(May 14, 2016 at 2:31 am)Redbeard The Pink Wrote: The lesser of the two evils is obviously Bernie Sanders. Why are we still having this discussion?

First of all, that's a matter of opinion - one the majority of registered Democrats do not share. Which segues into: Bernie Sanders will not be the Democratic nominee. Wishing he were does not make it so. Bernie Sanders has successfully moved the conversation to the left and has probably (for better or worse) paved the way for a more leftist Democratic candidate in 2024 but he will not be on the ballot in 2016.

(May 14, 2016 at 2:19 am)Jenny A Wrote:

(May 14, 2016 at 12:37 am)SteelCurtain Wrote: It boggles my mind that there isn't a fiscally conservative, socially liberal alternative.

We call ourselves libertarian.

Yes - and you scare me more than the Republicans. The problem is that the classic Libertarian view of economics is so far right, it's ridiculous. It's Ayn Rand territory or the Ferengi of Star Trek. Capitalism unleashed without regulation. No, thank you.

(May 14, 2016 at 12:57 am)Minimalist Wrote:

(May 13, 2016 at 10:29 pm)Alasdair Ham Wrote: Blasphemy.

Of course, Mini blaspheming is rather unsurprising

Pepsi is to cola what Budweiser is to beer.

Tasty?

@AFTT47


Says you. We'll see how the votes fall in the upcoming primaries. If he pulls ahead in pledged delegates (which he is well within mathematical reach of doing, what with Hillary's ever-shrinking lead in that department), then the super delegates would be committing party suicide to send in Hillary instead. They may as well gift wrap the White House for Trump.


Sure, that might not happen, but it's short-sighted and idiotic to have definitively concluded that it won't.


Besides, even if that cheating twat does get nominated, I'm still voting Sanders.

(May 14, 2016 at 12:37 am)SteelCurtain Wrote: It boggles my mind that there isn't a fiscally conservative, socially liberal alternative.

If I look at the States, I'm asking myself what this fiscally conservative mantra even means. Taxes are wasted on the largest possible scale by both parties. It's only that it's not to the benefit of the people at large. It's to subsidize corporations already making huge profits and it's to finance a behemoth of an army and largely futile foreign interventions. At the same time, when visiting some rural areas or even the outskirts of the large hubs, the infrastructure gives the impression of a third world country. Crumbling roads and landlines everywhere.

That won't change, as long as there isn't a third party making a real impact. The dems and repubs have divided the country and it's assets between them. And both of them answer to big money and not the people, since hardly any canidate can hope to win an election without taking the so called donations. At least on the federal level.

(May 14, 2016 at 4:03 am)AFTT47 Wrote:

(May 14, 2016 at 2:19 am)Jenny A Wrote: We call ourselves libertarian.

Yes - and you scare me more than the Republicans. The problem is that the classic Libertarian view of economics is so far right, it's ridiculous. It's Ayn Rand territory or the Ferengi of Star Trek. Capitalism unleashed without regulation. No, thank you.

That rather extreme libertarianism. I wouldn't go there.

(May 13, 2016 at 10:58 pm)TheRealJoeFish Wrote: This is extremely true.  I'm not going to the polls just hoping to make sure it's Clinton>Trump; we Pennsylvanians have the opportunity to flip one of the 100 Senate seats from Red (Toomey) to Blue (McGinty) this November.  That's an issue of some importance as well.

Probably an issue of -greater- importance...given the fact that the current situation in our government would yield largely similar results between the two frontleaders for prez.  The senate and the house need to change..if for no other reason...than that a president who's battling them both gets -nothing- done.

For example...people worry about supreme court appointments,, but a president only -nominates-.  Neither dems nor repubs are going to give Trump an easy time with that.......and it isn't as if Hillary will fare better unless the situation changes - because dems can't swing those nominations.  It's not -entirely- certain that there would be a qualitative difference between the sorts of nominations either would make.  They're both pretty much shills of biz, for example, are they not?  It's not unreasonable to assume that they will -both- nominate shill justices.

Even our current prez...which most people think is a fair bit stronger than either of those two ended up making (and being forced to make) uninspired choices for the supreme court.

(May 14, 2016 at 11:15 am)Jenny A Wrote: That rather extreme libertarianism.  I wouldn't go there.

There's a difference between liberal and libertarian, just as there is between socialism and social democracy. European definitions, since I find the American terms skewed towards an agenda.

Liberal means granting individuals rights to privacy and to persue their own goals in life, without the state interfering. Libertarianism is totally laissez faire, geared towards the fairy tale of a self regulating market. Neo conservatism might be the more appropriate term for that, since it's rather about every man for himself than promoting any kind of community. Ayn Rand isn't off the charts to describe that kind of view.

(May 14, 2016 at 4:42 am)abaris Wrote: That won't change, as long as there isn't a third party making a real impact. The dems and repubs have divided the country and it's assets between them. And both of them answer to big money and not the people, since hardly any canidate can hope to win an election without taking the so called donations. At least on the federal level.

IMHO

I believe the media to be largely at fault. The 'sheeple' of America will usually ignore the third party as the media promotes (depending on bias) the two major parties and downplays the third. The 'sheeple' being afraid to 'waste' their vote on the third party, inevitably got for "the lesser of two evils".

(May 14, 2016 at 11:27 am)abaris Wrote: Libertarianism is totally laissez faire, geared towards the fairy tale of a self regulating market.

That's my understanding as well.