J28

Paglia on (some of) the 2020 D Field

Recommended Posts

You’ve been a sharp political prognosticator over the years. So can I start by asking for a prediction. What will happen in 2020 in America? Will Hillary Clinton run again?

If the economy continues strong, Trump will be reelected. The Democrats (my party) have been in chaos since the 2016 election and have no coherent message except Trump hatred. Despite the vast pack of potential candidates, no one yet seems to have the edge. I had high hopes for Kamala Harris, but she missed a huge opportunity to play a moderating, statesmanlike role and has already imprinted an image of herself as a ruthless inquisitor that will make it hard for her to pull voters across party lines.

Screechy Elizabeth Warren has never had a snowball’s chance in hell to appeal beyond upper-middle-class professionals of her glossy stripe. Kirsten Gillibrand is a wobbly mediocrity. Cory Booker has all the gravitas of a cork. Andrew Cuomo is a yapping puppy with a long, muddy bullyboy tail. Both Bernie Sanders (for whom I voted in the 2016 primaries) and Joe Biden (who would have won the election had Obama not cut him off at the knees) are way too old and creaky.

To win in the nation’s broad midsection, the Democratic nominee will need to project steadiness, substance, and warmth. I’ve been looking at Congresswoman Cheri Bustos of Illinois and Governor Steve Bullock of Montana. As for Hillary, she’s pretty much damaged goods, but her perpetual, sniping, pity-me tour shows no signs of abating. She still has a rabidly loyal following, but it’s hard to imagine her winning the nomination again, with her iron grip on the Democratic National Committee now gone. Still, it’s in her best interest to keep the speculation fires burning. Given how thoroughly she has already sabotaged the rising candidates by hogging the media spotlight, I suspect she wants Trump to win again. I don’t see our stumbling, hacking, shop-worn Evita yielding the spotlight willingly to any younger gal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The real question is whether or not any one on team red has the stones to challenge Trump.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, SailBlueH2O said:

I love reading Paglia....

She’s a thinking person’s Progressive!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Remodel said:

The real question is whether or not any one on team red has the stones to challenge Trump.

Bloomberg unless he runs as an I.......

Kasich

I still think Flake is going to run

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Olsonist said:

Paglia refers to herself as a libertarian. I'm a progressive and while she is interesting, she isn't a progressive and would sneer at anyone suggesting that.

http://time.com/72546/drinking-age-alcohol-repeal/

you are a fascist hiding behind kind sounding "progressive" ....thanks but I'll keep my personal freedoms as laid out by the founding fathers in the  US Constitution...hence 2nd Amendment 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, dacapo said:

Bloomberg unless he runs as an I.......

Kasich

I still think Flake is going to run

I could support a Kasich bid for the nomination.  I think a Kasich/Sanders or Kasich/Clinton race would've been a lot better than what we got. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, SailBlueH2O said:

you are a fascist hiding behind kind sounding "progressive" ....thanks but I'll keep my personal freedoms as laid out by the founding fathers in the  US Constitution...hence 2nd Amendment 

O's a fascist?  Do tell.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

I could support a Kasich bid for the nomination.  I think a Kasich/Sanders or Kasich/Clinton race would've been a lot better than what we got. 

 

I will register as a Republican if Kasich or Flake run to vote for them in the primary

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SailBlueH2O said:
1 hour ago, J28 said:

She’s a thinking person’s Progressive!

is a word she is honest

I've never heard of her before, but if this essay is typical, she sounds angry and spiteful. Not much substance there, she talks about 9 candidates and Hillary, whom she clearly loathes, is 3 of them.

Furthermore, the claim that Obama "cut Biden off at the knees" is a complete fabrication, Joe Biden decided not to run in the aftermath of his sons death.

FWIW I agree that Hillary has discouraged the field of rising leadership.

-DSK

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, dacapo said:

Bloomberg unless he runs as an I.......

Kasich

I still think Flake is going to run

Bloomberg will run as a D if he runs.  Flake would have a better chance running as a D after his disgraceful conduct on the Judiciary Committee both during the Kavanaugh confirmation and his recent action blocking additional judicial nominees in order to protect Mueller's probe ad infinitum. 

Republicans of all stripes hate him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Olsonist said:

Paglia refers to herself as a libertarian. I'm a progressive and while she is occasionally interesting, she isn't a progressive and she would sneer at anyone suggesting so.

http://time.com/72546/drinking-age-alcohol-repeal/

In that 2014 article she does, at least with regard to drugs and alcohol.  However, as a vocal supporter of Bernie Sanders in 2016, identifying her as anything other than progressive doesn't jibe with the progressive nature of his politics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

I've never heard of her before, but if this essay is typical, she sounds angry and spiteful. Not much substance there, she talks about 9 candidates and Hillary, whom she clearly loathes, is 3 of them.

