• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

PoliGAF 2014 |OT2| We need to be more like Disney World

Status
Not open for further replies.
Yesterday Nick Gillespie and Matt Welch from Reason magazine did a Reddit AMA and it's filled with all the libertarian naivete as you can imagine. Some of my favorite replies:

On monopolies:
Nick Gillespie said:
Generally speaking, the only monopolies that cause problems for consumers are ones that are either sustained or created through government actions. When Standard Oil was at the height of its market dominance, it was charging less than ever for its products (see Burt Folsom's Myth of the Robber Barons). If they started jacking up prices, competitors would win back market share. As folks at a whole host of once-dominant companies and products (A&P! IBM! AOL! WordPerfect! Internet Explorer!) could tell you, it's freaking hard to reach the top and tougher to stay there.
The Comcast question is an interesting one because once upon a time cable companies were granted monopolies by local governments. As it stands, though, more and more options are percolating out in terms of getting TV and internet (and with 5G mobile on the horizon, the game is going to change very quickly). I've had accounts with Time Warner, Verizon, Comcast, Starpower, and other providers. They all suck in their own ways--but none sucks as bad as the specter of the government regulating things more tightly in the name of "fair competition" or "net neutrality" or what have you.
ISPs are bad because of the amount of current government regulation, NN will make it worse!

On health care
Nick Gillespie said:
In all sorts of other fields, making markets freer and more open to competition works. It would do so also in health care and insurance. Allowing (that is, forcing them; most of them like carved-up territories current law dictates) health insurers to compete across state lines and offer a wider range of products would be a start. So would gutting many licensing laws that make it tough for new practitioners and facilities to enter health care provision.

Even before Obamacare, government was spending close to half of every dollar spent on health care. Draw that figure down closer to zero and you'll see an absolute revolution and proliferation of how health care gets done.
Again, going backwards with deregulation results in miracles.

http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/2odiw1/we_are_the_editors_of_reason_the_libertarian/

On the bright side, Matt Welch seems to be more moderate than Nick Gillespie, who's Rand Paul in a biker jacket.
 

benjipwns

Banned
ISPs are bad because of the amount of current government regulation, NN will make it worse!
Or....monopolies are bad because they have no incentive to give more than token customer service so reducing them is better than entrenching them?

Again, going backwards with deregulation results in miracles.
Or...suppressing 50% or more of information leads to large market players who have no need to negotiate with anyone except themselves? And undermine innovation, progress and low prices?

On the bright side, Matt Welch seems to be more moderate than Nick Gillespie, who's Rand Paul in a biker jacket.
No, it's because Matt Welch has vastly superior red ties.
 

HylianTom

Banned
So what you're saying is secession soon
I'm curious to see what happens if a party's base realizes that it's very mathematically improbable for them to ever hold the White House again. They can pass all the lousy-ass state-level laws they want, but if the federal court system thwarts their every turn on big issues.. how do they react?
 
But that's democracy for you:
b7bf7c8cf.png
90s was a really terribad time to look at crime and statistics. All the big inner cities were drug warzones and had garbage burning on the streets with NYC being the epicenter. Our drug policies from 1980s really got out of hand and chicken be coming home to roost.
 

ivysaur12

Banned
How old do you plan on living lol? I'll see it.

Maybe not alabama or ms but georgia, sc, tn in 40 to 50 years? That's almost inevitable.

I have no doubt that Georgia and South Carolina will trend blue if demographics hold with party affiliation over time (a bit if).

Tennessee? I'm unfamiliar with the demographic data there.
 
I have no doubt that Georgia and South Carolina will trend blue if demographics hold with party affiliation over time (a bit if).

Tennessee? I'm unfamiliar with the demographic data there.
Why then do you say your not gonna see the south go blue?

You have two of the states going blue!
 

NeoXChaos

Member
Goodbye Mary. You had a good run.

