Elizabeth Warren for President(?)

[Shadow Wolf]

This would then do away with individual groups that ban together to support the candidate/candidates of their choice. Say like Greenpeace,Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders, ACLU, Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, The Human Rights Campaign, Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders, Open Society Institute, Aspen Institute, and those that support a more conservative venue like the NRA, or the Tea Party. Then there could not be any contributions made by any unions like, AFT, AFL-ICO, NEA and others. There could be not PAC's either. So, how do politicians get their message out.

Good. We are better off without all these groups clogging up the political system (and many groups, such as HRC and NRA only care about their money and power, and GLAAD are known for being PC bullies). If people want to participate, that is great. These large groups though very typically have too much power and easily drown out the voice of the people.
They also create the problem of career revolving door politics. Nobody ever leaves Washington because these groups keep them around and pay them large salaries with the money that should be going to their cause.

 

[metis]

Good. We are better off without all these groups clogging up the political system. If people want to participate, that is great. These large groups though very typically have too much power and easily drown out the voice of the people.

I gotta disagree with ya here as I much prefer a very open forum with lots and lots of ideas being thrown around versus a more limited one.

 

[esmith]

I gotta disagree with ya here as I much prefer a very open forum with lots and lots of ideas being thrown around versus a more limited one.

I agree, the more the merrier. However, I am only one voice among many. Therefore I contribute to groups that reflect my values and ideas. Thus we have one large group voicing opinions of many. Oh, by the way I do watch educational TV, it's just not what you find on PBS. There are many "educational" programs on pay TV (cable/satellite). You just have to find the time to watch them.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I gotta disagree with ya here as I much prefer a very open forum with lots and lots of ideas being thrown around versus a more limited one.

I fully agree with the open forum idea. What I don't agree with is how expensive it is to be a big player in our own "open" forum. Advocacy is also good, but not it goes to protecting rights that are a major threat to public safety (lack of regulations that make legally acquiring a gun too easy for those who shouldn't have them), or denying rights on unreasonable grounds (gay marriage).
Really the big problem is that in America we only care about money. If you don't have it, we're not interested. But what else can you except when the original intent was the right to pursue property, which was required to be owned in order to vote, thus required to be counted as a citizen, except for whenever it was beneficial to someone else?

 

[metis]

I fully agree with the open forum idea. What I don't agree with is how expensive it is to be a big player in our own "open" forum. Advocacy is also good, but not it goes to protecting rights that are a major threat to public safety (lack of regulations that make legally acquiring a gun too easy for those who shouldn't have them), or denying rights on unreasonable grounds (gay marriage).
Really the big problem is that in America we only care about money. If you don't have it, we're not interested. But what else can you except when the original intent was the right to pursue property, which was required to be owned in order to vote, thus required to be counted as a citizen, except for whenever it was beneficial to someone else?

I hear ya.

BTW, I find it somewhat ironic that many fundamentalist Christians especially take the book of Revelations as applying to upcoming events, and yet they seemingly miss the issue of the "anti-christ" that has it that pretty much everything is put in terms of money, while ignoring that this is exactly the nature of capitalism. Hmmmm, maybe it's just too close for them to see it.

 

[Songbird]

But without people like you voting who, like I, believe we need serious financial reform with elections, nothing is likely to get done along those lines.

I don't have any reason to believe voting matters. There have been no compelling improvements for any sector but the very wealthy, and American politics is performance art. We focus on the puppets, not the puppet masters, and voting is an ineffective manner of hoping for change. I'm not fatalistic or anarchistic. I'm deliberately, thoughtfully, provokingly refusing to vote.

A discussion topic for another thread - ethically, should we participate in an ineffective political system? Would a drastic number of non-voting citizens bring more reform than voting? Who are the puppet masters, and what kind of engagement should we have with them?

 

[Songbird]

I'm not entirely sure what that means, but I do know that I will definitely be voting.

Well, if she runs I will vote.

 

[LuisDantas]

You have reached a point where the specific names matter little, don't you?

Whoever the Dems propose will be seen by the GOP as the harbinger of apocalypse and a good justification for shouting extremism.

Whoever the GOP eventually agrees to propose will be too extreme to take seriously or vote for.

 

[esmith]

You have reached a point where the specific names matter little, don't you?

Whoever the Dems propose will be seen by the GOP as the harbinger of apocalypse and a good justification for shouting extremism.

Whoever the GOP eventually agrees to propose will be too extreme to take seriously or vote for.