Furthermore, the claim that Obama "cut Biden off at the knees" is a complete fabrication, Joe Biden decided not to run in the aftermath of his sons death.

FWIW I agree that Hillary has discouraged the field of rising leadership.

-DSK

You should get to know her.  it might open your eyes to another view of the current state of the American Left.  If you listen to her in interviews, she's not angry and spiteful.  She's very energetic, intense and passionate.

And Obama DID cut off Biden by not openly advocating for him.  Hillary already had the DNC locked up and Obama didn't want to go up against the Clinton Machine so he let Biden twist in the wind.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Republicans hate Flake and Democrats aren't going to vote for someone who voted to confirm Kavenaugh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We already have a Flake in the White house, do we really need another?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, J28 said:

You should get to know her.  it might open your eyes to another view of the current state of the American Left.  If you listen to her in interviews, she's not angry and spiteful.  She's very energetic, intense and passionate.

 

There's a difference between hateful and shrill partisanship, which is what I see in this article, and "intense."

Show me where she "intensely" discusses what a Democrat has done well.

Biden made his own call, according to him and many others close to the situation. From what I've seen, Obama would have considered it a big plus to have his Vice President follow him.

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, J28 said:

In that 2014 article she does, at least with regard to drugs and alcohol.  However, as a vocal supporter of Bernie Sanders in 2016, identifying her as anything other than progressive doesn't jibe with the progressive nature of his politics.

It's better to take her at her word when she says she's a libertarian (and I don't hold libertarians in any great regard). Moreover, Paglia was not a "vocal supporter of Bernie Sanders in 2016". She opposed Hillary and vacillated between Sanders + Stein, saying she would vote for Stein but then eventually voting for Sanders in the primary.

Really, read what the lady actually writes, especially if you're going to name drop her. She's not half bad ... if you read her. One way to demonstrate that is to actually quote her (and the OP doesn't count).

I should add that I'm not really a fan. I read some essays in Sex, Art and American Culture way back when but I've kind of moved on. But she can write.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Paglia was always hateful. Just used to be a leftie, and is now, well, hard to say. If she says Libertarian, sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

Paglia was always hateful. Just used to be a leftie, and is now, well, hard to say. If she says Libertarian, sure.

I find libertarian philosophies appealing, but the actual libertarians themselves are .... as far as I have ever known........ inflexible doctrinaire troglodytes. Cocksure that the reason why the world is so fucked up is that everybody else is stupider than they are.

I actually worked with a libertarian about 20 years ago, running for a local office; but he started talking about abolishing public schools once he got into office (which as a county-level official, he would have had zero ability to do) and I realized that he was a complete waste of time. Haven't met any that were much better, since. Reading Ayn Rand and Ron Paul is a very poor knowledge base to approach public office with.

-DSK

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

I could support a Kasich bid for the nomination.  I think a Kasich/Sanders or Kasich/Clinton race would've been a lot better than what we got. 

 

Try and name something - anything that wouldn't have been a lot better than what you got.

Nixon would've been better than what you got.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

I find libertarian philosophies appealing,

Libertarian philosophy is appealing to most people - for about 5 minutes.

It doesn't withstand even the smallest amount of intelligent analysis.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, SloopJonB said:

Libertarian philosophy is appealing to most people - for about 5 minutes.

It doesn't withstand even the smallest amount of intelligent analysis.

I'd be inclined to carefully consider a Libertarian approach tempered by an appropriate dose of pragmatism. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, SloopJonB said:
32 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

I find libertarian philosophies appealing,

Libertarian philosophy is appealing to most people - for about 5 minutes.

It doesn't withstand even the smallest amount of intelligent analysis.

I see the problem as more that the people who find it compelling, rather than appealing, are inflexible authoritarian types whose sense of authoritarianism makes them really really hate to follow anybody else's instructions. That's why the emotional need to overturn established, functioning policies; and the inflexible and ultimately impractical attempt to make a vague philosophical guideline into some kind of strict commandment.

Greenspan was a Republican by way of being a Jewish Libertarian, and was even an Ayn Rand fan...... but he also was highly educated and applied a lot of complex analysis in his decisions. I was a big fan of Alan Greenspan until he caved to political pressure in 1999 (although I can see why he did), was still a less-big fan until I read his autobiography and found out he was an Ayn Rand enthusiast.

 

1 minute ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

I'd be inclined to carefully consider a Libertarian approach tempered by an appropriate dose of pragmatism. 

 

Zackly. Ever read Ayn Rand? Hopefully you realized that her writings are fiction....... ^_^

-DSK

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

I'd be inclined to carefully consider a Libertarian approach tempered by an appropriate dose of pragmatism. 

 

Libertarians aren't any different than hippies in a commune. Their approach works only among a group vastly more benign than the average. The real world countries lacking central government authority are shitholes, not Ayn Rand paradise.

 

John Rogers > Quotes >

“There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old’s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs."

[Kung Fu Monkey -- Ephemera, blog post, March 19, 2009]”

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

EDIT  - Communism works great too - in small groups. Families are communist for sure - from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs works fine for 4 related people. My wife doesn't fix the car and I don't decorate the house. Infants don't feed themselves or starve. Toddles don't wire ceiling fans or fix propane leaks. Wives usually don't dig out the drainage ditch or fix the tractor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, kent_island_sailor said:

Libertarians aren't any different than hippies in a commune. Their approach works only among a group vastly more benign than the average. The real world countries lacking central government authority are shitholes, not Ayn Rand paradise.

Let me expand on that a little Kent - I don't think that the idea of "no central government authority" is appropriate, but, I think that the libertarian idea of "live and let live" has some merit too - hence the "pragmatic tempering", maybe a better way to say it is " governance with the idea to be as unobtrusive as practical". as a balance to the extremes of "no government" and "government should control everything because individuals can't be trusted to do the right things". 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, kent_island_sailor said:

EDIT  - Communism works great too - in small groups. Families are communist for sure - from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs works fine for 4 related people. My wife doesn't fix the car and I don't decorate the house.

It works pretty well for the orthodox Hutterites and the Israeli Kibbutzim too. Most of us are way too selfish for it to work otherwise.

For the benefit of the Rat, those communities actually ARE communist, even though they don't label themselves as such.

Think real hard about that VS Nazi's, Soviets etc. and see if you can comprehend it.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Let me expand on that a little Kent - I don't think that the idea of "no central government authority" is appropriate, but, I think that the libertarian idea of "live and let live" has some merit too - hence the "pragmatic tempering", maybe a better way to say it is " governance with the idea to be as unobtrusive as practical". as a balance to the extremes of "no government" and "government should control everything because individuals can't be trusted to do the right things".

The fundamental flaw in that line of thinking is that it is predicated on the underlying assumption that government was created and exists for its own purposes.

It wasn't and doesn't.

Fences were invented because a neighbour was a selfish asshole. Fence height laws were created because THAT neighbour was also an asshole.

All laws and regulations were and are created in response to a need or a lack of something. If Libertarianism had a snowballs chance of working there would be a tiny, tiny fraction of the current laws on the books and tort lawyers would be virtually non-existent.

All too many individuals can't be trusted to do the right things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Olsonist said:

What are some libertarian accomplishments?

They are working hard at stopping Ebola.

pbiro_monrovia_126.jpg?itok=TqdQnoLj&tim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, SloopJonB said:

The fundamental flaw in that line of thinking is that it is predicated on the underlying assumption that government was created and exists for its own purposes.

It wasn't and doesn't.

Fences were invented because a neighbour was a selfish asshole. Fence height laws were created because THAT neighbour was also an asshole.

All laws and regulations were and are created in response to a need or a lack of something. If Libertarianism had a snowballs chance of working there would be a tiny, tiny fraction of the current laws on the books and tort lawyers would be virtually non-existent.

All too many individuals can't be trusted to do the right things.

And the counter to THIS is that government needs to be constrained, or it easily DOES start to focus more on its own growth and perpetuation than it does satisfying the requirements for which it was instantiated.  There's a balance, and as you correctly noted w/r/t individuals - they are the ones who make decisions in governments as well. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This Paglia talks a lot of crap.

Bernie will run, he will win the D nomination, he will absolutely DESTROY Trump in the General - he will be President.

Will probably pick Beto as his VP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

And the counter to THIS is that government needs to be constrained, or it easily DOES start to focus more on its own growth and perpetuation than it does satisfying the requirements for which it was instantiated.  There's a balance, and as you correctly noted w/r/t individuals - they are the ones who make decisions in governments as well. 

That is covered (theoretically) by elections.

Libertarianism ain't the solution to growth of government.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Peanutbutterjars said:

This Paglia talks a lot of crap.

Bernie will run, he will win the D nomination, he will absolutely DESTROY Trump in the General - he will be President.

Will probably pick Beto as his VP.

Is the Sun going to rise in the west as well?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, SloopJonB said:

Is the Sun going to rise in the west as well?

The sun does rise in the west, just as it does in the east, and the south, and the north..... (Actually, the sun doesn't rise anywhere, the earth rotates, while the sun remains stationary)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Peanutbutterjars said:

This Paglia talks a lot of crap.

Bernie will run, he will win the D nomination, he will absolutely DESTROY Trump in the General - he will be President.

Will probably pick Beto as his VP.

A few questions:

1.  Please identify some of the “crap” from Paglia.

2.  What drugs are you on?

3.  Whose sock are you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

sock on sock warfare!

Rock'em Sock'em Trollbots!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

And the counter to THIS is that government needs to be constrained, or it easily DOES start to focus more on its own growth and perpetuation than it does satisfying the requirements for which it was instantiated.  There's a balance, and as you correctly noted w/r/t individuals - they are the ones who make decisions in governments as well. 

Libertarian thought is useful. Should the government be the only car manufacturer? No they should not be in that business at all. I drove a government built car (British Leyland product) and the nationalized hopelessly archaic factory made an engine I had to rebuild at 30,000 miles. So we know we don't want that. Should the government try and stop people from drinking, screwing, and smoking pot? No they should not, you get oppressive laws, a prison-industrial complex, and people do all three anyway. We know we don't want that.

Should the government stick their noses into the meat packing industry? Should they let the heavy coercive hand of the government inspector assume itself to be smarter and more moral than the businessmen who run a slaughterhouse and the consumers who buy the products if they so choose? Should they not allow free people to make their own decisions? HELL NO! As anyone who read The Jungle knows, what you get absent the government is rotten diseased meat and parts of workers who fell into the vat being sold :o

Likewise should Kent Island Air skip all that bullshit about 100 hour inspections and 135 approved pilots? If I want to sell tickets for $10 and you want to buy them, why the hell not? It isn't like ALL the passengers die, even out in the farthest reaches of BFE with the worst Russian surplus airplanes and drunk Russian surplus pilots they survive more often than not :rolleyes: So if better than 50% odds is OK with you....:blink:

We DID have that more or less almost a century ago and the real airlines trying to not kill their passengers begged for regulations to get rid of their kamikaze competitors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

And the counter to THIS is that government needs to be constrained, or it easily DOES start to focus more on its own growth and perpetuation than it does satisfying the requirements for which it was instantiated.  There's a balance, and as you correctly noted w/r/t individuals - they are the ones who make decisions in governments as well. 

I don’t know man, I think humans have this need to cede control, otherwise, how to explain the abundance of HOAs? I mean, many, many people voluntarily give up control to the most meddlesome individuals within a group.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Mrleft8 said:

The sun does rise in the west, just as it does in the east, and the south, and the north..... (Actually, the sun doesn't rise anywhere, the earth rotates, while the sun remains stationary)

The sun is not stationary.

1*zmvyQDHUTBTEtXp-xnfCjg.gif

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, kent_island_sailor said:

We DID have that more or less almost a century ago

And there is the fundamental fact that the right wingers miss with their anti government, anti regulation BS.

They are so hopelessly ignorant of history that they don't realize that we've been there and done that.

That is WHY regulations and laws exist - because the alternative was fucking unacceptable.

Got a problem with OSHA being intrusive? Read about the Triangle Shirtwaist fire.

Or about black lung in the West Virginia coal mines.

Such a large percentage of the human race are such selfish, greedy, uncaring assholes that we have to have government intervention to keep them from ruining the lives of huge number of people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, kent_island_sailor said:

Should the government try and stop people from drinking, screwing, and smoking pot? No they should not, you get oppressive laws, a prison-industrial complex, and people do all three anyway. We know we don't want that.

This is one of the major issues that separates libertarians from the Duopoly.

Sorry, Duopoly types, but "some of your elk like Ayn Rand" isn't any kind of argument. You're wrong and we're right about drug prohibition.

And asset forfeiture. And eminent domain. And that's why I think none of you want to talk about those subjects when you want to talk about libertarians.

9 hours ago, kent_island_sailor said:

Should the government stick their noses into the meat packing industry? Should they let the heavy coercive hand of the government inspector assume itself to be smarter and more moral than the businessmen who run a slaughterhouse and the consumers who buy the products if they so choose? Should they not allow free people to make their own decisions? HELL NO! As anyone who read The Jungle knows, what you get absent the government is rotten diseased meat and parts of workers who fell into the vat being sold :o

And that's why I continue to support the Pure Food and Drug Act. Our only drug law to ever reduce addiction, btw. If you're selling something that goes in my body, standards and labels are fine. Prohibition is still stupid.

 

9 hours ago, kent_island_sailor said:

Likewise should Kent Island Air skip all that bullshit about 100 hour inspections and 135 approved pilots? If I want to sell tickets for $10 and you want to buy them, why the hell not? It isn't like ALL the passengers die, even out in the farthest reaches of BFE with the worst Russian surplus airplanes and drunk Russian surplus pilots they survive more often than not :rolleyes: So if better than 50% odds is OK with you....:blink:

We DID have that more or less almost a century ago and the real airlines trying to not kill their passengers begged for regulations to get rid of their kamikaze competitors.

As a former flight instructor, I have a pretty complete knowledge of our rules. Have you ever seen me complain about any of them? No, because unlike asset forfeiture abuse, eminent domain abuse, or our monumentally stupid war on weed, that's not one of our big issues. It's a way to avoid talking about them.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, SloopJonB said:

Try and name something - anything that wouldn't have been a lot better than what you got.

Nixon would've been better than what you got.

Nixon was actually pretty competent except that his insecurities turned him into a crook. Trump is a worse crook with no obvious competencies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Saorsa said:

The sun is not stationary.

1*zmvyQDHUTBTEtXp-xnfCjg.gif

Doesn't it all depend on where you are standing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Raz'r said:

I don’t know man, I think humans have this need to cede control, otherwise, how to explain the abundance of HOAs? I mean, many, many people voluntarily give up control to the most meddlesome individuals within a group.

There's a few reasons I live in a place where I have more cows than people for neighbors.  HOAs are at the top. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, dogballs Tom said:

This is one of the major issues that separates libertarians from the Duopoly.

Sorry, Duopoly types, but "some of your elk like Ayn Rand" isn't any kind of argument. You're wrong and we're right about drug prohibition.

And asset forfeiture. And eminent domain. And that's why I think none of you want to talk about those subjects when you want to talk about libertarians.

And that's why I continue to support the Pure Food and Drug Act. Our only drug law to ever reduce addiction, btw. If you're selling something that goes in my body, standards and labels are fine. Prohibition is still stupid.

 

As a former flight instructor, I have a pretty complete knowledge of our rules. Have you ever seen me complain about any of them? No, because unlike asset forfeiture abuse, eminent domain abuse, or our monumentally stupid war on weed, that's not one of our big issues. It's a way to avoid talking about them.

Tom - don't assume YOU are the actual totality of all Libertarians. When we discuss them, we are not only talking about one person ;)

Plenty of them pretty much want to let the Free Market Fairy handle everything, food and airlines included. BTW, without eminent domain, it would be almost impossible to build roads, dams, bridges, or pipelines. A few old timers yelling "Get Off My Lawn" could have made I-95 look like a drunk boa constrictor instead of a road.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bristol-Cruiser said:

Nixon was actually pretty competent except that his insecurities turned him into a crook. Trump is a worse crook with no obvious competencies.

If memory servers, Nixon was convinced his enemies were going to do to him everything he wanted to do to them. If he was a dog he would have been a fear biter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, SloopJonB said:

And there is the fundamental fact that the right wingers miss with their anti government, anti regulation BS.

They are so hopelessly ignorant of history that they don't realize that we've been there and done that.

That is WHY regulations and laws exist - because the alternative was fucking unacceptable.

Got a problem with OSHA being intrusive? Read about the Triangle Shirtwaist fire.

Or about black lung in the West Virginia coal mines.

Such a large percentage of the human race are such selfish, greedy, uncaring assholes that we have to have government intervention to keep them from ruining the lives of huge number of people.

Dude...We have indeed been there and done that, both leftist and rightist. It is manifestly true that too little government impedes social and economic development as it is manifestly true that too much government has the same effect. It is also manifestly true that the greedy have used both to advance their own interests. The left-right debate is not pro government vs anti government, it over what level of government is most beneficial.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, kent_island_sailor said:

If memory servers, Nixon was convinced his enemies were going to do to him everything he wanted to do to them. If he was a dog he would have been a fear biter.

Basically, the irony of Watergate was that Nixon's people did not need to do what they did. He would have won without the break-in and all the nonsense that followed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, kent_island_sailor said:

Tom - don't assume YOU are the actual totality of all Libertarians. When we discuss them, we are not only talking about one person ;)

Plenty of them pretty much want to let the Free Market Fairy handle everything, food and airlines included. BTW, without eminent domain, it would be almost impossible to build roads, dams, bridges, or pipelines. A few old timers yelling "Get Off My Lawn" could have made I-95 look like a drunk boa constrictor instead of a road.

I am aware that many of my elk try to figure out how to be an anarchist on any given issue. They're among the throngs who wish to burn me for my heresies.

