Re: Decision 2016
 

I think I follow, but the moment they mentioned John Kerry specifically in the ad, they became a partisan organization, contrary to their claims.

EDIT: Reading up on the 'Swift Vets' story now. As I was 12 at the time, of the election, and not in Virginia I did not pay attention to it.

EDIT AGAIN: a 527 group can certainly, legally, advocate for or against an individual running for office. Super PACS make ads about that all the time. In an ideal world, its a way for citizens to pool some money to express their views to their fellow citizens.

I found an article from 2004 that begins as follows:"Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, a non-partisan, non-profit group representing more than 250 Swift Boat veterans who served with Senator John Kerry in Vietnam, announced today they are joining forces with a group of American prisoners of war who were held captive by the North Vietnamese during the Vietnam War."


The moment they claimed to be a non-partisan group, yet still advocating against Senator Kerry, they were absolutely in the wrong. Also, if any of them claimed to have been Kerry's crewmates aboard a ship when they were not, (or for an exaggerated timeframe) that's also blatantly wrong, and such behavior should be prevented or prosecuted. They had every right and opportunity to not claim to be non-partisan, and every opportunity to question Senator Kerry's judgment without spreading falsehoods about him. They could have stated why they believed Kerry's stance on military spending or veteran's benefits were contrary to the interests of veterans. (Off the top of my head, I don't actually know what veteran-related stances Mr. Kerry was running on in 2004, its just an example). But any of those claims should have necessitated dropping the 'non-partisan' mantra.

Re: Decision 2016
 

Ok, I was curious about that. So you draw the line at mentioning the candidate by name. Let us change the facts a bit. Let us now say that LCAW is filthy rich guys pulling for *Kerry*, and not Bush. The ad talks about the importance of the military, and at the end of the ad, the gravel-voiced guy says, "The world is a dangerous place. We, who have served overseas, know that. Our leaders should, too."

Didn't mention anyone by name. Nobody associated with LCAW honestly cares about this issue in this context; it's just a way to sneak in extra pro-Kerry advertising in a close state. Thoughts?

edit: The "Swiftboat Veterans for Truth" was a sham organization. Wasn't an issue ad thing, though, as I recall. I'm just playing with it for the purpose of our conversation. Now I've switched candidates. Good for you digging up the info. :)

Re: Decision 2016
 

As long as the ad had two or more veterans from some oversea operation, to make that final claim true, yes, I am okay with that. Whether or not I agree with what they say in the ad, as long as any statements of fact are clearly true, and any numerical statistics used cite the specific study, yes, it is speech that ought to be protected.

Of course, the next level of this is that a wealthy person will fund a sham study to make the numbers say what he wants, instead of the truth. Or the president/treasurer of these groups actively collude with some party or campaign.
How to weed out and prevent that corruption, without harming legitimate groups, I honestly don't know. But I am not in favor of any policy that hampers the legitimate from having their voices heard.

Re: Decision 2016
 

Interesting. So you would force the organization to disclose something about its leadership. Where did you get the "2" minimum from? What if the membership was surviving family members of people killed in action? How much will you regulate, with your own rules? And did you agree with Tornado's restrictions on campaign finance, which are significantly greater than Johnson's "transparency" model?

It's my own feeling that libertarianism isn't meant to provide real-world solutions to hard problems. It sounds good, though, and the perspective is valuable. I just don't trust it in a position of real authority.

Shrug
 

My problems with libertarianism mostly lie in a tune similar to what vegie said. Letting the free market solve things has some problems ranging from the fact that our models of the free market often have assumptions that don't carry over into real situations (honestly I feel this way about pretty much every economic model but it feels more egregious with libertarianism than others) to the fact that even when the free market works well it means that we'll have to treat human lives as commodities in some arenas (see healthcare, education) and sometimes we can't actually create the free market due to large barriers to entry which hurts competition from actually working. I don't think these issues are insurmountable but libertarianism always feels to me like it works better in theory than in practice.

I'm down for more transparency with financing (and I worry Tornado's solution is too much the other direction incentivewise) but I worry about how in the information age misinformation spreads at least as quickly as information (and honestly it's a lot easier to package into a soundbite which is easier to hit into the stuff that gets repeated and spreads faster than the more detailed nuanced truth; this is not endemic to any one political side). I don't know how to fix this other than a long slow personal one.

~Dysole, who honestly feels that one of the best ways to run things is to force people to metagame the system into the results we want and that can be very difficult in politics especially the more polarized the populace

Re: Decision 2016
 

The 'two' simply comes from the use of the word 'We' in this fictional organization's statement, which is what would be necessary to make that statement "We, who have served overseas," factually true.

Sorry but I feel like @Tornado just pulled most of those numbers out of the ether. I do not agree with them based on the quick skim I've done of his posts.

