Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

This is why Walker is kind of unique. His last two elections, the recall and re-election, were basically national campaigns. .

Not really. A one day in one state election is nothing at all like a national campaign lasting for months on end.
It's easy to confuse the cursory glance that the national networks give to interesting state races just before an over and done election to the grueling primary campaign followed by a national campaign.
Specifically, when Iowa and New Hampshire get ''invaded'' as they do every 4 years, ( Gosh, what a crazy system. 2 demographically abnormal states pick the front runners, but I digress.) the questions that all of them have to answer including Walker, are going to come from the national press. Gary Hart and Edmund Muskie both looked formidable when they just had to deal with local ''state beat'' reporters that they may have known for years. The sharks in the beltway tank are always looking for blood....And they can make the ink bleed off of the papers if they get hold of something.

Originally Posted by herbal tee

Not really. A one day in one state election is nothing at all like a national campaign lasting for months on end.
It's easy to confuse the cursory glance that the national networks give to interesting state races just before an over and done election to the grueling primary campaign followed by a national campaign.
Specifically, when Iowa and New Hampshire get ''invaded'' as they do every 4 years, ( Gosh, what a crazy system. 2 demographically abnormal states pick the front runners, but I digress.) the questions that all of them have to answer including Walker, are going to come from the national press. Gary Hart and Edmund Muskie both looked formidable when they just had to deal with local ''state beat'' reporters that they may have known for years. The sharks in the beltway tank are always looking for blood....And they can make the ink bleed off of the papers if they get hold of something.

I was referring mainly to the fact that national, outside organizations and money went after Walker with a vengeance, particularly labor unions. Considering how intensely Democrats opposed him, his background has been scrubbed for dirt to the point of parody. The "scandals" they've tried to bring up against him have been absurdly convoluted, and they've failed to stick.

As for the national media, you're over-estimating them. They have been embarrassing themselves, in ways both serious and laughable, with increasing frequency in recent times. They're held in the lowest public regard, down below lawyers, used car salesmen, and other disreputable professions. We've already seen them make some attempts to smear or embarrass Walker, and they're the ones who have come off looking crazy, with their partisan bias on full display.

I don't want to overstate my confidence in Walker. I do think he has a mountain to climb. But people saying he has no chance are simply not paying attention. He's survived a number of political hurricanes already, and he's already getting a lot of traction with the voters that matter. Like I said, I think I would go so far as to say it's his to lose. He may lose it. But I don't think anybody from outside is going to stop him. It will only be errors on his part. But considering how ravenous the media has been to find errors, they exaggerate things and it's them that end up looking bad. It's kind of a unique quality Walker seems to have. He looks perfectly reasonable, while his opponents make themselves look crazy in their attacks on him.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

The question is not whether people are involved in community. The question is whether that community is a collectivist, totalitarian government

In America, no, that's not a question. There are no collectivist, totalitarian governments at any level in this country. Never have been, never will be.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

It has become very clear what the core of the far left, which now increasingly drives and dominates the Democratic Party

See, this kind of thing is why you have such a reputation for either cluelessness or dishonesty.

Far left? You have no idea what that phrase means. Here, educate yourself. These web sites are genuinely far left.

https://www.swp.org.uk/

http://www.iww.org/

http://www.earthfirst.org/

The furthest left member of Congress is Bernie Sanders, and even he isn't a Democrat. Most Democrats are dictionary-definition conservative. The progressive wing of the party, such as Elizabeth Warren and Nancy Pelosi, are "far left" only in either right-wing delusions or right-wing propaganda. I don't know which of those you're exhibiting, but it's one or the other.

EDIT: By definition, "far left" is outside the range of mainstream political beliefs. That's true of the Socialist Workers' Party, the IWW, and Earth First!, but it's certainly not true of anyone holding public office as a Democrat. Belief that incomes have become too lopsided and wealth needs to be redistributed is mainstream. Belief in same-sex marriage is mainstream. Belief that peace is better than war is mainstream. Belief that the banks are out of control and need to be reined in is mainstream. Belief that corporations are dodging their fair share of taxes is mainstream. Belief that Social Security should be maintained or even expanded is mainstream. Obamacare is mainstream, or if anything a little right of center (since a majority of those opposed to it in polls are opposing it from the left -- a clear majority either approve of it or want something more liberal).

Calling this sort of position "far left" is one of two things. It's either an honest, but completely blind and stupid and inexcusable, failure to understand where the public is coming from, or it's a deliberate and deceptive attempt to paint mainstream positions you oppose as outside the mainstream.

It's one or the other. You tell us which. Are you dishonest, or just clueless?

