tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post8050355085993726303..comments2024-03-18T21:52:45.757-07:00Comments on CONTRARY BRIN: Trumpopulists: what will be the priorities?David Brinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comBlogger142125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-55359421372251579432016-03-04T08:45:41.025-08:002016-03-04T08:45:41.025-08:00"I don't believe in Clinton."
But I...<i>"I don't believe in Clinton."</i><br /><br />But I've <i>seen</i> her!Jon S.https://www.blogger.com/profile/13585842845661267920noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-91835903231857579532016-03-03T18:29:07.550-08:002016-03-03T18:29:07.550-08:00I never said our competitive arenas were healthy. ...I never said our competitive arenas were healthy. ALL of them are suffering from assaults by would-be cheaters. As to be expected under human nature. <br /><br />onward<br /><br />onwardDavid Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-14954799522405457042016-03-03T17:44:50.699-08:002016-03-03T17:44:50.699-08:00@Duncan: It says something very simple. Very few o...@Duncan: It says something very simple. Very few of us want the job. Those who do should be looked at askance... initially.<br /><br />Seriously. I can't imagine why I would want the job. I've no doubt it would kill me with the stress.Alfred Differhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01170159981105973192noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-80871193314009269262016-03-03T17:38:45.040-08:002016-03-03T17:38:45.040-08:00Heh. Clinton is no neocon, but she isn’t the lefti...Heh. Clinton is no neocon, but she isn’t the leftist she might have been in ’92… or the leftist some of us thought she was then. I suspect she groks the role of the Secretary of State and would not screw the pooch wrt Iran. <br /><br />California had an early primary in ’08. It was the first time I got to vote in a primary and say what I wanted to say regarding real options. I was a registered Democrat back then and I voted for her. I don’t think it will matter this time whether I do or not, though. California votes late in the primary season and in the general there is little doubt the Dem will take the state. I didn’t vote for her in ’08 because I disliked Obama, though. I voted for her because I think she is smart. I suspect she is smarter than her husband. Yah… I know people will point at all sorts of things she’s done and argue she isn’t smart, but I’ll point out she is still alive politically… and not in jail. No simple task considering her history.<br /><br />As for indictment risks, pshaw! The GOP was the first to have a candidate running for President with an active indictment in the modern era.<br /><br />As for VP’s, I’m thinking someone should pick Romney. 8)Alfred Differhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01170159981105973192noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-56159034585939412702016-03-03T17:28:36.450-08:002016-03-03T17:28:36.450-08:00Hi Larry
"That's because we don't ch...Hi Larry<br /><br />"That's because we don't choose candidates. They choose to run."<br /><br />What does that say for a system when out of 300 million only only clowns and Hillary and Bernie are running?<br /><br />To Dr Brin's competitive arena's - that seems like a near total failure<br /><br />How could it be fixed?<br /><br />We (NZ) seem to be a bit better off but we still have a limited and dubious choice for our MP'sduncan cairncrosshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14153725128216947145noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-73472835758750213302016-03-03T17:27:58.774-08:002016-03-03T17:27:58.774-08:00@donzelion: I love how we can make use of bond off...@donzelion: I love how we can make use of bond offerings as a prediction method for the worthiness of the debt and sometimes even the trustworthiness of the debtor. When an absolute monarch is charged a lot of interest by creditors who know full well the monarch could impose arbitrary rules to arrange for payments, it says a lot. 8)<br /><br />Yes… There are quite a few of us working on removing our active duty people from danger. It’s enough that they offer to take the risk for us. We are so exceedingly rich that we should try to avoid spending them and spend dollars instead. 8)<br /><br />Regarding design, there is a subtle difference I’m trying to make. I don’t mind it when people try to design solutions, but I do when they want to impose their solutions on others who are trying to design solutions. It’s not the design attempt that is risky. It is the elimination of the other guy’s design attempt that is. If one person voluntarily abandons their attempt in favor of another, that’s to be expected. If they HAVE to abandon it when they think theirs would be better than the other, we’ve harmed the community. We’ve prevented an individual from acting on what might be good local knowledge. The value we gain from protecting each other’s liberty IS the likely use of local knowledge. Obviously there are limits we must impose to deal with ‘rascals’, but they must not be too punishing. We need them.