That about sums it up for those who are hardliners on both sides of the political spectrum. However, as we see in today's political world that the right has gone farther right and the left has gone further left. What I dislike is that politicians, both Democrats and Republicans, have to play to their political base to win the nomination of their respective party. Then attempt to swing back to the middle to win the election. However as bad as this is it is necessary because the voting independents, who make up the majority of the voting public do not vote in the primaries.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

That about sums it up for those who are hardliners on both sides of the political spectrum. However, as we see in today's political world that the right has gone farther right and the left has gone further left. What I dislike is that politicians, both Democrats and Republicans, have to play to their political base to win the nomination of their respective party. Then attempt to swing back to the middle to win the election. However as bad as this is it is necessary because the voting independents, who make up the majority of the voting public do not vote in the primaries.

This is one reason why the political system is simply broken here. Not only does it gridelock a two party system of bad or worse but it forces the most extreme of candidates because the system of primaries. Changes to the way we vote such as instant runoff could help this. Though I don't see it happening as that lessens the vice grip parties have on us.

 

[Revoltingest]

You have reached a point where the specific names matter little, don't you?
Whoever the Dems propose will be seen by the GOP as the harbinger of apocalypse and a good justification for shouting extremism.
Whoever the GOP eventually agrees to propose will be too extreme to take seriously or vote for.

This post has interesting asymmetry:
The Dem will only be seen as extreme, but the Pub will be extreme.

 

[LuisDantas]

This post has interesting asymmetry:
The Dem will only be seen as extreme, but the Pub will be extreme.

Yes, it does.

Asymmetries have known to exist in the real world, interestingly enough.

 

[Revoltingest]

Yes, it does.
Asymmetries have known to exist in the real world, interestingly enough.

But some are an illusion borne of prejudice.

 

[LuisDantas]

But some are an illusion borne of prejudice.

Yes, I am aware of that. Far too aware, even.

Now, I take it that you disagree with my assessment? Maybe you even have some inaccuracy to point out?

 

[Revoltingest]

Yes, I am aware of that. Far too aware, even.

Now, I take it that you disagree with my assessment? Maybe you even have some inaccuracy to point out?

Let me offer a quiz on extremism:
Which president.....
- Argued to the USSC that government may waive a defendant's right to a jury trial?
- Argued to the USSC that public housing tenants have no right against warrantless searches?
- Presided over the greatest increase of domestic surveillance in history?
- Pursued whistleblowers of illegal government activity with the greatest zeal?
- Used the IRS for political purposes?

The problem with claiming extremism is "extremism" with respect to what? If it's how far a candidate strays from being a mainstream Democrat, then it will always be the Republican. But is extremism necessarily bad? I like some extremism....look at some Libertarian Party ultra-extreme agendas:
- Oppose all foreign adventurism, not just the current wars.
- Oppose the War On Drugs
- Oppose crony capitalism.
My problem is that Democrats & Republicans aren't extreme enuf in areas I want. But they are both extreme in subversion of our Constitution & justice.

 

[LuisDantas]

Let me offer a quiz on extremism:
Which president.....
- Argued to the USSC that government may waive a defendant's right to a jury trial?
- Argued to the USSC that public housing tenants have no right against warrantless searches?
- Presided over the greatest increase of domestic surveillance in history?
- Pursued whistleblowers of illegal government activity with the greatest zeal?
- Used the IRS for political purposes?

I have no idea for any of those.

Except for the whistleblowers question, that is. I assume it was some Democrat, since Republicans prefer to idolize their illegal operatives anyway.

The problem with claiming extremism is "extremism" with respect to what? If it's how far a candidate strays from being a mainstream Democrat, then it will always be the Republican.

My take on this matter is to take a look at the stated positions of both parties' politicians when the opportunity presents itself.

For instance, I often check the wikipedia articles of GOP politicians. I sometimes check the edit histories as well to see if there were vandalism or edit wars. An impressive percentage of those hold all-out caricatural positions, if the typical uncontested texts are to be believed. Various articles on Slate (mainly Fred Kaplan's, but not exclusively), a blog I follow and assorted other sources largely agree that those wikipedia articles are not satyrical, despite first impressions.

Between that and how often I have seen dishonest emphasis on some contexts, it is really difficult to even attempt to see the GOP under a favorable light. For about two decades now the question to me is how come people still vote for it at all.

Come to think of it, I also wonder what drives a politician to join the GOP at all these days. Or to stay with it. It is something of a mystery, it truly is.

But is extremism necessarily bad? I like some extremism....

Quite a lot of it. In fairness, that is not all that unusual either. There is a reason why the USA are sometimes called the land of excess.

Curiously, you feel somewhat unconfortable admitting it. I'm not sure why.

look at some Libertarian Party ultra-extreme agendas:[
- Oppose all foreign adventurism, not just the current wars.

That is not extreme, just politically difficult to attain in the current USA.