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

See, this kind of thing is why you have such a reputation for either cluelessness or dishonesty.

Far left? You have no idea what that phrase means. Here, educate yourself. These web sites are genuinely far left.

https://www.swp.org.uk/

http://www.iww.org/

http://www.earthfirst.org/

The furthest left member of Congress is Bernie Sanders, and even he isn't a Democrat. Most Democrats are dictionary-definition conservative. The progressive wing of the party, such as Elizabeth Warren and Nancy Pelosi, are "far left" only in either right-wing delusions or right-wing propaganda. I don't know which of those you're exhibiting, but it's one or the other.

On other threads I confessed I was a teen aged Trotskyite. Another confession. I was an Underclassman Earth Firster. Never did any serious monkey wrenching (but had big plans). Lost interest ~ Junior Year (was deep into Hardcore Punk by then).

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

See, this kind of thing is why you have such a reputation for either cluelessness or dishonesty.

Far left? You have no idea what that phrase means. Here, educate yourself. These web sites are genuinely far left.

https://www.swp.org.uk/

http://www.iww.org/

http://www.earthfirst.org/

The furthest left member of Congress is Bernie Sanders, and even he isn't a Democrat. Most Democrats are dictionary-definition conservative. The progressive wing of the party, such as Elizabeth Warren and Nancy Pelosi, are "far left" only in either right-wing delusions or right-wing propaganda. I don't know which of those you're exhibiting, but it's one or the other.

EDIT: By definition, "far left" is outside the range of mainstream political beliefs. That's true of the Socialist Workers' Party, the IWW, and Earth First!, but it's certainly not true of anyone holding public office as a Democrat. Belief that incomes have become too lopsided and wealth needs to be redistributed is mainstream. Belief in same-sex marriage is mainstream. Belief that peace is better than war is mainstream. Belief that the banks are out of control and need to be reined in is mainstream. Belief that corporations are dodging their fair share of taxes is mainstream. Belief that Social Security should be maintained or even expanded is mainstream. Obamacare is mainstream, or if anything a little right of center (since a majority of those opposed to it in polls are opposing it from the left -- a clear majority either approve of it or want something more liberal).

Calling this sort of position "far left" is one of two things. It's either an honest, but completely blind and stupid and inexcusable, failure to understand where the public is coming from, or it's a deliberate and deceptive attempt to paint mainstream positions you oppose as outside the mainstream.

It's one or the other. You tell us which. Are you dishonest, or just clueless?

Libertarian belief is mainstream American which makes views of gays as people, acknowledgement of their rights as individuals and the passing of gay marriage possible. The rest of the beliefs are mainstream liberal or Democrat. Honestly, I think Democrats are ignorant people who don't understand how liberal policies and expansions of their traditional programs are going to screw them in the long term.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

In America, no, that's not a question. There are no collectivist, totalitarian governments at any level in this country. Never have been, never will be.

Have you ever done business in the Twin Cities? Have you seen a popular Christmas program be removed from a public school by a liberal administration?

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

Based on personal experience, his choice for words to describe Democratic governance are pretty accurate.

What personal experience? Some bureaucrat telling you to obey some rule or other?

Why not just obey the rule? It's been duly passed by law for a good purpose, not imposed by a dictator for the purpose of the dictator. The law sometimes can be changed if it's not fair, too. Not when Republicans are in office, of course. They won't vote for any change.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

What personal experience? Some bureaucrat telling you to obey some rule or other?

Why not just obey the rule? It's been duly passed by law for a good purpose, not imposed by a dictator for the purpose of the dictator. The law sometimes can be changed if it's not fair, too. Not when Republicans are in office, of course. They won't vote for any change.

The Republicans will vote for change. It's just not the change that you're looking for and are willing or able to accept.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

It has become very clear what the core of the far left, which now increasingly drives and dominates the Democratic Party, stands for. Raising taxes is a minor issue compared with their drive to create nationalized social programs, to nationalize education,

Democrats support social programs at the federal level; they have been created for some time now. Some have been stopped or repealed by your Party, but I don't know of anything you refer to. Is a national social program, a "nationalized social program?"

and to impose what has been known as "political correctness" beyond its past "soft" dictates, into direct legal and personal coercion and force against anyone who dissents. When Orwell wrote of a dystopian left wing future in 1984, he wasn't inventing things out of thin air. He was intimately familiar with the mindset of the left, and extrapolating from it. Speech codes on college campuses, blacklisting in academia and media which is now spreading to other sectors, Brendan Eich, the small pizzeria in Indiana. The false rape charges at UVA, the false narrative of "Hands up, don't shoot" that led to the death of two NYC police officers (one Asian, one Hispanic). This is current reality, not supposition. They are increasingly collectivist and totalitarian, and reliant on propaganda from state-controlled media (which is almost all of the media). Right now some of these activities are informal, but they are becoming increasingly formalized.

