2016 Elections

[Brian37]

I read a poll that stated if the US general election were held today, 98% of Americans would be shocked, because they thought they weren't voting until next year.

Boru

That is another reform I would put in. No other western nation I know of has basically a 2 year pandering cycle. 

[Anomalocaris]

I will repeat what I say in every election cycle: vote third-party. I don't care which one. Get off the two-party treadmill.

Me, it depends on who the Libertarians put up. If he's one of the classical Libertarians, I may not vote at all, or I may vote for Hillary and repent at leisure. If the Libertarians put up a neo-Lib, then he or she might well get my vote.

Entry cost of national electoral competitiveness is very steep and much more expensive than any third party can afford.  So third party will assuredly lose.

Furthermore,  any third party will likely take most of its votes from one of the other two parties that is closer to the third party in position.    By playing, the third party weakens not its worst ideological opponent, but it's closet ideological kindred, such as they are amongst the two main parties.   So in playing at all the third party will have but handed election advantage, and probably victory, to that major party from the two that is ideologically furthest from the third party.

So vote for the third party promising to bring the country closest to the path you wish it to traverse, and you have have contributed materially to ensuring the country will steer a course further from the path you would wish it to traverse.

The Republican Party could not possible do more to assure its own continued electoral advantage than to subsidize a progressive third party that would draw votes away from the democrats.

[Mudhammam]

Entry cost of national electoral competitiveness is very steep and much more expensive than any third party can afford.  So third party will assuredly lose.

Furthermore,  any third party will likely take most of its votes from one of the other two parties that is closer to the third party in position.    By playing, the third party weakens not its worst ideological opponent, but it's closet ideological kindred, such as they are amongst the two main parties.   So in playing at all the third party will have but handed election advantage, and probably victory, to that major party from the two that is ideologically furthest from the third party.

So vote for the third party promising to bring the country closest to the path you wish it to traverse, and you have have contributed materially to ensuring the country will steer a course further from the path you would wish it to traverse.

The Republican Party could not possible do more to assure its own continued electoral advantage than to subsidize a progressive third party that would draw votes away from the democrats.

Good. If the Democrats lose because a progressive third party funnels votes away from Hillary, maybe they'll take more progressive positions next time. We saw how libertarian movements organized at disgust over the corporatist, neo-con wing of the Republican party, and though they lost two Presidential elections, now they have a field of candidates that vary from more to less in their liberation beliefs (actually it seems like Republican politicians representing big business hijacked the movement early on so you don't hear so much about higher taxes and tighter regulations on corporations as much as you do about income inequality, which is somehow a separate issue to them). I'm willing to put up with a Republican win, as I see the Democrats as only marginally better, if it sends a message to the "liberal" establishment to get serious about their supposed principles.

[Anomalocaris]

In politics coopting something is not the same thing as giving in to something.

You would notice the net effect is republican field now feature some hopeless circus monkey side shows in the form of Rand Paul, plus some candidates with a real shot at the nomination whose actions would absolutely be no different from republicans of 2004 where anti libertarian leaning is concerned.

If you are willing to throw an election for the democrats just so the democrats would also field a monkey show to placate you while actually nominating candidates who would do essentially the same as they otherwise would, then move to a different country please.

[Mudhammam]

In politics coopting something is not the same thing as giving in to something.

You would notice the net effect is republican field now feature some hopeless circus monkey side shows in the form of Rand Paul, plus some candidates with a real shot at the nomination whose actions would absolutely be no different from republicans of 2004 where anti libertarian leaning is concerned.

If you are willing to throw an election for the democrats just so the democrats would also field a monkey show to placate you while actually nominating candidates who would do essentially the same as they otherwise would, then move to a different country please.

I think I have just as much right to vote for any candidate, or none at all, as I choose...your crass response to "move to a different country please" is indicative that you don't understand how the process works. See, you may call Rand Paul or any of the other candidates "circus monkey side shows" but they're actually engaging in debate over topics that would have been unthinkable for a major Republican candidate to question just a few years ago. Maybe none of them will live up to their rhetoric but the rhetoric is important, and even that debate is non-existent in the Democratic party, though progressives and liberals are having it. A vote for Hillary is a vote for Wall Street and neo-con foreign policy run amok and in my principled stance against both I'll vote against them no matter what the outcome may be. I hope most progressives will do the same, and then maybe the Democratic establishment will get the message.

