Maybe referring to affirmative action?
Never Trump
- Thread starter colton
- Start date
Maybe referring to affirmative action?
just thought it was funny how he worded it
Find one post within the context of a discussion, i.e., evidence was supplied in a previous post, where I am guilty of any of the bolded points. Or are you just flippantly shooting out of your *** again? I will give you that there is anger. I am fine to live and let live on many things. Trump isn't one of them. His candidacy has shaken my very being, so yes I am unsettled.
As far as not learning from people, I can't help your perception. I learn from many people on this forum, and I am willing to be proven wrong or swayed on anything if there is evidence and the person making the claim is not obviously an idiot. I normally learn about things other than basketball the most from a few select posters on this forum, e.g., Red, Jonah, Siro, Dalamon, and occasionally you, when your posts aren't buried so far under sarcasm and supercilious sanctimony (there are a few others as well). I will admit that I am also pretentious at times and respond to people's comments in a less than helpful way. What will you admit? I get enough horse **** around the internet. I appreciate when people don't speak it.
Last edited:
I want to respond to this but I'm not sure you want to actually have a discussion about it. If so I'll take the time to respond later.
Triggered.
Red
Well-Known Member
Another day, another crackpot conspiracy theory from our Crackpot-in-Chief:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...l-immigrants-are-crossing-the-border-to-vote/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...l-immigrants-are-crossing-the-border-to-vote/
I was thinking more of how some of us subconsciously treat AA's better because our latent racism makes us feel guilty and uncomfortable. For example, I've found that I have a tendency to tip black waiters a little heavier. I think a lot of people promote black people for similar reasons and not purely for Affirmative Action. That and they tend to be cooler on average than white people. << Don't fract me for that racist comment.
Jonah
Well-Known Member
Informative, data-based article by Sam Wang on the increasingly partisan divide of presidential elections:
https://prospect.org/article/hardened-divide-american-politics-0
"Although news reports and commentators during this year’s presidential election have focused on twists in the race and shifts in polls, the real story about campaigns since the mid-1990s is how little movement there is during a general election. American voters are much less open to persuasion by the other side than they used to be.”
The decline in the volatility of the electorate over the course of recent campaigns is what allows aggregators like Wang and Nate Silver to predict not only the outcomes of elections so early and accurately, but to assign high probability ratios with such confidence. Clinton had a bad week prior to the first debate, but since that time she has bounced back and is nearing her highest levels of win probability. Wang, as of today, has her at a 93 percent chance of winning and Silver has her at over 80 percent.
https://prospect.org/article/hardened-divide-american-politics-0
"Although news reports and commentators during this year’s presidential election have focused on twists in the race and shifts in polls, the real story about campaigns since the mid-1990s is how little movement there is during a general election. American voters are much less open to persuasion by the other side than they used to be.”
The decline in the volatility of the electorate over the course of recent campaigns is what allows aggregators like Wang and Nate Silver to predict not only the outcomes of elections so early and accurately, but to assign high probability ratios with such confidence. Clinton had a bad week prior to the first debate, but since that time she has bounced back and is nearing her highest levels of win probability. Wang, as of today, has her at a 93 percent chance of winning and Silver has her at over 80 percent.
Hotdog
Well-Known Member
This is the best post ever.
♪alt13
Well-Known Member
It is strange to me that you would come up with a list of reasons to vote for Johnson(none of which are issues that anyone expects Clinton to address) and then say that the problem is Koch money(which GJ is not getting). The candidate that you are supporting is the definition of a corporate sponsored politician. The major corporations sponsor the major parties, the major media outlets, but you would ignore all that and point the finger at the relatively meager support the Libertarian party gets from a select few business people and corporations. Let's not pretend that the libertarians are the ones who are bought or that they are worse in this regard when they clearly are not. As far as a Libertarian liberal coalition I think you would be surprised at some of the ideas and proposals that come out of placess like CATO.
[video]https://www.cato.org/multimedia/events/our-hands-plan-replace-welfare-state-raising-floor-how-universal-basic-income-can
As I've said before I'm not exactly a libertarian but shrinking the size and scope of the US government is a huge concern of mine and a big reason why I vote Libertarian in federal elections.
I think that you and Mr. Chomsky have fallen for an argument that ultimately led the Bolsheviks to destroy the International labor movement as well as every legitimate revolution of the people that had the real promise of delivering freedom, democracy, and socialism to the masses(Catalonia comes to mind). Yes there are social Darwinists both within and that support the libertarian party/platform. They would agree with your assessment that without the state they would become even more powerful. I believe that's just not correct. The state has created our current private power structure and without a strong state it could not exist. Further while I agree with you that private power can be dangerous I do not think that focusing ever more power in a state is a good idea. As Mr. Yglesias points out "People are going to try to manipulate the state to advance their own ends".
This "solution" to private power gives the powerful a tool with which to commit violence with near impunity and further secure their station.
Jonah
Well-Known Member
I’m not to a supporter of Clinton or the Democrat Party and agree that both are too heavily influenced by corporate contributions. I’ve argued here against Trump because his candidacy poses a unique and immediate threat whereas Clinton would be more of the same.
The Koch brothers are a separate problem. They spend hundreds of millions of dollars influencing the Republican Party because that's what it takes to buy a metaphorical battleship and steer it in their direction. They only have to spend tens of millions of dollars to buy the Libertarian Party because it’s just a tugboat in the political ocean. That doesn’t mean I can’t be concerned about the direction of unchecked corporate dominance they’ve steered for the Libertarian Party.
I listed some areas of agreement with libertarian values and most involve curtailing the scope of government, however, I prefer cutting with a scalpel whereas too many old-style libertarians want to use a hatchet. The video you posted, rather than supporting any kind of left-right alliance, highlights this basic disagreement. The issue is universal basic income (UBI). Andy Stern, former union leader, wants UBI to replace programs such a food stamps and help, possibly dramatically, reduce the size of the federal government. Charles Murray, author of The Bell Curve, wants to completely eliminate the welfare state through constitutional amendment and replace it with a below subsistence level UBI.
In an alternate universe, the alliance Ralph Nader argued for and worked for back in 2014 would have made for a dramatically different election in 2016. Realistically, though, he was too old even then and a Nader/Johnson ticket was just a pipe dream. Still, I'd like to see a modern, moderate version of libertarianism replace the current Libertarian Party. The Libertarian Party has too many fossilized fringe ideas that have not been updated since before 1980 when David Koch ran as their VP candidate and it will never have a chance to become a major national party until it publicly repudiates some of its more extreme Koch influenced positions.