Argentina's Trump bound for Presidency?

[Jamalisms]

3 minutes ago, Justafan said:

Okay. I see where you're coming from. I don't think the intention of the speech was to give a detailed analytical criticism of a specific form of capitalism or socialism so much as to argue that there is a spectrum and the closer you can get to free markets and the further from collectivism, the better it will be for society. Obviously, there are legitimate arguments for something not on the extremes of that spectrum but the overall critique I think was fair for the forum it was given in.

 

The level of detail you are referring to is fine but when have we ever seen a politician give that sort of analysis in one of these speeches? I think that's unfair standard to expect. I also think it demonstrates that he's not just some crazy dumb madman that talks to dogs that some were trying to paint him as. 

 

Was just finishing typing something similar (below) when you posted this ...

 

Just to restate a different way without the word "demagoguery" because it's a negative term and can turn people off to the point:

 

This speech is essentially him citing a few things to anchor his commentary and suggest that he had given it thought and his commentary is founded in reason ... but then he just launches into taking points without a clear link between the anchor and the commentary. It's not a reasoned argument and doesn't try to be. It's just talking points with a facade of reason.

 

Sometimes that's fine because you have limited time and not everyone appreciates a thesis in speech form.

 

But this sort of things is also all I've ever heard from him and that's where applying that word I'm avoiding starts to feel quite fair. I started out suspicious of him but every time I talk to friends in Argentina and every time I watch something with an (attempted) open mind, I'm left more and more convinced it's the only gear he has.

[Justafan]

25 minutes ago, Jamalisms said:

 

Was just finishing typing something similar (below) when you posted this ...

 

Just to restate a different way without the word "demagoguery" because it's a negative term and can turn people off to the point:

 

This speech is essentially him citing a few things to anchor his commentary and suggest that he had given it thought and his commentary is founded in reason ... but then he just launches into taking points without a clear link between the anchor and the commentary. It's not a reasoned argument and doesn't try to be. It's just talking points with a facade of reason.

 

Sometimes that's fine because you have limited time and not everyone appreciates a thesis in speech form.

 

But this sort of things is also all I've ever heard from him and that's where applying that word I'm avoiding starts to feel quite fair. I started out suspicious of him but every time I talk to friends in Argentina and every time I watch something with an (attempted) open mind, I'm left more and more convinced it's the only gear he has.

I can respect that. 

[IsntLifeFunny]

We've seen unfettered capitalism. It ended up with Slavery and then evolved into Upton Sinclair's the Jungle. 

 

Any argument stemming from the market knows best is just us absurd as the government knows best. 

 

As to what Argentina needs to do, well they're probably on a better track with this guy than what they've been dealing with the past decade. 

[IsntLifeFunny]

54 minutes ago, Justafan said:

 

 

that he's not just some crazy dumb madman that talks to dogs that some were trying to paint him as. 

He could still be that and an upgrade to their country. His dogs must be and keep solid council amongst themselves.

[Justafan]

1 minute ago, IsntLifeFunny said:

We've seen unfettered capitalism. It ended up with Slavery and then evolved into Upton Sinclair's the Jungle. 

 

Any argument stemming from the market knows best is just us absurd as the government knows best. 

 

As to what Argentina needs to do, well they're probably on a better track with this guy than what they've been dealing with the past decade. 

I agree with that. I think it's pretty obvious that free market capitalism in its purest form is not what we want. I also think it's pretty obvious that Marxism and collectivism are just as bad, if not worse. The argument, IMO, is about what level of responsibility and authority the government should have to regulate, plan, protect, and interfere in the economic market. I wholeheartedly agree with @Jamalismsis that this is far more complicated and nuanced than what is being discussed in the speech or could be discussed on this forum. 

 

I think the government has a responsibility to protect workers, ensure social safety nets, preserve our resources, and be responsible for enterprises not well managed by the private market, such as defense. Beyond those capacities, I think the benefit of the doubt should usually go to the market and private business, and this is where I think I will disagree with a lot of people here who - don't want to put words in people's mouths - MAY believe that the government should be used to solve most if not all problems. I have a problem with the idea that problems are something to be solved by others using other people's money. I have a problem with a political class - such as the one we have in Congress, and I have a problem with beaurocrats who seem to serve themselves before the people and the state and have very little recourse from the people - whom the state is supposed to serve - to remove them. 

 

Regardless, I think he makes some great points, and yes, he uses some talking points. I also think it's fair to challenge those talking points. 

 

 

[Justafan]

7 minutes ago, IsntLifeFunny said:

He could still be that and an upgrade to their country. His dogs must be and keep solid council amongst themselves.

Come on, don't be ridiculous. That was obviously a political chop job to discredit him during the campaign. Listen to him speak. This isn't Trump. 

