CPAC Straw Poll Results

Off Topic Politics and World Issues
21

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Looking at this, if I’m Hillary Clinton, I’m picking out new drapes for the Oval Office.

Rand Paul isn’t presidential timber for a number of reasons, but the best proof the “conservatives” at CPAC have lost their minds is the fact that Ben Carson came in fourth. A doctor with no experience in politics, a limited portfolio of topics on which he can credibly opine, no executive experience, a plagiarist, and a deer in the headlights when a mike gets put in front of his face.

I said it in another thread - the GOP was handed the gift of a generation, and they are poised ro blow it, thanks ro their Jacobins.[/quote]

Who are the “Jacobins” exactly? How does their Jacobinism manifest itself?[/quote]

Tea party libertarians who want to disassemble existing institutions woven into the social fabric on an abstractheory that the government for a globalised, post-industrial, Information Age society needs to be right-sized to an 18th century government and administrative state.

22

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Looking at this, if I’m Hillary Clinton, I’m picking out new drapes for the Oval Office.

Rand Paul isn’t presidential timber for a number of reasons, but the best proof the “conservatives” at CPAC have lost their minds is the fact that Ben Carson came in fourth. A doctor with no experience in politics, a limited portfolio of topics on which he can credibly opine, no executive experience, a plagiarist, and a deer in the headlights when a mike gets put in front of his face.

I said it in another thread - the GOP was handed the gift of a generation, and they are poised ro blow it, thanks ro their Jacobins.[/quote]

Who are the “Jacobins” exactly? How does their Jacobinism manifest itself?[/quote]

Tea party libertarians who want to disassemble existing institutions woven into the social fabric on an abstractheory that the government for a globalised, post-industrial, Information Age society needs to be right-sized to an 18th century government and administrative state.
[/quote]

Well Ron Paul had/has some kooky opinions of course and Rand could be a worry / liability but none of the other Presidential candidates are of the libertarian wing of the tea party. In fact, Rand, Cruz, Rubio and Walker have all done a lot to reign in the government. And they’re not closely associated with the religious right yet they get their support. Whatever you think of their chances of governing well I think a few of them might have a chance at defeating Hillary. Depends on demographics and redistricting affecting a few key states like Florida I believe though. It may be very difficult for the Republicans to win with anyone.

23

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Looking at this, if I’m Hillary Clinton, I’m picking out new drapes for the Oval Office.

Rand Paul isn’t presidential timber for a number of reasons, but the best proof the “conservatives” at CPAC have lost their minds is the fact that Ben Carson came in fourth. A doctor with no experience in politics, a limited portfolio of topics on which he can credibly opine, no executive experience, a plagiarist, and a deer in the headlights when a mike gets put in front of his face.

I said it in another thread - the GOP was handed the gift of a generation, and they are poised ro blow it, thanks ro their Jacobins.[/quote]

Who are the “Jacobins” exactly? How does their Jacobinism manifest itself?[/quote]

Tea party libertarians who want to disassemble existing institutions woven into the social fabric on an abstractheory that the government for a globalised, post-industrial, Information Age society needs to be right-sized to an 18th century government and administrative state.
[/quote]

Well Ron Paul had/has some kooky opinions of course and Rand could be a worry / liability but none of the other Presidential candidates are of the libertarian wing of the tea party. In fact, Rand, Cruz, Rubio and Walker have all done a lot to reign in the government. And they’re not closely associated with the religious right yet they get their support. Whatever you think of their chances of governing well I think a few of them might have a chance at defeating Hillary. Depends on demographics and redistricting affecting a few key states like Florida I believe though. It may be very difficult for the Republicans to win with anyone.[/quote]

I don’t disagree as to those guys - the problem is, to win the nomination, they have to pander to the Jacobins prior to and during he primaries. Having done so, they will immediately be toxic to mainstream voters. Thus, while maybe one of Jacobins don’t get the nod to run, their outsized influence will ruin the candidate who does.

EDIT: I need to qualify. I think Walker and Rubio are the ones you listed that could have a chance in a general election and the ones who would to pander. Paul and Cruz? No chance at all to win.

24

You’re talking as if the base of the party were all radical libertarians. If anything the base is religious / socially conservative. And all the candidates except Jeb Bush pretty much already have the religious / social conservative vote but without being tainted as “one of them” by the city folk.

25

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
Winner: Rand Paul (for the third year in a Row)

[/quote]

I hope we’re not going to have all the fanatical obsessive fans like the Ron Paul social media trolls. They don’t seem to like Rand. They think he’s a sell out to the Ron Paul revolution. They’re a bunch of nuts and knuckleheads every last one of them. The sort of people who should never be put in charge of anything. I’m thinking like lifticvsmaximvs or pittbull or someone like that. That’s your typical Ron Paul kook.

