Well that's because Ryan's debate against Biden made him look like a 3-year-old sitting at the adult's table.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PoliGAF 2014 |OT| Kay Hagan and the Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad News
- Thread starter bananas
- Start date
- Status
Well that's because Ryan's debate against Biden made him look like a 3-year-old sitting at the adult's table.
neurosisxeno
Member
I agree, but thanks to gerrymandering we basically can't. The president acts as a national barometer though so electing a liberal president would drag policy back to the center at least.
I really enjoyed be talked down to by a Vice Presidential candidate. It was like having a kindergarten teacher pep talk me about how the country theoretically could do while failing entirely to explain what he would actually do.
T
thepotatoman
Unconfirmed Member
Has anyone done anything worthwhile after being vice president, if not becoming president?
ErasureAcer
Banned
Looks like more Democrats voted today than Republicans in Minnesota. haha.
benjipwns
Banned
Hillary's out there because she has what seems like a clear time table. Look at the resignation, NEW BOOK, giving key interviews, trying to find a middle ground between Obama and the GOP on foreign policy a sort of moderate hawkishness setting up the first leg of a platform that wards off challengers from both parties.
She probably has a team already writing up stuff regarding these riots to tie into her domestic policy agenda she'll start laying out in interviews as well. (Not the shootings obviously, what epidemic of police shootings?)
There wasn't any of that pre-planning in 2008, which is why the instant anything went wrong the campaign exploded into fighting camps and a spiral where it couldn't make decisions.
You can't conscript an outside party to your contract. But you can to the "social contract" because reasons.
*This is not sarcasm, I had not seen your posts before and find you quite thoughtful and engaging. (As if anything from an insane person is a complement.)
2. That's the thing, I don't want to use violence for personal gain. Means are important as ends.
I hope you saw my response to you about books. Because there were more than Huemer. Though you're probably already familiar with the others.
Gore, Cheney and Biden (presuming he lives) are the first three VPs to be elected to and serve two full terms.
She probably has a team already writing up stuff regarding these riots to tie into her domestic policy agenda she'll start laying out in interviews as well. (Not the shootings obviously, what epidemic of police shootings?)
There wasn't any of that pre-planning in 2008, which is why the instant anything went wrong the campaign exploded into fighting camps and a spiral where it couldn't make decisions.
It's an article by an outside writer posted on the Cato Institutes website as part of a symposium that includes multiple other writers who disagree. Try not to tar and feather every messenger you come across.
People "vote" to "form the government" for everyone, not just themselves.
You can't conscript an outside party to your contract. But you can to the "social contract" because reasons.
I have no problem with the reception I get. I was just informing others of the complaints so they wouldn't feel the need to keep responding to me.
All of which can be provided without the need for monopolies
In theory. Practice says otherwise.
Again, nature doesn't have agency. If *CLICHE ALERT* you and your family are alone on an island your rights are not violated by the fact you can't conscript someone to provide you with shelter or medical care or an education or water like out of the toilet.
Most private property probably has roots in being immorally and illegitimately gained. However I place it outside my abilities to go back and argue against divine right in the past, so I am condemned to making the case against it with fine fellows like yourself* in the modern age.
*This is not sarcasm, I had not seen your posts before and find you quite thoughtful and engaging. (As if anything from an insane person is a complement.)
1. I spend a smidgen of my energy on this, in part because it's my "job", not even close to "most" let alone "all."
2. That's the thing, I don't want to use violence for personal gain. Means are important as ends.
I hope you saw my response to you about books. Because there were more than Huemer. Though you're probably already familiar with the others.
Humphrey went back to the Senate. (As did Calhoun, Hamlin, and Barkley. Calhoun was also Secretary of State.) Henry Wallace was Secretary of Commerce.
Gore, Cheney and Biden (presuming he lives) are the first three VPs to be elected to and serve two full terms.
Yeah. Did she not learn anything from 2008? It's at times like this when I am reminded why I went for Obama over Hillary in 08, but now Obama only has two years left and the things he (rightly) stood for are getting shat on by everyone for no sensible reason whatsoever.
I think a Hillary Clinton administration would prove to have a much worse FP than Obama. Her commentary on Israel alone is competing with the GOP for being completely out of touch with reality. I cannot believe what she's saying.
I really wish the left in this country would have continued the fine tradition of killing the dinosaur and going with someone fresher. Instead we kind of settled for pushing Hillary aside for 8 years and then coming back around. It's kind of cheap.
Really depressing that Democrats have NO viable candidates other than Hillary.
ErasureAcer
Banned
Bernie!
The Librarian
Banned
I expect nutjobs whenever I see "CATO" associated with them. I was not disappointed.
Avon Barksdale
Member
Democratic voters love the lesser known candidates. I mean, who had Bill Clinton in 1988 winning the Presidency in four years?
Should've been Jerry Brown.
I do think he would have been a great President. I don't know if he would have been able to get re-elected as easily as Clinton though.
benjipwns
Banned
Who had his competition for the nomination being Bob Kerrey, Tom Harkin, Paul Tsongas, Jerry Brown and Doug Wilder in four years?
ErasureAcer
Banned
LOL this fucking guy.http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2014/08/12/Cheney-Obama-Probably-not-Reading-His-Intelligence said:
Hey, how about you, Dubya and Condi Rice completely ignoring all the shit coming down the wire about 9/11?
He has no room to talk and he knows it. He's just a bitter old troll and will be until he utters his last words.
Brawndo Addict
Banned
In practice yes, but in theory not necessarily. In our fictional world, those who vote no, or were otherwise 'absent' would be free to leave and do as they wish. In our actual world, our problem is that unlimited land does not exist and governments are not usually formed with the full and free input of all those would be under its authority, nor do those who would reject it have reasonable alternatives in the face of its creation. In addition to our significant future-born problem.
Certainly not in the traditional sense, but you absolutely can enforce your contract on third parties not privy to it. Say a farmer dies and his two sons dispute who owns his land, perhaps due to conflicting rules of inheritance (itself a rather interesting concept in private property). Each son contracts with a different store to sell the harvest, and send in their preferred enforcement agency to ensure their contract is honored against the competing brother.
I admit I earlier referenced the positive/negative rights dichotomy in parentheses, but that wasn't intended to be part of the later point I was making about the nature of voluntary action. No need to bring rights into the hypothetical. This family of individuals would still have to dig a toilet, find food/water, treat injuries, etc, or they would die. I don't consider the "you can just die" alternative as somehow making necessary conditions to human life somehow 'free choices'. Deciding what to eat is very different from deciding whether to eat.
That said, if we were to get into a rights distinction, I think we could easily distinguish between rights that might be granted in a developed society and rights in abstract wilderness. And what's stopping us from merely saying that their rights are indeed being violated (if we accept their existence for the sake of argument)? This family may very well believe that everyone has a responsibility to contribute to the survival of the group and that refusing to contribute violates those rights. Even if they believed in some right not even physically possible, like say, the right to formal education, they could still say that it was being violated, but they would merely have no recourse to redress it.
I think I'm over-thinking your comment, or are you actually referencing the divine right of kings? If not just ignore this.
Huh, I never knew that. This is going to be a very useful trivia question for future use.
benjipwns
Banned
Many corporations have come and gone as have many states and even many private owners, yet the land has not changed. What then requires a monopoly within one section of land that does not apply to the entirety of the planet?
I would imagine that the store whose brother loses cannot enforce its contract with that brother against the other.
You can't have a right to formal education because that implies a duty on someone to provide it. Which violates that persons right to self-ownership, which is the fundamental human right. A violation of an actual right trumps a violation of a "positive" right.
I was using that as short hand for why the Kings owned the land to parcel out to the lords and so on. It was obviously more complex but I'm trying to be trenchant rather than spam.
