Who would you like to see win the Republican and Democratic nominations?

[|Elflocko|]

 
I feel the same way about Hillary

I simply can't see myself voting for her. She makes bad decisions at every turn, and has a twenty year history of doing so...

[|OneHeartBeat|]

 
I still think there's a good chance Warren will run. I just don't see Hillary making it all the way through the process. At some point, I see the left tossing her aside, and pressuring Warren to run. Could be wrong though.

I think she'll get the nomination, but I don't think she'll win the election.

[MichaelWeston]

I think she'll get the nomination, but I don't think she'll win the election.

 

The democrat will win I think. It's almost a sure thing. We have more voters and the republicans don't have one reasonable candidate. 

[Jamie_B]

I think she'll get the nomination, but I don't think she'll win the election.

 

 

While its still very early she's pretty much leading every republican

 

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/president/

[|kennethmw|]

I plan on voting for Paul in the primary. Unfortunately I don't think he has much of a chance, the establishment dickhead Republicans hate him and are scared of him upsetting business as usual, and will/are going after him. If he somehow could get the nomination though, I think he would have a good chance in the general election. He would get a LOT of the independent vote and even some of the Democrat votes. ( the KKK nonsense is of course nonsense)
 
If I have to vote for Jeb Bush, it would be the hardest vote I ever cast, even though I pretty much always have to hold my nose when voting. I'll never vote for a Democrat though, and not voting for whichever Republican is nominated is like a vote for the Democrat. Same with voting 3rd party, at least in a national election.

See, I used to not be able to understand that kind of thinking, I used to occasionally vote for a republican. But, never again. I would rather vote for a rabid dog, less chance of infection.

[BengalBacker]

See, I used to not be able to understand that kind of thinking, I used to occasionally vote for a republican. But, never again. I would rather vote for a rabid dog, less chance of infection.

 

I used to vote for only Democrats.

[BengalBacker]

 

and the republicans don't have one reasonable candidate. 

 

That depends entirely on whether you lean right or left. I think there are some good candidates on the right.

[MichaelWeston]

 
That depends entirely on whether you lean right or left. I think there are some good candidates on the right.

Who?

[BengalBacker]

Who?

 

The ones you think are batshit crazy. Just like I think Bernie Sanders is batshit crazy.

[BengalBacker]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rjRBG4nHfm0

 

 

 

Rand Paul is pissing everyone off these days. I love it.

[MichaelWeston]

 
The ones you think are batshit crazy. Just like I think Bernie Sanders is batshit crazy.

What makes him crazy?

[BengalBacker]

What makes him crazy?

 

It was more a figure of speech, meant to be more humorous than literal. I'm sure he's not batshit crazy, any more than the people I would support. It's just a difference in visions of what the country should be. I see government as a necessary evil that should be as limited as possible. (and I'm not talking about anarchy Jamie) If he's a self avowed Socialist, he would be the polar opposite of that.

[Jamie_B]

No, you don't realize you are talking about anarchy, that's the difference.

[Jamie_B]

 

 

 

Fuck Rand Paul

[Jamie_B]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUXwDMqjC-A

[BengalBacker]

No, you don't realize you are talking about anarchy, that's the difference.

 

No I'm not.

 

 

 

Fuck Rand Paul

 

 

He's right.

[BengalBacker]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUXwDMqjC-A

 

He was right again.

[BengalBacker]

Full Definition of ANARCHY

1

a :  absence of government

 

b :  a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority

 

c :  a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government

2

a :  absence or denial of any authority or established order

 

b :  absence of order :  disorder <not manicured plots but a wild anarchy of nature — Israel Shenker>

 

 

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anarchy

 

Do you have your own definition of anarchy? That's Merriam Webster's, and it's certainly not what a Libertarian is for.

[Jamie_B]

He's not right, he's a fucking clown. Slavery? For upholding the Hippocratic oath that you agreed to when you decided to become a Doctor?

