I'm watching the Democratic debate and it struck me that they are talking about very detailed policy issues. I watched the GOP debates too, and that was all about cheering on vague idealism and trying to establish a cult of personality. It's a striking contrast, no matter what your personal political views are. Clinton ans Sanders have some divergent views but both are eager to address the issues without partisan bias. Instead they talk policy. It's refreshing to see how they have a different approach without bashing the GOP or each other. It's nice to see adults for a change even when I disagree with some of what they say. What a rare sight: politicians not being jingoistic idiots.
All the republicans are like a broken record. All they can about is Isis and how they're going to repeal Obama care. I have not heard any republicans address
Income inequality
How they plan to make healthcare affordable for the poor when they repeal Obama care
Affordable education
The racist(or maybe just inept but i doubt it) justice system
The fact that prisons are overcrowded with disproportionate amounts of blacks and Latinos
I mean have they even said anything about global warming?
Policy discussions mean little as a President has little actual authority. That is unless he ignores the Constitution and has a congress that lets it go.
We get what we deserve. If any politician told us the hard truths, we'd shout them down in a heartbeat. Saunders controls his ego better than most. But so do Jeb Bush and Rubio. But they can't get any love cause people want an "outsider". Just like Obama was supposed to be. Remember how the Clinton with a penis was supposed to be a "change agent"?
Lots changed under every president. Clinton reformed welfare. W showed us the need for banking regulation and the folly of regime change. Obama took a baby step towards national health care. The next president will have his/her hands full and will also change America in some way.
I am not at all disappointed. This is a grudge match between 2 fools that think they can lead the country. Noone could pay me enough money to vote for either one of them. I don't like Hilary, I don't trust the bitch. Bernie is too damn old. He'll die in office.
I could see Bernie making it through four years, but not 8. But Dick Cheney is still alive. So is George Bush I. Presidents do get amazing medical care.
I kinda hope Trump somehow wins the nomination. I think he'd be a disaster as president, but he'd make for a fun election.
If the Democratic Party had a dozen or so candidates, several of whom were viable, and if we had just been through 8 years of a republican presidency, then the democratic primary would look just like the republican primary does. In other words, while your observation is factually correct, that doesn't in any way mean that the democratic candidates are more adult and less child like.
Politicians do whatever it takes to get elected, and in this instance it just happens to fit both democratic candidate's interests to act a little less like spoiled brats than usual. But if either one falls clearly behind the other showing that the current strategy isn't working, the looser will quickly revert back to child like attacks. This is especially true if the ice queen falls further behind.
Clinton and Sanders are addressing the issues in a non-partisan manner? You're either a fucking retard or a liar. They are two of the most partisan assholes on earth and giving away taxpayer money for votes is not actually addressing the issues. Want to address the issues? How about security from a former secretary of state who keeps top secret emails on a non-secure browser. Sanders is going to free 500,000 criminals t o buy the black vote. The democratic party is based solely on screwing the taxpayer and giving the taxpayer money to their voters. As far as income inequality? Amazing that someone like me with 9 years post high school education who at age 59 still works 65 hours a week is making more money than a high school drop out. Income inequality is just bullshit as you reap what you sow. Lazy fucks vote democrat.
And while the democratic candidates do sound much more mature at the moment, offering various solutions to the many things that they view as wrong with America, there is one fundamental flaw in their logic which neither will address. A democratic president has led the country during the past 8 years, and for at least a portion of that time he worked with a congress that the Democrats controlled. So why does the country have so many things wrong with it that Bernie or Hillary need to be fix? Why should we believe that another democratic president would be any different than these two? They sound less child like than usual, but like a child they ignore this fundamental question that underlies all of their mostly civilized debates.
Funny. Hillary would have been a Reagan Republican 30 years ago, and Sanders a Kennedy/Johnson liberal. Now Sanders is seen as radical left and Clinton as mainstream left. WTF? Obama is right of Sanders and left of Clinton. Do even the haters think Obama is a radical left wing president?
There comes a point when politicians stop being Republican or Democrat, and that is usually when they need to come together to resolve an issue. Getting elected is not a time for resolve, it's a time for divisive bickering and pandering to voters. Commenting on candidates during elections is a huge waste of my time, because I look for someone with proven leadership when it comes time to vote. An intelligent voter will also look for those characteristics, which we seemed to be short of when Obama got elected because he never had any proven leadership, and it shows.
