U.S. Politics - knowing me knowing you, a-haaa

[Khal-a-bunga]

It's so hilarious (read: sad clown) when people discuss politics, because so often they're not actually discussing any of the relevant or pertinent issues. Politics itself takes center stage, and it becomes a 'this party vs. that party' debate, which seems to miss the point, as far as I'm concerned. The issues that are affecting people all over the world are used like ammunition and/or party favors, as a matter of political discourse. So fucking stupid.

[DanteGabriel]

If you think the republicans of today are significantly different after the influence of the tea party in 2010, you haven't really been paying attention.

Okay, keep telling yourself that yeah, Republicans really mean it this time when they pay lip service to libertarian ideas. How libertarian was Mitt Romney's platform? Oh, I'm sure Romney's just another outlier. Another Untrue Scotsman.

Dude, you're being hoodwinked.

[TrackerNeil]

How libertarian was Mitt Romney's platform? Oh, I'm sure Romney's just another outlier.

I'm still gobsmacked that the 2012 Republican nominee was the father of the Massachusetts mandate. That is one screwed-up party.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

Okay, keep telling yourself that yeah, Republicans really mean it this time when they pay lip service to libertarian ideas. How libertarian was Mitt Romney's platform? Oh, I'm sure Romney's just another outlier. Another Untrue Scotsman.

Dude, you're being hoodwinked.

The Republicans had a chance to accept libertarian ideas at their last convention. They deliberately excluded the libertarians when they made a literally last-minute rule change to prevent Ron Paul from being nominated, despite the fact that the floor clearly voted against the rule change. Also the fact that they engaged in deliberate election fraud in Maine and Nevada to ensure that Paul didn't win any states.

(I didn't vote for Paul, nor would I ever.)

[DanteGabriel]

I'm still gobsmacked that the 2012 Republican nominee was the father of the Massachusetts mandate. That is one screwed-up party.

Well, at least Romney's elevation shows us just how influential the Tea Party is on the Republican Platform! And the Tea Party is a libertarian movement! At least the good parts!

[Inigima]

The point of this legislation is to be bullies and swing your republican moral dick around.

I love you.

[Stag Country]

Those are standard conservative positions. Can you name some specifically libertarian positions the GOP has put into policy? Or at least made a serious attempt to put into policy?

There aren't too many policies by libertarians that aren't on one of the main party's platforms, in some way or form. The only one that immediately crosses my mind is the advocacy for repealing medicare. If this is the metric you are using to claim that republicans aren't influenced by libertarians then you are simply being disingenuous....or you aren't interested in having a serious conversation on this. They are for all intents and purposes a socially liberal, fiscally conservative party.

I'm not sure how you can look at some of the union busting, opposition to ACA, school vouchers and cryptile menioned, debt ceiling debates, and say that these positions are not derived from libertarian principles.

[TrackerNeil]

Well, at least Romney's elevation shows us just how influential the Tea Party is on the Republican Platform! And the Tea Party is a libertarian movement! At least the good parts!

Ah yes! The less libertarian a candidate seems, the more likely he is to have been influenced by libertarian philosophy! After all, every candidate is expected to have x libertarian influence, and those that seem to have less than x must therefore have more than x. Where there is no smoke, there must be even more fire!

[TrackerNeil]

There aren't too many policies by libertarians that aren't on one of the main party's platforms, in some way or form. The only one that immediately crosses my mind is the advocacy for repealing medicare. If this is the metric you are using to claim that republicans aren't influenced by libertarians then you are simply being disingenuous....or you aren't interested in having a serious conversation on this. They are for all intents and purposes a socially liberal, fiscally conservative party.

Stag, you've been calling people silly, unserious, disingenuous, facile, whatever. I'm tired of it. Let's make a deal: I'll stop replying to your posts and you'll keep your opinions of me to yourself. Deal?

[thecryptile]

Those are standard conservative positions. Can you name some specifically libertarian positions the GOP has put into policy? Or at least made a serious attempt to put into policy?

Nope, not right off. You got me there, Tracker. Although if Cuccinelli wins and pushes for decriminalization, that would be a biggie.

This is acceptable to you? I guess the rule of law is only important to some people when it directly influences their own situation.

Yes. We had that law on the books for, like, I dunno 100 years. It wasn't really even enforced in my lifetime, save to tack on extra charges in rape/molestation cases.

There is no reason to think it would be any different in the unlikely event that Cuccinelli gets his way.

tell me more about the massive libertarian influence on the republican party.

I'll be the first one to admit that the Libertarian-leaners aren't the GOP shot-callers, but there must be some Libertarian influence in the GOP. Otherwise Christie wouldn't be complaining about it.

[DanteGabriel]

Stag, you've been calling people silly, unserious, disingenuous, facile, whatever. I'm tired of it. Let's make a deal: I'll stop replying to your posts and you'll keep your opinions of me to yourself. Deal?

I think he can read minds. It's how he knows what is secretly in the hearts of Republican politicians and is so very sure of the motivations of everyone arguing with him. After all, he inferred from my loathing of the Republican Party that I secretly think the Democrats can do no wrong.

Dear NSA, you can drop the expensive surveillance programs. Stag Country has the all-encompassing knowledge you seek.

[Inigima]

Nope, not right off. You got me there, Tracker. Although if Cuccinelli wins and pushes for decriminalization, that would be a biggie.Yes. We had that law on the books for, like, I dunno 100 years. It wasn't really even enforced in my lifetime, save to tack on extra charges in rape/molestation cases.

Leaving aside for the moment whether long sentences are effective or a good policy goal: if that's what you want, why not just make the sentences for those crimes longer?

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

There aren't too many policies by libertarians that aren't on one of the main party's platforms, in some way or form.

Anti-war

Pro drug legalization

Repeal of the 16th amendment

Elimination of the Depts. of Enegry, Health and Human Services, Education, Transportation, a few others.

Ending Farm Subsidies

Ending all subsidies

Repeal of the National Firearms Act and the Hughes Amendment

Ending all foreign aid

Closure of all foreign military bases

Shall I continue?

Fucks sake guys, there are one or two actual libertarians on this board. Don't try to lump me in with your republican (or democrat) bullshit.

[Stag Country]

Not implicitly, generally, or obliquely. The point of this legislation is to be bullies and swing your republican moral dick around.

First of all, I'm hardly a republican. Second, I'm not arguing for or against drug testing for welfare. I'd like to see welfare reduced in general, but the policy of drug testing to ensure that people receiving the welfare are spending public dollars doesn't see like a bullying tactic to me. You are, obviously, entitled to your opinion.

That being said, I think the intent behind the republican goal there is ultimately to significantly reduce welfare payouts, if you disagree, so be it.

Huh. Today I learned.

Not sure if serious. Are you being sarcastic or did you not know that libertarians are for the liberalization and the legalization of schedule I drugs?

And do any notable Republicans seem to agree? Publicly?

They don't have to agree with every aspect of libertarian principles to be considered to be under their influence on certain issues. Libertarians have a pretty wide range of views that are covered by both parties. Again, I think your view on this seems to be astoundingly narrow.

[Shryke]

The Republicans had a chance to accept libertarian ideas at their last convention. They deliberately excluded the libertarians when they made a literally last-minute rule change to prevent Ron Paul from being nominated, despite the fact that the floor clearly voted against the rule change. Also the fact that they engaged in deliberate election fraud in Maine and Nevada to ensure that Paul didn't win any states.

(I didn't vote for Paul, nor would I ever.)

Paul isn't much of a libertarian.

Although most of his supporters seem to think he is, so I guess you are correct on this point anyway.

[Inigima]

Not sure if serious. Are you being sarcastic or did you not know that libertarians are for the liberalization and the legalization of schedule I drugs?

He's a libertarian. You ain't.

[thecryptile]

Leaving aside for the moment whether long sentences are effective or a good policy goal: if that's what you want, why not just make the sentences for those crimes longer?

That's what I would do, but I'm not Ken Cuccinelli. Personally, I think it's stupid given that SCOTUS has already struck down the law. I guess it gets him media attention. No such thing as bad publicity.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

Paul isn't much of a libertarian.

Although most of his supporters seem to think he is, so I guess you are correct on this point anyway.

Never said he was. In fact you can tell he's not because he voluntarily puts an ( R ) next to his name. But he's what folks mean when they say "Libertarian Republican".

[Inigima]

That's what I would do, but I'm not Ken Cuccinelli. Personally, I think it's stupid given that SCOTUS has already struck down the law. I guess it gets him media attention. No such thing as bad publicity.

That's a possibility. The other possibility is that he's a fucking biblethumping Jesus freak and people like you will find justifications for it to vote for him anyway.

[TrackerNeil]

That's what I would do, but I'm not Ken Cuccinelli. Personally, I think it's stupid given that SCOTUS has already struck down the law. I guess it gets him media attention. No such thing as bad publicity.

I think the terms "Ken Cuccinelli" and "stupid" have occasionally turned up in the same breath.

BTW, how the hell is a guy who wants to throw people in jail for having certain kinds of sex a libertarian? Or do I misunderstand that term?