[AFTT47]

I will repeat what I say in every election cycle: vote third-party. I don't care which one. Get off the two-party treadmill.

Simply voting for a third-party candidate won't get it done. There would need to be an entire movement to change the voting system to where you get a first, second and perhaps third choice. That way, people wouldn't feel like they are throwing their vote away and would make a third candidate viable.

[Pizza]

In politics coopting something is not the same thing as giving in to something.
You would notice the net effect is republican field now feature some hopeless circus monkey side shows in the form of Rand Paul, plus some candidates with a real shot at the nomination whose actions would absolutely be no different from republicans of 2004 where anti libertarian leaning is concerned.
If you are willing to throw an election for the democrats just so the democrats would also field a monkey show to placate you while actually nominating candidates who would do essentially the same as they otherwise would, then move to a different country please.

I think I have just as much right to vote for any candidate, or none at all, as I choose...your crass response to "move to a different country please" is indicative that you don't understand how the process works. See, you may call Rand Paul or any of the other candidates "circus monkey side shows" but they're actually engaging in debate over topics that would have been unthinkable for a major Republican candidate to question just a few years ago. Maybe none of them will live up to their rhetoric but the rhetoric is important, and even that debate is non-existent in the Democratic party, though progressives and liberals are having it. A vote for Hillary is a vote for Wall Street and neo-con foreign policy run amok and in my principled stance against both I'll vote against them no matter what the outcome may be. I hope most progressives will do the same, and then maybe the Democratic establishment will get the message.

At best that's what third parties do. They fail, but they make the other two parties awake up and respond to the issues that made the third party appealing. 
As for Rand Paul, I don't know if I can vote for him. http://www.paul.senate.gov/about-rand/is...ty-of-life 

[CapnAwesome]

I make the major distinction between embargoes that kills not necessarily for a justifiable purpose, and launching a major aggressive war against international norm, and in the process makes an orderly international system with non-violent means of conflict resolution much less credible, and war in general as well as violent attempts to disrupte beneficial status quo and stability much more likely.

The farmer is a callousness,  the latter the essence of war crime.

Well I guess starving children to death in a foriegn country isn't a war crime if a Democrat does it. How about drone strikes on wedding parties?

[Hatshepsut]

Well I guess starving children to death in a foriegn country isn't a war crime if a Democrat does it. How about drone strikes on wedding parties?

Although who's starving kids to death from over here? You're granting the U.S. government too much omnipotence.

And yes, we're going to target the folks who have brought beheading back into fashion, from drones overhead where we don't have to put military personnel at risk. We intend to make life dangerous for these folks, including the time they spend at their weddings. Occasionally we will target the wrong folks. But there's something to be said about that also: These uninvolved folks allow and accept having extremists live among them, and in most areas where ISIS governs, it does so with at least tacit consent from the majority of its subjects. If the uninvolved folks don't want to be at risk from U.S. airstrikes gone awry, then they better get busy about kicking the Islamic extremists out, or at least objecting to the formation of extremist bases inside their homes and neighborhoods.

In general, kings rule because the people accept them.

I don't love war and its justifications, or think the U.S. is always right everywhere it uses its military, but we're right about al-Qaeda and ISIS, and we're doing the best we can as far as avoiding civilian deaths in connection with drone strikes and commando actions against these organizations.

[Mudhammam]

I don't love war and its justifications, or think the U.S. is always right everywhere it uses its military, but we're right about al-Qaeda and ISIS, and we're doing the best we can as far as avoiding civilian deaths in connection with drone strikes and commando actions against these organizations.

The fact that we can't even identify who we're killing the majority of the time (unidentified deaths are something like 28:1 for every intended target) and that the process comes down simply to Obama's discretion with no judicial oversight completely discredits your faith in American leaders doing their "best... as far as avoiding civilian deaths."