[IsntLifeFunny]

26 minutes ago, Justafan said:

Come on, don't be ridiculous. That was obviously a political chop job to discredit him during the campaign. Listen to him speak. This isn't Trump. 

It was low key a barb at Republicans. If he did talk to his dogs and kept them as council I would take him over Trump.

 

I said when the thread started I'm interested how it all develops. I believe in quite a few tenets of libertarianism. I don't know if they play out well when taken to scale so I'm watching it unfold and keeping an open mind about it. 

[Jamalisms]

I believe there are a few self-identified libertarians (or libertarian-leaning) here.

 

For those who are, I'm curious whether or not you've ever looked into the demographics of libertarians in the US and if you have a thought as to why the demographics skew the way they do.

[Justafan]

6 hours ago, Jamalisms said:

I believe there are a few self-identified libertarians (or libertarian-leaning) here.

 

For those who are, I'm curious whether or not you've ever looked into the demographics of libertarians in the US and if you have a thought as to why the demographics skew the way they do.

Take this for what it's worth because even though I sympathize with libertarians on many issues, I don't consider myself libertarian. They are completely non-interventionalist, and I am not; they believe in open borders, and I do not, and they would reduce government to extremes that I believe would be irresponsible.

 

I looked this up. I honestly had no idea it was skewed this way, with 72% of the party considering themselves white-non-Hispanic, but I don't think it means much either way.  America is 67% white, so while it doesn't have as much diversity as, say, the Democratic party, I would argue that the Libertarian party is more closely aligned to US demographics than the Democrat party, with a whopping 90+% of African Americans voting Democrat, 70% of Asians, and 60-70% of Hispanics in the US. It's pretty clear, in my opinion, why many minorities would have staunch support for the Democrats, which probably also explains why far fewer can be found in other parties - Republicans far more heavily skewed white than Libertarians, for example.  

 

At the end of the day, we're talking about a party with 300 elected officials and only about 600,000 registered voters. The racial divides between the two major political parties are a much bigger concern, in my opinion. 

Edited February 2, 2024 by Justafan

[Jamalisms]

The US is under 60% white non-Hispanic. And I've seen estimates libertarians are even higher than 72%, but even 72% is much higher than the US pop.

 

Libertarians also skew pretty high towards males. And it's younger than the general pop.

[IsntLifeFunny]

Libertarianism is at its core the closest thing resembling the Wild Wild West incorporated as the government. It doesn't work and isn't functional for a society. 

 

Where I do agree with it is the Government is rarely a solution. It also believes fully in live an let live and the government should not have much if any say in how people behave if they aren't harming anyone. Women's rights, LGBTQ, trans issues...yeah all fall well under the umbrella without the Liberal browbeating I see from many. It isn't a judgemental standpoint from a Libertarian's POV. It's a logical basis of people can do as they please within reason and the government should not have any say. 

 

This also goes well with racial issues and our history of Slavery. A Libertarian would philosophically abhor the notion the government could institute slavery. It also would say one of the only functions of government would be to stop such a thing. 

 

Less incarceration for less offenses. Less taxes and smaller government. Less intrusion into foreign conflicts...etc

 

It has some good facets to it, but as a structure it doesn't work because no one ends up actually being accountable for much, if anything. 

Edited February 2, 2024 by IsntLifeFunny

[Jamalisms]

24 minutes ago, IsntLifeFunny said:

Libertarianism is at its core the closest thing resembling the Wild Wild West incorporated as the government. It doesn't work and isn't functional for a society. 

 

Where I do agree with it is the Government is rarely a solution. It also believes fully in live an let live and the government should not have much if any say in how people behave if they aren't harming anyone. Women's rights, LGBTQ, trans issues...yeah all fall well under the umbrella without the Liberal browbeating I see from many. It isn't a judgemental standpoint from a Libertarian's POV. It's a logical basis of people can do as they please within reason and the government should not have any say. 

 

This also goes well with racial issues and our history of Slavery. A Libertarian would philosophically abhor the notion the government could institute slavery. It also would say one of the only functions of government would be to stop such a thing. 

 

Less incarceration for less offenses. Less taxes and smaller government. Less intrusion into foreign conflicts...etc

 

It has some good facets to it, but as a structure it doesn't work because no one ends up actually being accountable for much, if anything. 

 

Any thoughts on why this appeals to younger white men far more than others?

[IsntLifeFunny]

7 minutes ago, Jamalisms said:

 

Any thoughts on why this appeals to younger white men far more than others?

Less government. 

[IsntLifeFunny]

And yes, there is a racial side of Libertarianism for sure, but that's because idiots will idiot. They think libertarians believe so strongly in the 10th Amendment that under thst type of government slavery would be sanctioned and allowed. 

[Jamalisms]

54 minutes ago, IsntLifeFunny said:

Less government. 

 

Why are younger white men, compared to other demographics, more interested in less government?