 

Maybe you should read the Hippocratic oath, because there is nothing in it saying "but only if they can afford it"

 

 

A Modern Version of the Hippocratic Oath

I swear to fulfill, to the best of my ability and judgment, this covenant:

I will respect the hard-won scientific gains of those physicians in whose steps I walk, and gladly share such knowledge as is mine with those who are to follow.

I will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures which are required, avoiding those twin traps of overtreatment and therapeutic nihilism.

I will remember that there is art to medicine as well as science, and that warmth, sympathy, and understanding may outweigh the surgeon's knife or the chemist's drug.

I will not be ashamed to say "I know not," nor will I fail to call in my colleagues when the skills of another are needed for a patient's recovery.

I will respect the privacy of my patients, for their problems are not disclosed to me that the world may know. Most especially must I tread with care in matters of life and death. If it is given me to save a life, all thanks. But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty. Above all, I must not play at God.

I will remember that I do not treat a fever chart, a cancerous growth, but a sick human being, whose illness may affect the person's family and economic stability. My responsibility includes these related problems, if I am to care adequately for the sick.

I will prevent disease whenever I can, for prevention is preferable to cure.

I will remember that I remain a member of society, with special obligations to all my fellow human beings, those sound of mind and body as well as the infirm.

If I do not violate this oath, may I enjoy life and art, respected while I live and remembered with affection thereafter. May I always act so as to preserve the finest traditions of my calling and may I long experience the joy of healing those who seek my help.

[Jamie_B]

Full Definition of ANARCHY

1

a :  absence of government

 

b :  a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority

 

c :  a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government

2

a :  absence or denial of any authority or established order

 

b :  absence of order :  disorder <not manicured plots but a wild anarchy of nature — Israel Shenker>

 

 

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anarchy

 

Do you have your own definition of anarchy? That's Merriam Webster's, and it's certainly not what a Libertarian is for.

 

 

http://forum.go-bengals.com/index.php?/topic/75818-why-libertarianism-doesnt-work/

 

From the article I posted in that link.

 

"True Libertarians believe in just enough government to protect private property and personal safety; without those protections, they argue, anarchy ensues."

 

There is alot more that needs to be protected than just private property and personal safety for anarchy to ensue, or did you not pay attention in 2008 during our economic collapse?

[Homer_Rice]

A couple of thoughts:

 

1 ) I'm really glad that Paul did the filibuster last week on NSA surveillance. Some people might think that it was a grandstanding move but I disagree. He's clearly opposed to this sort of intrusive behavior and has a consistent history of being against this--in service to his ideas about liberty. I just wish that there were more elected government employees like Paul who would stand together in oppo to the policy stain that is the Patriot Act, even if there are fundamental disagreements philosophically about the reasons for being in opposition.

 

2 ) I think the possibility of a Jeb/Hillary contest is pretty high. It bothers me. It's another clear sign that the democratic component of republican government is being overridden by powerful insider interests. This tendency has always been a potential (and sometimes actual) element of our governance because of how our system is constructed, but the imbalances we are recently seeing are pretty stark regarding the extent to which the popular will is being disregarded. The current administration's response to the 2007-8 economic crisis is a case study (and hopefully will be treated as such by future historians) of this kind of disregard. The continuity between the initial Bush admin response and the Obama admin response is remarkable. The dissonance and disappointment of a substantial number of citizens is pretty reasonable given that many folks held hope that the Obama admin would reign in Wall Street, as might be expected of a party which lays claim to acting in the interests of the common classes. And yet, we're going to end up with two more "menu-sanctioned" candidates--each of whom will most likely expend a great deal of lip-service to garner the popular vote but will be compliant administrators for the current corporativist power brokers. And while there are differences between the two, the bottom line will only look slightly different depending upon which one wins. The guarenteed losers will be the middle and working classes, as has been the case since the early 70s.