Sounds like conspiracy theory to me, JPT. The UVa case was a false report by a rock'n'roll magazine, disavowed when proven false, and not just by your Party. "Hands UP Don't Shoot" is probably not false, but it is not a totalitarian dictate, but the honest response of black folks and others who don't like police shooting people just because they are black. Why should people be shot just because they are black, just because police are frightened? A "libertarian" should not be in favor of such behavior. But police get away with it most of the time; they are rarely prosecuted. Whatever the merits of one case in Ferguson, this behavior by police is uncalled for and brutal, and noone of any Party should be in favor of it. What we have is corporate-controlled media, which discourages opposition to free trade and other libertarian-economic policies. Corporations own the media, not the State. The former dictate programming and news, which has largely been reduced to entertainment so that the people remain ignorant. That is deliberate, although the first reason is that entertainment sells more ads than news. As for colleges, the biggest problems there are wasteful spending by administrations and the scandalously high prices and student loan debt that is encouraging people not to go to college at all. Again, the purpose is to keep the people ignorant. That serves your Party, not mine.

On top of all of that, Obama's foreign policy goals have become very clear. He prefers Iran to Israel. He wants to do everything he can to prop up and legitimize the Castro regime in Cuba. He has always shown disdain for the UK, and for the US itself. He hates the America that has existed until he was president (his wife said as much), and he only feels positively about it to the extent that he can "fundamentally transform" it. I wouldn't compare him to Kim Jung Un, except in terms of the cult of personality they both rely on. But I think Hugo Chavez was very much what Obama would be if he thought he could get away with it. He has shown disdain for Congress, and a determination to push the boundaries of executive power to impose his will directly, without legislation.

Congress deserves the greatest possible disdain, as it is presently constituted. Your Party's control is disgraceful. Obama's foreign policy is good. Isreal's PM is a deluded fool and a bastard. Negotiating with Iran is the only way to disarm it. Netayahoo's method of bombing them will not eliminate their weapons and will guarantee that Iran will build nuclear weapons in a hurry. Why is it that your Party cannot see that obvious and blatant fact? America truly needs to be transformed after 35 years of rule by your Party. The America of 35 years ago was more advanced by far than the America of today. So what does it matter whether you hate the America of today, or the America of 35 years ago?

All of this has happened just within the last year. The left and the Democratic Party have demonstrated more and more intensely who and what they really are - totalitarian collectivists who want to centralize power and authority, and use it to engineer society from the top down, including trying to control what people believe, think, and say. That's why Obama has shown so much generosity towards those kinds of regimes abroad, and so much disdain for the US and its allies. All of this was predictable, given the fact that Obama spent decades listening to Jeremiah Wright, has treated Al Sharpton as a respectable advisor, is a personal friend of Bill Ayers and other domestic terrorists from the Weather Underground, and so on. His childhood mentor, Frank Marshall Davis, was a communist. His maternal family was far left. That is who he is.

None of the policies you mentioned are totalitarian or even collective. Watered-down socialism and prudent foreign policy is about all one can say.

The left in general has made it absolutely clear that they are not constrained in any way by moderation. They are only constrained by what they believe they can get away with - how far they can go before the people turn on them. The are also now emphatically the ruling class, the elite, the gatekeepers of society. They completely control academia, media and the arts, and they have purged dissenters ruthlessly. They increasingly include the leadership of the largest corporations, especially in the tech sector. They dominate the judiciary, which imposes their will when the people vote in a way the ruling class doesn't like. "playwrite" is a very good example of exactly who now runs American society. The only area where there is any moderation at all is on economics, and that's because the people who are cramming left wing dogma down our throats 24 hours a day are extremely wealthy. But even then, the policies don't defend free market capitalism and small business. They serve to prop up, bail out and institutionalize the big players, so that the interchange between big business and big government is not interrupted. What many left leaning proles don't understand is that high taxes, regulation and so forth are actually welcomed by big business, because they erect barriers to entry that prevent anyone from coming up from below and competing with them. The more expensive it is to start a business, the less likely people are to do it. Wall Street and Silicon Valley have created a situation where Democrats raise more money than Republicans and outspend them. And for the last 6 years, Wall Street and Silicon Valley have been drowning in champagne while the rest of the country has suffered through an ongoing economic stagnation, with no "recovery" whatsoever, no matter how much the media tries to pretend it. Quite a coincidence.