BTW, thinking that there are abuses and eminent domain has been taken too far isn't the same as thinking we should not have it at all. Some of my elk do think the latter. I don't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Dog said:

Dude...We have indeed been there and done that, both leftist and rightist. It is manifestly true that too little government impedes social and economic development as it is manifestly true that too much government has the same effect. It is also manifestly true that the greedy have used both to advance their own interests. The left-right debate is not pro government vs anti government, it over what level of government is most beneficial.

So all your anti-government bullshittery is just bullshittery?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

So all your anti-government bullshittery is just bullshittery?

What is bullshit is your claim that I'm anti-government.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dog said:

Dude...We have indeed been there and done that, both leftist and rightist. It is manifestly true that too little government impedes social and economic development as it is manifestly true that too much government has the same effect. It is also manifestly true that the greedy have used both to advance their own interests. The left-right debate is not pro government vs anti government, it over what level of government is most beneficial.

Well said.

To addrss a bit more detail: it's also a question of -what- it is expected for our gov't to do (guns or butter), and what should be forbidden to it. What level of gov't is appropriate? More or less, sure, and that shifts over time...... no need for a New Deal in boom times, for example.

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dog said:

Dude...We have indeed been there and done that, both leftist and rightist. It is manifestly true that too little government impedes social and economic development as it is manifestly true that too much government has the same effect. It is also manifestly true that the greedy have used both to advance their own interests. The left-right debate is not pro government vs anti government, it over what level of government is most beneficial.

Exactly.  The discussion should be “what is the proper role of government”, not should there be either anarchy or communism.  Somewhere in the middle between those two extremes is where the debate should occur.  I don’t think conservatives on this forum  are arguing for zero regulation and a totally unfettered market and likewise I don’t think liberals here are arguing for state ownership of everything and the abolishment of private property.  The difficulty has been and always will be trying to find the right balance of free market principles and effective (and fair) regulation.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Bristol-Cruiser said:

Doesn't it all depend on where you are standing?

Yes, but with so many language pedants here I thought a bit of physics could be introduced.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, J28 said:

Exactly.  The discussion should be “what is the proper role of government”, not should there be either anarchy or communism.  Somewhere in the middle between those two extremes is where the debate should occur.  I don’t think conservatives on this forum  are arguing for zero regulation and a totally unfettered market and likewise I don’t think liberals here are arguing for state ownership of everything and the abolishment of private property.  The difficulty has been and always will be trying to find the right balance of free market principles and effective (and fair) regulation.

The problem arises when

On 10/17/2018 at 5:10 AM, dogballs Tom said:

... people who don't appreciate the need for public safety regulations challenge things like the "need" for 1,500 hours of training that does not cover braiding hair to braid hair

To name one example that's pretty similar to complaining about federal aviation regulations. Or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, dogballs Tom said:

The problem arises when

To name one example that's pretty similar to complaining about federal aviation regulations. Or not.

 YOu were praising a relative for becoming an RN. RNs only still exist because of regulation. Fuck off with your double standards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

 YOu were praising a relative for becoming an RN. RNs only still exist because of regulation. Fuck off with your double standards.

Nurses exist.  An RN is just an indication of a specific training regimen and state licensing.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Saorsa said:

Nurses exist.  An RN is just an indication of a specific training regimen and state licensing.

thanks for googling that up grandpa! I'm sure you didn't know that - but I did. Hence my comment about Tom being proud of the RN part. RNs make more money because of state regulations - and often Unions. in states that are more libertarian there's less demand for RNs, more for LVNs and such.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

 YOu were praising a relative for becoming an RN. RNs only still exist because of regulation. Fuck off with your double standards.

And they get training that's related to nursing. Which isn't quite like being required to get 1,500 hours of training that doesn't cover braiding hair before being allowed to braid hair.

Differences:

1. Relevant training vs not relevant training.

2. A bad hairdo is never life threatening, but bad nursing is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, dogballs Tom said:

And they get training that's related to nursing. Which isn't quite like being required to get 1,500 hours of training that doesn't cover braiding hair before being allowed to braid hair.

Differences:

1. Relevant training vs not relevant training.

2. A bad hairdo is never life threatening, but bad nursing is.

In other words, some rules/laws/regulations are silly and some are not.

I think it is vital to protect wetlands. Good rules :) Except when they decided my yard was a wetland. The island is flat and doesn't drain well, the whole freaking place is wet after it rains. No aquatic life lives in my yard, it is just wet :rolleyes: I am pretty sure most people with any common sense realize anything can go too far or not far enough. Requiring seat belts in the C-150 I used to fly - good.  Requiring I take out the excellent Navy surplus 4 point harnesses and replace them with crappy - but approved - Cessna seat belts that would have been rejected from a Corvair as being not safe enough........... :angry:

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, kent_island_sailor said:

I think it is vital to protect wetlands. Good rules :) Except when they decided my yard was a wetland. The island is flat and doesn't drain well, the whole freaking place is wet after it rains. No aquatic life lives in my yard, it is just wet :rolleyes:

About half of my property is "for real" wetland. Swamp. Grasses growing in muck where humans can't walk. Lots of things live there and they really do need protection, even if just navigable-adjacent. But that's another thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, kent_island_sailor said:
1 hour ago, dogballs Tom said:

And they get training that's related to nursing. Which isn't quite like being required to get 1,500 hours of training that doesn't cover braiding hair before being allowed to braid hair.

Differences:

1. Relevant training vs not relevant training.

2. A bad hairdo is never life threatening, but bad nursing is.

In other words, some rules/laws/regulations are silly and some are not.

I think it is vital to protect wetlands. Good rules :) Except when they decided my yard was a wetland. The island is flat and doesn't drain well, the whole freaking place is wet after it rains. No aquatic life lives in my yard, it is just wet :rolleyes: I am pretty sure most people with any common sense realize anything can go too far or not far enough. Requiring seat belts in the C-150 I used to fly - good.  Requiring I take out the excellent Navy surplus 4 point harnesses and replace them with crappy - but approved - Cessna seat belts that would have been rejected from a Corvair as being not safe enough........... :angry:

 

The problem is that the process for writing rules needs to be flexible so it can be updated, and can reflect technical best practices, and be easily understood; at the same time they need to cover the cases of bad faith as well.

You should see the OSHA handbook on stairs. The one I was given in the mid-1990s was about 400 pages with few / small illustrations, and that was not the book of regulations. That was the quick 'n easy handbook. Now, people hurt themselves on the stairs. It makes sense to try and make stairs safe. Somewhere in there, it got out of hand.

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, dogballs Tom said:

And they get training that's related to nursing. Which isn't quite like being required to get 1,500 hours of training that doesn't cover braiding hair before being allowed to braid hair.

Differences:

1. Relevant training vs not relevant training.

2. A bad hairdo is never life threatening, but bad nursing is.

another day, another fauxbertarian bullshitting from dogballs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

You should see the OSHA handbook on stairs. The one I was given in the mid-1990s was about 400 pages with few / small illustrations, and that was not the book of regulations. That was the quick 'n easy handbook. Now, people hurt themselves on the stairs. It makes sense to try and make stairs safe. Somewhere in there, it got out of hand.

Somehow.

Possibly related, a friend of mine met a cute guy and learned he was a lawyer. Literally the second thing she said to him, after her name, was something about "all these frivolous lawsuits ruining everything." He's a personal injury lawyer for Morgan and Morgan. That was years ago and they're engaged now, so things went OK.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the democratic base wants 'their Trump' - someone who will lash out, press hard, and really doesn't give a shit about 'expanding tents', or 'mending fences' or 'consensus'  The base wants validation and revenge.

From looking at a few sources this morning, the front runners (in no order) seem to be Andrew Cuomo, Elizabeth Warren, Cory Booker, Kirsten Gillibrand, Bernie Sanders, and Joe Biden.   I think that list is flawed for a major reason - they're all senators who tend to get more face time and therefore have better 'name recognition' against the generic ballot, 2 years out.  Further, I don't see any of those guys as 'base warriors' with the exception of Sanders whom I think Sanders has the same problem as Paul Ryan - relatively narrow focus in an important but un-entertaining area.  I think Biden would destroy Trump in a general election but I think the other five would all face uphill battles against Trump.

I wouldn't count out the 'celebrity' candidate but it's not Oprah.  My money is on Tom Steyer to fill that roll.  He's been floating his name out there and has the money and ego to self-fund.  What he doesn't have is 30+ years of self-promotion and I doubt 2 in 10 democrats know who he is.  If he's smart, Steyer IMMEDIATE launch into an emotional and unrelenting battle against the arch-villain of democratic base politics - the Electoral College.  I think the candidate that full-throatily embraces destroying the electoral college immediately gains 20 points in the polls and becomes the darling of the most leftist media.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/5/2018 at 9:26 AM, dacapo said:

I still think Flake is going to run

 

America will not elect a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It was true for Romney and it remains true for Flake. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the republican side, the only counter-revolt I can realistically see in 2020 is one lead by Kasich.

Most of Trumps opponents have been co-opted or given up the fight.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, cmilliken said:

On the republican side, the only counter-revolt I can realistically see in 2020 is one lead by Kasich.

Most of Trumps opponents have been co-opted or given up the fight.