The last 7 years of failed leadership has frustrated Americans which is why we see so many Republican candidates, and so few Democratic options. Who from the left will want to step in and lead to pick up the shattered mess left behind from a "random walk" administration? Usually someone with nothing to lose. Hillary and Bernie fit that category.
Skibum, so you're OK with 500(or more) criminals in jail on you're(taxpayers) money even if its for something trivial like drug use or a longer sentence that dosent fit the crime?
Income inequality is just you reap what you sow? OK you make more than a high school dropout as you should, but why is it men still make more than women doing the same job? Why is it athletes and rappers make millions while there are people starving and living on the street? Why do these businesses make so much money but don't want to give their employees healthcare? Why does the top 1% own 90% of the wealth?
Thanks for bringing up the release of convicted criminals.
I knew about his position on free health care, free college, income inequality, but when I heard his speech saying he wants to open up our prisons, he confirmed my thoughts - he's dangerous.
I will take Hillary - even those ass-clowns Cruz and Trump -- before that Socialist.
^^^ That's the best endorsement of Sanders I've heard yet! Trump vs. Sanders would certainly be a litmus test for America. No matter who won, I can hear the bleating already.
Fuck, I knew that Bernie boy had rocks in his head. More criminals on the streets. I've lived with a convicted murderer. Not by choice, I left as soon as possible. I'm voting for ME !!!
There's been some policy debate in what little I've watched of the Republicans. But the field is so crowded they're all desperate to get some attention when they talk. Plus Trump isn't really capable of discussing policy and he gets a lot of the spotlight.
Bernie is what? 73 or 74? Given the stress that comes with being President, yeah that's a little old. But McCain was close to that in 08 and I bet that didn't bother some people.
Some of these comments indicate that many people have no real understanding of the limits our Constitution puts on the federal government.
Do not look to government for much of anything other than administering the laws that protect life, security, private property, and free speech/assembly. Government has nothing to give anyone, other than what it takes from others. And in such transactions, government adds no value, and instead adds dependence that crushes liberty.
Why does a man or a woman make more than the opposite sex doing the same job at the same company? experience, job performance, and negotiated starting salary. I don't really think it's that fair to be working a job for 10 years knowing everything about the job and then someone gets hired and supposedly makes just about as much when they do not know several parts of the job. However companies put people into pay grades at a starting salary and then adjust the numbers each year based on what I said. Even if they slack off and don't do the more tedious boring part of a job and do not want to work more than 40 hours a week and leave that to the more experienced person whose been doing it for ten or twenty years.
all this talk about equal pay by the democrats is comparing things like a female waitress to a male engineer. Of course the pay will not be equal. Democrats ignore the facts while making it sound like they are spewing out facts. You have to compare apples to apples or the pay will not be equal. If there were only two jobs in this country, secretary of state and my job, equal pay would mean I should get a $100,000 or more salary increase right? That's what the democrats are arguing about in my opinion. It's not apples to apples.
To put equal pay talk into the stripper world, if pay only compared female dancers to guys working as maybe a shoe shine guy or a guy washing dishes, the democrats might decry unequal pay and then either think of a tax on all dancers making above a certain amount and then give this money to the dish washing guy because they believe there in inequality with unequal pay. It's not apples to apples on the comparisons the democrats keep talking about. Studies I've read indicate an apples to apples comparison have the same job being pretty equal on pay already with other factors making small differences such as job performance, work hours, experience, and negotiated starting salary.
If Hillary didn't want to add a tax onto all my savings retirement accounts every time I buy and sell something that amounts to highway robbery, and she wasn't making a big mess of foreign policy creating zones where ISIS came to power, and she wasn't breaking the law putting classified emails on her own computers, and if she and Obama hadn't caused my health care premiums to triple, I might not think she was that bad of a choice for president. She is the wrong choice. If anyone wants to pay an additional 8.8% or more in taxes, then Sanders is your choice. 8.8% more is for everyone minimum making less than 250,000. You can feel better knowing the rich will pay a lot more. You only lose out 9 to 12 percent if you don't make much like me with Sanders. Of course thousands or millions will likely make a lot less with Sanders after companies move overseas and close the US business.
ok one last post what I don't like about the Republicans.