It's interesting that you charge Democrats raise more money than Republicans, and yet you Republicans keep in place the system of money domination of politics with the help of your Supreme Court (all 5 justices who voted for Citizens United were Republican appointees; all 4 who dissented were Democratic appointees; is that a "coincidence"?), and opposition to all reforms. The media, arts and culture in this country is completely controlled by the profit motive, which is what your Party promotes and legislates. Concentration of ownership of the media is assured by libertarian economics, which vetoes all regulation against it. There are some tech leaders here in Silicon Valley who have some forward-thinking policies, and that is a good thing. High taxes on the wealthy, redistributed to folks like Classic Xer who are small businessmen, most-emphatically does not prevent anyone from coming up from below, but facilitates this. The people trying to rise from below are not wealthy, so they aren't subject to higher taxes by Democrats. High taxes on high income earners does not prevent people from starting a business, although the trickle-down rhetoric from your Party deceives many that this is so. Our stagnation is well-recognized by liberals, and they point out that the recovery was stopped by your Party when they took over in 2011 and fired all the public employees that had been rehired. Social Security taxes can be a burden on small business, but that's because lower-income people are charged all the taxes to support it. Reagan saw to that in 1986.

Economic growth has been around 2% or worse ever since Obama took office, but the ruling class barely acknowledges it. There has been no recovery. But the Democratic Party's big donors have made out like bandits. The Democrats talk about "income inequality", when it is precisely their policies that have increased it since 2008. This is the reality of socialism, once the ideological fantasies are swept aside. There is a ruling class that lives like kings, while everybody else suffers equally. That's how it was in the Soviet Union, that's how it is under the Democrats of today. This is not a bug, it's a feature. Why else would all of these rich and powerful people want to impose leftism? It's a great deal for them.

The big corporations have made out like bandits, and almost every such corporation and almost every rich and powerful person supports trickle-down, libertarian economic policies, not Democratic Party policies. Their representatives strive to repeal regulations against Wall St. misbehavior, and block all reforms that would enlarge the middle class, such as student debt relief. Obama has not been able to pass a single piece of legislation that helps the average citizen since the Tea Party took over and imposed their Wall St.-friendly policies on all of us. There can be no recovery without appropriate stimulus, which was stopped by your Party. The Democrats have not been able to enact their policies except for a few months in 2009, and even those were severely water-down by the Silent DINOs and RINOs in the Senate.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

The Republicans will vote for change. It's just not the change that you're looking for and are willing or able to accept.

Nor any changes that will benefit you in the least. They will benefit only the most wealthy corporations and financial gamblers. The changes they support will speed our transformation into a full-blown banana republic.

Businessmen obeying rules by bureaucrats is a small price to pay for a fairer marketplace that protects comsumers and workers from unscrupulous behavior. I don't deny that bureaucrats can sometimes be mean and unfair, but when we have a system like ours in which Republicans block any needed changes, just so they can oppose the president, you can't expect any reform of behavior by bureaucrats either. Republicans don't care about small businessmen like you. They ONLY care about their wealthy donors, and about protecting them against reform.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

Have you seen a popular Christmas program be removed from a public school by a liberal administration?

Freedom of religion according to the constitution means that the state cannot make of any law respecting an establishment of religion. If a public school promotes a religion, that is a violation of freedom and the constitution; and stopping the school from doing so is protecting freedom, not violating it.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

It has become very clear what the core of the far left, which now increasingly drives and dominates the Democratic Party, stands for. Raising taxes is a minor issue compared with their drive to create nationalized social programs, to nationalize education, and to impose what has been known as "political correctness" beyond its past "soft" dictates, into direct legal and personal coercion and force against anyone who dissents.

When the States fail, the federal government reasonably intervenes. So it was with segregation, so it will soon be with LGBT rights, and so it will be with medical care. Anyone with a functioning brain recognizes the desirability of academic standards that imply that a high school diploma with courses with the same name means much the same in Massachusetts as in Mississippi. Even highway signs are now similar enough to prevent confusion.

When Orwell wrote of a dystopian left wing future in 1984, he wasn't inventing things out of thin air. He was intimately familiar with the mindset of the left, and extrapolating from it.

He was also familiar with the mindset of the fascistic Right. The Nazis were the masters of twisting words into lies, even to the extent of calling their order of industrial peonage "national socialism". The nightmarish dystopia of 1984 calls its order "Ingsoc" -- but the economic order is as cut-throat as capitalism at its worst.