Idk much about TN politics but Idk if there is a substantial minority pop in that state. SC, LA, MS, AL will swing before TN and WV again. A lot of the South's swing back will depend on pulling a VA. Meaning, many people migrating from more D leaning states to the south. In other words, a South population not from the south originally like northern VA having people from the DC suburbs moving there which allowed obama to win twice, warner to squeek by, and Mcauliffe to win.

Heck, its the only way kansas will if ever in our lifetime goes blue.
 

benjipwns

Banned
Define "goes blue" because Kansas has had more Democratic governors since the last war than they've had Republicans.

And it's only recently (since Dole left the throne) that their Republican Party hasn't been dominated by "liberal" or progressive Republicans.
 

NeoXChaos

Member
Glad it's over. Cassidy's commercials were embarrassing.

"Bad lady nice to bad black man. Vote me. Me fight bad man."

Im glad too. Well time to prepare for Governor Vitter in 1 years time.

x(

We will finally become like AL, MS, SC, now AR and LA. Dead and in the minority for a couple of generations....with 1 count it 1 minority in congress but Republican statewide.
Progressiveism if it ever existed in the south is dead as well as the democratic party "for now"
 

HylianTom

Banned
Im glad too. Well time to prepare for Governor Vitter in 1 years time.

x(

We will finally become like AL, MS, SC, now AR and LA. Dead and in the minority for a couple of generations....with 1 count it 1 minority in congress but Republican statewide.
Progressiveism if it ever existed in the south is dead as well as the democratic party.

I've given-up on the state govt; we're a piggy bank to them and nothing else.
Kinda why I focus so much on federal and city government.
 

benjipwns

Banned
Progressiveism if it ever existed in the south
It was quite dominant in the South until the Second World War and Truman upset the power balance between blacks and whites. The People's Party did much better as an opponent in the South for a decade or two than the Republicans and I'd argue played a key role in the slow killing off of liberalism in the Democratic Party that happened from 1896 forward.
 

Joe Molotov

Member
It was quite dominant in the South until the Second World War and Truman upset the power balance between blacks and whites. The People's Party did much better as an opponent in the South for a decade or two than the Republicans and I'd argue played a key role in the slow killing off of liberalism in the Democratic Party that happened from 1896 forward.

Oklahoma gave 1920 Socialist candidate Eugene Debs over 5% even though he was in jail at the time for advocating against the Draft.
KnYZuG0.png


Edit: And he actually got over 16% in 1912.
 

Chichikov

Member
Oklahoma gave 1920 Socialist candidate Eugene Debs over 5% even though he was in jail at the time for advocating against the Draft.
KnYZuG0.png
I may or may not have this beer mug -

PrJZ7dI.jpg


not exactly this, but very similar.

p.s.
For benji -
"I'd rather vote for what I want and not get it, than for what I don't want and get it" - Eugene Debs.

p.p.s.
I would also like to point out how fucking retarded it was to the US to get involved in WWI, we tend to gloss on it thinking "oh, we beat those Nazis twice", but really the case for the US entering that was flimsy as hell, and holy shit did a lot of people paid with their lives for that.
 

benjipwns

Banned
Thomas Watson got 13% of the Georgia vote on the last Populist/People's Party ticket.

In 1912 Debs beat 10% in seven states. And hit 16% in Nevada and Oklahoma. He basically picked up all the old Populist vote territories in the West and combined it with his Socialist votes. Debs didn't run in 1916 but the Socialist candidate got 16% again in Oklahoma. I think Debs in 1912 in Nevada is the best any openly Socialist candidate has done. Though technically the Socialist Party in some states endorsed (and gave their ballot line to) La Foellete in 1924, and their associated groups were like a third of the Progressive Party's membership.

One thing La Follette ran on was nationalizing cigarette factories but not for any reasons you would think of these days (health effects, targeting kids, etc.) lol

Though of course that's never enough for some purity people:
William Foster, a major figure within the Communist Party, considered La Follette a hopeless reactionary who wanted to break up monopolies and return to an era of small businesses.

