Note to College kid supporting Sanders

[joepistole]

He views Clinton the same way I do: In my opinion, she's a political animal. Sanders actually has a heart that you can see up front; whereas Clinton's sways whichever way the polls indicate. She's a corporate clown, in my opinion.

Name one successful POTUS who wasn't a political animal. You can't. The best leaders are political animals. You can be a political animal and still have integrity. Hillary hasn't had an opportunity to show just what kind of leader she would be, but I don't think she is a liar. I fear Hillary doesn't have the fire in her gut to effect true reforms in Washington (e.g. election and ethics reforms). Obama wanted such reforms and had passion, but he didn't get far with either. I think Obama was more than a little naive. Sanders has the fire in the gut, but I don't think he has the political savvy needed to carry out his stated agenda. I like Sanders's passion for election reforms. But I'm concerned about his political abilities, knowledge, wisdom, and his ability to control his passions.

I think the difference between Clinton and Sanders is huge. I respect Sanders because he is real. I despise Clinton because I think she would say anything to anyone depending on the leverage she might gain.

There are differences, I wouldn't call them huge. Clinton is a little more practical than Sanders. I think they have the same goals but each would chose a different path to that goal. Sanders has the passion of a samurai warrior. Unfortunately, I don't think he has the wisdom, knowledge and political savvy needed to accomplish his goals. So, as I see it, Clinton and Sanders compliment each other. Clinton has the skills and political savvy, and Sanders has the passion.

In any case, given your posts in Sciforms, neither of you would vote for a democrat in the general election under any circumstance.

The person who really bothers me on the Republican side is Canadian Ted. He's the politician you think Hillary is. Canadian Ted, is the kind of guy who will say and do anything in order to advance his political agenda, regardless of the cost to the nation. And you don't have to look to far to see evidence of same. Canadian Ted on multiple occasions, as a US Senator, threatened the full faith and credit of the United States in order to advance his political agenda, taking the nation to the edge of default. That's totally unacceptable. The full faith and credit of the United states should never become a political tool.

If you have been paying attention to the news, you should know Canadian Ted engaged in some election shenanigans in Iowa, sending out messages that Carson has withdrawn and sending official looking notices to voters telling them they were violation of law of voting laws.

And then there is the fact, that Canadian Ted rose to prominence within the Republican Party by writing policy for Baby Bush. Canadian Ted was the architect of Baby Bush's immigration policies which are now in direct opposition to his current immigration policies. Honestly, I think all of the Republican presidential candidates with the exception of Governors' Kasich, Bush, and Huckleberry would say and do anything to become POTUS.

 

[DaveC426913]

Tee hee!

I think that "electrical college" process was necessary 100 years ago, but now direct voting for president

Didn't you mean direct volting?

 

[Yazata]

...or maybe you don't understand the terms you use. It has become popular these days for folks on the extreme right end of the political spectrum to misrepresent themselves. The Koch brothers are describing themselves as "classical liberals". But there is nothing classical or liberal about their ideology. It's just good old fashioned libertarianism.

I believe that they are using the term 'classical liberal' correctly. I very definitely consider myself a classical liberal.

https://dlc.dcccd.edu/usgov1-2/origins-of-classical-liberalism

http://www.iep.utm.edu/polphil/#SH3a

Liberalism began in the early modern period as a reaction against the divine right of kings and against the kind of centralized state authoritarianism that imagines society as a single organism with the ruling monarch its decision-making brain. Liberalism emphasized the right of individuals to choose their own paths in life, with as much freedom from state interference as is conducive with public order. This is suggested by the political philosophy's name, which is derived from 'liberty'. Liberals were historically the 'libertyists'. The 18th century American revolutionaries were mostly liberals in this sense.

1. Classical liberals give priority to individual freedom in social, political and economic life.

2. They see the individual as more important than the collective and call for limited representative government that draws its legitimacy from the people.

3. Classical liberals disagree about the exact role of the state, but generally call for states that are small and kept in bounds by known rules.

4. Free speech and mutual toleration are viewed as essential foundations for peaceful cooperation between free people. Many classical liberals argue that there is no justification interfering with people's personal choices, provided that nobody is harmed by them. Many cite the benefits of allowing diverse ideas and opinions.

5. Classical liberals argue that voluntary human cooperation gives rise to spontaneous social orders (such as markets, customs, culture and language) that are infinitely more complex, efficient and adaptive than anything that could be designed centrally.

Here's an entire pdf book on the subject:

http://www.iea.org.uk/sites/default/files/publications/files/Butler-interactive.pdf

 

[joepistole]

I believe that they are using the term 'classical liberal' correctly. I very definitely consider myself a classical liberal.

https://dlc.dcccd.edu/usgov1-2/origins-of-classical-liberalism

http://www.iep.utm.edu/polphil/#SH3a

Liberalism began in the early modern period as a reaction against the divine right of kings and against the kind of centralized state authoritarianism that imagines society as a single organism with the ruling monarch its decision-making brain. Liberalism emphasized the right of individuals to choose their own paths in life, with as much freedom from state interference as is conducive with public order. This is suggested by the political philosophy's name, which is derived from 'liberty'. Liberals were historically the 'libertyists'. The 18th century American revolutionaries were mostly liberals in this sense.

1. Classical liberals give priority to individual freedom in social, political and economic life.

2. They see the individual as more important than the collective and call for limited representative government that draws its legitimacy from the people.

3. Classical liberals disagree about the exact role of the state, but generally call for states that are small and kept in bounds by known rules.

4. Free speech and mutual toleration are viewed as essential foundations for peaceful cooperation between free people. Many classical liberals argue that there is no justification interfering with people's personal choices, provided that nobody is harmed by them. Many cite the benefits of allowing diverse ideas and opinions.

5. Classical liberals argue that voluntary human cooperation gives rise to spontaneous social orders (such as markets, customs, culture and language) that are infinitely more complex, efficient and adaptive than anything that could be designed centrally.

Here's an entire pdf book on the subject:

http://www.iea.org.uk/sites/default/files/publications/files/Butler-interactive.pdf

As I previously wrote, classical liberalism is just window dressing for libertarians. A pig by another name, is still a pig.

Who doesn't appreciate and support individual freedoms? What's not to like? Who doesn't like mom and apple pie? I haven't met too many people who wish for less freedoms or cooperation. The problem is in the details. I have yet to meet any libertarian who can tell me in any meaningful manner what they mean by "small government" or how much government is too much government.

Here is the problem with your libertarian idealism, it doesn't fit reality. It requires people to stop behaving like people. Libertarianism suffers from the same ills which have vexed communism. It's just as unrealistic and just as dependent upon magical thinking. People are not going to stop behaving like people just because they are not regulated and have a small government. Not everyone is going to cooperate. People are not going to suddenly stop their avaricious miscreant ways just because they have no gatekeepers (i.e. regulators). Altruism will not rule the day, because that just isn't how people are constructed. The reason we have government is to advance the public good and ameliorate the problems with our nature.

"Our third and transformative president, Thomas Jefferson, road-tested libertarian principles in the White House — and achieved his greatest success by ditching them." - Rich Barlow

Unfortunately, in the libertarian world, spontaneous = magic, but in the real world magic is an illusion.

Some additional reading:
http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2013-09-05/libertarians-are-the-new-communists

http://www.businessinsider.com/why-libertarianism-fails-2012-12

 

[Bowser]

There are differences, I wouldn't call them huge. Clinton is a little more practical than Sanders. I think they have the same goals but each would chose a different path to that goal. Sanders has the passion of a samurai warrior. Unfortunately, I don't think he has the wisdom, knowledge and political savvy needed to accomplish his goals. So, as I see it, Clinton and Sanders compliment each other. Clinton has the skills and political savvy, and Sanders has the passion.

Political savvy? Don't you mean the willingness to say anything that might get her the vote. Honestly, how can anyone with an inch self respect support her? She's frickin evil, in my opinion. I simply don't trust her.

 

[joepistole]

Political savvy? Don't you mean the willingness to say anything that might get her the vote. Honestly, how can anyone with an inch self respect support her? She's frickin evil, in my opinion. I simply don't trust her.

Well, you have obviously been listening to a lot of right wing entertainment which has been spewing out a lot of anti-Hillary nonsense. A few years ago, when Hillary was running against Obama and when they thought she might run against Obama 3 years ago, those same sources were saying all kinds of nice things about Hillary. Funny how that happens, does that make those right wing entertainers evil?

I listened to the congressional hearing on Benghazi in their entirety, and there wasn't anything revealed which was untoward or impinged upon Hillary's character, much to the chagrin of Republicans conducting the hearings. Two, Hillary's position on gay marriage has changed over time. My position on gay marriage has changed over time too, similar to Hillary's, and I'm not running for public office, nor have I ever run for public office. Does that make me evil? Many Republicans, including those who are running for POTUS, have also changed their positions over time including , does that make them evil too? The Republican icon Ronald Reagan also changed his position on some issues over time. Hell he changed parties. Does that make him evil too? Just because a person changes their positions on issues doesn't make them evil.

As for NAFTA, Hillary had nothing to do with NAFTA. She was first lady, not POTUS. She supported her husband as first ladies have traditionally done. There is no evil in that. By the way, I opposed NAFTA at the time. Frankly, it disgusted me, and I'm a free trader. But I'm not going to blame Hillary for things her husband did. And on balance, her husband had a pretty successful two terms in office. But he was a bit naive and he did receive some bad advice from Greenspan, the Federal Reserve Chairman.

And finally, there isn't a politician out there, Republican or Democrat, who hasn't engaged in a little "sales puffery". It's what they do. They all try to make themselves look better even if it means stretching the truth a bit. Trump does it, Cruz does it. Rubio does it. They all do it. Life under the spotlight isn't easy. If Hillary was as slimy as you believe she is, she wouldn't have taken the more moderate positions she has taken. There wouldn't be any daylight between her positions and Sanders's positions. But there is. Sanders wants single payer healthcare, and single payer healthcare is very popular in Democratic circles, Hillary opposes single payer healthcare. She supports Obamacare.

One of the things that bothers me about the American right wing is its heavy reliance on deception and misinformation.

 

[sideshowbob]

The polity should best be a service organization seeing to the welfare of all it's citizens.

That's what I say.

Back in the 1970s, the opposition parties in Canada said, "the economy is out of control." My response was, "Good. I don't want the government controlling the economy." I'd rather see the government responding to the economic situation by making sure everybody is healthy and well-fed.

 

[sculptor]

It seems that every election we get to choose between someone representing the worst of the left wing or someone representing the worst of the right wing.

 

[joepistole]

It seems that every election we get to choose between someone representing the worst of the left wing or someone representing the worst of the right wing.

Unfortunately, it always seems to come down to the lesser of two evils. I wouldn't say Hillary is the worst on the left. I'm not impressed with any of the candidates running for office this cycle. At this point, I'd say Hillary is probably the best of a bad lot. Sanders has a lot of passion, his ideas on election reform are spot on, but his economic ideas, well, they need work.

Trump has said some very quirky and dangerous things in order to become the Republican front runner. But, I think, given Baby Bush 2.0, Kasich, and Huckleberry don't have a snowball's chance in hell of getting the nomination. I won't even discuss them. Rubio and Cruz are both unscrupulous chameleons with dangerous economic polices, I rule them out. As I said before anyone who threatens the full faith and credit of the US as they both have, especially Cruz, on multiple occasions, I can never vote for them. They both, but especially Cruz, are a real threat to the health and well-being of every American. As other Republicans have said, Cruz would be the end of the Republican Party, and maybe the nation, if he were to be elected.

I do think Trump is a smart man and that's why I don't think he is dumb enough to do the things he has promised to do if elected. While I think he will get the Republican nomination, I don't think he will win the general election.

 

[sculptor]

The problem will likely boil down to the superdelegates
Each one of them has the voting power of over 13,800 of the rest of us, and Clinton has already got 367 of those pledged to her compared to 14 pledged to Sanders.
That gives Clinton a head start of almost 5 million common votes(15% of the delegates)before a single ballot is cast.

How many primaries are decided on less than or more than 5 million votes?
The spread between Obama and Clinton in 2008 was only 41,622 popular votes.
(back of the envelope) for Sanders to win, he may need 66% of the popular vote?
What are the odds?

 

[joepistole]

The problem will likely boil down to the superdelegates
Each one of them has the voting power of over 13,800 of the rest of us, and Clinton has already got 367 of those pledged to her compared to 14 pledged to Sanders.
That gives Clinton a head start of almost 5 million common votes(15% of the delegates)before a single ballot is cast.

How many primaries are decided on less than or more than 5 million votes?
The spread between Obama and Clinton in 2008 was only 41,622 popular votes.
(back of the envelope) for Sanders to win, he may need 66% of the popular vote?
What are the odds?

Cruz won the Republican primary in Iowa with a total vote count of just 51,666 votes in a state that has over 3.1 million residents.

 

[sculptor]

oops, I should have specified that the numbers in #30 were for the national votes.
17,535,458, 48.1%(Obama), 17,493,836, 48.0%(Clinton),

 

[joepistole]

Rubio has an ongoing affair with a Washington lobbyist and Rubio's brother is a drug runner? Teaparty.org says so. http://www.teaparty.org/marco-rubio-affair-d-c-lobbyist-goes-public-134972/

"Marco Rubio's brother-in-law was the 'front man for an international drug-smuggling ring led by leopard-loving "cocaine cowboy" kingpin whose mansion was filled with big cats and a giraffe'"

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...on-filled-big-cats-giraffe.html#ixzz3zMTAnCow
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-kingpin-mansion-filled-big-cats-giraffe.html

 

[Billy T]

Iowa Democratic Party officials reported errors in the state's caucus results. The news comes just days after Hillary Clinton was named the official winner in Iowa. Defeating Bernie Sanders by two tenths of one percent, she took home 23 of the state's 44 delegates. Bernie Sanders was awarded the remaining 21 delegates.

However, those numbers are now subject to change, in light of newly confirmed discrepancies in the caucus results. According to one precinct secretary, the results announced at his precinct don't match those released by the Iowa Democratic Party. Discrepancies like these are currently under review. The final tally is likely to change.

What surprises me most is that Bernie has not noted the inconsistency of Clinton's claim to want / support/ campaign financing reforms with her accepting about a million dollars, over the years from wall street firms. He could point this action (instead of her words) is another instance of her "poor judgment" and of course, note again that he has no supper pack funding as she does.

 

[joepistole]

What surprises me most is that Bernie has not noted the inconsistency of Clinton's claim to want / support/ campaign financing reforms with her accepting about a million dollars, over the years from wall street firms. He could point this action (instead of her words) is another instance of her "poor judgment" and of course, note again that he has no supper pack funding as she does.

Just because Hillary has accepted money from "Wall Street firms" doesn't mean she exercised poor judgement. Virtually, every public official and wannabe public official has accepted money from "Wall Street firms" including President Obama. To not do so, would be like going to a gunfight with a single strand of straw. Campaign finance reforms will be difficult if not impossible. Obama during his 7 years in office has fought for campaign finance reform with virtually nothing to show for it. Unfortunately, money is the way the game is played. And it will take an insider to reform it.

Now I like much of what Sanders says about campaign finance reform, and I'm deeply disappointed Clinton isn't pushing campaign finance reform harder. But that doesn't mean Clinton is in the bag or that she has exercised "poor judgement". Sanders is calling for some pretty serious campaign finance reforms. Clinton has called for campaign reform lite, reversing Citizens United. Sanders to his credit goes further than just reversing Citizens United.

Additionally, Sanders has made much of Clinton's acceptance of campaign donations from Wall Street and acceptance of speaking fees from Wall Street. But again, none of that is new or untoward. Most if not virtually all presidential candidates of merit receive campaign donations from Wall Street. And virtually all previous secretaries of state have received speaking fees from Wall Street firms. It isn't unusual, it isn't untoward.

And then there is the issue of elect-ability, neither Clinton or Sanders will be able to effect any campaign finance reforms if they cannot get elected. That's why Clinton has accepted campaign donations from Wall Street. That's why Obama took campaign donations from Wall Street.

 

[sculptor]

As/re campaign finance reform.
The media industry make millions upon millions of dollars from political adds.
The best reform would be for the public airways to be free for the politicians so that they could dedicate themselves to actually doing the jobs for which they were elected rather than spending most of their time begging for money.

 

[iceaura]

It seems that every election we get to choose between someone representing the worst of the left wing or someone representing the worst of the right wing.

Clinton represents the best of the right wing. As did Bill.

The entire debate between the left and right is happening within the Democratic Party now. The Republican side is a primary winner shouting "Allahu Akbar" (actually, Cruz said it in English: "To God is the Glory", ), while one loser complains about a subversion of the fundie vote split he was counting on, and the other makes phone calls back to the Florida drug gangs telling them he's making progress. The rest don't even rise to the status of loser - "Did Not Compete".

The best reform would be for the public airways to be free for the politicians so that they could dedicate themselves to actually doing the jobs for which they were elected rather than spending most of their time begging for money.

That used to be the law, and the custom. We had something like that, in the US. The Reagan Era has been costly in so many ways.

Clinton is a little more practical than Sanders. I think they have the same goals but each would chose a different path to that goal.

Clinton is a rightwing authoritarian politician. Her initial positions, before she starts compromising, are what used to be called "moderate" or "Eisenhower" Republican ones. She also, like Obama (which was a disappointment) compromises her own claimed positions before entering negotiations, for some reason - to appear "reasonable", often, or possibly to justify to disappointed backers her real agenda.

That's only "practical" if you don't have actual enemies at the table - if everybody there is of good will and sound mind and wanting to do what's best for all.

 

[joepistole]

As/re campaign finance reform.
The media industry make millions upon millions of dollars from political adds.
The best reform would be for the public airways to be free for the politicians so that they could dedicate themselves to actually doing the jobs for which they were elected rather than spending most of their time begging for money.

You are on the right track. We need to restore The Fairness Doctrine. That takes us back to Ronald Reagan's era. But we need to go farther than that. We need ethics reforms as well. We need to stop the revolving door between K Street, congressmen, congressional staffers, and high level government employees and their families (e.g. Billy Tauzin).

 

[sculptor]

We need ethics reforms as well. We need to stop the revolving door between K Street, congressmen, congressional staffers, and high level government employees and their families (e.g. Billy Tauzin).

How?

 

[joepistole]

Clinton represents the best of the right wing. As did Bill.

The entire debate between the left and right is happening within the Democratic Party now. The Republican side is a primary winner shouting "Allahu Akbar" (actually, Cruz said it in English: "To God is the Glory", ), while one loser complains about a subversion of the fundie vote split he was counting on, and the other makes phone calls back to the Florida drug gangs telling them he's making progress. The rest don't even rise to the status of loser - "Did Not Compete".

And you seriously think any of that makes any kind of sense?

Clinton is a rightwing authoritarian politician. Her initial positions, before she starts compromising, are what used to be called "moderate" or "Eisenhower" Republican ones. She also, like Obama (which was a disappointment) compromises her own claimed positions before entering negotiations, for some reason - to appear "reasonable", often, or possibly to justify to disappointed backers her real agenda.

Well given you are coming from the extreme left of the party and very anything to the right of a hippie commune as authoritarian, that makes sense. But to an objective observer, it doesn't. The act of being reasonable doesn't make someone a right wing authoritarian extremist.