If there is any great lesson from 1984, it is that the debasement of language guts one of the hallmarks of humanity. Without language, human life becomes animalistic. Even Romantic love becomes impossible because it relies upon sophisticated language. (Orwell is often ripped for the inept romance between Winston and Julia, but just think of how incompetent the expression of love when one has at most "double-plus-good" as a description of the aroma of a fine wine -- never mind that there are no fine wines in "Oceania" because everything is a dreadful commodity. After about fifty years of the nightmare of Orwell people might as well grunt like cavemen in bad movies -- the ones in which Stone Age people get chased around by dinosaurs -- that make The Flintstones look like sophisticated satire. Or they relearn language, abandoning Newspeak for Esperanto, classical Latin, Shakespearean English, Quechua, Klingon ... whatever, if they are to regain their humanity.

I have noticed some debasement of speech in Republican Party campaigns and Fecal News Channel (such as denouncing a moderate Democrat for not being 'patriotic' enough). Not fully understanding what ex-Senator Mark Pryor did to deserve having his patriotism challenged during the last few days of the2014 election, I found out later. "Patriotism" means unqualified support for the profits of the armaments business even to the point of supporting aggressive war for profits from dealing in armaments before the war, having the war, and then ensuring that the defeated country is degraded into a captive market with cheap labor and compelled to practically give away its precious resources no matter what misery such imposes upon the people.

Now I know.

And then there are such groups as Americans for Prosperity (but only for a few -- but the rest of us must suffer for the greed of plutocratic oligarchs), the National Right-to-Work (for near-starvation pay under brutal management) Committee, Freedom (to wield the lash) Works, and Club for Growth (of economic inequality). Movement Conservatism makes me cynical about high-sounding words that mean whatever people want them to believe. I assume the worst when the Koch syndicate is involved.

Speech codes on college campuses, blacklisting in academia and media which is now spreading to other sectors, Brendan Eich, the small pizzeria in Indiana.

Blacklisting? How about this: the Koch family gave a huge endowment to a university on terms that the Koch interests decide whom the university has as professors of economics. That's right -- those who toe the Koch line that no human suffering is excessive so long as it turns a profit. If such is the ideology, then the most patriotic course of action is to find another country.

The false rape charges at UVA,

Solved by more and better journalism!

They are increasingly collectivist and totalitarian, and reliant on propaganda from state-controlled media (which is almost all of the media). Right now some of these activities are informal, but they are becoming increasingly formalized.

I do not trust the Koch family with my freedom. If you do you are a fool. We could end up with an Apartheid system as nasty as that of South Africa, except that personal survival depends upon deference to people who want us to live odious lives yet show unqualified cheer about it. It may be ironic, but the more that I see people smiling on their jobs the more awful the jobs are.

On top of all of that, Obama's foreign policy goals have become very clear. He prefers Iran to Israel.

Iran and Israel have a shared enemy -- ISIS. Should ISIS fully take over Syria, even defeating the Druze of southern Syria, then Israel faces the most hostile enemy to Jews since Nazism.

He wants to do everything he can to prop up and legitimize the Castro regime in Cuba.

Dying regime. If there should be a Cuban equivalent of Mikhail Gorbachev, then we might as well be ready to adapt to the situation. As far as those Cuban 'refugees' that want to return to the Cuba that they knew before 1959 and lorded it over the masses -- tough luck!

He has always shown disdain for the UK, and for the US itself. He hates the America that has existed until he was president (his wife said as much), and he only feels positively about it to the extent that he can "fundamentally transform" it. I wouldn't compare him to Kim Jung Un, except in terms of the cult of personality they both rely on. But I think Hugo Chavez was very much what Obama would be if he thought he could get away with it. He has shown disdain for Congress, and a determination to push the boundaries of executive power to impose his will directly, without legislation.

Projection!

It's ironic that you so disdain President Obama. He has whacked two of the vilest terrorists in American history. He didn't prop up the mercurial Moammar Qaddafi. He has allowed the longest stock-market boom in American history. He has undone most of the Receivership Socialism that began when Dubya was President.

All of this has happened just within the last year. The left and the Democratic Party have demonstrated more and more intensely who and what they really are - totalitarian collectivists who want to centralize power and authority, and use it to engineer society from the top down, including trying to control what people believe, think, and say. That's why Obama has shown so much generosity towards those kinds of regimes abroad, and so much disdain for the US and its allies. All of this was predictable, given the fact that Obama spent decades listening to Jeremiah Wright, has treated Al Sharpton as a respectable advisor, is a personal friend of Bill Ayers and other domestic terrorists from the Weather Underground, and so on. His childhood mentor, Frank Marshall Davis, was a communist. His maternal family was far left. That is who he is.

