US Politics: What it Takes (is sabotage)

[Gramsci]

I personally think that a candidate's judgment on the confidential and non-confidential, public and private, is important. In his particular case, it seems like he is either unaware of, or indifferent to, the long-term consequences of semi-public actions. That is troubling to me.

I can understand that. Honestly, what bothers me most about instances like this (and the Lewinsky scandal) is when the politician isn't immediately forthright. You made a bad choice? Take ownership of it. Weiner denied the allegations for quite sometime, though I can't remember how long.

Maybe my expectation that public officials admit their faults just speaks to my preference for very bad politicians

[White Walker Texas Ranger]

I personally think that a candidate's judgment on the confidential and non-confidential, public and private, is important. In his particular case, it seems like he is either unaware of, or indifferent to, the long-term consequences of semi-public actions. That is troubling to me.

Isn't that a major indicator of sociopathy?

It's obviously irresponsible of me to disagnose someone I don't know with a condition that I don't understand very well, but it seems to me he has shown other characteristics of sociopathy. And he's a politician.

[Gramsci]

Isn't that a major indicator of sociopathy?

It's obviously irresponsible of me to disagnose someone I don't know with a condition that I don't understand very well, but it seems to me he has shown other characteristics of sociopathy. And he's a politician.

Machiavelli would have us believe that sociopaths make excellent leaders.

[TerraPrime]

Of political parties (not just people who apply the word to themselves), Libertarians certainly have a leg up on the big two.

That's because they have no real political power and do not have to face the complexities of actually governing anything more complicated than their weekly meetings at Lindsey's basement. Ideological purity is a benefit for those who don't actually have to do anything. This is one area where Libertarians have in common with college Marxists.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

TP,

I'm sorry to say that's a great post.

:)

[Kouran]

Touché TP.

[TerraPrime]

I love being the meat in this libertarian-liberal-small'gov'conservative manwich.

[TrackerNeil]

I love being the meat in this libertarian-liberal-small'gov'conservative manwich.

Is there any manwich you don't love being part of? Just checkin'.

[TerraPrime]

Is there any manwich you don't love being part of? Just checkin'.

Pitch me a combo and let's see. I'm sure it'll come to me.

[DanteGabriel]

That's because they have no real political power and do not have to face the complexities of actually governing anything more complicated than their weekly meetings at Lindsey's basement. Ideological purity is a benefit for those who don't actually have to do anything. This is one area where Libertarians have in common with college Marxists.

They also have increasingly more in common with Congressional Republicans, who are refusing to participate in government because ideological purity is more important to them than doing their jobs.

[TerraPrime]

They also have increasingly more in common with Congressional Republicans, who are refusing to participate in government because ideological purity is more important to them than doing their jobs.

Lie down with dogs, come up with fleas.

Or

Face down on a stripper, come up with pink eyes.

[Shryke]

I don't think you guys understand the issue. You're comfortable with the keys to the encryption for an enormous amount of private data being collected in a single place with a history of poor data security? The issue here is bigger than just government snooping.

The keys are already in one place (or a small number of places). I mean, that's who the government is asking for them from.

[chris999]

So I've been reading What it Takes, by Richard Ben Cramer, and over-fitting aside, I could see the 2016 race shaping up similar to the 1988 one. A brutal fight on the out party side, and a less bruising fight from two heavyweight veterans who are both "due" on the in-party side.

But, and granted I'm only 40% of the way done with the book, I don't think Biden can pull off the Bush and win the nomination, not because he can't beat Clinton, I think I could. No, it's because he can't beat Biden. Whatever you think of his gaffes or past or 'plagiarism' the real problem is that Biden believes his own mythology, but doesn't really have the distance or self-awareness to see that most of the time he's fooling himself so convincingly that everyone else just goes along.

And that would also suggest that it's a young, up and coming governer that's going to be the standard bearer for the republicans. Chris Christie lines up nicely for the moderate/conservative-esque Dukakis, though I wouldn't rule Scott Walker out yet.

Also interesting is just how similar Dukakis and Bill Clinton are in their political biographies. Both working class kids who went to great schools, got elected governer really really young, got voted out, then got reelected governer again and had smashing success in their second/third terms.

***

Regarding the last few posts, here's Rachel Maddow's post on the attempts by congressional Republicans to Sabotage the Law of the United States.

http://maddowblog.ms...ning-looks-like

Andrew Sullivan also posted about the Republican Sabotage attempts referred to in the last posts of the previous thread.

In this instance, Republicans want to Sabotage the country by refusing to fund the operation of the government, and are eagerly looking forward to an opportunity in the fall to Murder the United States (worth pointing out, John McCain doesn't want to be a murderer, but plenty of Republicans have been talking about how much they want to kill the country.

http://dish.andrewsu...-and-saboteurs/

Turn off the main stream media. It is nothing but garbage.

Neither of the 2 major parties cares about the people. Both parties are controlled by the secret societies and globalists, and nothing will ever change that unless we quit believing their bullshit and their propaganda news outlets, and nominate our own candidates with a strong grass roots movement.

.

[chris999]

The Republicans are going to end up just like they did last time. With a clown car full of crazy people and one or two guys who manage to be not-100%-crazy but completely unlikable. Rand Paul will pull some, but not nearly as much as he needs of his Dad's constituency, and in the end everyone will suppress their gag reflex long enough to choose between Rubio and Christie.

The Democrats will have 2 or 3 serious but severely unlikable people with ideas that make 1/3 of the country actively sick, 1/3 somewhat uncomfortable, and the remaining third insanely optimistic. One of them will then win the election by virtue of being not a Republican, and completely betray their constituency (again) who will make excuses for the next 4-8 years about how it's still somehow George W. Bush/Congress' fault.

The Libertarians will probably take 2.5% of the vote this time by virtue of Republicans and Democrats being evil assholes who actively hate civil liberties. but completely betray their principles again by nominating yet another wash-out who couldn't hack it in the Republican party. That 2.5% will then be decried forever on Fox News as costing the republicans the White House as though that's a bad thing. No other network will mention it at all and will continue pretending that Libertarians don't exist, or if they do they are actually Tea Party idiots.

The Greens will nominate a complete loon whose support for something stupid like a national gluten-free program or public unschooling or something will relegate them to even less consideration than the libertarians.

Lol. So true.

Amerika is screwed. Too many people believe in the exact same system that led us to where we are today.

[Gramsci]

who will make excuses for the next 4-8 years about how it's still somehow George W. Bush/Congress' fault.

Wait, are there people out there who believe it is NOT congress' fault? If I had to assign blame to any single branch more than the others, it would certainly be the legislative.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

Wait, are there people out there who believe it is NOT congress' fault? If I had to assign blame to any single branch more than the others, it would certainly be the legislative.

Congress didn't make Obama support retroactive immunity for warrantless wiretapping. Congress didn't make him viciously persecute whistleblowers or use the archaic and evil espionage act more than all previous presidents combined. Congress didn't make the President kill innocent children in "signature strkes" or claim the authority to murder his own citizens (and their children) without due process. Congress didn't make the NSA illegally tap into every phone and computer on the planet. Congress didn't make the US invade Pakistan, or Somalia, or support the invasion of Libya (they outright forbade the latter).

So yeah, some of us believe that it is not Congress' fault that the current President has out-and-out betrayed his constituency.

[Gramsci]

Congress didn't make Obama support retroactive immunity for warrantless wiretapping. Congress didn't make him viciously persecute whistleblowers or use the archaic and evil espionage act more than all previous presidents combined. Congress didn't make the President kill innocent children in "signature strkes" or claim the authority to murder his own citizens (and their children) without due process. Congress didn't make the NSA illegally tap into every phone and computer on the planet. Congress didn't make the US invade Pakistan, or Somalia, or support the invasion of Libya (they outright forbade the latter).

So yeah, some of us believe that it is not Congress' fault that the current President has out-and-out betrayed his constituency.

I would list the things Congress has done wrong.... but therein lies the problem.

[Shryke]

Congress didn't make Obama support retroactive immunity for warrantless wiretapping. Congress didn't make him viciously persecute whistleblowers or use the archaic and evil espionage act more than all previous presidents combined. Congress didn't make the President kill innocent children in "signature strkes" or claim the authority to murder his own citizens (and their children) without due process. Congress didn't make the NSA illegally tap into every phone and computer on the planet. Congress didn't make the US invade Pakistan, or Somalia, or support the invasion of Libya (they outright forbade the latter).

So yeah, some of us believe that it is not Congress' fault that the current President has out-and-out betrayed his constituency.

They did do this one.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

They did do this one.

No, they let it happen, which is also bad. But there was no "The NSA shall spy on everyone all the time act of 2005". The orders to do it came from elsewhere.

I would list the things Congress has done wrong.... but therein lies the problem.

I'm not saying that many members of congress have not also betrayed their constituencies. But you are proving my point. The President betrayed the people who voted for him, and no one can shift the blame fast enough. The same thing will happen for whichever Democrat wins in 2016.

[Shryke]

No, they let it happen, which is also bad. But there was no "The NSA shall spy on everyone all the time act of 2005". The orders to do it came from elsewhere.

They authorized this shit. All this surveillance stuff you are talking about is authorized by various acts of Congress.

You can tell cause they aren't angry about it for the most part. The leaders in Congress and most of the members are all for it.