My error, I left off "in order." George H.W. Bush obviously lived for example lol
Actually true trivia is that there's been more Vice Presidents than Presidents: 47 vs. 43. (And that's with 14 of the VP's also serving as President.)
speculawyer
Member
The dude got an Oscar and Nobel Peace Prize. And he's made a shit load of money. He's doing fine.
benjipwns
Banned
T
thepotatoman
Unconfirmed Member
Assuming Obama lives, this would be the first time 3 presidents have served 2 terms in order since the Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe streak in 1801 to 1825.
Speaking of which, it's pretty great that Obama's terms as president have gone by with very few concerns about his death. When he was very first being elected, it seemed pretty scary that there would be a white supremacist somewhere that would take very drastic action about there being a black president. I don't know if it's the secret service doing there jobs amazingly well, or the white supremacist threat being smaller than imagined, or both, but either way it's one thing worth being happy about.
Cliche indeed. I get this all the time when discussing veganism. It's a good example for why I think you've disregarded the more important practicality for the theoretical. What would be right or wrong to do on a deserted island doesn't really matter if you're not living on a deserted island and have a 0% chance of living on one in your entire life.
So while it can be an interesting mental exercise, it is extremely harmful to overemphasize its role in real life.
1. While you might spend a smidgen of your overall time on it, it does seem to encompass your entire political stance here on neogaf. It's pretty significant if it's your core of your political philosophy. And politics and philosophy are completely pointless if they don't lead to positive real life outcomes.
2. The ends don't always justify the means, but I would also say the means don't always justify the ends. Doing the right thing requires both good means and good ends.
3. Honestly, the only one familiar to me is Friedrich Hayek, and I was mostly just looking for articles, descriptions, and summaries from/about people who are writing such books to see if this weird subset of libertarian like thinking has any ground at all. Maybe I'll spend an Audible credit on one of them, but no promises.
Brawndo Addict
Banned
Nothing that would not otherwise apply to the theoretical reformation of such a state or government. That the entire land may be legitimately claimed by governments or corporations does not prohibit the formation of governments any more than it does that of corporations.
Sorry, I discussed it in my previous post so often I forgot to reiterate the fact that they go to competing private justice systems, each which rule in favor of one brother over the other.
Well, there's not much more we can functionally discuss as I find both the distinction between positive and negative rights illusory (all rights require both avoidance duties and protective duties) and the concept of self-ownership neither axiomatic nor logically non-contradictory. Even without that, I would not consider it as the sole fundamental right nor would I categorize positive rights as non-rights. We simply operate on incompatible systems which cannot interface coherently without self-contradiction.
That's not to say that we shouldn't have had this discussion, it was enjoying and interesting, it's just that it comfortably ends in the confirmation of incompatible foundations, which is usually quite common in the political arena. The same side of a dichotomy can argue against itself in hopes of change, but opposing sides ultimately do nothing more than state their formal positions. Which should still reoccur no doubt, but change from one side to the other is rare indeed.
Plus all the internet royalties.
benjipwns
Banned
Apologies thread but Brawndo and potatoman have been so positive and inquisitive I owe them answers.
A more sensible version of Rawls' veil. Rest of any of this will go below to #2.
From a moral point of view then the only thing that matters are good means as they are all you have control over. (I assume that everyone has "good goals" at least from their subjective point of view.)
That's why I focus on the violence and coercion. To me, violence is abhorrent except in the case of self defense. (And there I'm quite more pacifist than most of my fellow travelers as to what calls on deadly force.) Thus to use violence for personal gain, to violate others rights to benefit myself, is also abhorrent.
The counter argument, and most popular one, is that yes, it's wrong, but we have to do it first or else somebody else will do it to us! I didn't find this convincing when George W. Bush said it about Saddam and I don't find in convincing in almost every other case.
If humans are immoral thugs out to exploit one another, why then would you want to grant permanent power to a certain group of these thugs and not only let them monopolize and centralize and expand the power but honor them for it as if they're actually moral exemplars? And why do we stop at lines on a map? Isn't it a priority for the strongest state to dominate the world and establish violence and exploitation on others before they can do it to us?
Madison said men are not angels, so we need government. Who staffs the government but men. His solution was competition between the branches. Why not expand that competition down to the individual level instead of trying to remove the checks on power assembling at the top where competition exists only within the elite class?
Politics is corrosive, it is war by other means, it is conflict between classes and cultures, why do we want to elevate everything into its realm? When you elevate education into the realm of politics you have the textbook wars. When you elevate health care into the realm of politics you face the potential that President Santorum declares homosexuality a disease. When you elevate economics into the realm of politics you take power away from consumers and place it in the hands of politicians.
But don't worry because the check on this are elections.
Elections in which the very people who will turn to murderous thuggery and exploitation without a common power to keep them all in awe decide on the makeup of that common power.
I would suggest that the competing systems have some sort of arbitration party or agreement they involve. As is currently done in many fields, including internationally.
I find this fascinating as I cannot understand why one would reject the notion that only an individual may own themselves. Or find exemptions.
The purpose of the desert island cliche is to divorce the individual from the collective to illustrate the vast amount of human rights that are naturally possessed. This establishes the moral principles for when you re-integrate into the society the boundaries of where rights exist and thus where violations exist.
A more sensible version of Rawls' veil. Rest of any of this will go below to #2.
One tends to talk about politics when in discussions about politics, no?
I believe that the value of philosophy comes from the practice of it. This tends to not merge with real life.
But I think that utilitarianism dismisses both good means and good ends. And instead focuses on goals. The means are immaterial and the ends are in the future and unknowable in full. Thus why not just government, but humans themselves are so prone to fail.
From a moral point of view then the only thing that matters are good means as they are all you have control over. (I assume that everyone has "good goals" at least from their subjective point of view.)
That's why I focus on the violence and coercion. To me, violence is abhorrent except in the case of self defense. (And there I'm quite more pacifist than most of my fellow travelers as to what calls on deadly force.) Thus to use violence for personal gain, to violate others rights to benefit myself, is also abhorrent.
The counter argument, and most popular one, is that yes, it's wrong, but we have to do it first or else somebody else will do it to us! I didn't find this convincing when George W. Bush said it about Saddam and I don't find in convincing in almost every other case.
If humans are immoral thugs out to exploit one another, why then would you want to grant permanent power to a certain group of these thugs and not only let them monopolize and centralize and expand the power but honor them for it as if they're actually moral exemplars? And why do we stop at lines on a map? Isn't it a priority for the strongest state to dominate the world and establish violence and exploitation on others before they can do it to us?
Madison said men are not angels, so we need government. Who staffs the government but men. His solution was competition between the branches. Why not expand that competition down to the individual level instead of trying to remove the checks on power assembling at the top where competition exists only within the elite class?
Politics is corrosive, it is war by other means, it is conflict between classes and cultures, why do we want to elevate everything into its realm? When you elevate education into the realm of politics you have the textbook wars. When you elevate health care into the realm of politics you face the potential that President Santorum declares homosexuality a disease. When you elevate economics into the realm of politics you take power away from consumers and place it in the hands of politicians.
But don't worry because the check on this are elections.
Elections in which the very people who will turn to murderous thuggery and exploitation without a common power to keep them all in awe decide on the makeup of that common power.
You can get most of them for free. The Mises book is a couple of essays, I was pointing to just the title one though I do like other essays in it. You can get it for free from the Mises Institute I think both separately and as one PDF with Rothbards intro. Unsure about the Rothbard one, it might also be free on there, most of their stuff tends to be. Kropotkin and Bakunin are public domain, so is Bastiat.
benjipwns
Banned
Actually he agreed to net profits and the internet has been doing Hollywood accounting.
That's why he had to start up the global warming shtick.
Aaron Strife
Banned
Glenn Grothman, a nutbag won the Republican primary in Wisconsin's 6th congressional district. Some of his greatest hits:
Democrats have won (or come close to winning) worse districts for themselves on account of how nutty the Republican was so they might have a shot, although for now I'd say it's pretty baked in (46% Obama). Still there's nothing like bizarre tea party comments to color an election season.
neurosisxeno
Member
Unfortunately modern Capitalism begs to differ. Inevitably one company will get enough market share and the resources to just buy out competitors. Over a long enough time line without intervention they will own just about everything. A good example is the Telecom situation in the United States. ~40 years they broke up a "monopoly" and now we have somewhat of a duopoly (which is present in most markets in the US now rather than monopolies). Without regulation capitalism inevitably leads to monopolies and over a long enough time line you'll end up with mega-corporations controlling huge sections of the United States.
The reason why the government takes over control of certain things, is because they aren't fields where profitability should take precedent over the service being offered. Look at Private Prisons, the conditions are almost always terrible, and there are thousands of horror stories about them. It's easy to write off criminals as not deserving a luxurious living, but in most situations they are denied basic services as cost-cuting measures. The road system is another example. If we had privitized roads you wouldn't be able to drive anywhere without ponying up everything you own. We would go back in time to an era where people barely leave their hometowns.
That's subjective and misleading. There are millions of services that the government has offered that have been hugely successful and popular. Focusing on the low-hanging fruit is being disingenuous. There's also a massive image problem as has been pointed countless times with government programs. People were uneasy about Obamacare as a concept, but loved a majority of the provisions. People hate "government hand outs" but SNAP, Social Security, and Medicaid are hugely popular.
teruterubozu
Member
She's learning that you can't fuck with the Obama Machine if you expect support in 2016.
benjipwns
Banned
The state is the progenitor of monopolies. Your example is actually one of the better ones. The federal government gave AT&T its monopoly and signed an agreement to preserve this status quo that lasted 71 years. The early years of the telephone had most major cities with two providers or more. And then despite not just anti-trust laws, but ICC regulations, not just allowed but encouraged AT&T's purchase and elimination of competitors. The FCC did the same thing with TV. Old timer airliner people are still pissed about Carter and Kennedy teaming up to deregulate their industry and increase democratic access to air travel.
Regulation has grown by leaps and bounds over the last century. Of course larger and larger corporations are forming. That's the entire point as an infinite number of small operators can't be made into allies as easily. And there's less of a place for the iron triangle. Nothing has been regulated and re-regulated over the last 25 years like the health care and financial markets and what's happened? Greater and greater centralization and monopolization. The two latest pieces of legislation on these creates even greater incentives. The ACA will lead to fewer larger and more powerful insurance companies and Dodd-Frank is leading to fewer larger and more powerful banks and financial institutions. (Both will fail the masses, while a bunch of cronies get fatter and the state will "rescue" us by assuming control so it's win-win in the end. Except for all the people who suffer but fuck them, they'll vote regardless.)
Absent a foot on the scale for the status quo, a monopoly can't form and prevent competitors while also not benefiting customers because nature is dynamic and ever evolving. The state despises this because it dethrones old elites and when new elites like Microsoft pop-up, the state has to then use its force to get them to buy into the extortion racket so that followers like Google understand from the get go.
If it's inevitable, what explains markets where it doesn't happen and there isn't extensive government anti-trust regulation in place?
Yet, pretty much every government operation does this. They almost always intentionally target the most profitable fields because that's power outside of its hand. Look at governments the world over deciding that they need to "protect" the internet from profit by just implementing a few controls, maybe a filter or two, and so on.
Look at fucking Pemex and its priorities.
This is hardly exclusive to private prisons. State prisons have long been barbaric. I think it's something inherent to prisons, somebody should study that.
Why would you assume this?
Indeed the government roads system contributes to the large corporations we were just lamenting. Walmart is massively subsidized in this manner. Then there's the fact that a private company couldn't steal the property of the poor and minority through eminent domain to build highways to nowhere or roads to Walmart as has happened to millions. It can't wipe out entire neighboorhoods in return for nothing like in Black Bottom or as with Kelo. Plus a private company has an interest in maintenance and managing external costs the government doesn't since they get rewarded for failure.
Most importantly, we would haven't as many bridges and shit named after criminals like Robert C. Byrd.
Would you accept McDonalds or Walmart running the planet or even a nation? If not, why do you accept or even want a much more vertically and horizontally integrated monopoly corporation to be given a captive market for its services?
But my "in theory, not practice" comment wasn't even related to this idea. It's been touched on a bit here, but in general, we just handwave away the horrific injustices of government in a way we don't for any other corporation.
If Exxon smashes a tanker into an iceberg and spills oil all over the ocean. It's blasted by everyone, it faces charges and liabilities (usually not strong enough ones), people are pulled before Congress and the media to be asked why the front fell off.
Defenses of Exxon by talking about how they provide your ability to drive or heat your home are properly dismissed.
Meanwhile with government we praise when it sets up a ponzi scheme to steal from the young and minority to give to old white ladies. We cry foul when anyone dares suggest our schools or roads aren't the best and our teachers and bureaucrats aren't the hardest working most noble servants.
The state has murdered millions. Deliberately. Also accidentally. It destroys wealth deliberately and accidentally. It holds back research deliberately and accidentally. It tampers in social relations deliberately and accidentally. But because a lot of this is "unseen" or legal, they get a pass. (And because we consider ourselves culpable in its actions. Actions that we morally oppose but have to justify somehow.)
How much wealth and environmental destruction have we suffered because of the states prevention of widespread nuclear power? How much wealth destruction and innovation has been lost to the states arbitrary imposition of regulations on small firms while looking the other way against the biggest players or fattening them up at lower classes expenses like the Fed did? How many lives have been ruined by the War on Drugs? Why does some young minority males engaging in unregulated transactions three times lead to life in prison but Angelo Mozilo doesn't even have to pay the full amount of his tiny settlement or spend an hour in jail? How much poverty has been perpetuated by the War on Drugs and the War on Poverty? Why perpetuate poverty and bureaucracy and inefficiency and political threats with the welfare state and tax system when a simple guaranteed minimum income and basic near-flat tax system is possible? How many people have died as the state deployed sanctions and violence at home and abroad in entirely unnecessary actions that serve for little other than displays of its power? How much have we wasted in security theater and military armaments?
I don't think the balance sheet adds up for the benefits. Not just annually but historically. Others probably disagree. It's intractable. But it's also win-win. I get to be right and they get to have their way.
I am sick and tired of turning on the tv every day to hear Obama bashing 24/7 over EVERYTHING. Dude gets zero credit for positive things and seemingly all of the blame for negative things he could not possibly control.
I'm seeing a disgusting narrative forming here that he is some sort of failure based on decisions mostly made in the past administration/congress (Iraq, Afghanistan, NSA etc.). Also, the code words of "disengagement" and he's "slacking off" to play golf is just infuriating. The fact that even a president can get tagged as a "lazy black guy" in 2014 hits close to home as a fellow minority.
Oh well, they just need to get Obamacare implemented right and the narrative-makers won't be able to spin that or the improving jobs numbers. Looking at these polls, I'm not sure how anyone can honestly say the country is worse off than it was in 2008 but so many do. Some of it is politics but a LOT of it is a pile-on by the "liberal" media.
[/rant]
I'm seeing a disgusting narrative forming here that he is some sort of failure based on decisions mostly made in the past administration/congress (Iraq, Afghanistan, NSA etc.). Also, the code words of "disengagement" and he's "slacking off" to play golf is just infuriating. The fact that even a president can get tagged as a "lazy black guy" in 2014 hits close to home as a fellow minority.
Oh well, they just need to get Obamacare implemented right and the narrative-makers won't be able to spin that or the improving jobs numbers. Looking at these polls, I'm not sure how anyone can honestly say the country is worse off than it was in 2008 but so many do. Some of it is politics but a LOT of it is a pile-on by the "liberal" media.
[/rant]
Good. I hope she loses again. Last thing I want is to have to hold my nose to vote for her. I highly doubt Warren runs, I'm not sure who id like in her place, just someone more progressive instead of so centrist. How about Deval Patrick? Does he have a shot?
There is no other Obama-like figure who can stop Hillary. Frankly, besides Clinton the Democratic candidates for President are utterly pathetic. The only other exception I can think of is Biden, but he's seriously too old.
Warren is very popular among liberals, but she would never end up having the superstar kind of appeal that Obama did.
You would never know that Obama's old news from the attacking that the GOP has trained on him.
He's a done deal.
He has his second term.
They can't retroactively un-elect him.
They should be planting seeds to kill Hillary's chances, but they apparently haven't figured this out yet. So as long as they're doing their usual temper tantrum thing at Obama, that's just great.
Ignatz Mouse
Banned
Show me the better way, that's actually been done and worked.
I don't want to speak for Brawndo too much, but I believe he was getting at wasn't that it's immorally and illegitimately gained in a way that someone who believes in private property would think it is, but that someone could see (and argue) that, as a concept, private property is immoral and illegitimate, and is inherently coercive, aggressive, and violent.
jamesinclair
Banned
Bernie Sanders would stomp any opponent if he decided to run.
He's got it all. The looks, the charm, the brains, the age, and the experience.
And he's not crippled by having a (D) next to his name.
benjipwns
Banned
Every voluntary contract both parties were allowed to read before signing ever? And that one party couldn't change the terms of at any time?
I would imagine if they reject self-ownership then they just believe all things including people should be their property and would have no issue with using violence to make it so.
A rejection of self ownership doesn't have to correlate to being pro-slavery (that seems like a jump), and I don't see how being anti-violence is equal to violence, but what I'm getting at is:
benjipwns said:
Well, and conscripting people into the capitalist version of private property. You need to have the general population in agreement to that bit of force.
teruterubozu
Member
Hillary is a pathetic choice too but we just can't admit it. The whole point of Obama was to break the Bush-Clinton-Bush cycle and yet we're willing to go right back into it after all.
Ignatz Mouse
Banned
I mean a country....
zero shift
Banned
I went to vote yesterday and I was like the only person under 50 in the room.
Anybody would have been a better candidate than Clinton.
It's amusing because I remember people rolling their eyes at other countries such as India or Argentina who seemingly elect people by their last name. I guess America isn't that different.
Anybody would have been a better candidate than Clinton.
Jimmie Carter has a best selling book out like every other year or so.
It's amusing because I remember people rolling their eyes at other countries such as India or Argentina who seemingly elect people by their last name. I guess America isn't that different.
benjipwns
Banned
But none about his time as Vice President.
Sounds like how my wife and I felt when we went to vote for an off-year county school levy special election. I think we were the only people under 70 who voted.
Aaron Strife
Banned
Amy Klobuchar would be a good candidate.
PhoenixDark
Banned
Yea...no. Whoever wins in 2016 will have some foreign policy experience and actual achievements in domestic policy.
benjipwns
Banned
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/senate-dems-campaign-arms-starts-9m-ad-nc-24960318
Meanwhile...another chance for Hillary to show she has a strong foreign policy unlike Obama: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/dennis-michael-lynch-isis-america
Meanwhile...another chance for Hillary to show she has a strong foreign policy unlike Obama: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/dennis-michael-lynch-isis-america
That's how I feel when I go and vote during midterm elections.
Arrowgigantic
Member
Yo, the Dean Machine wants back in? Sign me up!
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked