OMG Politics, I'm over it already.

Status
Not open for further replies.
mongooz said:
i had to turn the channel after about 20 minutes. i don't think the guy is capable of forming and conveying a single cohesive thought without it turning into a rambling rant.

it's like when someone gets drunk and all the social filters come down. if the thought pops into his head, it immediately comes out his mouth. no thought process at all.
Click to expand...

LOL. The first 20 minutes were his strongest. He was fairly coherent and made a few points. After that, he slid into gibberish.
 
335clone said:
LOL. The first 20 minutes were his strongest. He was fairly coherent and made a few points. After that, he slid into gibberish.
Click to expand...
no no no.....i didn't start watching until about 9:30.....then watched for about 20 minutes. i think i came in just about when he was sliding down the mud pile upside down on his back. he was right in the middle of a rant about the IRS auditing him every year for the last 15 years......yadda yadda. :grin:
 
Flamencology said:
Assuming that to be the case....

For every reason we have to distrust or to dislike HRC, there are far more reasons to dislike Trump.

"I don't trust this person, so I'm going to support this other person who lies literally 4-5 times more often."

There is a disconnect with reality and logic in this thinking. It's about something deeper.

That said, the history of American conservatism is a history of people voting against the best interests of communities and of the general public. So nothing new there.
Click to expand...
I agree with all of that. Does not mean that I really wanted to vote for Hillary, that I fully agree with her politics based on voting record and platform, or that I completely trust her. And it is not gender. If it was Elizabeth Warren, I would be more full in. That all said, I am finding lots of reasons to support her, and not just because I loathe Trump and the current GOP.

And just as a side note to the last thing on American conservatism, when I was in my youth and big on social contract theory and etc. , I was more for the rights and interests of the individual, as opposed to communities as a whole or the general public as a whole, philosophically, believing, that with some minimum safegaurds and safety nets, community and public good would come out of the preservation of opportunity for the individual. As I have discussed before, I have significantly moderated my views in that regard, at least as concerns economic policy.
 
sunvalleylaw said:
And just as a side note to the last thing on American conservatism, when I was in my youth and big on social contract theory and etc. , I was more for the rights and interests of the individual, as opposed to communities as a whole or the general public as a whole, philosophically, believing, that with some minimum safegaurds and safety nets, community and public good would come out of the preservation of opportunity for the individual. As I have discussed before, I have significantly moderated my views in that regard, at least as concerns economic policy.
Click to expand...
In other words, you were more of a libertarian when you were young, but then you grew up.
:wink:
 
micwalt said:
In other words, you were more of a libertarian when you were young, but then you grew up.
:wink:
Click to expand...

Libertarianism is just Anarchism with a college degree.

tompetty said:
I take a lot of issue with that. Middle aged white man racism is never acceptable, especially in place of a political argument.
Click to expand...

If this was meant to be funny, try again.

If you genuinely don't understand what "racism" means... well, good luck to you. You're gonna need it.
 
It seems irrational to me that so many people are saying they will vote for DT given all the things he has done and said but then the whole US election seems irrational to me anyways so I supposed it makes sense in a weird way :shrug:

DT though was practically guaranteed to win the debate...he really couldn't lose IMO. If he was trounced (which by some reports he was) his supporters put in down to the fact that he's not a seasoned politician. If he just hung around he wins because he's not a seasoned politician. Kind of like a unranked FCS football team hanging with a ranked FBS team...they aren't supposed to win so anything they do to not get completely blown out is a moral victory.
 
micwalt said:
In other words, you were more of a libertarian when you were young, but then you grew up.
:wink:
Click to expand...
No, I was never full libertarian. I believed in a strong defense, I believed in roads, parks and national forest, etc., funding of public schools and higher education, even the USPS, AND environmental regulation of business and industry (because pollutants are an external cost not considered by the market). So, though some early computerized politics test of the day put me close to Libertarian, I was clearly not. There never really was a party related candidate that believed as I did, to my knowledge. I never, ever, considered voting for a Libertarian candidate.

I still like the ideas and theory and philosophy of governance via consent, and that I retain all rights not socially contracted away to the government, in my personal life and ordinary consumer financial dealings. I also like the idea of a free market for consumer goods and services (generally speaking, and as long as the pollutants caused by their production is regulated. Therefore, there is a bit of a problem considering China pretty much makes everything now), but believe that major portions of the market no longer function. particularly health care, education, some forms of transportation, and it seems, the financial markets and investment markets. In urban areas, housing also seems an issue. And perhaps basic access to reasonable food and water. Not that the financial and investment markets need price controls, but some form of regulation. Also, I am greatly against the privatization of government functions such as parks and federal land (again), incarceration, courts, war and war production, security, libraries and information, communication, education, you get the idea. Clear as mud, right? :wink:


Also, I never, ever read Ayn Rand. Milton Friedman, yes. (econ classes in the 80's. Also, Keynes.) Ayn Rand, no.

And I never really adopted the full libertarian philosophy. Mine was more related to John Locke, "Father of Liberalism". I considered myself at the time more Classically Liberal, as opposed to Socially Liberal.

I have since drifted further toward Social Liberalism, particularly in certain areas where I could be called a socialist. See above. Especially in certain areas of the market, as opposed to where Classical Liberalism drew on Adam Smith and the invisible hand. I came to believe that it didn't work in areas as I outlined above, and more recently that unfettered capitalism's over emphasis on the quarterly reports for stockholders, rather than focus on the long run best interest of companies and individuals calls the market's expected success into question. But not in all areas and in all markets or things. Certain markets function pretty well, and we should have freedom there. "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one." said Spock. But not in all areas. It is not nearly black and white.
 
Last edited:
jp_nyc said:
Most libertarians get over it after sophomore year, when the workload is too intense to keep reading Ayn Rand.
Click to expand...

Or when they get girlfriends. The ones that can't get girlfriends have to find something else to do once they've finished reading Ayn Rand.

Chicken Man said:
Libertarianism is Republicanism as a college sophomore realizing no co-ed will sleep with a Republican and coming up with a cover story.
Click to expand...

At a northeast liberal arts school, maybe. The midwest is filled with state colleges that are like mating grounds for young republicans.
 
Beyer160 said:
Libertarianism is just Anarchism with a college degree.



If this was meant to be funny, try again.

If you genuinely don't understand what "racism" means... well, good luck to you. You're gonna need it.
Click to expand...
I'm gonna need it? Why?

You gonna take my cars away?


I post a pic making fun of HC and I get jumped on...

Someone posts a pic making fun of Trump and I say something about it and I get jumped on...
 
tompetty said:
I'm gonna need it? Why?

You gonna take my cars away?


I post a pic making fun of HC and I get jumped on...

Someone posts a pic making fun of Trump and I say something about it and I get jumped on...
Click to expand...
Welcome to 'Murrica!
 
Ya...I don't know why I even entered this thread, was only trying to be funny..I don't know\care much about American politics..

I guess I entered because it's so slow around here..

We'll all be out of a job soon anyway when this place gets sold to Musician's Friend.....
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top