The 1912 election was probably the most relative "left-wing" Presidential election the U.S. has had. The "conservative" candidate of "the right" Taft was running (to the extent that you could call his campaign "running") on his record of busting trusts including U.S. Steel (which Roosevelt refused to touch and Taft's actions pissed him off), fighting the railroads with government regulation over their rates, enacting a corporate income tax, supporting free immigration and improving education/business opportunities for blacks, Dollar Diplomacy, etc.

Debs is the most famous because of his stature, but Wilson put all sorts of anti-slavery and anti-war protesters in jail. The funny thing is that Palmer, of the Palmer Raids, later told Wilson to pardon Debs to basically kill off his power as a political prisoner.

Wilson responded:
While the flower of American youth was pouring out its blood to vindicate the cause of civilization, this man, Debs, stood behind the lines sniping, attacking, and denouncing them....This man was a traitor to his country and he will never be pardoned during my administration.

One of the first things Harding did was commute his sentence, which released him, while saying that basically the charges were a horseshit move even if technically legal, which is another notch in my book for Harding's greatness.

p.p.s.
I would also like to point out how fucking retarded it was to the US to get involved in WWI, we tend to gloss on it thinking "oh, we beat those Nazis twice", but really the case for the US entering that was flimsy as hell, and holy shit did a lot of people paid with their lives for that.
I think you mean "everyone" when you say "the US" there.

At minimum it really should have been yet another short-lived Austria-Serbia conflict. It's like, this is the one time all those countries are going to honor their treaties/alliances/agreements?!?
 

Chichikov

Member
I think you mean "everyone" when you say "the US" there.

At minimum it really should have been yet another short-lived Austria-Serbia conflict. It's like, this is the one time all those countries are going to honor their treaties/alliances/agreements?!?
Of course, it's one of the most useless wars in the history of the world.
But since we're talking about someone who went to jail for calling to resist the WWI draft, I focused on the US, who really had less business than pretty much anyone to get involved in that mess.
 

benjipwns

Banned
In Debs' case he wasn't even jailed for overt but the hidden intention of obstruction of the draft and war, and the government basically argued he was speaking in code that only other anti-war and anti-draft forces would understand:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debs_v._United_States

One is the dumbest case, translating AP stories into German = undermining the war effort, but I can't find the name of the case.

Others
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abrams_v._United_States
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States
 

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
Of course, it's one of the most useless wars in the history of the world.
But since we're talking about someone who went to jail for calling to resist the WWI draft, I focused on the US, who really had less business than pretty much anyone to get involved in that mess.

WWII is even more useless since it could have easily been avoided had the allies not been total dicks about the terms of surrender and not made Germany pay for literally everything.
 

benjipwns

Banned
WWII is even more useless since it could have easily been avoided had the allies not been total dicks about the terms of surrender and not made Germany pay for literally everything.
The United States was basically paying the Germans' reparations. And more than half of the reparations were never intended to be paid and were a PR move to placate French and British citizens. And Germany only wound up ever paying like a sixth of what the Treaty obligated.

The French occupation of the Ruhr probably was more harmful. The Germans would have faced massive debt and its related issues related to the war no matter what the reparations were or how they were paid.

And then the Allies were paying the United States back for their wartime loans in part with the reparation money.

Perhaps ironically, the reparations excuse led to dropping of a good number of trade barriers and a boom in French-German trade in the 1920s.
 

Diablos

Member
Geez, this southern sweep is really depressing. They had enough of a stranglehold on it before. They're in so deep now. Demographics will change things (someday) but that's a long time coming, and the GOP will pull out every dirty rotten trick in the book before that happens, ensuring the blue south we always obsess over in here will come as late as possible.
 