 

I'm a Kasich fan but I don't see that succeeding. It's Trump unless he decides he decides for whatever reason that he want's to spend more time with his family.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Dog said:

I'm a Kasich fan but I don't see that succeeding. It's Trump unless he decides he decides for whatever reason that he want's to spend more time with his family.

I don't think he'll succeed either but I can't see any other republicans even trying.  He's the only name I could think of that would pick up that gauntlet today.

In a year, depending on how the legal cases proceed, the field may be open but as of today, Kasich is the only person I can realistically imagine giving it ago.  And I think he'll try.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Trump hangs it up for whatever reason, IMHO Pence would be next up with Nikki Haley as VP candidate.  I think that ticket would bring together both the Trumpsters and the never-Trumpers.  As long as the economy is relatively good, they would be tough to beat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/5/2018 at 6:29 AM, SailBlueH2O said:

you are a fascist hiding behind kind sounding "progressive" ....thanks but I'll keep my personal freedoms as laid out by the founding fathers in the  US Constitution...hence 2nd Amendment 

And now SailBlue expects Olsonist to spend time trying to convince SailBlue that he, Olsonist is not a Bolshevik (I guess :blink:) , while SailBlue hangs kind of “as for me and mine, we serve the Lord” sign by the front door of his rhetorical house along with one of those big North Stars, while doing the ‘gosh I’m so self satisfied :rolleyes: and smug in my own divinity’ poses as he hits the ‘submit reply’ button.  

It’s a trap, Olsonist!  :lol:  an old school ‘drink too much and try to feel better by eating sticks of butter’ trick!  Why SailBlue suddenly hates you so much as to accuse you of wanting to strip him of ALL of his constitutional rights and freedoms is unfathonable!  

It’s enough to make a person think that SailBlue has convinced himself that freedom of religion is a right he’d like to strip from the rest of us, and impose his beliefs on everybody!  But by God, SailBlue, the God Fearing people of this country are not going to let you do this heinous anti American thing!  Repent from your one religion America radicalism!  

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, cmilliken said:

I don't think he'll succeed either but I can't see any other republicans even trying.  He's the only name I could think of that would pick up that gauntlet today.

In a year, depending on how the legal cases proceed, the field may be open but as of today, Kasich is the only person I can realistically imagine giving it ago.  And I think he'll try.

It doesn't matter how the legal cases proceed, Republicans aren't going to turn on Trump. That should be abundantly clear by now - he regularly crosses the lines that have been drawn and Republicans regularly do nothing - or in the case of Mitch McConnell actively protect Trump. Thinking anything else is bluntly delusional. Trump's the party now. He will be for a few more years at least.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, cmilliken said:

On the republican side, the only counter-revolt I can realistically see in 2020 is one lead by Kasich.

Most of Trumps opponents have been co-opted or given up the fight.

 

Justin Amash

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, dogballs Tom said:

Justin Amash

He has engaged in the twitter war with Trump.  We'll see how far he take it!  I wish him luck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Amati said:

And now SailBlue expects Olsonist to spend time trying to convince SailBlue that he, Olsonist is not a Bolshevik (I guess :blink:) , while SailBlue hangs kind of “as for me and mine, we serve the Lord” sign by the front door of his rhetorical house along with one of those big North Stars, while doing the ‘gosh I’m so self satisfied :rolleyes: and smug in my own divinity’ poses as he hits the ‘submit reply’ button.  

It’s a trap, Olsonist!  :lol:  an old school ‘drink too much and try to feel better by eating sticks of butter’ trick!  Why SailBlue suddenly hates you so much as to accuse you of wanting to strip him of ALL of his constitutional rights and freedoms is unfathonable!  

It’s enough to make a person think that SailBlue has convinced himself that freedom of religion is a right he’d like to strip from the rest of us, and impose his beliefs on everybody!  But by God, SailBlue, the God Fearing people of this country are not going to let you do this heinous anti American thing!  Repent from your one religion America radicalism!  

 

Yeah that is pretty much it for me except for the religious inserts.....churches give me the creeps  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Dog said:

I'm a Kasich fan but I don't see that succeeding. It's Trump unless he decides he decides for whatever reason that he want's to spend more time with his family.

He has to run, and win, otherwise he’ll be indicted when he’s no longer Prez. Statute of limitations becomes his friend.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, cmilliken said:
6 hours ago, dogballs Tom said:

Justin Amash

He has engaged in the twitter war with Trump.  We'll see how far he take it!  I wish him luck.

I thought his name was Joe Amash?

I'm pretty sure I heard Sean Spicer call him that.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Raz'r said:

He has to run, and win, otherwise he’ll be indicted when he’s no longer Prez. Statute of limitations becomes his friend.

Nonsense...What would he be indicted for and why could he not be indicited while he is president?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites