薔薇語

Thought Johnson/Weld were brilliant, articulate, honest and humble at their town hall last night. 

Because you'd have to be high on something to want either Donald or Hillary as POTUS.

I was actually looking forward to this one quite a bit, and I'm hoping that as often happens, they're being too hard on the film after having such high expectations.  But it does look like they dropped the ball on what could have saved their whole franchise pretty badly.

The new primary rules in California have caused an interesting turn-about in that fewer Californians are likely to be voting for Senate this year than before. The rules, for those who are unaware, were changed to make all primary participants join together and the top two of the total are the only ones allowed on the ballot. This means that Republicans have an extremely low chance of ever running for national Senate and all third parties are completely out. California was quite hard to gain access to before, now it is cementing its reputation.*

The new rule was created based on a belief that it would push people to the center on political issues - perhaps a good intention for all those are worth. But realistically it means that a single political party can avoid any party disunity and focus on joint attacks against second party participants. Republicans will no longer have a Primary as they can't risk splitting the vote at all. It also means that the Dems in California get to treat the actual election as a Primary without any concern about losing popularity before facing off against a Republican, Libertarian, Green, or other such opponent because they have essentially been banned. 
 
*Perhaps having a Trust-Buster would be good again. ^^
Edit: A Reason Article.
 
Soar. 

 

Really, though? I get that you are sincere in your heavy dislike of Trump. I get your fears for what such a presidency would mean. But is it really that different? Not just the people running but in the rhetoric surrounding them and the people pushing for votes.
 
To me this seems all too familiar with 4, 8, and 12 years ago. Each of the two main sides have taken to demonizing each other; exclaiming how the US would be set off to a terrible place if the other one won. If Gov. Romney won, Obamacare would be finished and countless millions would die. If President Obama won again, it would spell the end to the second amendment and a possible heralding of invasive government control (actually that last part isn't that far off given our intel agencies). Senator Obama was a radical leftist that would nationalize the banks and destroy free enterprise. Senator McCain would leave millions on the cold streets and bring us to the brink of WWIII; a fate we somehow just barely avoided despite re-electing President Bush. Every cycle brings out new versions of the same dire rhetoric.
 
Ultimately the two main sides need to earn our votes. Their inability to do so is not the fault of third parties. Gov. Johnson nor Dr. Stein get a say in the leadership or marketing of the Dems nor Repubs. When one's supermarket fails blaming the market down the street for being too competitive isn't a solution - it's part of the problem.
 
Soar.

This was an interesting perspective, I thought:
 

...  the two main sides...
 
And therein lies the problem. Once the politicians realize that the "us vs. them" needs to stop - that they need to be more concerned with the problems of our country and the people they are supposed to be representing, than their corporate cronies and their political careers - then maybe they will start to actually accomplish something positive.

Really, though? I get that you are sincere in your heavy dislike of Trump. I get your fears for what such a presidency would mean. But is it really that different? Not just the people running but in the rhetoric surrounding them and the people pushing for votes.
 
To me this seems all too familiar with 4, 8, and 12 years ago. Each of the two main sides have taken to demonizing each other; exclaiming how the US would be set off to a terrible place if the other one won. If Gov. Romney won, Obamacare would be finished and countless millions would die. If President Obama won again, it would spell the end to the second amendment and a possible heralding of invasive government control (actually that last part isn't that far off given our intel agencies). Senator Obama was a radical leftist that would nationalize the banks and destroy free enterprise. Senator McCain would leave millions on the cold streets and bring us to the brink of WWIII; a fate we somehow just barely avoided despite re-electing President Bush. Every cycle brings out new versions of the same dire rhetoric.
 
Ultimately the two main sides need to earn our votes. Their inability to do so is not the fault of third parties. Gov. Johnson nor Dr. Stein get a say in the leadership or marketing of the Dems nor Repubs. When one's supermarket fails blaming the market down the street for being too competitive isn't a solution - it's part of the problem.
 
Soar.

Spoilered for long-winded political rant.
 
 
 

Well, since I didn't vote for Obama either time, I've become immune to vote shaming.  Amazing how many letters to the editor in 2008 and 2012 implied non-Obama voters as racist.

Statements early on from the IRS is that they don't do anything in terms of preventing or discouraging the release -- that's entirely on Trump and his legal advisors.

This demonization is aided by the fact that she is a politician and as such sometimes spins the truth, quotes sources that turn out to be biased or simply wrong, and occasionally she flat out lies.
 
 If you look up Hillary Clinton on Politifact.com, you will discover that 50% of her statements are rated true or mostly true.  That, of course, means that the other half of her statements are half truths or worse.  That sounds really bad, but to put it in context, Bernie Sanders' true and mostly true rating is 52% and Barack Obama's is 48%.  So, in essence, you can only trust about half of what comes out of the mouths of any of the top Dems.
 
Lest Republicans (if there are any left in this conversation) start feeling smug, I should point out that on 28% of what Donald Trump says is rated true or mostly true and Ted Cruz's rating is a scant 25%.
 
What it comes down to is that if you wish to portray a politician, any politician, as being a "congenital liar", as William Safire characterized Hillary Clinton did so many years ago, you are going to have plenty of ammunition to work with.  The Republicans have taken this meme started Safire and have ran with it and built upon it 20 plus years, and now it is treated simply as a matter of fact by a large portion of the electorate.
 
However, I contend that it is no more (of less) true for Hillary Clinton than it is for Barack Obama, Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren.  That is to say that it is just the nature of politics.

Name calling is hardly a civil act to engage in but hardly one unheard of in American politics in general and Democratic politics in particular. A Republican candidate with a similar record to the Secretary would most certainly be called "corrupt, dishonest, and untrustworthy". 
 
When it comes to the "egregious online behavior of some Bernie Bros", my understanding is that most of that is simply hearsay at best and fabricated lies by the the Clinton Campaign or surrogates thereof. The Wiki-leaks scandal doesn't work to quell concerns about duplicitous actions. Secretary Clinton / her surrogates are far too fond of painting any opponents, including Senator Sanders himself, as sexist. Saying women who vote against Hillary have "a special place in hell", and accusing young female Senator Sanders' supporters of simply being "boy crazy". After a year of being told you have no hope of winning, accused of sexism, having your political motivations reduced to mere sexual urges, and facing an establishment in cahoots with your political opponent and then being told to shut up and take one for the team, you will probably be rubbed a bit raw. If the vote had gone the other way, I don't see it being even remotely the same. Secretary Clinton and her supporters were not being called anti-Semitic, accused of having MILF fantasies, or other such absurdities. 
 
I can completely understand why a Supporter of the Senator would care very little about the Senator's attempts to unify with a group that has been name calling an entire movement for a year. More power to them. 
 
Soar. 

"Do you want me to pull this convention over?"
 
"But Mom! They started it first!"

Rep Schultz has resigned as DNC chair. The wiki-leaks scandal has gone a good way in tarnishing her already bad reputation with many Democrats. She has also been hired on by Sec. Clinton in her Presidential Campaign (big surprise? )

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-idUSKCN1040TO

Soar. 

Here is a small ReasonTV article about a protest against the DNC. 
 
"No Hillary," said another woman. "Never Hillary. She is the 1 percent and also she is a warmonger."
 
Perhaps some of the vilification the Democrats have done of the wealthy and more militarily adventurous politicians is coming back to bite them in the rear when their candidate is a member of the militarily adventurous 1 percent. 
 
Soar. 

They are beyond delusional if they think 1) this will actually work to change the nominee; 2) nominating Sanders under these circumstances would be auspicious for his campaign and cause. They are full on "nutter".

It seems to me those voting purely for a Democratic agenda weren't going anywhere anyway.  Hiring DWS further angers Sanders voters who were waffling between Hillary and Trump - who some view as a candidate of change.
 
Why wouldn't you promise her something when you're President?  *facepalm*

Oddly enough, the rhetoric I hear more of is "A vote for Gary Johnson, or any vote for a third party, is a vote for Hillary Clinton."
 
I understand, and can appreciate, both points of view. But if we continue to behave as if there are only two options, then only two options is all we're ever gonna get. Something has to change.  This election is the best opportunity yet to make it happen.

According to Google Maps, the university is 4.7 miles away.  Anywhere from 18 to 32 minutes by car, depending on the route and the breaks.  So, no, not quite in the same area.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-pxLYXoRHnI

So now it's official. A reality show star, a guy with zero political leadership experience, a guy whose greatest talent in business is apparently the ability to turn a substantial fortune into a modest fortune, is now a major Party nominee for the Presidency of the United States.
 
Splendid.

Well, fine, I'll just refer to him as "loathsome scumbag Roger Ailes".

That sounds like post-facto rationlization. We needn't qualify our own virtues as being circumstantial. To Melania a quote "Be the change you want to see". 
 
Soar. 

TheNewYorker ran an article about Gov. Gary Johnson (LP).
 
 
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/07/25/gary-johnson-the-third-party-candidate
 
The first quote is taken out of order because.I think it is most useful for the more liberal board members here:
 
"But Johnson isn’t reflexively against all government. He supports the Environmental Protection Agency, arguing that policing polluters is a proper function of the government. As governor of New Mexico, he aggressively used the power of the state to force Molycorp, a large mining corporation, to clean up a contaminated site. He eventually allowed the E.P.A. to declare the area a Superfund site, turning the issue over to the federal government, which had more resources to go after the company. “The government exists to protect us from harm, and that pollution is harm,” Johnson said. “Libertarians would say, ‘You and I have the ability to sue Molycorp. We can bring them to bear from a private standpoint.’ But the reality? You can’t.”"
 
 
Article order:
 
"When pollsters include Johnson with Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton in their surveys, he has been the choice of roughly ten per cent of respondents, and in a Times/CBS News poll released last week he hit twelve per cent. If his standing in the polls rises to fifteen per cent, he will likely qualify to participate in the Presidential debates. “If you’re not in the debates, there’s no way to win,” Johnson said. “It’s the Super Bowl of politics.” Johnson has many flaws as a candidate, but being unlikable is not one of them."
 
"In 1999, after winning a second term, Johnson became the highest-ranking elected official in America to call for the full legalization of marijuana. His approval rating dropped into the twenties, and he returned to his agenda of lower taxes and less spending. He left office with an approval rating in the high fifties. Today, he is willing to make other concessions to the political mainstream. When we met, Johnson wore Nikes with a suit, his signature style since 2012. But, after a lively debate with his campaign advisers, he showed up for his CNN appearance wearing dress shoes."
 
"This year, the unpopularity of Clinton and Trump has created an opportunity for Johnson to at least match Perot’s impressive showing. Last week, Republican delegates in the Never Trump movement attempted to change the rules for the Republican National Convention, in a failed effort to deny Trump the nomination. For anti-Trump conservatives still searching for an alternative, Johnson may be the only option. On the left, anti-Clinton Democrats, including some determined supporters of Bernie Sanders, would prefer a candidate who is more socially liberal and noninterventionist than Clinton."
 
"Clinton’s troubles with Sanders also emboldened Johnson. He tells Sanders supporters to take an ideological quiz at the Web site ISideWith.com. “You get paired up with a Presidential candidate most in line with your views,” he said. “I side with myself the most, and then, amazingly, I side with Bernie next closest.” Polls so far show that Johnson actually takes more voters from Clinton than from Trump. “It’s about everything but economics,” Johnson said, ticking off the issues on which he and Sanders agree: “on legalizing marijuana, on ‘Let’s stop dropping bombs,’ crony capitalism.”"
 
"Weld won a second term in 1994, with seventy-one per cent of the vote. In 1996, he challenged John Kerry for his Senate seat. Weld lost, but the race became famous for a series of eight tough but high-minded debates that the two men staged across Massachusetts. That summer, during the campaign, Weld made a show of demanding that he be allowed to speak in favor of abortion rights at the Republican National Convention, a stunt that was popular in Massachusetts but which isolated him from the national Party.
 
"Like Johnson, Weld found himself out of step with Republicans on numerous social issues. “I was in favor of needle exchanges, all the gay and lesbian stuff, medicinal marijuana,” Weld told me. “They were not typical positions.” In 1997, Bill Clinton nominated Weld to be the U.S. Ambassador to Mexico, and Weld resigned as governor to take the job. But Jesse Helms, a Republican senator from North Carolina, who chaired the Foreign Relations Committee, blocked the nomination. As Weld recalled it, Helms claimed that Weld was “soft on drugs and we couldn’t afford to have me in Mexico.”"
 
Johnson’s theory of politics is highly rational. He assumes that voters don’t need to know much more than his positions to make up their minds. In his stump speech, he goes through a long list of his stances on issues in the areas of fiscal matters, social concerns, and foreign policy. It’s the live equivalent of the ISideWith.com quiz. Johnson wants to raise the retirement age for Social Security and to limit Social Security benefits for the wealthy. He wants to get rid of the I.R.S. and replace most of the tax code with a single consumption tax. He wants to abolish the death penalty, expand vouchers for private school, and drastically pull back the American military from its commitments around the world. “The unintended consequence of when you put boots on the ground, when you drop bombs, when you fly drones and kill thousands of innocent people—this is resulting in a world less safe, not more safe,” he told the crowd."