WWII is even more useless since it could have easily been avoided had the allies not been total dicks about the terms of surrender and not made Germany pay for literally everything.

Nah. WWI had basically no redeeming features. Even though Hitler ended up using the war reparations rhetoric to gain power, there's not guarantee Fascism wouldn't have still taken off without it, and, as someone who used to have family members that only just made it out of concentration camps, I feel like fighting the Fascists was a pretty good cause in and of itself :p
 

benjipwns

Banned
Should be noted that fascism arose first "officially" in 1920's Italy, which was on the "winning" Allies side of World War I.

And World War I is to blame for the Middle East's last century. And invented modern "total war" and "war socialism" basically.

Hitler rose to power more on the "stabbed in the back" mythology than anything to do with reparations. (Which again, Germany, like most of the combatants in the war regarding their loans, didn't really pay.) There was also that whole part where the all of the post-war parties showed a complete inability of governance or even allying against any common enemy to keep the government stable after the failure of the Socialist Revolution and instead the Socialists, Communists and Nazi's decided to have paramilitary fights in the streets. (In which case they actually did coordinate with each other for the time/place/etc. a few times)

Note: Germany was not the only European country that decided to do this stuff instead of setting up a stable post-war post-monarchical government. The Soviets and Nazi's were greatly appreciated by some groups in the nations they gobbled up because at least they brought rules and order to town.

Good times...good times...
 
Have fun trying to convince everyone that jobs' growth is thanks to Congress at the same time of blaming everything for the past six years (and earlier seeing as how Republicans now blame Obama for Katrina and the economic meltdown) on Obama

Not to mention the fact that this growth has been going on quite consistently the year after taxes were raised and Obamacare went into effect. Whoops.

Businesses are not reactive like this. No CEO woke up on November 7th and said "quick, hire a bunch of people this month, I am confident in the economy now!"
 
Fredrik deBoer on the TNR clusterfuck:
The New Republic was never anything but a warmongering racist antileft trashpile and I hope the whole enterprise burns to the ground and if you are nostalgic about it you’re nostalgic for The Bell Curve, the war on Iraq, and Marty Peretz’s Muslim Hating Neo-Fascist Jamboree. The whole enterprise was corrupt right down to its colonialist bones and if some Facebook billionaire wants to turn it into Tinder For Politico Jagbags it could not possibly suffer in comparison. Shedding tears for Leon Wiseltier’s job is like worrying about what became of Stalin’s cat. I only pray for the day that your twisted obsession with Village bric-a-brac is performed by the unpaid interns that are the inevitable future of Big Media, which will be celebrated by you neoliberal clowns right up until some 17 year old earning nothing but 3 $9,000-a-credit-hour credits literally unplugs the keyboard from your workstation. Tell Stephen Glass I said hey and shut out the lights on your way out.
 
$T2eC16JHJGEFFmuJs6oLBRz-KRNCw!~~60_57.JPG


There's so much wrong with this cover, but I think it comes down to an editorial board of white Clinton liberals saying we should destroy welfare because it's the most humane way to deal with black poverty.

Jesus Christ fuck TNR.
 

Diablos

Member
Obama got a CT scan of his throat. Can't wait to hear the conservatives I know whine about how the POTUS gets extra testing (like every other rich, powerful politican/actor/you name it does) tomorrow.

BREAKING NEWS: Presidents get expedited medical care with generally more testing/treatment than usual!!!
 

Diablos

Member
McConnell has acknowledged that he won't be able to repeal the ACA but seems to have confidence in the SCOTUS to rule in favor of King.

Also they're asking the SCOUTS to take on the Medicare advisory board aka the "death panel" in their hollow brains.