Vat taxes, those tend to skyrocket or did in Europe I heard.
tax cuts for the rich. it doesn't bother me if those with higher incomes pay more income tax. Our tax code has been set up that way all my life.
denouncing groups like Trump has done. If the people are American and can vote, we are all in this together. That's just being hateful and won't get votes.
no growth agenda except to say with me, we won't have that problem.
no talk about stopping the collapse of social security by getting rid of the income limit and then reducing benefits. Ok only sanders proposed getting rid of the income limit but he wants all my paycheck. Elect a few sanders and I think we would have to work for food rations, a car ration, and a living house ration.
Some are looking to vote a democratic president this time around just so the US might get some SCOTUS justices who aren't so socially conservative (backwards). This was even before Antonin Scalia passed away.
Look at chessmaster's list of things he wants government to "fix." If any of you thinks the role of government is to be involved in such things, please do not vote. Dependence and independence don't coexist in such a context. I'm a fan of liberty, which requires independence. And if America can be the "Land of Liberty," then the government cannot be involved in policies that cause individuals to be dependent on it for personal needs.
Just to remind everyone: our government is US! It's people. It's not a computer program or aliens (although sometimes I wonder). If you don't like the direction America is going, we can change it.
Despite congressional gridlock, I like where America is at now in the big picture. On the plus side, unemployment is low, crime rates are ,ow, we're not fighting in any "major" expeditionary wars, we're seeing huge progress on LGBT rights, we have same sex marriage, and the majority of Americans support abortion rights in some form as well as some kind of gun control, but not outright bans. While health care is still a work in progress, we are better off overall with Obamacare than without it.
I agree with all of the above positions, so if it was a 2 term Republican president ending his run, I would not be one of those people saying the past 7+ years were a failure. Quite the opposite. I guess I'm "conservative" as I'm not looking for any sweeping changes, like my more liberal Republican friends who are running for president. Certainly Sanders is more radical than Clinton, but she's a warmonger so it's a tough choice for me. Sending troops to the Middle East only produces dead soldiers and no military or political gains. Quite the opposite actually.
I was more comfortable voting for Sanders when I thought he was wasn't electable for all the reasons you guys say: he's old, he'll raise both the deficit and debt and his most ambitious programs have little chance of passing even a Democratic Senate and House. Hillary is not very likable (i.e. trustworthy) personally and it's hard to say what she stands for besides the typical Democratic platform and sending in troops to solve problems.
But there are no Republican options for me except Kaisch. So we'll see how it shakes out.
Trump claims he can do even more than anybody else(which he can't) so why are people voting for that clown unless they think he's actually serious? Half the shit they all say they are going to do, they cant actually do. But I want a president that will challenge congress(like Obama) on matters of "personal needs". If the government doesn't, who will?
The problem with Trump in general is he's used to telling people what needs to be done, and they do it. The owner of a company has absolute power. But a president has to work well in groups. He needs to forge coalitions. He needs to make friends. He needs to compromise and give something to get something. I think Trump is even worse than Obama at these skills.
^Right. Rather than toil by himself in the Oval Office each evening, the next president need to roll up his sleeves, go to Capitol Hill each evening, smoke some cigars with the guys/girls, and make some deals with Congress.
^ You make it sound silly, but that's about right. The problem Obama has is the GOP can't deliver their own party votes on many issue they would normally vote for, so the Democrats can't make deals. This is why Obama has resorted to executive orders. If in the future the GOP can deliver votes their leadership promises, things will start to move forward without so much unilateral action by the executive.
^ Yes, but back when government was seen to work by compromise, the Democratic and Republican house leaders would tell each other, "I can deliver xxx votes on this issue for you if you can deliver xxx votes on that issue" when the final version of a bill was done and ready to pass to be sent to the senate. But now the Dems have their votes but the Bohener and Ryan both have the same problem: they cant get their own party to vote for anything except to repeal Obamacare. Thus, very little gets done.