As if Movement Conservatism has no desire to centralize politics in America when such serves the ends of its sugar-daddies in an effort to establish a fascistic economy and an educational system that trains and propagandizes instead of creating educated people capable of recognizing nonsense for what it is.

The left in general has made it absolutely clear that they are not constrained in any way by moderation. They are only constrained by what they believe they can get away with - how far they can go before the people turn on them. The are also now emphatically the ruling class, the elite, the gatekeepers of society. They completely control academia, media and the arts, and they have purged dissenters ruthlessly. They increasingly include the leadership of the largest corporations, especially in the tech sector. They dominate the judiciary, which imposes their will when the people vote in a way the ruling class doesn't like. "playwrite" is a very good example of exactly who now runs American society. The only area where there is any moderation at all is on economics, and that's because the people who are cramming left wing dogma down our throats 24 hours a day are extremely wealthy. But even then, the policies don't defend free market capitalism and small business. They serve to prop up, bail out and institutionalize the big players, so that the interchange between big business and big government is not interrupted. What many left leaning proles don't understand is that high taxes, regulation and so forth are actually welcomed by big business, because they erect barriers to entry that prevent anyone from coming up from below and competing with them. The more expensive it is to start a business, the less likely people are to do it. Wall Street and Silicon Valley have created a situation where Democrats raise more money than Republicans and outspend them. And for the last 6 years, Wall Street and Silicon Valley have been drowning in champagne while the rest of the country has suffered through an ongoing economic stagnation, with no "recovery" whatsoever, no matter how much the media tries to pretend it. Quite a coincidence.

The Right would use the educational system largely to train people to be domestic servants, restaurant staff, salesclerks, mechanics, and unskilled laborers; it would also tell them to believe that a grossly-inequitable America is the best of all possible worlds. That's how Apartheid-era South Africa 'educated' the blacks. Oh, by the way -- try being a small-scale competitor to Wal*Mart or McDonald's. Even the independent pharmacists are vanishing.

Economic growth has been around 2% or worse ever since Obama took office, but the ruling class barely acknowledges it. There has been no recovery. But the Democratic Party's big donors have made out like bandits. The Democrats talk about "income inequality", when it is precisely their policies that have increased it since 2008. This is the reality of socialism, once the ideological fantasies are swept aside. There is a ruling class that lives like kings, while everybody else suffers equally. That's how it was in the Soviet Union, that's how it is under the Democrats of today. This is not a bug, it's a feature. Why else would all of these rich and powerful people want to impose leftism? It's a great deal for them.

Projection alert! The Right wants a mirror image of Marxism. To make it simple, Marxism depends upon the observation that capitalism is hopelessly inequitable, corrupt, cruel, and dehumanizing on behalf of the ruling elite -- and the moral judgment that such is inexcusably wrong. Most non-Marxists seek to reform and humanize capitalism. The Hard Right endorses the inequity, corruption, cruelty, and dehumanization of capitalism so much that it wants even more of those vices.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

It has become very clear what the core of the far left, which now increasingly drives and dominates the Democratic Party, stands for.....

You make a common error in this post. You confuse right and left with conservative and progressive. This is wrong. The latter are ideologies, the former are positions with respect to the ruling order or "the Establishment". Gay marriage is a policy embraced by people having a progressive ideology. This was true 25 year and is true today. In contrast while gay marriage movement was on the Left 20 years ago, today its on the Right. When Walmart come out swinging in favor of gay marriage who know its jumped sides.

Take classic liberalism (what Americans call libertarianism). In the 18th century it was on the Left. During the first half of the 19th century it made its transition and since then it has been on the Right. It hasn't changed ideologically, it is still Liberalism. What we in America call liberals are actually progressives.* Take the idea that "racism" is bad. There was a time when expressing of white supremacy in overt ways like denying the vote to Black people because of their racial inferiority:

Originally Posted by WF Buckley

The central question that emerges... not... a question that is answered by merely consulting a catalog of the rights of American citizens, born Equal -- is whether the White community in the South is entitled to take such measures as are necessary to prevail... in areas in which it does not predominate numerically? The sobering answer is Yes.... The question... is whether the claims of civilization supersede those of universal suffrage.... [T]he South... perceives important qualitative differences between its culture and the Negroes', and intends to assert its own. National Review believes that the South's premises are correct. If the majority wills what is socially atavistic, then to thwart the majority may be, though undemocratic, enlightened.... [S]ometimes the numerical minority cannot prevail except by violence: then it must determine whether the prevalence of its will is worth the terrible price of violence...

Today it is heresy to express white supremacy in such crude terms. In fact almost all white people today oppose overt racism and many deny they believe in white racial superiority. Thus anti-(overt) racism is a position acceptable to the people on the Right or Left today.

The Right spans both parties today, the traditional Left is nearly extinct. Whether non-rich social conservatives who are increasingly being constricted culturally (as well as economically) by the Right will jump ship is an open question.

*FDR thought liberal had less baggage and so Democrats started calling labeling progressives as liberals. Today there has been a movement to bring back progressive as a description term.)

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Far left? You have no idea what that phrase means. Here, educate yourself. These web sites are genuinely far left.

https://www.swp.org.uk/

http://www.iww.org/

http://www.earthfirst.org/

Another example, but of a nontraditional category of Left.

http://www.devinrose.heroicvirtuecre...neighborhoods/

Originally Posted by princeofcats67

So, if I'm alerted to the possibility that someone might require assistance, I check it out and see what I can do.

What, individual action? Oh noes, we can't have that.

I'm not sure I understand that passage at all. The whole God thing throws me off. I can relate more to the Buddhist stuff. All living beings, etc etc.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

The question is not whether people are involved in community. The question is whether that community is a collectivist, totalitarian government, or whether it follows the traditional American model where associations are bottom-up. The first and foremost being the family, the second the church group, then various private civic organizations and charities, followed last by local government, state government and the federal government in that order.

If you look around the world at parties advocating narrow views and less tolerance of people and activities outside their view of "traditional", those parties are on the right. You noted it yourself: everything starts with the traditional: family (but not THAT kind), church (enough said there), civic organizations and charities (though what qualifies is probably quite restrictive), followed by local government (based on the prior categories), state government (as an outgrowth of local government and its precedents), and finally the Federal government (if it will just learn to keep its place in the grand order of things). So who's the totalitarian here? I have no problem with the items on your list, but I would add many that would make you cringe. I'm not trying to stop you from enjoying your freedoms, but you might be less generous in return.

Back in the 17th century, the Puritans were into all that stuff too. I would hope we would know better now.

And what is it with you folks on the right, and this idea you have that liberals want to steal your stuff?

Originally Posted by JPT ...

The Constitution was written for the specific purpose of making the federal government the last resort, not the first. The left today holds the completely opposite view, and wants to nationalize and collectivize every aspect of life, and give the federal government as much money and power as possible. Unfortunately, many Republicans who claim otherwise are very much on board with that mentality, disagreeing only about the form of federal dominance, and not really wanting to reverse it.

The Constitution was written by a coterie of well-to-do men who wished to assure themselves of the liberty they wanted, but not too much for others not deemed worthy. If you were black or a woman, you were out of luck. Not having real property was also a show stopper. In short, they extended freedoms to themselves and others like them, and the rest could just make do. Is that the model you're interested in perpetuating? If so, you're late; it's already history.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

... But this is the Republican primary and for this we have to look at the anointed candidates. The elections for comparison would be open elections with no incumbents, when the bench empties: 1988, 2000, 2008. In all three, the anointed candidate won easily. In 1988 it was the runner-up from 1980 (who was also the sitting VP). In 2000 it was the son of the previous Republican president. In 2008 it was the runner-up from 2000 (the sitting VP had excluded himself from the contest).

In 2016 there is no credible runner up from 2008 (Romney has already run and lost in 2012). Republicans in 2016 are in the same boat as they were in 2000. The former VP Dan Quayle had flamed out in 1996 and was not running. Ford's VP had flamed out in 1996. There was no heir apparent. Reagan had no offspring who had achieved high elective office, so his line was extinct. Bush I has two sons, each governor of a major state. The eldest was nominated in 2000, and number 2 son is looking to run now. He's the closest thing to an heir apparent so I suppose the nomination will go to him. Really, who else can they choose? He's the only choice. The major job of this primary campaign is to set up the next heir apparent should Bush lose...

In most cases I would agree with this 100%. This time, I'm not so sure. There are really two reasons: First, Obama showed what being fresh and new means to an exasperated electorate. None of the anointed fall into the fresh category, but someone like Scott Walker certainly does. Second, the next-in-line concept produces stable but stale candidates, in an age where the rate of change is accelerating. Old ideas presented by establishment candidates just don't carry the clout they used to carry. Clinton is in the same class of ripe-to-rotten, and that is a reason I don't see the inevitability of her in the office either. It already nailed he 2008, and I don't see it being less important this time.

By Christmas, or early next year at the latest, the field will look a lot different than it does today.

Originally Posted by playwrite

There is a BIG difference between no viable Dems to take on the GOP nominee in the general and no viable Dem to take on Clinton in the primary.

The Dems could field a much larger set of nominees than the GOP clown car; the difference would be any of the Dem nominees would actually win the general against the clown that eventually emerges victorious from their car.

Misunderstanding this most basic situation is what is going to lead to a lot of poor predictions... and even more post-election frustration.

PW, don't discount the disgust factor with Hillary. Many people who may agree with her politically just can't stand her personally. It took it's toll in 2008, and it may again this time. If Hillary flames early, there is still time to spin-up another candidate. If she flames late, what then?

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

Since I'm one of the only people who ever posts here from a conservative/libertarian point of view, follows conservative thought, votes in Republican primaries and usually supports Republican candidates, I think I have a better grasp on this than most here.


What you're saying is true. There has been a pattern of "succession" among Republican nominees. But there are reasons to believe this time will be different. I already listed Bush's weaknesses. Even though the "establishment" has largely sided with him early, even they have misgivings about him. Furthermore, the emergence of the Tea Party movement has created a new dynamic, and a very real split in the party.


All you have to do is look at comments in this thread to see how disenchanted people are, across the spectrum, with the idea of a Bush vs. Clinton "choice" in 2016. Even the most stubborn individuals in the elite camp know this. That kind of election will be very bad for the country, increasing disillusionment with Washington even more, when it's already at a low point.


The ideal Republican candidate is one who can unite all elements of the party. Bush is not only poorly suited to do that, he's said flat out that he has no interest in it. At least his brother and father made an attempt.


So again, Walker possesses all of the attributes to be the right candidate, and his early strength is a reflection of that fact. He looks like the candidate people are looking for. But it's up to him to close the deal. In fact I would say, even though it's early, the nomination is Walker's to lose. That is where things stand right now, but there is a long way to go.

We don't agree on much, but we do on this ... at least most of it. I think the light bulb will come on in the Donkey party too, and the 'inevitable' Bush v Clinton melee will be considered quaint by this time next year. The Dems have a shorter list of possible choices, but one will emerge once Hillary shows weakness. After all, Bill wasn't supposed to run in '92 and Obama had no chance in '08. The Dems are more comfortable with black horse candidates. For the GOP, this may be their first try in a long time. But upstart BHO beat their war hero and followed-up by beating the credentialed rich guy. This time, the wiser heads may have learned that next is not the right option. I think the money is already moving in that direction.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

The GOP doesn't have control over us like the Democrat's have over them. The Republican base is more self reliant than the Democratic base at this point.

I hope you aren't serous. The GOP is the buttoned-down party, with the Dems sort of flailing around. This has been true for a long enough time that is was the basis of a joke in the 1930s. The only thing that may be changing now is a schism in the GOP that splits the TP-Fundie coalition away from the pro-business core of the party. So far, the Band-Aids are holding, and the two groups are still friends ... sorta. If they start working at cross-purposes, then I'll agree with you.

Originally Posted by herbal tee

You guys should realize that a bunch of Walker's associates are under investigation. Whatever comes of this if you don't think Bush the machine is going exploit that to rip little Scott apart in states where independents can choose the primary that they vote in, and there are many, you've got a surprise coming.

EDIT: Yes I do see that my keyboard typed in ''Bush the machine'' rather than as intended ''the Bush machine.'' But I like the look and sound of the error better!

H-m-m-m-m. Perhaps you need to capitalize machine too, so it's Bush the Machine. When Jeb loses, he may be able to get a contract to do an EP or work a tag-team deal in the WWF.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

Based on personal experience, his choice for words to describe Democratic governance are pretty accurate.

Let me rephrase that as, they want me to do things I don't want to do! That plays both ways. Right now, we have two different groups screaming about government overreach. The liberals want to stop several NG pipeline projects, and the conservatives want to allow service providers to refuse service to gays. Both groups feel put upon.

This is the way government works. It helps some people or groups by imposing on others. It's impossible to do otherwise.

Originally Posted by XYMOX_4AD_84

True about Obama, in a carpetbagger sense.

Just curious -- do you see Reagan as a carpetbagger? My understanding is that Obama had lived all of his working life in the Chicago area before he ran for Senator and then President.

Ford, by appointment.

You'd have to go clear back to Taft, if counting Ohio as "the upper midwest."

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

I know I'm the demographic who should be most excited about a Hillary presidency (white upper-middle class Boomer woman) but although I'd vote for her in the general election against just about any Republican, the thought of doing so does not inspire me in any way. Sigh.

My very liberal and politically-active 84-year-old mother feels the same way.

Just have mom wait until it becomes clear what amygdala-dominated brain is running against her in the general. It's not a popularity gauge; it's a choice.

And if that doesn't work, try imagining "The Ginsberg" being replaced by a Scalia clone.