Trimmed fat version of article:
Twenty-five Republicans asked the Supreme Court to take on another lawsuit against ObamaCare on Thursday, this time against a controversial Medicare advisory board that the party has assailed as a “death panel.” Rep. Phil Roe (R-Tenn.), who is leading the charge in Congress against the Independent Payment Advisory Board, said legal challenges against ObamaCare “make a lot more sense” than writing repeal bills that are guaranteed a veto. Roe is among a growing number of Republicans who are acknowledging that the party cannot overcome the president’s veto even after its midterms sweep. Many are now arguing that a shift in strategy is needed to take down the law before 2016.

Incoming Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell openly acknowledged for the first time this week that the chance of a major rewrite of ObamaCare is unlikely in the next two years. Instead, he said the Supreme Court’s ruling on King v. Burwell could be the party’s best shot for an ObamaCare “do-over.” “The chances of [Obama] signing a full repeal are pretty limited,” McConnell said at a Wall Street Journal event Monday. “Who may ultimately take it down is the Supreme Court of the United States.” The rough political climate surrounding the law could factor into the justices’ decision, making the time ripe for a GOP win at the court.

Todd Gaziano, executive director of the Pacific Legal Foundation, which is arguing the Sissel v. HHS case, said some justices could factor in “the fact that the popularity of ObamaCare continues to plummet.”

“What might be in the back of their subconscious is that the American people in the two most recent elections have thrown out the people who enacted this law,” he said.
 
T

thepotatoman

Unconfirmed Member
McConnell has acknowledged that he won't be able to repeal the ACA but seems to have confidence in the SCOTUS to rule in favor of King.

Also they're asking the SCOUTS to take on the Medicare advisory board aka the "death panel" in their hollow brains.

Trimmed fat version of article:

“What might be in the back of their subconscious is that the American people in the two most recent elections have thrown out the people who enacted this law,” he said.

Weird. I could have sworn Obama of Obamacare fame got reelected sometime in these last two elections.
 

HylianTom

Banned
G.O.P. Donors Seek to Narrow Field of Presidential Candidates to One

Dozens of the Republican Party’s leading presidential donors and fund-raisers have begun privately discussing how to clear the field for a single establishment candidate to carry the party’s banner in 2016, fearing that a prolonged primary would bolster Hillary Rodham Clinton, the likely Democratic candidate.

The conversations, described in interviews with a variety of the Republican Party’s most sought-after donors, are centered on the three potential candidates who have the largest existing base of major contributors and overlapping ties to the top tier of those who are uncommitted: Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey, former Gov. Jeb Bush of Florida and Mitt Romney.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/09/u...d-of-presidential-candidates-to-one.html?_r=0

*giggle*

Very interesting.

And the FreeRepublic reaction is entertainingly predictable..
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3235056/posts

"I’m not going to cast my vote for a party that doesn’t want to embrace conservative values."
..
"My 'Trying to Give a Flip' failed to load. I am so over the GOP E and Lamestream yokels taking over the job of primaries. By 2016 the mood in this country will be to ugly and volitile we are likely to have violence"
..
"Americans would have an excellent opportunity to make some real AMERICAN HISTORY for a change. A write in candidate wins the presidency. Cruz/Palin or Palin/Cruz. Works for me. It would be a hoot watching ‘RAT and GOP heads exploding simultaneously. Chalk one up for America."

I'm so ready for this to kick-off. :p
 
Scott Walker is still my prediction, with John Kasich as my dark horse. We're looking at a war between the establishment and the base...and Walker is the only person to me that unites both. Doesn't deal with as mixed of a congress as Christie, which means he doesn't have to compromise. And he has embarrassed the left twice, quite easily.
 

HylianTom

Banned
Scott Walker is still my prediction, with John Kasich as my dark horse. We're looking at a war between the establishment and the base...and Walker is the only person to me that unites both. Doesn't deal with as mixed of a congress as Christie, which means he doesn't have to compromise. And he has embarrassed the left twice, quite easily.
He's probably the one potential nominee that gives me a headache.

But I wonder if primary voters will recognize that he'd be a smart choice? Will huge money tempt them? Extremism?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom