Obama re-elected as President of the USA

[Maknol]

I found this equal parts sad and funny, so I will share:

http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2...neyland#1109sf

"From the moment Mitt Romney stepped off stage Tuesday night, having just delivered a brief concession speech he wrote only that evening, the massive infrastructure surrounding his campaign quickly began to disassemble itself.

Aides taking cabs home late that night got rude awakenings when they found the credit cards linked to the campaign no longer worked.

'Fiscally conservative', sighed one aide the next day.


In conversations on Wednesday, aides were generally wistful, not angry, at how the campaign ended. Most, like their boss, truly believed the campaign's now almost comically inaccurate models, and that a victory was well within their grasp."

Because I am stating very basic facts and he is insinuating a massive conspiracy between the two major US political parties and various corporations that spans decades, multiple wars, and the 9/11 terrorist attacks?

Not only did I not insinuate that, I very clearly explained that is absolutely not the case and I'm not talking about any kind of massive conspiracy. I don't care a whit if you disagree with every single word I type, but please refrain from repeatedly misrepresenting what I say.

[DiamondDog]

It is called the Burden of Proof: He who makes the statements should provide his own evidence.

Right. So why is Hypernetic asking it of others and not himself?

Most people don't even know we are still at war.

Except that pretty much every conflict since WW2 has cost the US economy not helped to bolster it.

They might be simple statements, but unless you're prepared to qualify them with some evidence I don't see why you get to set your deck chair up on the high ground and judge Maknol.

I don't for a second assume you've pulled those sentences out of thin air, Hypernetic. It just bothers me when people try to side step an argument by asserting the need for "facts and evidence" when they don't hold to that practice themselves. Double standards.

[RakeShark]

I'll throw in my opinion.

Let's not let the electoral vote fool people, this was a close presidential race. But it was a hell of a mess that the Republicans got themselves into.

Despite some of the flip-flopping and gaffs on his part, I really don't hate Romney. I still think he's somewhat of a decent sort, and don't believe he's Hitler. He was naturally moderate enough that he did steal some normally democratic votes away from Obama. Sure he may be a bit of a shylock when it comes to business practices, but that's somewhat to be expected. I'm pretty sure I won't punch him in the face should we cross paths.

However, as a Republican candidate, it was almost embarrassing how much he had to kowtow to the platforms of his running party. Every time I felt like I could vote for him if the situation was different, someone in a Republican seat had to open their mouths and say something so cancer-inducingly stupid I had to remind myself I cannot side myself with religious nutjobs and socially ignorant buffoons. And it doesn't help the Republican side that they've time and again halted legislation on improving veterans' benefits on the grounds of being unable to pay for it despite wanting to increase defense spending (me being a vet, that's pretty insulting).

The Republicans need to divorce themselves of faith-dictated social polices moving forward if they wish to have a better shot at winning a close election. Leave the bible-thumping to the tea party folk. Who knows, maybe this election might be seminal in creating a third party a decade down the line.

[Shane]

And it doesn't help the Republican side that they've time and again halted legislation on improving veterans' benefits on the grounds of being unable to pay for it despite wanting to increase defense spending (me being a vet, that's pretty insulting).

Didn't they give the same excuse for not releasing more funds for firefighters, cops and volunteers who sick after working for long hours in the twin towers' rubble? Those bastards.

[Nalano]

Let's not let the electoral vote fool people, this was a close presidential race.

The electoral college suppresses votes. If you're in a "safe" state, there's little reason to vote at all as your vote means nothing.

[Tams80]

Obama is acceptable. Sure, he hasn't achieved that much and quite a few of his policies are similar to previous ones, but he is someone other states are prepared on the whole to deal with.

Now, how much of this is down to not having control of the House of Representatives and only marginal control of the Senate, or his own policies I don't know. He certainly hasn't made the US's image much worse (perhaps even somewhat better) at least.

The electoral college suppresses votes. If you're in a "safe" state, there's little reason to vote at all as your vote means nothing.

That still doesn't mean people shouldn't vote. It's a matter of principle and I think everybody who can should vote. Of course it is entirely up to the individual; in a democracy whether you want to vote or not is your choice and your choice alone to make.

[Hypernetic]

Right. So why is Hypernetic asking it of others and not himself?





They might be simple statements, but unless you're prepared to qualify them with some evidence I don't see why you get to set your deck chair up on the high ground and judge Maknol.

I don't for a second assume you've pulled those sentences out of thin air, Hypernetic. It just bothers me when people try to side step an argument by asserting the need for "facts and evidence" when they don't hold to that practice themselves. Double standards.

II's not a double standard, and here is why. His statements are accusatory in nature, mine are not. My statements are also grounded in reality, if you are going to pull some crazy bullshit out of your ass about how one the most powerful nations in the world is victim to widespread corruption and imperialism, you better back that up with some citations

[Maknol]

The Republicans need to divorce themselves of faith-dictated social polices moving forward if they wish to have a better shot at winning a close election. Leave the bible-thumping to the tea party folk. Who knows, maybe this election might be seminal in creating a third party a decade down the line.

On a scale from "nil' to "zero", what's the chance of the Republican party excising the radical nutjobs of the Tea Party from its ranks, and the Tea party then emancipating as the new third party?

Conversely, what's the chance of a true third party rising as a credible alternative to the current dichotomy?

These are sincere, curiosity-driven questions; the division of the whole political spectrum into just two extremist halves is something so alien to me that I'm not even sure I've already come to terms with how it works on a grassroots level.

That still doesn't mean people shouldn't vote. It's a matter of principle and I think everybody who can should vote. Of course it is entirely up to the individual; in a democracy whether you want to vote or not is your choice and your choice alone to make.

Not necessarily. There are representative democracies where the vote is compulsory. I live in one. And, frankly, I think it works better that way. When you remove laziness, misinformation about election dates, attempts to make it more difficult to register to vote, and other factors from the equation, the election becomes more transparent.

You can always choose to cast a blank vote if you want, and many do that as a form of protest to send a message of not agreeing with the current choice of candidates, so I don't see how this would hurt the sacred individual freedom of each individual. Also, elections are always held on Sundays, voting booths are as close to your current address as possible, and several other measures to make sure it's easy as hell to take a half hour out of your day to vote.

(Not that our political system is flawless and should be used as an example in all matters, but on this specific point I think it's better.)

II's not a double standard, and here is why. His statements are accusatory in nature, mine are not. My statements are also grounded in reality, if you are going to pull some crazy bullshit out of your ass about how one the most powerful nations in the world is victim to widespread corruption and imperialism, you better back that up with some citations

OK, now I'll have to say there's at least one person here idealizing politicians.

If you think there is no corruption in American politics, given the insane lobby machine working day in day out in Washington, and you think the money that fuels the political campaigns comes with absolutely no strings attached, then yeah, that's what you're doing.

[Nalano]

Obama is acceptable. Sure, he hasn't achieved that much and quite a few of his policies are similar to previous ones, but he is someone other states are prepared on the whole to deal with.

He's enacted the first major piece of social legislation since the Great Society, he's steered the country away from the largest depression since the Great Depression, and he's done both of those things with the most obstinate, obstructive Congress since the Civil War. Give credit where it's due.

That still doesn't mean people shouldn't vote. It's a matter of principle and I think everybody who can should vote. Of course it is entirely up to the individual; in a democracy whether you want to vote or not is your choice and your choice alone to make.

What's the point? Jon Stewart made the point rather adroitly when he said that Ohio was deciding the national election, and both parties knew it - which is why the lion's share of their money went there and not spread across the country. The only reason New York got attention was so we could fill their campaign coffers for more ads in Ohio.

[mickygor]

In that case, maybe the reason they didn't do too well is because no one was quite sure what to make of them. I've asked a few libertarians what they actually desired and the only consistent answer I got was more freedom. Which is such an amazingly vague term that you might as well not even bother.

The problem is that that is pretty much the only thing we all have in common. The broad ideology seems to be split into 2 groups, the anarchists and the minarchists. Minarchists believe that government should exist solely to protect the rights of individuals - the anarchists believe that even that much government is too much. The other issue is that by and large, we're a very principled bunch. By and large, though to a larger extent in the US, nothing but total alignment with the end goal is acceptable. To that end, you see people like Ron Paul who would have federal government do only what the constitution permits the federal government to do - that means strongly adhering to the 10th Amendment and devolving most current powers to the states, repealing a lot of federal legislature, etc. It's popular with the strong ideologists, but it's not popular with people who might consider the concept of libertarianism quite nice in theory, but untenable in practice, or perhaps a lost cause.

On the other hand, Gary Johnson who ran for the Libertarian Party, is a pragmatist. Here's a quote of his from an interview with Robin Koerner just before the election: "I think libertarians need somebody who can articulate getting from A to Z. But you know, if G is achievable, how about it? Let’s get there!" This was his reasoning for things like supporting federal legislation for marriage equality - there are over 1,000 pieces of legislation which contain the word marriage. When creating 1 law has the same real outcome as altering 1,000+ laws to remove the state from the equation, it's more realistic to just create the law. That's more my stance, but it doesn't gel well with both minarchists and anarchists across the board. When Ron Paul was denied the nomination (something I believe cost GOP the election), the liberty movement in the US kind of dispersed because Johnson is a polarising figure, in that he's pragmatic, a rarity for the ideology. There are a lot of libertarians who are, as Nalano, Fumarole and TillEulenspiegel suggested, are libertarian because they love guns, whores, drugs, and/or not being taxed. I'd argue that the love of not being tax would likely be a universal one were it implemented. That's not all of us. I do consider the state threatening me with incarceration for not paying them to be coercive force, because that's exactly what it is. No amount of being happy with the situation can overlook the fact that it is analogous to a protection racket. However, I do not advocate toppling the state tomorrow. I would not remove the NHS (at least, not overnight), because the void would create the corporatist monstrosity the US currently has rather than an appreciable private system. Similarly, I would not vote for a candidate that would remove income tax overnight because that would bankrupt the country rather than balance the books, regardless of whether it is the only moral option within the ideology or not.

The problem is, there are a lot of people that just can't see that. Same holds true for all ideologies. I suspect you'd get a better answer of what a libertarian stands for by talking to someone who advocates for an RBE. Just imagine the opposite of what they advocate.


As for why the movement didn't do too well in the election specifically, it's a combination of things. GOP blocking the nomination of Paul was probably the biggest single roadblock. The belief that voting third party is wasting your vote is a terrible problem which plagues all non-representative democracies. Voting against someone rather than for someone, too. The lack of financial backing (why would corporate lobbyists back someone who would dismantle their subsidised monopolies?) is another one. The popular vote suggested that Johnson would achieve and exceed the 5% needed to be entitled to federal campaign funding and to remove the barriers to getting onto the state ballots in the next election, yet this only translated into a 1% vote in the actual election. Still over a million votes, and arguably the best result for the Libertarian Party to date (depends on how you look at things when comparing to Clark). Just not enough to threaten the status quo.

[Nalano]

I do consider the state threatening me with incarceration for not paying them to be coercive force, because that's exactly what it is. No amount of being happy with the situation can overlook the fact that it is analogous to a protection racket.

This, to me, speaks of a fundamental misunderstanding of what a protection racket actually is.

[Grizzly]

II's not a double standard, and here is why. His statements are accusatory in nature, mine are not. My statements are also grounded in reality,

Ehrm. No, that is not how it works - Burden of Proof is on you regardless how "Plausible" your statements might seem. Don't draw on "Common Knowledge" or "Common sense" - it isn't.

if you are going to pull some crazy bullshit out of your ass about how one the most powerful nations in the world is victim to widespread corruption and imperialism, you better back that up with some citations

Considering that the Roman, Holy Roman, Byzantine, Seljuq, Tumid, Chinese, Mongol, and British empires have all been victim to widespread corruption, and certainly have been enormously imperialistic. The US has also been quite imperialistic in the past (Philipines!), and there are quite a few accusations of corruption too.

[Nalano]

Considering that the Roman, Holy Roman, Byzantine, Seljuq, Tumid, Chinese, Mongol, and British empires have all been victim to widespread corruption, and certainly have been enormously imperialistic. The US has also been quite imperialistic in the past (Philipines!), and there are quite a few accusations of corruption too.

I don't know if you have an aversion to historical analysis, or you're just trying to frame the argument such as the Netherlands aren't involved. Either way, this broad-stroke approach is not working for you.

[Grizzly]

I don't know if you have an aversion to historical analysis, or you're just trying to frame the argument such as the Netherlands aren't involved. Either way, this broad-stroke approach is not working for you.

?

I was just naming some random large empires which suffered from widespread corruption and imperalism (they all did). Sure, such was trife troughout NL as well. Although I would never describe NL as being either large or having all that much power, actually. It just had a good navy and just build trade posts and maintained token presences everywhere, but did not own all that much actual landmass. No direct control, mainly intimidation or "mutually benificial" relations, only attack when trade came in danger...
Okay that is actually quite similar to what the US is doing right now, I see your point. I personally never see NLs impact on the world as big as the examples that occured randomly in my head at the above post.