Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Ted Cruz

7 (6.5%)

Rick Santorum

16 (14.8%)

Michelle Bachmann

13 (12%)

Chris Christie

23 (21.3%)

Rand Paul

49 (45.4%)

Total Members Voted: 107

[Zangi]

I am a little amazed there aren't more socially conservative, economically left wing religious nutjobs over there. After all, Jesus was all about helping the poor, paying your taxes, and hating merchant bankers. He was pretty much a socialist!

American Christians....aren't exactly in consensus on that point.

Wut?  Prosperity through faith?  Believe harder!

[mainiac]

I personally believe letting one party have such a strangle hold is a horrible idea. Now, if only there was a political party that was fiscally conservative but socially liberal... Maybe with a candidate that rhymes with Bary Lohnson.

That party is called the democratic party.

Back around 1990 the democrats gave up on being left economically and started selling mainstream conservative economics.  That's why Clinton's signature reforms were A) cutting government spending on social welfare and defense spending B) raising taxes to finish balancing the budget.  That's a very conservative domestic agenda.  That's why Obama's signature domestic agenda was a market driven reform of the healthcare system and why he refused to nationalize failed banks and why he keeps accepting pro-cyclical spending cuts that are horrible for the economy.

The republicans of course try to one up the democrats from going from economically conservative to economically reactionary, but that's neither here nor there.  The democrats are the party that all the self proclaimed disenfranchised social liberal economic conservatives claim to want.

I am a little amazed there aren't more socially conservative, economically left wing religious nutjobs over there. After all, Jesus was all about helping the poor, paying your taxes, and hating merchant bankers. He was pretty much a socialist!

It stopped being about christianity a long time ago.  The christian label is just a tribal identifier.  It's like how my girlfriend's mom thinks about herself as a hippie but says a lot of hateful stuff and doesn't take care of the environment.  Only those trying to gain entry into the group need to prove their credentials.

[GlyphGryph]

An electorate suspicious of Catholicism? What an alien place... I'm pretty sure we only recently had our first non-christian PM.

Historically a significant portion of Americans had considered Catholics to be "not-Christians", no more "Christian" than muslims were (after all, Muslims still believe in Jesus as well).

[Zangi]

Not sure where this goes... but it is on the same continent.

This is what happens when the government can't/won't protect its people.

Its seems like a war is going down in our backyard...

[Frumple]

Eh, it's fairly relevant to state politics, too. Large portion of that mess is due to American social policies, after all. Cartels getting huge chunks of their funding because of the states' bullshit war on drugs, both sides probably getting at least a plurality of their weapons from American dealers, directly or otherwise.

It's a conflict funded and armed in no small part because of the states. Fits here well as anywhere.

[PTTG??]

Man I wish someone taught those militias basic trigger discipline.

[mainiac]

Man I wish someone taught those militias basic trigger discipline.

the only guy I see with his finger on the trigger is clearly doing firing practice.  I can't see well enough to tell if the safeties are on.  What makes you think they aren't doing trigger discipline?

[Mictlantecuhtli]

In b4 US/Mexico government supply guns to NARCO to keep the drug ring unbroken.

[wierd]

Too late, the USgovt has been doing that for at least 15 years already.

In fact, the US supplies 90% of the cartels' guns.

The clueless in the US still think the "War on drugs" is about keeping drugs off the streets, when in reality it is more about ensuring a steady supply of those drugs, so that there will be a steady supply of police action required.

[Steeled]

Eh, it's fairly relevant to state politics, too. Large portion of that mess is due to American social policies, after all. Cartels getting huge chunks of their funding because of the states' bullshit war on drugs, both sides probably getting at least a plurality of their weapons from American dealers, directly or otherwise.

It's a conflict funded and armed in no small part because of the states. Fits here well as anywhere.

I believe M72 LAWs and AK47s are standard in most american gunstores, why yesterday I bought a few GAU-8 Avengers and slapped them onto my truck.

[misko27]

Too late, the USgovt has been doing that for at least 15 years already.

In fact, the US supplies 90% of the cartels' guns.

The clueless in the US still think the "War on drugs" is about keeping drugs off the streets, when in reality it is more about ensuring a steady supply of those drugs, so that there will be a steady supply of police action required.

Yeah that isn't needlessly paranoid and unrealistic.