 

So, what's a "commoner" to do? This has been a particular question on my mind for the last year or so. Where in our history are there examples of popular will being organized in forceful ways to shift policy-orientation in ways that favor the interest of the many and not merely the few? There are a number of examples to consider, imo, including the Civil Rights Movement, the anti-Vietnam protests. These are within the memories of at least some of the folks here. Going a little further back, there is the special case of Roosevelt's New Deal--an example of one element of the elite forcing other, more recalcitrant elements of the elite to shift gears (or perhaps better said, to lighten up with the boot on the neck stuff.) But I think the best historical example comes from the stew of third-party movements that arose after the Civil War, especially if one includes more broadly the origins of the labor and women's movements in this period. Greenbackers, farmer's alliances and industrial labor organizing all utilized some common tactics that centered around educating and mobilizing their respective constituencies towards gaining positions of power and influence.

 

I think that common folks, no matter what their particular philosophical and political bent might be, could stand to benefit from serious study of that period. Towards that end, I'd highly recomend starting with a book written by the late Lawrence Goodwyn: The Populist Moment. The most important missing requirement in current politics today is an informed citizenry which organizes towards their specific goals with integrity. Right now we need to populate all elected positions, from the ground up, with people who are consistent in their beliefs, who have integrity, and who are amenable to minimizing the dirty tricks and letting ideas rise or sink on their merits. It seems to me that this is the bare minimum for folks to even have a chance at restoring some balance to our political system. And, again, at this level, folks like Paul and Sanders are indispensible to our system--at least they don't spend a lot of time being trimmers, which was my complaint and worry about Obama in 2008 for those who remember our back and forth at that time.

 

Your mind matters. Your willingness to speak your truth to power matters. Only then can an honest debate about policy choices emerge.

[Homer_Rice]

There's libertarian anarchy and there is socialist anarchy (see Noam Chomsky.) As utopian outlooks on the world, there is a lot to be learned from both points of view. Just as there is merit in contemplating other, older utopian visions like Plato's Republic, Thomas More's Utopia (the word being greek for "no-where") or Campanella's City of the Sun, just to name a few.

 

What you are objecting to, Jamie, is an extreme form of classical liberalism, which is a product of the Scottish Enlightenment and particularly associated with folks like John Locke and Adam Smith (on steriods.)

 

It seems to me that it would be more fruitful to orient one's criticism on that basis. Among the important questions to ask are these:

--To what extent ought we have an activist government?

--What was the intent of the founders in this regard? (Keeping in mind that the seeds of modern day disagreements can be found in the views of those who participated in, or had influence upon, the Constitutional Convention.)

--How have these orientations influenced policy-making over the course of our history? (Plenty of examples for both vectors over the last couple of centuries.)

 

As you and I tend to list to the port side, I suggest you pick up a copy of this little book. Not a bad place to start.

[Jamie_B]

Yes I very much disagree with Laissez Faire

 

 

Book Ordered.

[Jamie_B]

Oh and let's keep in mind the notion of the government using force if necessary has been there since the founding of the country, just look at both Shay's and the Whiskey Rebellion.

[MichaelWeston]

So, what's a "commoner" to do? This has been a particular question on my mind for the last year or so. Where in our history are there examples of popular will being organized in forceful ways to shift policy-orientation in ways that favor the interest of the many and not merely the few? There are a number of examples to consider, imo, including the Civil Rights Movement, the anti-Vietnam protests. These are within the memories of at least some of the folks here. Going a little further back, there is the special case of Roosevelt's New Deal--an example of one element of the elite forcing other, more recalcitrant elements of the elite to shift gears (or perhaps better said, to lighten up with the boot on the neck stuff.) But I think the best historical example comes from the stew of third-party movements that arose after the Civil War, especially if one includes more broadly the origins of the labor and women's movements in this period. Greenbackers, farmer's alliances and industrial labor organizing all utilized some common tactics that centered around educating and mobilizing their respective constituencies towards gaining positions of power and influence.

 

Isnt this essentially what the Occupy Wall Street wanted to do?