General US Politics

[Yojinbo]

1 hour ago, Excellen Browning said:

The european parliament is ultimately responsible for allowing the refugees in. They have the first and final say on European legislation.

The european parliament doesn't even have the right of initiative when it comes to legislation. All they can do is approve or reject the things they're given by the commision. As far as european legislation is concerned they have rather little to say.

[Excellen Browning]

27 minutes ago, Yojinbo said:

The european parliament doesn't even have the right of initiative when it comes to legislation. All they can do is approve or reject the things they're given by the commision. As far as european legislation is concerned they have rather little to say.

Yes and no but mostly no. The EP can and does order the commission to propose a law for something or to look into something. In practice it doesn't have direct right of initiative, but the EP still pretty much has right of initiative.

Edited April 8, 2017 by Excellen Browning

[Rezzy]

Hello everyone, I've been away from the thread for a few months.  Sometimes, I have to back away from politics for a bit to recover my sanity.

On Fri Apr 07 2017 at 4:17 PM, Nobody said:

What's happening is seriously just sad.

Remember when people in this very thread claimed a Hillary presidency would be worse because she's start a war on Siria and the Donald wouldn't? I certainly do. I wonder how these people feel now.

I voted third party because I thought both Trump and Hillary didn't deserve my vote.  However, I thought the silver lining of Trump winning was that we would stay out of Syria.  It's a huge mess, the USA going in won't fix anything, and whether our intentions are good or not, if things get worse, which they probably will, we'll get blamed.  I was willing to give Trump a chance, but this action has caused me to go from tentative support to disapproval, if I were to be polled today.

I'm not a 100% pacifist, since I understand war is sometimes necessary, but I fail to see how an attack that has happened several times in the last several years is the impetus to making us go to war.  This is assuming it was even the Syrian government that did it, since there have been false flags there before.

 

As for Gorsuch, I feel the Dems trying to filibuster his confirmation was pennywise and pound foolish.  They had no serious chance of blocking him, and now that the nuclear option has been triggered there, they likely weaken their chance of using the filibuster in the future for actual legislation.  They really need to pick their battles and losing here was just a stupid strategic decision.

 

Watching the politics of the last few weeks just makes me glad of my decision to go third party last November.

 

I hope I don't come across as too bitchy today.  I'm back to watching baseball and trying to keep my mind away from this mess.

[Captain Karnage]

I did not vote at all, though I've voiced my support for Trump

I FUCKING HATE WHAT HE HAS JUST DONE

as a man under the age of 25 I'm worried shitless about this sparking WWIII and getting drafted

[Dark Holy Elf]

I'm... conflicted about whether greater international involvement in Syria is good or not and have been for some time. Assad is scum but it's difficult to get involved more than we have while avoid repeating the mistakes of Iraq.

I am, however, facepalming so hard at anyone who actually believed that empowering the Republican party, which is in bed with the military-industrial complex, would magically lead to less war. Trump's authoritarian nationalist rhetoric was never that of one who was going to pursue peaceful foreign policy. Any so-called libertarian who championed Donald freaking Trump 100% deserves the disappointment they are feeling right now.

[Excellen Browning]

4 hours ago, Captain Karnage said:

as a man under the age of 25 I'm worried shitless about this sparking WWIII and getting drafted

Don't worry lol. The attack was only aimed at Syrian targets. And even if it ended up hurting Russian soldiers, they're (officially) volunteers.

 

Also in case shit does go down the world will end in nuclear fire, so no reason to worry about getting drafted.

[Thane]

So what has the debate been like in the U.S after this attack? I realize it's a very general and vague question, but it would be interesting to hear your thoughts on what the current consensus seems to be. 

I just don't understand what the hell everone's doing in Syria. Call me naïve but what exactly do people hope to gain from this conflict? I know Russia has an important military base around there so they want it to remain standing, but what about everyone else? Just influence? It's such a confusing mess.

[Rezzy]

7 hours ago, Dark Holy Elf said:

I'm... conflicted about whether greater international involvement in Syria is good or not and have been for some time. Assad is scum but it's difficult to get involved more than we have while avoid repeating the mistakes of Iraq.

I am, however, facepalming so hard at anyone who actually believed that empowering the Republican party, which is in bed with the military-industrial complex, would magically lead to less war. Trump's authoritarian nationalist rhetoric was never that of one who was going to pursue peaceful foreign policy. Any so-called libertarian who championed Donald freaking Trump 100% deserves the disappointment they are feeling right now.

I'm not sure if you're talking about me, since I'm not sure if there's any other libertarians here, but I never voted for or championed Trump.  I just tried to give him a chance after he was elected and was generally annoyed with the attacks on the actual electoral system following the election.

1 hour ago, Thane said:

So what has the debate been like in the U.S after this attack? I realize it's a very general and vague question, but it would be interesting to hear your thoughts on what the current consensus seems to be. 

I just don't understand what the hell everone's doing in Syria. Call me naïve but what exactly do people hope to gain from this conflict? I know Russia has an important military base around there so they want it to remain standing, but what about everyone else? Just influence? It's such a confusing mess.

I have no idea what Trump was thinking.  Why did he chance his stance on Syria due to something that though horrible, has been happening there for the last several years?

[JJ48]

46 minutes ago, Rezzy said:

I'm not sure if you're talking about me, since I'm not sure if there's any other libertarians here, but I never voted for or championed Trump.  I just tried to give him a chance after he was elected and was generally annoyed with the attacks on the actual electoral system following the election.

I have no idea what Trump was thinking.  Why did he chance his stance on Syria due to something that though horrible, has been happening there for the last several years?

Most of the libertarians I know who voted Trump did so because they didn't want Hillary appointing Supreme Court justices; not because they believed Trump would be a great leader himself.

I'm also curious what Trump's thinking in regards to Syria.  If things are bad enough that we need to get involved, why haven't we been involved for the past several years, when the exact same stuff was happening?  What magically changed that suddenly makes now different from then?  And I do agree with Congress (never thought I'd actually type that seriously), that the president needs to make sure he's not overstepping his bounds and declaring war himself.

[blah the Prussian]

On April 8, 2017 at 2:24 PM, Radiant head said:

i mean yeah, it would undercut the narrative that the us is a force of freedom and justice throughout the world.  you guys might like howard zinn's a people's history of the united states.  

 

OH HELL NO. You can have a Marxist look at history without having the a asinine, watered down look at it that Zinn has. He simplifies history to an absurd degree by focusing it into the oppression of a nebulous lower class by a nebulous upper class that always has the same motives. Honestly, I'm opposed to all history that claims a consistent narrative over the course of centuries. I stopped reading at around the time Zinn argued that dropping the Bomb was a mistake; it skirts too damn close to Axis apologia for my taste. No Communist, ever, should side with Fascists over Capitalists. Zinn is a good political commentator but he's a terrible historian.

[Dark Holy Elf]

1 hour ago, Rezzy said:

I'm not sure if you're talking about me, since I'm not sure if there's any other libertarians here, but I never voted for or championed Trump.  I just tried to give him a chance after he was elected and was generally annoyed with the attacks on the actual electoral system following the election.

I'm certainly not talking about you, no! For one thing, as you said, your support was clearly and loudly for third-party. For another, I respect your libertarian views as more than "so-called" from everything I've seen in this thread.

[Tryhard]

1 hour ago, Rezzy said:

I'm not sure if you're talking about me, since I'm not sure if there's any other libertarians here, but I never voted for or championed Trump.  I just tried to give him a chance after he was elected and was generally annoyed with the attacks on the actual electoral system following the election.

I've seen more than a few self-proclaimed libertarians voting for obvious authoritarian strongman Trump, and it makes no sense. They're either not libertarian or lying to themselves.

[JJ48]

2 minutes ago, Tryhard said:

I've seen more than a few self-proclaimed libertarians voting for obvious authoritarian strongman Trump, and it makes no sense. They're either not libertarian or lying to themselves.

You missed the possibility where they, like many of us, fell victims to the two-party system.  Who should these libertarians have voted for instead, in your opinion?  Many had reasons not to want Hillary as president, so the options were either Trump or a candidate with no realistic chance of winning.  With one Supreme Court opening, and the possibility of more in the next few years, I think a good many decided to make a strategic choice rather than "wasting a vote," as it were.

This doesn't apply to those who are die-hard Trumpians, of course, but keep in mind that a good many people who voted Trump held their noses to do so.

[Tryhard]

4 minutes ago, JJ48 said:

You missed the possibility where they, like many of us, fell victims to the two-party system.  Who should these libertarians have voted for instead, in your opinion?  Many had reasons not to want Hillary as president, so the options were either Trump or a candidate with no realistic chance of winning.  With one Supreme Court opening, and the possibility of more in the next few years, I think a good many decided to make a strategic choice rather than "wasting a vote," as it were.

Probably for someone that didn't go wholly against their supposed ideology that shows how flimsy their principles really are. I don't care for tactical voting for either Hillary or Trump, because I would rather vote third party than for those two idiots, even if I know it is meaningless because the American political system is broken.

4 minutes ago, JJ48 said:

This doesn't apply to those who are die-hard Trumpians, of course, but keep in mind that a good many people who voted Trump held their noses to do so.

You say this as if Hillary voters often didn't do the same, too.

Edited April 10, 2017 by Tryhard

[Moblin Major General]

On 4/8/2017 at 2:24 PM, Radiant head said:

i mean yeah, it would undercut the narrative that the us is a force of freedom and justice throughout the world.

As an American, let me tell you that America is NOT for the freedom of all. Puppet governments in South America, oppressing the Filipinos in The Philippines, Abolishing slavery an astonishing 20 years later than most of the rest of Europe, and deposing leaders at the behest of self-interested allies. If America has had their hand in it, they have hand their hand in it for a long time. Also, we provoke wars with other nations on purpose (Proposing the border at the Rio Grande, embargoing other nations, and sending a structurally unstable dreadnought to strongarm Spain).

[JJ48]

32 minutes ago, Tryhard said:

Probably for someone that didn't go wholly against their supposed ideology that shows how flimsy their principles really are. I don't care for tactical voting for either Hillary or Trump, because I would rather vote third party than for those two idiots, even if I know it is meaningless because the American political system is broken.

Personally, I would, too.  In fact, I went with an even less likely candidate by writing in "Ben Carson".  My point is, while I may not engage in strategic voting myself, I wouldn't claim that someone's not what they say they are just because the voted for someone they didn't agree with.  If someone starts defending anti-libertarian policies, I would have reason to question if that person were truly a libertarian.  But I'm not going to do so simply because the person voted single-issue.

32 minutes ago, Tryhard said:

You say this as if Hillary voters often didn't do the same, too.

If I gave that impression, I apologize.  I mentioned Trump voters merely because Trump voters were being discussed.  Had the same been said about Hillary voters, I would have approached the issue from that side.  My point is simply that people are individuals with their own motivations, and you can't just put them into a box based on who they voted for, and act as if everyone in the box is exactly the same.

I guess this is just a bit of a sore subject for me as I saw a lot of people taking this to it's logical extremes post-election.  Protests!  Counter-protests!  Counter-counter-protests!  People on Facebook being unfriended by the millions!  Dogs and cats living together!  The hardcore Trump supporters were accusing anyone who didn't vote for Trump as being anti-American communists who were actively working to see the country fail!  The hardcore anti-Trumpers were accusing anyone who voted for Trump of being a chauvinistic white-supremacist who hated poor people! 

...and people on both sides were, rather understandably, offended at being caricaturized as such.  All it did was shut down any attempts at communication and cause everyone to dig in their heels that much deeper.  I know that's not what you were trying to do, and I apologize for the rant, but trying to put simplistic labels on someone based on one decision they've made generally causes a lot more trouble than it's worth.

Edited April 10, 2017 by JJ48

[Rezzy]

2 hours ago, JJ48 said:

Most of the libertarians I know who voted Trump did so because they didn't want Hillary appointing Supreme Court justices; not because they believed Trump would be a great leader himself.

I'm also curious what Trump's thinking in regards to Syria.  If things are bad enough that we need to get involved, why haven't we been involved for the past several years, when the exact same stuff was happening?  What magically changed that suddenly makes now different from then?  And I do agree with Congress (never thought I'd actually type that seriously), that the president needs to make sure he's not overstepping his bounds and declaring war himself.

I suppose I can understand those that felt the Supreme Court Nominee was the most important issue.  I'd like to see another Anthony Kennedy on there, but that's just me.

1 hour ago, Dark Holy Elf said:

I'm certainly not talking about you, no! For one thing, as you said, your support was clearly and loudly for third-party. For another, I respect your libertarian views as more than "so-called" from everything I've seen in this thread.

Okay, I don't mind when people disagree with me.  I just like to make sure people don't think that saying or holding views that I don't.  I've had more than one occasion where someone made an argument against me for a stance I never held in the first place.

1 hour ago, Tryhard said:

I've seen more than a few self-proclaimed libertarians voting for obvious authoritarian strongman Trump, and it makes no sense. They're either not libertarian or lying to themselves.

Yeah, although I suppose last election was a good choice of pick your poison.

[Res]

7 hours ago, JJ48 said:

Most of the libertarians I know who voted Trump did so because they didn't want Hillary appointing Supreme Court justices; not because they believed Trump would be a great leader himself

I don't understand this. Libertarians are generally concerned with personal freedoms. Hillary was going to be more likely to appoint a more liberal (using that term loosely) justice; Trump's choice was guaranteed to be conservative. 

[Rezzy]

25 minutes ago, Res said:

I don't understand this. Libertarians are generally concerned with personal freedoms. Hillary was going to be more likely to appoint a more liberal (using that term loosely) justice; Trump's choice was guaranteed to be conservative. 

Most Libertarians are concerned with both social and economic liberties.  The only Justice who usually supports both is Anthony Kennedy.  It's which side is more important to the person as to which side they'll support if they have to choose or don't want to "waste" their vote on a third party.  The social issues have been largely won in terms of gay marriage and doesn't look to be reversed, so many libertarians now focus on the economic issues.  There's also gun issues, which is not economic, but is usually lumped with the economic issues for whatever reason.

When Kennedy retires or dies, I hope they find another judge like him to succeed him.

[JJ48]

20 minutes ago, Rezzy said:

Most Libertarians are concerned with both social and economic liberties.  The only Justice who usually supports both is Anthony Kennedy.  It's which side is more important to the person as to which side they'll support if they have to choose or don't want to "waste" their vote on a third party.  The social issues have been largely won in terms of gay marriage and doesn't look to be reversed, so many libertarians now focus on the economic issues.  There's also gun issues, which is not economic, but is usually lumped with the economic issues for whatever reason.

When Kennedy retires or dies, I hope they find another judge like him to succeed him.

Exactly.  There's a reason libertarians are considered a separate group rather than a subset of liberals.

[Res]

Hm, I suppose I consider there to be quite a few social issues that haven't been won (or only recently won and still in danger, as it were), plus I consider the restriction of freedoms to be tightening, whereas the U.S. has a fair amount of economic freedom (more so than in previous decades; lower taxes, lower minimum wages accounting for inflation, etc.). But I guess it's a matter of perspective.

Gun liberty is so revolting it's a laughable issue to me. Obama - for everyone's outcry - couldn't tighten restrictions, the U.S. produces and owns more guns than ever, the massive slaughter of children can't do anything to tighten restrictions, and yet people are still somehow paranoid about their guns being taken away. It simply isn't even *possible* at this stage - there are so, so many that the kind of measures taken in Australia and the U.K. simply aren't workable. 

[JJ48]

1 minute ago, Res said:

Hm, I suppose I consider there to be quite a few social issues that haven't been won (or only recently won and still in danger, as it were), plus I consider the restriction of freedoms to be tightening, whereas the U.S. has a fair amount of economic freedom (more so than in previous decades; lower taxes, lower minimum wages accounting for inflation, etc.). But I guess it's a matter of perspective.

Gun liberty is so revolting it's a laughable issue to me. Obama - for everyone's outcry - couldn't tighten restrictions, the U.S. produces and owns more guns than ever, the massive slaughter of children can't do anything to tighten restrictions, and yet people are still somehow paranoid about their guns being taken away. It simply isn't even *possible* at this stage - there are so, so many that the kind of measures taken in Australia and the U.K. simply aren't workable. 

Depends on where you live, really.  Many states are pretty gun friendly, but states like California and New York are already pretty restrictive and looking to just get more so (at least, they're certainly not likely to get less so anytime soon).  

As for the paranoia, guns certainly aren't going away, but that's not keeping lawmakers from trying.  A good part of the paranoia isn't just against confiscation, but against the fear that, with the stroke of a pen, the rules can change on you.  Take Connecticut, for instance.  In the wake of Sandy Hook, one of the new restrictions they passed was on magazine capacity.  It is illegal to even possess a magazine capable of holding more than 10 rounds unless it was manufactured and registered prior to the deadline.  Illegally possessing a magazine manufactured after the deadline (say, one you legally owned in another state and brought with you when you moved to Connecticut) could turn you into a felon, with all the restrictions that entails, without you ever meaning harm or doing harm to anyone.  While I think some people take the paranoia too far, I can certainly understand people not wanting to be branded as felons for the rest of their lives just because some lawmaker thinks a pistol grip somehow makes a rifle more deadly.

[Res]

Eh, I live in California and 'pretty restrictive' is relative; coming from a country where even the police aren't armed and whole generations don't even get to touch a firearm, even the most restrictive U.S. state is really not. Certainly didn't prevent the school shooting the other day, or the dozens in California preceding it. My ex-landlord is an arms dealer now and his business is so lucrative even within this state that he's quadrupled his family's salary. The point is, people still have the ability to own a firearm here, easily so. Quibbling over specifics isn't the point. I still think paranoia over the rules changing isn't justified; if you're a responsible firearms owner, you ought to be checking the rules wherever you move, anyway. And to prioritize the fear of accidentally breaking the law over all the other laws that dictate people's lives - economics and social-wise - I just can't fathom. 

[Dark Holy Elf]

On 2017-04-10 at 2:57 PM, Rezzy said:

Most Libertarians are concerned with both social and economic liberties.  The only Justice who usually supports both is Anthony Kennedy.  It's which side is more important to the person as to which side they'll support if they have to choose or don't want to "waste" their vote on a third party.  The social issues have been largely won in terms of gay marriage and doesn't look to be reversed, so many libertarians now focus on the economic issues.  There's also gun issues, which is not economic, but is usually lumped with the economic issues for whatever reason.

When Kennedy retires or dies, I hope they find another judge like him to succeed him.

Kennedy is generally quite good, I agree.

I don't think Trump promised any remotely Kennedy-like justices though. The main stuff I can find at a glance is him toeing the usual Republican line of promising "conservative" justices and making some noise about repealing Roe vs Wade. If this was the dealbreaker that made a libertarian vote for him over Clinton then said libertarian is definitely a conservative first, libertarian second.

[Life]

You know how many people were "Never Trump"? I was "Never Hillary". That should answer your question.

Edited April 16, 2017 by Comrade