You misread the statistic. It's not "The US government supplies them with guns.", it's "loose gun laws allow them to get all the guns they like", which the NRA took issue with. Of course, you could say the loose gun laws are designed to give guns to cartels, but that is CSTDT-level crazy. Timecube crazy.

[GlyphGryph]

While many US corporations are certainly quite happy to sell to the cartels, and many politicians are certainly happy to turn a blind eye in exchange for a few favours, the only instances of the US directly selling arms to the (Mexican, anyway) cartels are through programs created in an attempt to shut down said gun trade.

When the US wants cartels to have guns, like the ones we have backed in south/central america and the middle east and parts of asia, we usually give them the guns for free, and its for some express political purpose beyond the drug war.

The governments guilt on this front is based on sins of intentional negligence rather than active subversion, and has certainly resulted in a good amount of internal conflict.

[wierd]

Misko, you misunderstand the postion.

It isn't that the USG is actively giving guns away to the cartels;

It is more the result if a comedy of errors, like this:

There is a problem with drugs.
The government enacts stronger policies to stop drug use.
Those stronger policies require stronger enforcement
Those newly expanded enforcement agencies have an escallating problem, because they can only enforce under threat of violence, and their own violene is being met with inreasing violence.
These agencies petition the government for ever increasing resources, while losing ground.
The government expands resource allocations to the agencies, and makes it easier for them to obtain these resources.
This also makes it easier for the people they are violently engaging to obtain those same resources.
Feedback loop 3 steps higher up.

Eventually the issue stops being about the drugs, and starts being about the enforcement.
It isn't purposeful, it simply happens. The government is responsible, because it continues the cycle of violent enforcement, instigating ever more violent reprisal.

The more tactical approach would be to legalize and control the drug market, and deny the drug lords financial support from addicts, by supplying superior quality drugs at superiorly low prices. Tax the sales of the drugs, and use the tax money to fund rehab and drug treatment centers.

However, I believe that there *is* some malfeasance at work, in that the enforcement supply sector has seen "considerable growth", and now there are vested interests in seeing that growth continue.

[Lord Shonus]

The vast majority of the weapons used in the Mexican drug conflict are illegal to sell in the US except to persons holding a difficult to obtain, very expensive licence. A "true" AK-47 or M16 is a five-figure plus gun, although once you own one such weapon, it is much cheaper to obtain more.

The weapons commonly used are, however, of the same types used by Mexican army and police units. Note that the sum total of the evidence for the "majority" of cartel arms being US sourced is claims by the Mexican president, someone who has a vested interest in securing foreign blame for the problem. There are certainly arms crossing the border southward, just as there are drugs and immigrants crossing it. But there is zero evidence to suggest those kind of quantities.

As for legalization as a panacea, it won't work for most drugs. When heroin, cocaine, and the like were legal, addiction rates were several times higher than they are today, and regulations are an easily bypassed joke. Certainly, legalizing marijuana and resisting calls to re-ban alcohol have merit, because the former is neither addictive or dangerous, and the dangers of the latter are clearly less than the social cost of control attempts. There may be other "soft" drugs that fit in this category. But you should never be able to legally buy crystal meth or crack cocaine under any circumstances.

The mexican drug war is ultimately caused by a weak government who's opponents have nigh-unlimited supplies of cash and are completely immune to prosecution through bribed cops and judges. If, for example, joint US-Mexican law enforcement with a bodyguard (a battalion of Marines, for example) were to arrest them and extradite to the US (the courts of which are mostly out of the reach of the cartels), there is a very good chance that this could turn the tide. Sovereignity issues prevent this, however.

[Mictlantecuhtli]

The mexican drug war is ultimately caused by a weak government who's opponents have nigh-unlimited supplies of cash and are completely immune to prosecution through bribed cops and judges. If, for example, joint US-Mexican law enforcement with a bodyguard (a battalion of Marines, for example) were to arrest them and extradite to the US (the courts of which are mostly out of the reach of the cartels), there is a very good chance that this could turn the tide. Sovereignity issues prevent this, however.

The prospect of US-Mexico cooperation is sullied by the fact that the NARCOs have informants in every area of the Mexican security apparatus. Something not ignored by the US forces attempting to stem off the violence in the near-border.