26

[quote]Mufasa wrote:

As TB pointed out (and I agree) there is a HUGE difference between Government Overreach (which we all have to deal with on a daily basis) and Government being an inherent evil with anything and everything it does.

Mufasa

[/quote]

It’s not that the government is inherently evil, it’s the fact that the government is the agent of force. The idea of government is to protect individual rights: life, liberty, property. No one has the right to another individuals services.

I still think this will get Rand into trouble. But I agree with him.

27

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
They fetishize rights and ignore responsibilities.
[/quote]

Is obeying the mandates of those in charge the only responsibility you recognize?

Let’s try this again:
It’s Saturday morning and you’re in your kitchen frying bacon and eggs; a man knocks on your door and asks you to give him half of your food. The government should force you to provide the man with the service he requests?

Your daughter meets a man at a bar, then goes back to his place and has sex with him. When walking out of his apartment, his neighbor steps out and asks her to come into his place to have sex with him. She should be legally obligated to do so, correct?

If you don’t believe either of these two situations should occur, then you have no good argument for forcing private businesses to provide service to anyone. Your only argument is, “I learnt dis in Murican pubic skewl.”

28

[quote]Alrightmiami19c wrote:

[quote]Mufasa wrote:

As TB pointed out (and I agree) there is a HUGE difference between Government Overreach (which we all have to deal with on a daily basis) and Government being an inherent evil with anything and everything it does.

Mufasa

[/quote]

It’s not that the government is inherently evil, it’s the fact that the government is the agent of force. The idea of government is to protect individual rights: life, liberty, property. No one has the right to another individuals services.

I still think this will get Rand into trouble. But I agree with him.
[/quote]

But in the real world that “force” and “initiation” occurred centuries ago and has not been successfully or even seriously contested in a Western nation since before The Second World War and therefore libertarians’ talk of “guns in the room” and their maximalist negative rights ideology can’t be taken seriously as they’re not contesting the force that is the state as people are doing in other societies around the world. Besides, I tend to agree with Jared Taylor that a libertarian minarchist government is something I’d prefer to see played out as an experiment and working in another country before I’d consider it in my own. Besides, I don’t have any faith in the ratbag libertarian right. For one thing, most of them including Ron Paul seem to think Putin’s Russia just fabulous. He’s all over Kremlin TV talking about how terrible America is. And Putin has just whacked another of his political opponents; an anti-war activist on the eve of a protest against the invasion of Ukraine. Just another area where the libertarian right is way out of touch with mainstream, normal sentiments on things and why they’ll always scare off the voters because they’re all kooks quite frankly. The fringe libertarians that is; not your average small government type who has rational views on other things like immigration and foreign policy.

29

[quote]NickViar wrote:

Let’s try this again

[/quote]

No, let’s not. Let’s just pretend that we did to save time. We’re talking about the real world not a libertarian sophist’s construction to prove we’re all slaves or something. So what? What’s any of that got to do with the CPAC Straw Poll?

30

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
They fetishize rights and ignore responsibilities.
[/quote]

Is obeying the mandates of those in charge the only responsibility you recognize?

Let’s try this again:
It’s Saturday morning and you’re in your kitchen frying bacon and eggs; a man knocks on your door and asks you to give him half of your food. The government should force you to provide the man with the service he requests?

Your daughter meets a man at a bar, then goes back to his place and has sex with him. When walking out of his apartment, his neighbor steps out and asks her to come into his place to have sex with him. She should be legally obligated to do so, correct?

If you don’t believe either of these two situations should occur, then you have no good argument for forcing private businesses to provide service to anyone. Your only argument is, “I learnt dis in Murican pubic skewl.”[/quote]

I’ll admit that I may be missing something…but these seem to be terrible analogies when trying to compare it to a business providing commerce, goods and services.

Mufasa

31

Mufasa: Here is the Article I was referencing at the beginning of this, sorry it took me so long to procure it…Nursing School !

Hope that helps, but is not really a help for Scott Walker.

32

[quote]killerDIRK wrote:
Mufasa: Here is the Article I was referencing at the beginning of this, sorry it took me so long to procure it…Nursing School !

Hope that helps, but is not really a help for Scott Walker.[/quote]

The author is from NPR News keep in mind. Google controversies and liberal bias if you don’t know what I mean.

33

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
They fetishize rights and ignore responsibilities.
[/quote]

Is obeying the mandates of those in charge the only responsibility you recognize?