- Oppose the War On Drugs

That is not extreme, just incomplete. What would the drug policy be? From past statements, it seems that you hold a stance that is fairly typical these days, one of seeing it as a matter of personal choice. It greatly distresses me, but it is still a stance of passivity, not extremism.

- Oppose crony capitalism.

I suppose that is extreme in the USA these days. Best of luck, and I do mean it.

My problem is that Democrats & Republicans aren't extreme enuf in areas I want. But they are both extreme in subversion of our Constitution & justice.

No argument here.

 

[Revoltingest]

I have no idea for any of those.

In order....
Clinton
Clinton
Obama
Obama
And lastly, a trick question cuz many presidents misused the IRS....Obama, Nixon, & a few others.

Except for the whistleblowers question, that is. I assume it was some Democrat, since Republicans prefer to idolize their illegal operatives anyway.

And the Dems don't? Pfffft! I think of Holder.

My take on this matter is to take a look at the stated positions of both parties' politicians when the opportunity presents itself.
For instance, I often check the wikipedia articles of kGOP politicians. I sometimes check the edit histories as well to see if there were vandalism or edit wars. An impressive percentage of those hold all-out caricatural positions, if the typical uncontested texts are to be believed. Various articles on Slate (mainly Fred Kaplan's, but not exclusively), a blog I follow and assorted other sources largely agree that those wikipedia articles are not satyrical, despite first impressions.

So to discern extremism, you go to a Democratic source (Slate)?

Between that and how often I have seen dishonest emphasis on some contexts, it is really difficult to even attempt to see the GOP under a favorable light. For about two decades now the question to me is how come people still vote for it at all.

I can see how viewing Pubs in a favorable light would be difficult for one on the other side. I see dishonesty afflicting both.

Come to think of it, I also wonder what drives a politician to join the GOP at all these days. Or to stay with it. It is something of a mystery, it truly is.

Obviously, they either feel philosophical kinship, or they see the potential for holding office. As the last election showed, the latter has real value.

Quite a lot of it. In fairness, that is not all that unusual either. There is a reason why the USA are sometimes called the land of excess.

Meh....we don't really care what funny names ferriners have for us.

Curiously, you feel somewhat unconfortable admitting it. I'm not sure why.

I've long been comfortable being an extremist. And I joined an extremist party (about 1975) which reflects my values. What makes me uncomfortable is occasionally voting for a Pub or Dem.......<shudder> <shudder>.....

That is not extreme, just politically difficult to attain in the current USA.

They're difficult to attain because they make a majority of voters uncomfortable. And those are just the tip of the iceberg.

That is not extreme, just incomplete. What would the drug policy be? From past statements, it seems that you hold a stance that is fairly typical these days, one of seeing it as a matter of personal choice. It greatly distresses me, but it is still a stance of passivity, not extremism.

People are only now beginning to take baby steps in the direction of drug legalization.
I guarantee you'll find our platform horrible in the extreme....
Platform | Libertarian Party

I suppose that is extreme in the USA these days. Best of luck, and I do mean it.

If you knew us better, you'd hate us even more than Republicans.

 

[BSM1]

In order....
Clinton
Clinton
Obama
Obama
And lastly, a trick question cuz many presidents misused the IRS....Obama, Nixon, & a few others.

And the Dems don't? Pfffft! I think of Holder.

So to discern extremism, you go to a Democratic source (Slate)?

I can see how viewing Pubs in a favorable light would be difficult for one on the other side. I see dishonesty afflicting both.

Obviously, they either feel philosophical kinship, or they see the potential for holding office. As the last election showed, the latter has real value.

Meh....we don't really care what funny names ferriners have for us.

I've long been comfortable being an extremist. And I joined an extremist party (about 1975) which reflects my values. What makes me uncomfortable is occasionally voting for a Pub or Dem.......<shudder> <shudder>.....

They're difficult to attain because they make a majority of voters uncomfortable. And those are just the tip of the iceberg.

People are only now beginning to take baby steps in the direction of drug legalization.
I guarantee you'll find our platform horrible in the extreme....
Platform | Libertarian Party

If you knew us better, you'd hate us even more than Republicans.

And the only president to be impeached was a Democrat.

 

[Revoltingest]

And the only president to be impeached was a Democrat.

Well, Nixon's evasion of impeachment by resigning & having his replacement pardon him was arguably a worse offense. In a contest of who-is-worse, both parties are well armed.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

I have just read through that report and through her own site.
She would fit very combfortably in the liberal democrats in the UK
while I would have no difficulty voting for her, it is perhaps more of difficul. seeing her as a president or party leader.

I see her more like a cross between Vince Cable and Danny Alexander.