<br /><br />As for irrational agents, there is a crucial point many miss. In economic terms, we think of rational players as those who optimize relative to the virtue of prudence. That’s not the only virtue that matters to us, though. When one of our parents gets old enough to be beyond medical help, we don’t optimize their medical care relative to prudence. Our health care insurers do, but we aren’t so inclined. Does that mean a person who objects to a market for kidneys is irrational? Surely I should be able to buy one for my mother. I’m an American and relatively rich compared to billions of people. It won’t happen, though. Other virtues come into play.<br /><br />Regarding accreditation systems, I have a strong preference for rules that prevent certain kinds of behaviors. I’m often opposed to rules that require certain other behaviors. Constraints against immoral actions are supported by the law as it emerges from community consensus. We see a thing we don’t like and act against those who did it. When we require certain actions, we risk ritualizing a system and eliminating options for rascals. Rituals might lead to success for many, but they might also become stale. They must face competition to be tested for relevance. See how these fit with your examples? Segregation can be constrained, but affirmative action programs are ritualization risks. Expelling failing students can be constrained, but aren’t standardized tests a ritualization risk? Maybe? How would we know unless those tests face competition?Alfred Differhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01170159981105973192noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-11319668383567977232016-03-03T17:25:43.096-08:002016-03-03T17:25:43.096-08:00Anonymous Viking:
Since both the right and the le...Anonymous Viking:<br /><i><br />Since both the right and the left are moaning about the possible repercussions if Trump wins in November, he is not of the Oligarchy<br /></i><br /><br />Or <b>they're</b> not of the Oligarchy.LarryHartnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-22903942654560291392016-03-03T17:24:06.250-08:002016-03-03T17:24:06.250-08:00A F Rey:
In a way, she did (although not by her c...A F Rey:<br /><i><br />In a way, she did (although not by her choosing). Back in 200[8], rather than electing Hillary, we elected Barack.<br /></i><br /><br />And back then, I was afraid Hillary could lose to a Republican, and that's one reason I was glad Obama ascended instead. Eight years later, I feel almost the opposite--Hillary is the one I trust could <b>beat</b> any Republican.<br /><br /><i><br />Of course, we've seen how that turned out as far as being "untainted." (Not a natural citizen, born in Kenya, Mulsim, Anti-Christ, etc., etc.) When there is nothing even hinting of scandal, the Republicans will create one.<br /></i><br /><br />Exactly. The "taint" doesn't come from the candidate. It comes from her opponents. You don't escape it by switching candidates.<br /><i><br />The Democratic candidate will be "guilty" of something in the eyes of a large group of people, regardless of who he or she is, because they will be told so.<br /></i><br /><br />He or she will also, strangely enough, turn out to have (as a bad thing) "the most liberal voting record in the Senate!" You know, the way Kerry did. And then Hillary. Oh, wait, no, Obama actually.LarryHartnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-27155982200567414062016-03-03T17:03:30.706-08:002016-03-03T17:03:30.706-08:00Deuxglass:
When I was young they would say "...Deuxglass:<br /><i><br />When I was young they would say "There but for the Grace of God, go I". I don't hear that anymore. Now it's "get what you can".<br /></i><br /><br />The prophet Kurt Vonnegut put it thusly, suggesting a better motto for our money than "E Pluribus Unum" would be "Grab much too much, or you'll get nothing at all."LarryHartnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-38403535450718680622016-03-03T16:59:05.771-08:002016-03-03T16:59:05.771-08:00Duncan Cairncross:
I continue to be amazed by the...Duncan Cairncross:<br /><i><br />I continue to be amazed by the fact that a country of 300Million cannot find better candidates <br /></i><br /><br />That's because we don't <b>choose</b> candidates. They choose to run.<br /><br />Many people would like to see President Elizabeth Warren, but she's not running, so what are ya gonna do?<br />LarryHartnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-84375950286654630152016-03-03T16:26:52.464-08:002016-03-03T16:26:52.464-08:00Hypothesis:
Since both the right and the left are...Hypothesis:<br /><br />Since both the right and the left are moaning about the possible repercussions if Trump wins in November, he is not of the Oligarchy.Anonymous Vikingnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-26597004294096621862016-03-03T15:47:49.653-08:002016-03-03T15:47:49.653-08:00The problem with the "taint" is not that...<i>The problem with the "taint" is not that it is unjustified or even that most people don't believe in it<br />The problem is that some - a large number - of people DO believe that Clinton is somehow guilty of something<br /><br />A politician who was focused on the good of her party and of the Nation would under those circumstances have relinquished her position in favor of a well trained successor.</i><br /><br />In a way, she did (although not by her choosing). Back in 2004, rather than electing Hillary, we elected Barack.<br /><br />Of course, we've seen how that turned out as far as being "untainted." (Not a natural citizen, born in Kenya, Mulsim, Anti-Christ, etc., etc.) When there is nothing even hinting of scandal, the Republicans will create one.<br /><br />The Democratic candidate will be "guilty" of something in the eyes of a large group of people, regardless of who he or she is, because they will be told so.A.F. Reynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-61162677043844257542016-03-03T15:06:36.770-08:002016-03-03T15:06:36.770-08:00Hi donzelion
The problem with the "taint&quo...Hi donzelion<br /><br />The problem with the "taint" is not that it is unjustified or even that most people don't believe in it<br />The problem is that some - a large number - of people DO believe that Clinton is somehow guilty of something<br /><br />A politician who was focused on the good of her party and of the Nation would under those circumstances have relinquished her position in favor of a well trained successor<br /><br /> duncan cairncrosshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14153725128216947145noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-25980030752641230922016-03-03T15:02:51.728-08:002016-03-03T15:02:51.728-08:00LarryHart,
I would expect that the game would tea...LarryHart,<br /><br />I would expect that the game would teach the dangers of using debt in the wrong way and to drive home to the students that bad luck and a wrong decision or two could put you in poverty that you can't escape. Hopefully that would stimulate in them a social conscience and not to despise the poor. When I was young they would say "There but for the Grace of God, go I". I don't hear that anymore. Now it's "get what you can".<br /><br />Dr. Brin,<br /><br />I have been trying to find a way to make it a non-zero game but that is much harder than I had originally thought. Give me some time and I will find a way.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-91675844648022581312016-03-03T14:59:10.375-08:002016-03-03T14:59:10.375-08:00@Robert - Robert Parry, who wrote the 'neocon-...@Robert - Robert Parry, who wrote the 'neocon-lite' article you cite, never directly accused her of being a neocon. Closest he comes in that article is this: <i>Clinton could be expected to favor a more neoconservative approach to the Mideast, one more in line with the traditional thinking of Official Washington and the belligerent dictates of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.</i><br /><br />The editors went beyond his writing, but even then, the mere fact that Hillary Clinton endorsed views that were also endorsed by neocons on several occasions does not a neocon make.<br /><br />(1) Backing the Iraq War is not a 'neocon' position. Most of Congress backed the invasion, and most of Congress was never 'neocon.' They trusted GWB, or Colin Powell, and they distrusted Saddam - a brute whom liberal/progressives had disdained since the 1980s for his use of chemical weapons. A true neocon would opt to (a) eliminate Saddam, then (b) move on to other targets, then (c) repeat until evildoers are gone (eyes on Iran). That is why Iraq followed in 2003, even though Afghanistan wasn't finished and OBL wasn't dead. Neocons saw Afghanistan and OBL as mostly irrelevant, so long as their ability to project power abroad was broken.<br /><br />(2) Backing Israel is not a 'neocon' position either. Progressives (esp. Brandeis) backed Israel before the state even existed. There are lots of reasons a Senator from New York would demur, rather than criticize Israel, but it's quite a stretch to interpret silence as support for a neocon agenda.<br /><br />(3) Robert Gates was no neocon. Conservative, sure, but he was an anti-Rumsfeld operator, perceiving the DoD very differently from Rumsfeld. The "surge" - which Parry interprets as salvaging neocon honor, violated neocon principles - our troops must not be squandered escorting children to school, but must be deployed to eliminate bad governments. Counterinsurgency, to a neocon, is a waste of time - bringing down Iran was more important.<br /><br />(4) Backing the ouster of Gaddafi is not "neocon." It follows a line of similar reasoning, illustrated in part by Bill Clinton's efforts to topple Milosevic.<br /><br />(5) Backing global sanctions against Iran is definitely not "neocon." A neocon repudiates any 'international' UN-orchestrated movement - they impede the "good countries" (like the USA) by forcing cooperation with less reliable actors (Russia, China), and lazy actors (Europe). Clinton strove to form those international blocs and deploy them against Iran, where a neocon would call to immediately "bomb Iran" (and probably invade as well, if politically tenable).<br /><br />So, if you want to view Hillary as a neocon, you'll need some better argument that what is offered by that article.<br /><br />As for the taint - well, if you believe FoxNews, then she is tainted. But if you believe FoxNews, then I am concerned for you.donzelionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05991849781932619746noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-59675395580800331572016-03-03T14:37:20.805-08:002016-03-03T14:37:20.805-08:00Clinton strikes me as able to learn from mistakes,...Clinton strikes me as able to learn from mistakes, unlike a big majority of the Republican clowns. The NC governor, McCrory, as a counterexample, is far more qualified than any of the Rep. candidates except possibly Kasich. I'd still vote for Clinton, of course.Jumperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11794110173836133321noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-5690350659303854852016-03-03T14:13:00.526-08:002016-03-03T14:13:00.526-08:00Hi Robert