Let’s try this again:
It’s Saturday morning and you’re in your kitchen frying bacon and eggs; a man knocks on your door and asks you to give him half of your food. The government should force you to provide the man with the service he requests?

Your daughter meets a man at a bar, then goes back to his place and has sex with him. When walking out of his apartment, his neighbor steps out and asks her to come into his place to have sex with him. She should be legally obligated to do so, correct?

If you don’t believe either of these two situations should occur, then you have no good argument for forcing private businesses to provide service to anyone. Your only argument is, “I learnt dis in Murican pubic skewl.”[/quote]

I tend to agree with you on denial of service, but this argument is terrible, as argument by analogy often is. “All analogies limp” is, I think, the most important pound-for-pound aphorism ever uttered, and we would all be spared a whole hell of a lot of foolishness – much of it radical libertarian foolishness – if “Murican pubic [was the elision of the “l” intentional?] skewl” would do a better job of hammering it into the little minds in its custody.

Because guess what? Operating a business and fucking a stranger on a Saturday night are superlatively nonidentical endeavors. I know that by the impossibly reductive lights of your worldview, all commerce is nothing more than a guy frying bacon for a friend in his fucking bungalow, but we inhabitants of the real world recognize that this is not remotely close to the case, and any analogy under which the business of business must align exactly with the business of “how I interact with my cousin Darrel when he drops by for a visit” is not an analogy at all.

Let’s take one example. There are U.S. states in which it is legal for me kill my dog and cat, churn them into sausage, and cook them up with a side of peppers and onions. Furthermore, it is legal for me to lie to my daughter – who has come under the influence of various New Age bullshit persuasions, including veganism – about what is in her food in order to ensure that she get what I consider to be the proper nutrients: “Here you go sweet pea, 100 percent veggie meat-replacement.” So, there are U.S. states in which it is legal for me to kill my dog and cat, churn them into sausage, and cook them up with a side of peppers and onions while telling my daughter that dinner is vegan-friendly.

Now, there isn’t a single reasonable person – not one – who believes that it should be legal for a restaurant to serve me a dog-and-cat stew while telling me it’s 100-percent organic beef. But by the lights of your analogical fallacy, we must allow such, or else surrender the right to eat strange meats and lie in our own households.

34

…I tend to agree with you on denial of service…

That surprises me a bit coming from you, smh…

How so?

(Again…I’m trying to understand the line of reasoning…)

Mufasa

36

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
…I tend to agree with you on denial of service…

That surprises me a bit coming from you, smh…

How so?

(Again…I’m trying to understand the line of reasoning…)

Mufasa[/quote]

Indeed, I should clarify. I don’t this it some kind of injustice that some guy in rural Louisiana can’t put up a “no blacks” sign outside of his burger joint. And I don’t think there’s any kind of slippery slope whereby I’m going to be forced by the government to sexually service every Tom, Dick, and Harry who shows up at my front door. (Obviously!)

However, I think denial-of-service laws are pretty unnecessary for a couple of reasons:

  1. I am against unnecessary law in all cases, and I don’t see great need for this kind of thing in 2015 America. The market will destroy anybody unwilling to serve blacks or gays (or whomever). There would be picketing, there would be a media sensation. There would (rightly) be shaming on an apocalyptic level. (This is maybe not true of a few hinterland swamp communities, but I tend not to care about hinterland swamp communities, and, more importantly, see 2 below.)

  2. I believe that truth is better than fantasy in every case. If I’m black, I don’t want to give my money to some human fungal infection who would rather not serve me because of the color of my skin – which means that I’d rather he be allowed by law to say so, so that I can then deny him my cash and then get other people to do the same.

  3. If I ran a business, I’d like to be able to deny service to certain people. E.g., the Westboro loons, a guy in an “AIDS kills fags dead” t-shirt, etc. I know of course that they’re not exactly identical, but there is an argument to be made for at least some kind of a logical connection. Given 1 and 2, I believe the benefits outweigh the dangers.

I’m open to having my mind changed, but those are a few of my thoughts. I wrote this quickly, so there’s a chance none of it made sense. In which case, my apologies!

37

Should you be able to boycott any business for any reason? And advertise the boycott and the reason? People do. People get away with such things in a more “nuanced” way these days.

38

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Should you be able to boycott any business for any reason? And advertise the boycott and the reason?[/quote]

Yeah, obviously. (Though that doesn’t protect you from civil action if you publish or disseminate your reasons and they constitute libel or slander.)

40

Rome never had libel laws. It was said a citizen should be able to engage in calumny and various people including Machiavelli have given interesting reasons for why this system is preferable.