger as a symbolic gesture, are protected under our Freedom of Speech.

Does not mean "freedom from consequences" though, of course.

Sometimes the consequences of your speech are legal, sometimes illegal.

He was assaulted. That was a direct result (consequence) of his action.

That assault is against the law, and said person should be charged as such.

So there is "fault" on both sides.

 CptJake wrote:

Rosebuddy wrote:

 sebster wrote:

Heh... well played:

Spoiler:

That is gold. I mean, whether someone agrees with it or not, you have to admire wit when you see it.

That isn't witty at all. It's actually very stupid because it's based on the lie that socialism means taking your individual stuff. Workers owning the means of production means that the people who work the machinery should own the machinery and the products of their labour instead of having it taken from them in return for a wage that is less than the worth of what they make. "Private property" doesn't mean your couch or your jacket or any of that nonsense. It means land, factories, resources. Important things fundamental to the economic system, not whatever chaff it puts out.

So, under socialism as you describe it, who allocates the products of the factories and farms? Products such as the sign in the picture for example?

hint: it's not the people... but those in power.

 TheMeanDM wrote:
Is there some kind of suspension of the constitutional right to free speech when you go to a Trump rally?

I can't wrap my head around how people think that just because it is a (supposedly) " private" event that you are prohibited from expressing any kind of oppositional view....that somehow, you lose your freedom of speech when you walk through the door.

I have seen any number of people (elsewhere in the interwebz) responding with that fallacy.....

This is especially brought up when there is violence (like the sucker punched guy) at Trump rallies.

Expressing your opinion, and even giving the finger as a symbolic gesture, are protected under our Freedom of Speech.

Does not mean "freedom from consequences" though, of course.

Sometimes the consequences of your speech are legal, sometimes illegal.

He was assaulted. That was a direct result (consequence) of his action.

That assault is against the law, and said person should be charged as such.

So there is "fault" on both sides.

There really isn't much 1st Amendment protection at a private event. Trump and Co can kick you out for the same reason Dakka can ban you.