Chess: Please try doing some research because your "facts" are all simply wrong. The very simple fact is that about 95% of everyone in jail for "possession" was arrested for distribution and pled out, so they are drug dealers, not people. In addition Chess all those silly stats on what women make fail to take into account years of experience, overtime, time in the job etc. so no matter what the left says women with equal experience and years served make the same as men. As far as the top 1%? Hey eight of the ten richest districts in America are represented by Democrats so look at your party, which by using welfare etc. ensure that poor people stay poor. Everyone in America has always had healthcare. Obamacare changed the way it is delivered and added an additional layer of cost, but it did nothing else. I make good money because I have 9 years post high school education and work 65 hours a week. If you think poor people who contribute zero to the coffers deserve the same life we'll have to disagree. As ye sow, so shall ye reap.
I doubt your 95% is correct but w/e. But maybe if more drug dealers had jobs so many of them wouldn't resort to selling drugs.
"Drug dealers aren't people"... Then what are they?
Your facts about women may be right for some jobs, but there are jobs where women make less buy have the same amount of years and experience. I'm not talking about McDonalds where everyone regardless of gender makes minimum wage.
"Everyone in america has always had healthcare." Where did you get that from? Before Obama care there were uninsured Americans and Americans that couldn't afford their deductible. A lot of good health insurance is if you can't afford the deductible.
What is the role/purpose/function of the federal (central) government in a country that seeks to maintain liberty for individual citizens?
I hope people consider that question before they vote. It appears many have some VERY wrong ideas about the answer to that question.
@how: A moral and just government is founded on the principle that citizens give up some of their independence for the common good of all. The people establish laws for the common good of society, and empower the government to enforce them. We entrust our government to provide resources for infrastructure such as roads, fire protection, assistance in natural disasters, education and hopefully health care.
We have to give up some of our liberty for the common good, such as in unfettered gun ownership and conscription in the military for national defense when necessary. We also allow ourselves to be taxed to pay for it all.
The two parties differ on where all these lines are drawn. How much taxation is too little or too much? Are abortion rights and gay marriage unjustly trampling on the rights of others or are they rights we all have? Is healthcare for all in the national interest or just a luxury for the rich? Should corporations be able to spend unlimited money backing political candidates?
These are the questions our politicians dance around with their rhetoric; when couched in plain language it become much easier to take the politics away from policy and have intelligent debate.
Of course, for too many of us, intelligent debate isn't really the point. We have turned debate into an entertainment industry in the media, and that really takes away from the whole process IMHO no matter if you're a Sanders liberal or Cruz conservative.
Chess, of course there are instances of wage gap that are sexist. But they are far less common than liberals would suggest and the actual gap is significantly smaller than they claim. Plus it continues to shrink.
jester mentioned pay gap, and as one of our few resident liberals, I'll chime in and say I am against any artificial leveling of the playing field like a minimum wage from an economic theory point of view. That being said, there are practical considerations, like making sure people aren't dying of starvation or lack of heat in the winter, so we have government assistance programs. Welfare actually helps the economy (much to the chagrin of the rich) since poor people spend every dollar they get and our economy is based on consumer spending, but true socialism is bad because the middle class will not be productive getting money for nothing (look at Greece). The poor don't produce much anyway; if they did they wouldn't need welfare, so from an economic standpoint welfare is not really an important policy issue. It's just a political football.
But the lack of a middle class IS a huge economic problem. Access to higher education and a general public that shuns math and science are two factors in the lack of high paying jobs for even recent college graduates. If you major in journalism or anthropology as opposed to engineering, computer science or physics, how can you expect to find a high paying job? The fact one major party rejects science as viable enterprise isn't helping. If the GOP embraced the science of climate change it might go a long way in getting our children and young adults to become worthy of higher paying jobs.
An obvious example of where we all surrender some liberty for the common good is traffic laws. My liberty says I should be able to drive wherever the fuck I want, when I want. But that could violate the liberty of others.
Gay marriage is a case where if you truly believe in liberty, you have to support it.
Gun ownership is a case where it's the gun owners liberty vs. The liberty and security of everyone else. It's important to strike a reasonable balance.
^With gun ownership, there is also the "built-in escape clause" intent of the Framers to consider. I don't know people really factor it anymore or if it's just the 'nuts who do.
James, I actually think the highest form of civilization IS anarchy. We are free to do anything we want, but we do the right thing because it's how we are. Maybe in 50,000 years mankind will become mature enough to deal with anarchy, but for now we do need laws to back up our so called 'morality' with enforcement.
