First of all, "forcible confiscation of their property" is nonsense. I believe government taxation is a valid concept, and unless you're a pure anarchist, you do too.
Second, what is the benefit to society of breeding generations of hopeless layabouts and criminals? Nobody seems to mind spending tax money on cops to keep us safe, but investing in income parity and mental health would have a much greater impact on violent crime. It seems like a lot of people are okay with forcibly confiscating wealth to spend on the poor, as long as it involves being mean to the poor. That only makes sense if spite is valued over wealth and security.
MarkHaversham wrote:First of all, "forcible confiscation of their property" is nonsense. I believe government taxation is a valid concept, and unless you're a pure anarchist, you do too.
Second, what is the benefit to society of breeding generations of hopeless layabouts and criminals? Nobody seems to mind spending tax money on cops to keep us safe, but investing in income parity and mental health would have a much greater impact on violent crime. It seems like a lot of people are okay with forcibly confiscating wealth to spend on the poor, as long as it involves being mean to the poor. That only makes sense if spite is valued over wealth and security.
I am, for all practical purposes, an anarchist (anarcho-capitalist to be specific) and I believe taxation for police to be just as unethical as taxation for anything else. Forcible confiscation of wealth and labor based on whatever arbitrary geographic lines you happen to have the misfortune to be born within is not morally justifiable to me.
Well, this might be getting beyond the scope of the 2016 Election thread, as I don't think any of the candidates are remotely close to advocating the elimination of government. If honest-to-God democratic socialism is considered an unlikely outcome of the election, an-cap has to be 100x as unlikely. But it seems ironic to me that you are so concerned about the use of government force that you would advocate a form of government literally resting on the undemocratic application of force to preserve any semblance of civilization.
As a practical matter, I doubt you'll get much traction by arguing that HOAs should be the supreme law of the land.
- Fiorina was the undisputed winner.
- Bush didn't do great but did fine and remains the establishment's front-runner and, in my opinion, the most likely to win the nomination.
- Carson, per usual, didn't really say anything and I still don't understand his appeal.
- This may actually be the beginning of the end for Trump. We've heard that before, but this time I think is different. It's not because he did "bad" last night, but his performance was rather forgettable and he faded to the back during the debate, no matter how much CNN put him on split-screen.
- Rubio again came across as very polished and very knowledgeable, especially in the realm of foreign affairs.
- Christie had a good night but I don't think it will matter much at all.
No one else really elicits an opinion that is different from the first debate for me. It was an entertaining debate for sure, but a rather poor format that avoided the issues in favor of personal disputes. Plus, three hours was too long. At the kids table, Lindsey Graham telling Jindal that they simply don't have the votes to defund Obamacare or Planned Parenthood and that shutting down the government is a dumb idea was refreshing.
^ Can't the GOP do a Sweet 16 playoff? How about this.... candidates pledge to end their campaign if voted off the debate island by viewers. Maybe 2 or 3 candidates are eliminated at each debate. Once there are only the Final Four candidates left will a regular campaign season begin. Ratings would be huge!
Cant wait for Obama to declare himself King for Life and than sign an executive order making the GOP Debate a weekly program on Free Government TV Channel 1
I agree Fiorina did well at the debate. But it turns out today she was called out for lying about the Planned Parenthood video. She never saw it (it doesn't exist) and got her info from a right wing website.
She sounds good on stage but just like her failed business career it's all smoke and mirrors
Speaking of smoke Bush's line about not wanting his mom to know he lit up a doobie 40 years ago may have got some laughs but it doesn't exactly make him look like he's his "own man".
^Awfully trivial. I mean, WashU hosting debates is cool and all, and it's certainly an honor for the school, but honestly, no one outside of those institutions hosting the debates really care.
Just got polled about Eric Schmitt (R in State Senate running for Treasurer). Tested lines on me, incl. two about Ferguson, policing/body cams, towns using people as ATMs. A couple were about healthcare industry, and a couple were about his personal life. An anon user recently edited his Wikipedia page and added "Schmitt is considered a rising star in the GOP and has an extensive legislative record including reforms for children with special needs, tax cuts and taking on the state's cities and villages using speed traps as a disproportionate part of their budgets." It also polled about Trump and Clinton to measure support and how likely they would affect downballot race voting.