This is not a neocon tax plan
http://www...<br />Hi Robert<br />This is not a neocon tax plan<br />http://www.vox.com/2016/3/3/11156024/hillary-clinton-tax-plan<br /><br />A net increase in tax - all from the top 1%<br /><br />Does she go as far as I would? - No but most of this forum would not go as far as I would!<br /> <br />On the other side Hillary is "tainted" - I don't think she is actually guilty of anything but decades of smoke has convinced a lot of people that there must be some fire<br /><br />I continue to be amazed by the fact that a country of 300Million cannot find better candidates <br />The Dems have a hard working woman who is unfortunately "tainted" and a white man who is 20 years past his prime<br /><br />The GOP<br />Has a clown show - none of which appear to have the ability to to control themselves never-mind a country<br />duncan cairncrosshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14153725128216947145noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-31997880285057803942016-03-03T13:56:43.079-08:002016-03-03T13:56:43.079-08:00You have long supported Hillary, Dr. Brin. But the...You have long supported Hillary, Dr. Brin. <a href="https://consortiumnews.com/2014/02/10/is-hillary-clinton-a-neocon-lite/" rel="nofollow">But there are signs she's a neocon in Democratic clothing</a>. And I don't want to see Hillary squander everything Obama has done with Iran. Sanders wouldn't. Sanders wants to avoid unnecessary military actions... including actions taken by Obama (such as intensified drone warfare) that are just doing more and more to push victims into the arms of groups like ISIS and al-Qaida. <br /><br />Her tax policies are very Republican as well. <a href="http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/pat-garofalo/articles/2016-01-26/bernie-sanders-vs-hillary-clinton-on-middle-class-tax-increases" rel="nofollow">Sanders has called her out on that</a>. And her starting from the Center to "meet the Republicans half-way" does nothing when Republicans stay at their side, and force her further to the right and give away more to the rich.<br /><br />If you look at her voting record, she has voted for multiple things that Republicans are all for, supporting Bush in his policies... rather than making a name for herself as a rising star for Democrats to resist Republican policies. She will do whatever she needs to so she gets elected... and then bow to her corporate interests.<br /><br />And you will say "at least she's not Cruz or Rubio" rather than admit you were hoodwinked. <br /><br />Rob H.Acacia H.https://www.blogger.com/profile/07678539067303911329noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-54596898655607410052016-03-03T13:51:32.673-08:002016-03-03T13:51:32.673-08:00Robert:
Larry, I would prefer Clinton to any of t...Robert:<br /><i><br />Larry, I would prefer Clinton to any of the Republican candidates.<br /></i><br /><br />Ok, that's good to know.<br /><br /><i><br />But Sanders would be far preferable to Clinton.<br /></i><br /><br />I agree that Sanders would be a preferable president. I'm thinking that Hillary makes a better <b>candidate</b>. And because of the Supreme Court in particular, I'm more concerned with a Democratic victory than in who the Democrat is. That hasn't always been the case, but it is at this moment in history.<br /><br /><i><br />And Sanders would select Supreme Court Justices who would be for civil liberties and cut back on police ignoring our Constitutional Rights. <br /></i><br /><br />If he's president, yes.<br /><br /><i><br />Yes, I know Clinton would be another checkmark in the great Democratic Bingo Box "We had the first Black President and now we have the first Woman President, aren't we so inclusive and awesome?" - but you know something? <br /></i><br /><br />I don't know if you're aiming that at me, or at progressives in general. Me personally, that's hardly neither is a major consideration. When I heard Senator Obama speak at the 2004 convention, I thought "<b>That's</b> someone we need as president!" Electing a black man to that office seemed impossible, but I was glad we as a country overcame that obstacle. Not because I wanted a black president, but because I wanted that guy, and in order to get that guy, we had to elect a black president.<br /><br /><i><br />I want quality. I want a President I can believe in.