Your driving example is actually a good sign though; when traffic lights first came out, there were people who thought it was stupid to expect anyone to obey them. But now almost everyone does, even with no traffic around. Yes...we CAN be taught to do the "right thing".
Usually it is the Democrats who start with more candidates and it takes longer before a clear winner emerges.
I am a bit disappointed that there are not more choices this time. Where as the Republicans have lots of choices, people with different personas and backgrounds.
How would people feel about a combined Clinton - Sanders ticket, and which way do they think it should be.
A Clinton / Sanders ticket, as POTUS / VPOTUS, respectively might work. Clinton gets a black eye from gun advocates, having Sanders as Veep could help her.
JamesSD noted, "Pure liberty is anarchy."
Good point, and relevant to the questions about the role of government.
Consider a straight-line "spectrum" that measures "how much control does central government have over citizens' lives?" The opposite extremes of that spectrum are Total Control (totalitarianism) and No Control (anarchy). Picture where our Constitution is on that spectrum, and vote for candidates who most closely align with that.
(The Constitution is closer to the center than to either extreme, but is on the No Control side of that center. Strictly limited government, which is forbidden to do anything it's not required to do.)
No, San Jose, government cannot establish freedom. Government can be structured to limit incursions against freedom and individual liberty. Our government was fairly unique in its focus on doing that. Yay, USA!
God Himself did not write our Constitution, men did. That's why these men were smart enough to have a branch of our government that specifically interprets the meaning. This isn't a Bible, it's a Constitution. The 2nd Amendment is the perfect example. The framers wanted to keep the Fed out of the gun prohibition business, and left that power to the states. Today we read it mean ALL gun laws are prohibited even at the state level. That's a living, breathing interpretation.
It's an interplay between the government, a hierarchical or vertical power, and the herd, a horizontal power. Freedom exists when you can play the two off against each other. But neither by itself can ever protect any sort of freedom.
The nonsense political doctrine of Libertarianism is based on submission to the herd via it's social standards, while at the same time re-inforcing the governmental authority.
When I've crossed swords with some people of the Libertarian persuasion, and when they realize that I could really impact them, know what they do? They are the first to threaten a lawsuit, and then they are mortified and indignant when they are forced to see that that won't work.
Libertarians hide behind government authority, while peaching an anti-government line!
I'm not a Libertarian, but I am quite sure their is a difference between Libertarian thought and Anarchy (anti-government).
Balance is important. Our Constitution establishes government with STRICT limits on its power and scope. That's because governments naturally tend to grow in power, size and scope, and don't naturally tend to remain limited.
When people are opposing the government, usually they are simply endorsing herd control, social conformity and submission. An extreme example of this would be the KKK. Another example would be homophobia. Yet another would be contempt for the poor and the homeless.
When I oppose the government, as I am now in some affairs f2f, I am opposing its support of the herd. In this case it's real estate developers.
Anyone ever seen this? It does not look good!
http://www.pornkillslove.com/ Not sure where this is based, or that it even has a base, but the 385 area code should be Salt Lake City. Reminds me of the views of ColdnShallow, and of some other moralistic women I know. Shows me all the more so why Porn, Strip Clubs, and P4P Sex are so important.
Every one has limits placed on them its what you accomplish within those limits that define you. One example would be your right to swing your arms around ends somewhere before the tip of my nose, in other words I have as much right to my personal space as anybody here, if you look for it, you will find my personal space begins before your hand touches my nose and I just might get belligerent about you trying to provoke me, so in order to get along in this world there are limits And you nor anyone else has the right to exceed that.
58 comments
Latest
Income inequality
How they plan to make healthcare affordable for the poor when they repeal Obama care
Affordable education
The racist(or maybe just inept but i doubt it) justice system
The fact that prisons are overcrowded with disproportionate amounts of blacks and Latinos
I mean have they even said anything about global warming?
I kinda hope Trump somehow wins the nomination. I think he'd be a disaster as president, but he'd make for a fun election.
Politicians do whatever it takes to get elected, and in this instance it just happens to fit both democratic candidate's interests to act a little less like spoiled brats than usual. But if either one falls clearly behind the other showing that the current strategy isn't working, the looser will quickly revert back to child like attacks. This is especially true if the ice queen falls further behind.
The last 7 years of failed leadership has frustrated Americans which is why we see so many Republican candidates, and so few Democratic options. Who from the left will want to step in and lead to pick up the shattered mess left behind from a "random walk" administration? Usually someone with nothing to lose. Hillary and Bernie fit that category.
Income inequality is just you reap what you sow? OK you make more than a high school dropout as you should, but why is it men still make more than women doing the same job? Why is it athletes and rappers make millions while there are people starving and living on the street? Why do these businesses make so much money but don't want to give their employees healthcare? Why does the top 1% own 90% of the wealth?
Thanks for bringing up the release of convicted criminals.
I knew about his position on free health care, free college, income inequality, but when I heard his speech saying he wants to open up our prisons, he confirmed my thoughts - he's dangerous.
I will take Hillary - even those ass-clowns Cruz and Trump -- before that Socialist.
Bernie is what? 73 or 74? Given the stress that comes with being President, yeah that's a little old. But McCain was close to that in 08 and I bet that didn't bother some people.
Do not look to government for much of anything other than administering the laws that protect life, security, private property, and free speech/assembly. Government has nothing to give anyone, other than what it takes from others. And in such transactions, government adds no value, and instead adds dependence that crushes liberty.
all this talk about equal pay by the democrats is comparing things like a female waitress to a male engineer. Of course the pay will not be equal. Democrats ignore the facts while making it sound like they are spewing out facts. You have to compare apples to apples or the pay will not be equal. If there were only two jobs in this country, secretary of state and my job, equal pay would mean I should get a $100,000 or more salary increase right? That's what the democrats are arguing about in my opinion. It's not apples to apples.
Vat taxes, those tend to skyrocket or did in Europe I heard.
tax cuts for the rich. it doesn't bother me if those with higher incomes pay more income tax. Our tax code has been set up that way all my life.
denouncing groups like Trump has done. If the people are American and can vote, we are all in this together. That's just being hateful and won't get votes.
no growth agenda except to say with me, we won't have that problem.
no talk about stopping the collapse of social security by getting rid of the income limit and then reducing benefits. Ok only sanders proposed getting rid of the income limit but he wants all my paycheck. Elect a few sanders and I think we would have to work for food rations, a car ration, and a living house ration.
Despite congressional gridlock, I like where America is at now in the big picture. On the plus side, unemployment is low, crime rates are ,ow, we're not fighting in any "major" expeditionary wars, we're seeing huge progress on LGBT rights, we have same sex marriage, and the majority of Americans support abortion rights in some form as well as some kind of gun control, but not outright bans. While health care is still a work in progress, we are better off overall with Obamacare than without it.
I agree with all of the above positions, so if it was a 2 term Republican president ending his run, I would not be one of those people saying the past 7+ years were a failure. Quite the opposite. I guess I'm "conservative" as I'm not looking for any sweeping changes, like my more liberal Republican friends who are running for president. Certainly Sanders is more radical than Clinton, but she's a warmonger so it's a tough choice for me. Sending troops to the Middle East only produces dead soldiers and no military or political gains. Quite the opposite actually.
I was more comfortable voting for Sanders when I thought he was wasn't electable for all the reasons you guys say: he's old, he'll raise both the deficit and debt and his most ambitious programs have little chance of passing even a Democratic Senate and House. Hillary is not very likable (i.e. trustworthy) personally and it's hard to say what she stands for besides the typical Democratic platform and sending in troops to solve problems.
But there are no Republican options for me except Kaisch. So we'll see how it shakes out.
"Drug dealers aren't people"... Then what are they?
I never said nor implied this.
I hope people consider that question before they vote. It appears many have some VERY wrong ideas about the answer to that question.
We have to give up some of our liberty for the common good, such as in unfettered gun ownership and conscription in the military for national defense when necessary. We also allow ourselves to be taxed to pay for it all.
The two parties differ on where all these lines are drawn. How much taxation is too little or too much? Are abortion rights and gay marriage unjustly trampling on the rights of others or are they rights we all have? Is healthcare for all in the national interest or just a luxury for the rich? Should corporations be able to spend unlimited money backing political candidates?
These are the questions our politicians dance around with their rhetoric; when couched in plain language it become much easier to take the politics away from policy and have intelligent debate.
Of course, for too many of us, intelligent debate isn't really the point. We have turned debate into an entertainment industry in the media, and that really takes away from the whole process IMHO no matter if you're a Sanders liberal or Cruz conservative.
It's a tug at the heart strings.
But the lack of a middle class IS a huge economic problem. Access to higher education and a general public that shuns math and science are two factors in the lack of high paying jobs for even recent college graduates. If you major in journalism or anthropology as opposed to engineering, computer science or physics, how can you expect to find a high paying job? The fact one major party rejects science as viable enterprise isn't helping. If the GOP embraced the science of climate change it might go a long way in getting our children and young adults to become worthy of higher paying jobs.
Gay marriage is a case where if you truly believe in liberty, you have to support it.
Gun ownership is a case where it's the gun owners liberty vs. The liberty and security of everyone else. It's important to strike a reasonable balance.
Pure liberty is anarchy.
Your driving example is actually a good sign though; when traffic lights first came out, there were people who thought it was stupid to expect anyone to obey them. But now almost everyone does, even with no traffic around. Yes...we CAN be taught to do the "right thing".
I am a bit disappointed that there are not more choices this time. Where as the Republicans have lots of choices, people with different personas and backgrounds.
How would people feel about a combined Clinton - Sanders ticket, and which way do they think it should be.
SJG
Golden Dawn Documentary - Aleister Crowley and the Golden Dawn
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Ecjbag6…
Inside The Secret Teachings Of ALL Ages (MANLY P HALL) HD
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNUQ1f8U…
Stan Tenen - Decoding the Hebrew Text of Genesis
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMDXr7fj…
Giant Outdoor Chess Set
http://www.chesshouse.com/giant_chess_se…
Did you know that the address number of the Masonic Temple is Salt Lake City is 666?
https://s3.amazonaws.com/gs-waymarking-i…
Albert Pike
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Pik…
they don't mention that he is cofounder of the KKK
http://civilwarstudies.org/articles/vol_…
http://freedocumentaryonline.org/metaphy…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_Evo…
most people consider this guy to be a fascist
http://spitfirelist.com/for-the-record/f…
Julius Evola as something similar to Albert Pike
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cipher_Man…
http://www.amazon.com/Secrets-Golden-Daw…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_Reg…
Good point, and relevant to the questions about the role of government.
Consider a straight-line "spectrum" that measures "how much control does central government have over citizens' lives?" The opposite extremes of that spectrum are Total Control (totalitarianism) and No Control (anarchy). Picture where our Constitution is on that spectrum, and vote for candidates who most closely align with that.
(The Constitution is closer to the center than to either extreme, but is on the No Control side of that center. Strictly limited government, which is forbidden to do anything it's not required to do.)
SJG
The nonsense political doctrine of Libertarianism is based on submission to the herd via it's social standards, while at the same time re-inforcing the governmental authority.
When I've crossed swords with some people of the Libertarian persuasion, and when they realize that I could really impact them, know what they do? They are the first to threaten a lawsuit, and then they are mortified and indignant when they are forced to see that that won't work.
Libertarians hide behind government authority, while peaching an anti-government line!
Ha Ha Ha
SJG
Balance is important. Our Constitution establishes government with STRICT limits on its power and scope. That's because governments naturally tend to grow in power, size and scope, and don't naturally tend to remain limited.
When I oppose the government, as I am now in some affairs f2f, I am opposing its support of the herd. In this case it's real estate developers.
SJG
https://sites.google.com/site/sjgportal/
http://www.democracynow.org/2016/2/18/ap…
Also Rocky Anderson of Salt Lake City
http://www.democracynow.org/2016/1/29/fo…
Discussion of Front Room Makeout Sessions
https://www.tuscl.net/postread.php?PID=4…
Jestrite50 on requirement of front room makeout sessions
https://www.tuscl.net/postread.php?PID=3…
and here:
https://www.tuscl.net/postread.php?PID=3…
Anyone ever seen this? It does not look good!
http://www.pornkillslove.com/
Not sure where this is based, or that it even has a base, but the 385 area code should be Salt Lake City. Reminds me of the views of ColdnShallow, and of some other moralistic women I know. Shows me all the more so why Porn, Strip Clubs, and P4P Sex are so important.
Doors - The End
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JSUIQgEV…