Trump and this Mexican judge thing has republicans calling him a racist on national tv and he keeps doubling and tripling down on it. It's insane. Hillary will easily walk into the White House.
I'm a Republican. The thought of Hillary stacking the Supreme Court strikes my heart with fear. But no way in hell can I vote for Trump. Hillary will be a one term president for a multitude of reasons. I'm hoping this disaster will allow the party to return to its principles and nominate a Paul Ryan/Nikki Haley ticket (in any order) for 2020.
Democracy has its limits. This election cycles has me thinking that maybe our Founding Fathers trusting a natural aristocracy (aka "the establishment") more than the general public to make decisions wasn't too far off from a good idea.
shimmy wrote:Democracy has its limits. This election cycles has me thinking that maybe our Founding Fathers trusting a natural aristocracy (aka "the establishment") more than the general public to make decisions wasn't too far off from a good idea.
Democracy has put a fairly solid check and balance on the aristocracy for most of the last 100 years.
This election is unique in that a major political party that has been on the brink of going down the tubes for about 10 years is...starting to go down the tubes.
There will be some sort of realignment in the near future. I don't think a Trump candidacy is the new norm.
shimmy wrote:Democracy has its limits. This election cycles has me thinking that maybe our Founding Fathers trusting a natural aristocracy (aka "the establishment") more than the general public to make decisions wasn't too far off from a good idea.
I would argue that the concentrated power of our current oligarchy is part of what has made the current electoral mess possible. Instead of a diversity of ideas supported by the people of the nation, you're pretty much stuck with whoever the Powers That Be determine to be acceptable. People complain about special interests and corrupt Super PACs like they're the source of our electoral issues; but just imagine the balance of power, if the bottom 60% of the population owned 40% of the nation's wealth instead of 5%.
My comment was a bit tongue-in-cheek but there's truth to it too when the people are about to nominate a babbling fool in one party and a blatantly corrupt liar in the other. The Republicans put forth a number of good candidates with actual experience in governing, clear principles, and actual plans (Bush, Kasich, Christie before he became desperate). All of them got crushed by Trump and his popular appeal towards ignorance. So, there's a bit of truth in the statement that democracy has its limits.
There's no "voice of the people". People complain about special interests but special interests get their power from people engaged and passionate about their issues. HRC, NRA, etc. aren't faceless organizations of fat cats laughing while smoking cigars on K street. They get their strength from their millions of supporters among the people.
There's a lot of evidence showing Clinton will say anything to get elected, but there's not a ton of evidence to suggest she's corrupt.
With the e-mail scandals, it's like, ok, so who cares? Who did that really hurt and how did it benefit Clinton? Benghazi is pretty much a hoax and nobody cares about it anymore.
The Clintons are definitely egotists, but I see that as a feature rather than a bug. They don't want their legacy going down as the people that enabled financial deregulation, mass-incarceration, harmful trade deals, and the gutting of the American middle-class. Clinton's presidency is going to end up with Citizens United being overturned, green energy being supported, major tax reform, and probably more funding for urban projects.
shimmy wrote:
This election is unique in that a major political party that has been on the brink of going down the tubes for about 10 years is...starting to go down the tubes.
The only thing that has saved said major political party over the last 10 years has been ridiculous gerrymandering of congressional districts.
south compton wrote:
The only thing that has saved said major political party over the last 10 years has been ridiculous gerrymandering of congressional districts.
That and having an opposing president governing during tough times to run against.
However, over the last 8 years, the party has become completely defined in the negative sense: both in it's politics and even more shockingly, in it's actual policy proposals. No matter what Democrats are for, even if it was something formerly supported by them--they are against.
This might be a good temporary strategy to stave off decline in the short-run, and hurt Democrats by preventing them from governing effectively. But it means they are not actually "for" anything or anyone in the long-term. As a result their support base has been hollowed out, and their own voters deeply distrust their leadership.
shimmy wrote:My comment was a bit tongue-in-cheek but there's truth to it too when the people are about to nominate a babbling fool in one party and a blatantly corrupt liar in the other. The Republicans put forth a number of good candidates with actual experience in governing, clear principles, and actual plans (Bush, Kasich, Christie before he became desperate). All of them got crushed by Trump and his popular appeal towards ignorance. So, there's a bit of truth in the statement that democracy has its limits.
There's no "voice of the people". People complain about special interests but special interests get their power from people engaged and passionate about their issues. HRC, NRA, etc. aren't faceless organizations of fat cats laughing while smoking cigars on K street. They get their strength from their millions of supporters among the people.
Sent from my HTC Desire 610 using Tapatalk
"Blatantly corrupt liar" as applied to Hillary is more right-wing hype than reality. If she were really corrupt, we'd be hearing about that instead of Benghazi and emails. She's one of the most-examined politicians in human history, and all we've learned is that she's pragmatic and not especially liberal or populist.
I think it's pretty clear that there is a lot of money driving policy that comes from energy companies, finance companies, etc. The NRA is an interesting case of genuine popular support, megachurches are perhaps another, and the fact that they're able to mobilize so many people in the defense of hysterical nonsense might be a point against democracy. On the other hands, the urban poor who are most directly victimized by the NRA's pro-gun-at-all-costs agenda have comparatively few resources to marshal in counterargument, and maybe changing that would dampen the gun hysteria. Of course, you could imagine eliminating poverty also having a direct impact in lessening the perceived need for guns.
"Pragmatic". Interesting way to put it. I can see her flip flops from being a friend of wall street to being an enemy of wall street, from opposing gay marriage to being a champion of gay marriage, from being for free trade to being against free trade, all when it coincidentally became politically expedient to do so, as being pragmatic, if showing a complete lack of principles. Claiming to have tried to join the marines, to have come under sniper fire in Bosnia, claiming that Benghazi was about the YouTube video (I'm not blaming her for the attack), and still insisting that her actions with the emails were allowed by the government when it has been explicitly stated that they weren't (and that every low level government employee would get absolutely ****ed for), are all examples of blatant lies. Though to be fair, I noticed that you didn't dispute the lying part, only the corrupt part, which I'll admit is perhaps too strong of a word given only ethically questionable actions in refusing to release her Wall Street transcripts and in the Clinton Foundation receiving donations from foreign governments while she was Secretary of State. Which, while no evidence of corruption in itself is a pretty textbook example of conflict of interest and striking in its poor judgment.
We can argue about Hillary all day though, and I would welcome a conversation about her achievements as Secretary of State, particularly our incredible success in our endeavors in Syria, Iraq, Libya, Yemen, Iran, and our dealings with Russia. Either way, I don't see us getting anywhere with it.
I would though love to hear about the "hysterical nonsense" that people are rallying against. Or more about how the NRA is directly responsible for the murders of the black inner-city poor who have no lobbying groups who speak their interests, except of course the ACLU and NAACP (and, as your argument would logically conclude, every gun control lobby). I'd like to hear how the NRA's opposition to an assault weapons ban is directly responsible for inner-city homicide rates when something like 97% of gun homicides are committed with hand guns. I'd like to hear how the refusal to adopt "common sense gun regulations" is driving inner-city violence when every gun purchase already requires a federal background check except for private sales between individuals (which is impossible to track without a registry and is still mostly meaningless since it's already illegal to sell to a known felon - which most gang members who are largely responsible for the crime already are - and when it's been proven that most in prison acquired their guns through illegal means). I'd also like to know how this NRA murder industry disproportionately affects the inner-city poor and not the gun-toting, meth-smoking, rural redneck poor. Furthermore, I'd love to hear of the gun laws that you think would curb such violence.
I would also, less argumentatively, like to hear what you think of Speaker Ryan's recently unveiled plan to combat poverty and what you think the best course of action would be on that front.