<br /></i><br /><br />I don't entirely disagree, but you're focusing too much on the presidency (illusion of power) an not enough on the other two branches of government. The Supreme Court can deliver more of what you are asking for/demanding than any president can. FDR couldn't even be FDR until the Supreme Court stopped obstructing him.<br /><br /><i><br />I don't believe in Clinton.<br /></i><br />I could snark that "She believes in you, though."<br /><br />Instead, I'll give you the same response I gave some girls in college who claimed not to believe in Valentine's Day. "I have it on good authority that she (Clinton) does, in fact, exist."LarryHartnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-46317044502799058942016-03-03T13:44:50.276-08:002016-03-03T13:44:50.276-08:00Robert - I fully expect a Clinton Presidency to ig...Robert - <i>I fully expect a Clinton Presidency to ignore labor rights, ignore civil rights, and do everything in its power to benefit the oligarchy.</i><br /><br />Then you should join the Clinton Presidency and serve in the administration and raise your voice to champion labor rights, civil rights, and the non-oligarchs. Participation extends beyond voting. Or join and vote Libertarian, but still contribute to the causes you believe in as you can. The error is to believe that any politician acts in a vacuum - as a champion who says and does whatever s/he claims to be doing, rather than in response to pressure from all sides.<br /><br />Clinton has vacillated on the Trans-Pacific Partnership, largely bowing to labor pressure (and deviating from Bill's preferences). That, plus the minimum wage hike she advocates (which many libertarians would frown at), has resulted in labor unions declining to endorse either her or Sanders - to them, both are viable. This does not make her a corporate stooge.donzelionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05991849781932619746noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-19216528014857622016-03-03T13:40:59.373-08:002016-03-03T13:40:59.373-08:00Deuxglass your Monopoly reforms would make the gam...Deuxglass your Monopoly reforms would make the game more realistic but it would still be based on zero-sum rent-seeking and not the creation of wealth that is generated in our economy by innovation and creating new goods and services.<br /><br />A Viking, I believe the homestead exemption should be given also to Churches on a per parishioner basis… above which churches should be taxed like any business. The baseline exemption is enough to guarantee separation of church and state.<br /><br />Locum: "The futility of individual effort" (aka 'Let somebody else do it’)” <br /><br />Um… do you ever get tired of suckling koolaid nostrums concocted by Heritage-AEI-Cato shills at the behest of plantation lords? That crap bears no relationship even to the attitudes of actual LEFTISTS. And even less so to liberals. All it shows is that you are an incantation chanting fool.<br /><br />LH: National socialism Nazism had a socialist wing - the SA - that was killed off on the Night of the Long Knives. But even after that, the dominant SS wing kept many socialist positions. Nazi labor unions had real power and appointed members to all corporate boards. Watch TRIUMPH OF THE WILL and see how the labor aspect was emphasized. Yes, they were nasty, racist “labor unions” controlled utterly by Himmler etc. But there was lip service.<br /><br /><br /><br />David Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-57820846414675743592016-03-03T13:40:45.398-08:002016-03-03T13:40:45.398-08:00Rob H you have one datum to support the notion tha...Rob H you have one datum to support the notion that the Clintons are “olde republican” in that they compromised with Gingrich on Welfare reform and some early Wall Street loosening. OTOH…<br /><br />- Bill Clinton waged ware like a democrat ( see http://davidbrin.blogspot.com/2012/10/how-democrats-and-republicans-wage-war.html<br /><br />- He supported science like a democrat<br /><br />- He vetoed Supply Side tax cuts, which hit us like a tsunami the very instant his veto pen was gone.<br /><br />- He appointed YOUR favorite Supreme Court justices.<br /><br />- He & Hill fought for the Consumer Financial Protection Agency and repeatedly called for poor friendly services like free bank accounts and an end to payday loan and check cashing services. <br /><br />- They behaved as dems when it came to immigration: http://davidbrin.blogspot.com/2014/07/the-immigration-fury-one-of-many.html<br /><br />- So all the black people supporting Hillary are... foools? Republicans?<br /><br />I could go on and on. You do not build cred by saying ridiculous things.David Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-59203431374054747152016-03-03T13:35:16.903-08:002016-03-03T13:35:16.903-08:00Larry, I would prefer Clinton to any of the Republ...Larry, I would prefer Clinton to any of the Republican candidates.<br /><br />But Sanders would be far preferable to Clinton.<br /><br />And Sanders would select Supreme Court Justices who would be for civil liberties and cut back on police ignoring our Constitutional Rights. Clinton is part of the law-and-order group who, under her husband, put a large number of African Americans in prison (and kind of stopped them from being able to vote because ex-cons have far fewer rights than non-convicts).<br /><br />Yes, I know Clinton would be another checkmark in the great Democratic Bingo Box "We had the first Black President and now we have the first Woman President, aren't we so inclusive and awesome?" - but you know something? I want quality. I want a President I can believe in.<br /><br />I don't believe in Clinton.<br /><br />Rob H.Acacia H.https://www.blogger.com/profile/07678539067303911329noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-34745795965361692752016-03-03T13:16:35.737-08:002016-03-03T13:16:35.737-08:00Robert:
I fully expect a Clinton Presidency to ig...Robert:<br /><i><br />I fully expect a Clinton Presidency to ignore labor rights, ignore civil rights, and do everything in its power to benefit the oligarchy.<br /></i><br /><br />Then why does the oligarchy hate her so much?<br /><br /><i><br />That she is better than any of the Republican candidates is a moot point. We will not get change with a Clinton Presidency. We will have four to eight more years of the same old obstructionism only with Clinton's face on the television screens.<br /></i><br /><br />We will get a Supreme Court nomination who is not another Scalia. Maybe one or two more such appointments in the next four years. That <b>alone</b> is worth having a Democratic president and Senate, no matter who that Democrat is.<br /><i><br />What we need is for a candidate who will champion civil rights, will champion labor rights, will champion your right to choose to live your life as you want. <br /></i><br /><br />No, what we need is a <b>Supreme Court</b> that will champion those things. After that, it won't matter who is president.<br /><br /><i><br />Rob H., who would vote for a Republican if they weren't so blind as to the repercussions of their anti-abortion viewpoint and the precedent it represents in eliminating bodily autonomy<br /></i><br /><br />Abortion is your single most important issue, and you think Hillary would be a bad candidate? Can't you see that the emphasis on the Supreme Court is not just about abortion? I'm more concerned with judicial activist decisions like "Citizens United", their gutting of class action lawsuits, and the case they were set to rule on this upcoming term which would have essentially decided, these so-called "originalists", that when the Constitution says in as plain language as possible "whole number of persons", it really means "number of likely-Republican voters."<br /><br />No president has the power to affect your life for decades to come the way the Supreme Court does.LarryHartnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-9920616794516810732016-03-03T13:01:41.206-08:002016-03-03T13:01:41.206-08:00Larry, just because Hillary has "veered to th...Larry, just because Hillary has "veered to the Center-Left" because of Sanders does not mean she would fulfill any of those campaign promises when elected President.<br /><br />A better way of determining the actions of a possible President is to look at their previous actions. Clinton's previous actions show her to be very much a Republican - at least, a Republican from 30+ years ago. And while the Republicans from 30+ years ago were saner than today... I fully expect a Clinton Presidency to ignore labor rights, ignore civil rights, and do everything in its power to benefit the oligarchy.<br /><br />That she is better than any of the Republican candidates is a moot point. We will not get change with a Clinton Presidency. We will have four to eight more years of the same old obstructionism only with Clinton's face on the television screens.<br /><br />What we need is for a candidate who will champion civil rights, will champion labor rights, will champion your right to choose to live your life as you want. While many of the Right-leaning Libertarians would snort at the concept, I look at Sanders and see the most civil-libertarian-leaning candidate on the ballot. (Unfortunately, the majority of libertarians I've run across online, outside of Avens O'Brien, are Randists who want to tear down civilization and believe an anarchist society would actually function.)<br /><br />As I said before - my vote doesn't matter. My state will vote for Clinton even if it's revealed she's one of those tentacle aliens from the Simpsons. And that leaves me to safely vote Libertarian, as I've done for the vast majority of my voting actions. That does not mean I'm going to blindly ignore the dangers that Clinton represents. To me, Sanders would be a superior President to Clinton because of his disinclination to meddle in foreign affairs using military action, and because he'd likely tell the DEA to ignore marijuana and focus their efforts on more deadly drugs. (And of course labor rights. Which let's face it, Clinton might say she's for, but would stomp all over while upholding her corporate masters' wishes.)<br /><br />Rob H., who would vote for a Republican if they weren't so blind as to the repercussions of their anti-abortion viewpoint and the precedent it represents in eliminating bodily autonomyAcacia H.https://www.blogger.com/profile/07678539067303911329noreply@blogger.com