All Purpose News and Politics Thread Part IV: The Center Cannot Hold

[The Overlord]

It's good to have additional information, however my opinion of Sanders hasn't and won't change. I will say that, if by some miracle he wins the Primary, I won't rule out voting for him just to get rid of Trump.

Okay, but people make the argument that defeating Trump is paramount, so by that logic, is saying you may not vote him if he wins the nomination throws that argument out? It seems like you want people who can't stand Biden to hold their noses and vote for him, why does the same logic not apply to Bernie Sanders?

You don't think people couldn't find his comments about ''forced busing'' offensive?

What exactly did Sanders do that was so offensive at the Vatican? I likely wouldn't find the same offensive, I am ex-Catholic and I think there is a lot to criticize about the church.

I'd vote for Gillibrand, Klobuchar maybe Harris (although her criminal justice record gives my pause due to allegations of abuse of power). What it boils down to is that I'm a libertarian. I can't vote for Warren (even if I liked her as a person) because she advocates for too high a degree of government interventionism from where I stand.

Whatever floats your boat, but I think that ideology has failed:

https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-in...right-pipeline

What has modern Libertarianism given us? Stefan Molyneux? Ron Paul's racist tweets about ''Cultural Marxism''?

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/3...faces-backlash

Seems like Libertarianism has a problem it does not want to deal with.

Also if government intervention is so bad, why does Canada spend less of its GDP on health care then the US does?

[Celgress]

Everyone's a libertarian..until they're the ones with their hands out.

I don't understand why you're hostile to freedom? I simply believe personal liberty is sacrosanct which is why, for example, I supported same-sex marriage long before it became fashionable to do so. If you aren't hurting others the government has no right to tell you what you can and can't do or even what you should do.

[Tami]

Okay, but people make the argument that defeating Trump is paramount, so by that logic, is saying you may not vote him if he wins the nomination throws that argument out? It seems like you want people who can't stand Biden to hold their noses and vote for him, why does the same logic not apply to Bernie Sanders?

You don't think people couldn't find his comments about ''forced busing'' offensive?

What exactly did Sanders do that was so offensive at the Vatican? I likely wouldn't find the same offensive, I am ex-Catholic and I think there is a lot to criticize about the church.

The whole thing about being there instead of back in the US, but mostly when he ambushed the Pope for a photo op just as the Pope was leaving for an emergency humanitarian trip.

That's like asking Superman for a selfie as Metropolis is being Nuked. Okay, maybe not quite, but still it just irritated the *blank* out of me.

After that I started to view him through a more critical lens, and I didn't like what I saw.

[Tendrin]

I see we're at the 'why so hostile to freedom' part of the libertarian defense. That was typically fast.

[The Overlord]

The whole thing about being there instead of back in the US, but mostly when he ambushed the Pope for a photo op just as the Pope was leaving for an emergency humanitarian trip.

That's like asking Superman for a selfie as Metropolis is being Nuked. Okay, maybe not quite, but still it just irritated the *blank* out of me.

After that I started to view him through a more critical lens, and I didn't like what I saw.

And how is that worse than Biden's ''forced busing comments''?

Considering my opinion on the Church nowadays, this does bother me, this seems like faux pas at best to me. Considering what the Church has done in recent decades, I do not think the Church can cast stones on others and I doubt the Pope himself cared, it's not like he was delayed in some critical second and millions died due to Sanders briefly distracting the Pope. I think its a bit silly to stew over a faux pas like that.

If this bothers you, fine, but you may have to put it aside if you actually want to beat Trump, Sanders still has supporters and if you want a united front against Trump, you should not cast them aside so easily.

I don't understand why you're hostile to freedom? I simply believe personal liberty is sacrosanct which is why, for example, I supported same-sex marriage long before it became fashionable to do so. If you aren't hurting others the government has no right to tell you what you can and can't do or even what you should do.

The freedom you purpose would involve turning schools into fortresses in some roundabout way to address gun violence:

https://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/03/u...ol-guards.html

Unless you have some other way to do it, other than the NRA's draconian plan. I am all ears.

How children in school free, when they can be massacred at school at any time. People have to live in constant fear of death anywhere because a few guys think shooting AR-15s is fun.

Guess what in Canada, you shoot an AR-15, at a gun range, but you keep the gun at the range. How is that taking people's freedom?

[Celgress]

Okay, but people make the argument that defeating Trump is paramount, so by that logic, is saying you may not vote him if he wins the nomination throws that argument out? It seems like you want people who can't stand Biden to hold their noses and vote for him, why does the same logic not apply to Bernie Sanders?

You don't think people couldn't find his comments about ''forced busing'' offensive?

What exactly did Sanders do that was so offensive at the Vatican? I likely wouldn't find the same offensive, I am ex-Catholic and I think there is a lot to criticize about the church.



Whatever floats your boat, but I think that ideology has failed:

https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-in...right-pipeline

What has modern Libertarianism given us? Stefan Molyneux? Ron Paul's racist tweets about ''Cultural Marxism''?

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/3...faces-backlash

Seems like Libertarianism has a problem it does not want to deal with.

Also if government intervention is so bad, why does Canada spend less of its GDP on health care then the US does?

A population of 30 million versus a population of roughly 300 million is one of the reasons being rich in natural resources is another.

I'm not a fanatic I have no objection to basic universial health care. My issue is when the government takes things away rather than gives things or decides winners and losers. I don't believe in pure communism because it provides no incentive for risk or reward for hard work and because it means state control on every level of society.

As for the other things you mentioned they mean nothing. Every movement has bad apples. Most libertarians aren't racist. Heck, Lincoln was a libertarian because he believed the natural nature of human beings is to be free.

[Celgress]

I see we're at the 'why so hostile to freedom' part of the libertarian defense. That was typically fast.

Got nothing else to say other than one-liners, huh? Not going to tell us about your political stance? C'mon share with us pretty please.

[Celgress]

Must say I wonder where the mods are lol. We've taken this thread far off track, myself included.

[Gray Lensman]

I see we're at the 'why so hostile to freedom' part of the libertarian defense. That was typically fast.

I'm a registered Libertarian myself, but I am not all that opposed to Warren.

Her Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is exactly the type of regulation I support, something to help regular people as opposed to merely more layers of bureaucracy.

Capitalism in this country has become more crony capitalism than anything to do with the free market. Crony Capitalism, in my somewhat Libertarian eyes is just Socialism with a different recipient of the benefits. For someone like me, that means the crap end of both Socialism AND Capitalism. And that's bad. I'll go further and say that large corporations actually loooooovvve regulations and arcane rules, particularly those that make it more expensive for any upstart to enter the marketplace. Staying on top against real competition is expensive. The regulations they keep trying to roll back are the important ones, the ones large corporations despise - accountability.

Even Universal Health Care doesn't raise my hackles up too much because I recognize one thing - even in an ideal situation, the free market is of limited value in that part of the economy. Most hospitals outside of large cities don't have any competition, prices are secret, and the consumer really has no power to walk away and decide that he doesn't want the service, since that service is basically one's life and well being - not something one can go without. And that's before you get into the fact that drugs are often controlled by monopolies and Medicare is forbidden by force of law from using the levers of capitalism to benefit it's customers.

Maybe it's part of being in Nevada, but the Libertarian party here is willing to back Democrats over Republicans (although they never endorse either, they give a 1-4 star rating based on how close they follow Libertarian ideals) since they have realized that the ideals they are supposed to represent aren't just economics and lower taxes, but personal freedoms as well. And that doesn't mean merely the right to discriminate against others. A Democrat who is moderate on economic policy but hard left on social policy is more of a Libertarian than a Republican who is hard right on both.

But to me, more important than anything else right now, is that I feel the Republican party has abandoned Democracy. And if that is lost, nothing else is going to matter in the end.

Yeah, I realized I'm basically part of what can be described as the Libertarian Left, or at least something close to it.

[Celgress]

...But to me, more important than anything else right now, is that I feel the Republican party has abandoned Democracy. And if that is lost, nothing else is going to matter in the end.

I agree with you completely on this point. IMO, the Republican Party is on its way to becoming fully fascist if it isn't there already.

My only major issues with the Democrats are their courting of SJWs and their lax border control stances. One I don't want laws passed that regulate what you can and can't say because it might hurt someone's feelings. Two we need secure borders to know who and what is entering the country.

[Tendrin]

Got nothing else to say other than one-liners, huh? Not going to tell us about your political stance? C'mon share with us pretty please.

You can read my long posting history if you're interested in my political stances. I spent too long dealing with an Objectivist sibling to humor a sea lion.

[Celgress]

You can read my long posting history if you're interested in my political stances. I spent too long dealing with an Objectivist sibling to humor a sea lion.

delete post

[The Overlord]

A population of 30 million versus a population of roughly 300 million is one of the reasons being rich in natural resources is another.

I'm not a fanatic I have no objection to basic universial health care. My issue is when the government takes things away rather than gives things or decides winners and losers. I don't believe in pure communism because it provides no incentive for risk or reward for hard work and because it means state control on every level of society.

As for the other things you mentioned they mean nothing. Every movement has bad apples. Most libertarians aren't racist. Heck, Lincoln was a libertarian because he believed the natural nature of human beings is to be free.

Ever considered your health care system is a corporate welfare scheme? Your health care system is supposed to be wasteful and overly bureaucratic because it helps the insurance companies bottom line.

I am sorry, but the idealized capitalism Libertarians support, does not exist in the real world, it is a fantasy. Why would corporations not want corporate welfare if it helps their bottom line? Why wouldn't defense contractors not promote BS wars so they can sell a bunch of expensive junk to the government? The idealized version of capitalism that Libertarians believe in, does not exist, because corporations want to make as much money as possible and having a big government that can be a big customer serves their bottom line.


I think the right-wing talking points about small government is a giant scam, but I will charitable, what have Libertarians done to curb the massive right-wing giant government machine, the one that massively raises debts, promotes a war machine, militarized police and gerrymandering? What have they done to stop any of that?

This is not even new for the GOP, they have always done this, they raise the debt through tax cuts and military spending, as a reason to cut social programs, big debt is fine with them, as long they can cut the programs.

But why is there a pipeline between Libertarians and the alt-right? I got more than one article:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...-you-to-think/

Is Stefan Molyneaux not a Libertarian? Why or why not? Are you going to make a ''No True Scotsman argument'' in regards to the pipeline?

Ron Paul is not just anyone, he was the Libertarian darling for a while, so why he is posting weird racist stuff?

Let's come with someone less dire, what Rand Paul who opposed providing health benefits to 9/11 first responders, till ''we find a way to pay for it'' and then jacks up the debt with massive upper tax cuts. Those tax cuts add to the debt. Tax cuts add to the debt, they do not pay for themselves and why those never paid for and just added to the debt, but taking care of first responders is ''too expensive''.

This may seem like I am being harsh, but I was willing to placate Libertarians back in the 2000s, but now, I do not have the time, things have become dire and I think only a really strong left-wing party can counter these problems, not corporate bought losers like Bill Clinton and Joe Biden, who have been allowed to be the pathetic vanguards for progressives for far too long.

[Celgress]

This thread has stopped being enjoyable for me. I'll save my energy for arguing with people about comic characters such arguments tend to be less dogmatic and bitter, which surprises me all things considered. I know better than to come in here again, adios.

[The Overlord]

This thread has stopped being enjoyable for me. I'll save my energy for arguing with people about comic characters such arguments tend to be less dogmatic and bitter, which surprises me all things considered. I know better than to come in here again, adios.

Nothing personal, I just think Libertarians nowadays are going to get more push back now than did in the past. So many people have used Libertarianism for bad ends, that it's not going to get the free pass it got in the past. I was willing to argue on their terms back in the 2000s and now I do not bother, I will challenge their framing of the issues. If you actually believe in the market place of ideas, Libertarianism is much fair game, as anything else.

And yeah, people are going to invest more passion into real things that affect real people over events that affect fictional characters, I like escapist fiction as much as anyone, but you have to face the real world sometimes.

I am not trying to be mean, but if I think something is ineffective, like Libertarianism, I will not spare the rod.