I would not describe myself as a strict Libertarian. But having a libertarian in office for a term or two would not bring this nation anywhere near the 'true libertarian' state that I believe you're afraid of. I just did the isidewith quiz and scored a mere 80% with Johnson (still my highest match). (In contrast to apparently 42% Trump 28% Stein, and 20% Clinton). Of course, I've heard many a die-hard Libertarian say that Johnson isn't a 'true' Libertarian (which seems to just be invoking the No True Scotsman fallacy to me).
Bottom line for me is that the amount of changes the Johnson administration would actually bring would be quite limited with Congress remaining approximately the same as it looks today, but I would probably agree with whatever actions he is able to take.
Thankfully, change in the USA is slow, and prevents public opinion's day-to-day changes from dictating public policy.
I'd agree with most of the more likely reforms that he would be able to implement in a single term, but the main point to me is that Mr. Johnson would act Constitutionally, revert unconstitutional actions from prior administrations, and would not abuse power to his whim. In contrast, I fear a Trump presidency and the rash decisions he could make by executive action and military commanding, and Hillary has also shown very poor judgment in high risk situations.

Re: Decision 2016
 

what numbers?
And I never pull from the ether, always my arse. :)

DS, I do not disagree I may live in a fantasy world.
Dive in.
The water is fine. :)

Re: Decision 2016
 

I reject the notion that we should decline to seek hard answers because simple answers, though they may be fantasies, are available. See the cartoon I posted above.

An additional problem with libertarianism is the problem of information flow, as dysole described. A free market only produces efficiently when the consumer knows what he or she is choosing. Setting aside the way in which prosaic things can have hidden dangers, it is (to use this word again) fantasy to think that private industry could produce things like antibiotics and electricity both (1) safely and (2) profitably without the government's guidance of the marketplace.

As for you, Nukatha, you propose that there should be a review of a small business to see if it really is what it says it is. That doesn't strike me as very "Libertarian."

Re: Decision 2016
 

I hate to admit it but maybe the problem is cultural.

Having recently gone through our longest prime minster race (I believe it was 164 days or about 5.4 months) it was very cordial. The ads from the incumbent Harper against Trudeau were "cute" and a little funny saying he was not ready but had great hair. The NDP (our leftist party) were equally even handed. However, Justin gets the "Most Canadian" award for refusing to bad mouth any of his opponents in Ad's and instead appearing in them personally to state his platform and what he would do for Canada.

Looking overseas Countries like Sweden highly value Honesty and Integrity to the point that "underhanded" businesses cannot survive and will quickly be black balled. In that kind of environment "Hate or Dishonest" ads would actually hurt the candidate placing them more than the candidate they would be attacking. The American system actually seems to thrive off conflict and embrace every dirty trick in the book. Trump seems to revealing in that Environment.

It is the difference between RISK or Monopoly and Catan or Carcassonne. In one it is about destroying your opponent, while in the other it is about getting the most points for yourself.

Re: Decision 2016
 

Great perspective wriggz. Thanks for sharing that.

It would be cool if people in the US were simply better.

value Honesty and Integrity. Heck of a concept.

Re: Decision 2016
 

That's a whole different can of worms. For better or for worse, we are the way we are. There is no starting gun, where countries all start the same way and have the same opportunity to follow a track one way or another. They all start at different times and places, and have to hack through their own jungles. The American jungle has some hazards, and some history, that the Canadian jungle does not have. Lucky for the Canadians.

We should strive to be better. I don't think pretending that there are simple solutions to complex problems is the way to get there.

We go to experts when we want services. I expect my doctor to treat my broken leg; I expect my grocer to sell me food. When I have a complicated medical problem, I don't treat myself. I don't go to the grocer. I go to the doctor. I listen carefully and think critically and I may consider getting a different doctor instead, but I don't go to the grocer, and I don't treat myself.

My 2 cents.

Re: Decision 2016
 

I would not blame the people. The way corporations are set up it almost begs it to be that way. 24-News also feeds into the competitive nature of politics.


The media has great power and there are certain stories that get played out that shape culture. The Cultural history of Canada is based on Survival and Peace. From just trying not to die in the cold, to refusing to sanction a standing army after the war of 1812, to abandoning the Avero Aero (top class fighter jet before it's time), The stories we tell here are different. Hell just compare the National anthems and you will see the cultural difference.


The US has never really been scared by war (in the same way Europe was), was built on exploration (and some exploitation), and the cultural story is about being the biggest and best. There is also the narrative of the Lone hero overcoming huge odds, rather than a story of co-operation. Those stories get told over and over in movies, TV and they shape how people look at things.


No other single country could have done what the US has done. NASA went to the moon damn it. The Civil rights movement is something to be immensely proud of and it's effect on the rest of the world. The Media coming out of Hollywood has been amazing. It is a wonderful country with wonderful people, and Likely the first place that a rebellion from Alien overlords would start.


That all said, knowing where culture comes from can help avoid the pitfalls of Loud mouths abusing a collective history for his own gains.