[Promoted by Liz, because I’d like to see where this discussion leads. Keep it clean, folks.]
I’m voting in the Republican primary on August 23, and I’m going to vote for the most right-wing crazy-crack-pot candidates on the ballot. If you want to keep these folks out of office, get out and vote in the primary. It’s the right thing to do.
Here are my recommendations:
Senate 13:
Dick Black: A crazy, woman-hating, spitting and shrieking racist and homophobe
Bob FitzSimmonds: A Cuccinelli clone with negative charisma
John Stirrup: A slick, sleazy, anti-hispanic, hater
Vote: Dick Black
House 10:
Randy Minchew: A purportedly moderate Republican who steered the Loudoun GOP to the right and believes that unimplanted fertilized embryos have more Constitutional rights than women.
Cara Townsend: A Christian conservative leader who says: “All leadership must bring honor to God”
John Whitbeck: “I am pro life – period.”
Vote: Cara Townsend
Update!
Ken Reid has a LTE endorsing Minchew. Reid says “Randy is a man of integrity and commitment to God, family and community.” Reid also says “John Whitbeck, has flooded the 10th district with outlandish mail pieces which often stretch the truth about Randy’s record.” It sounds like Whitbeck is the front running challenger, and if Reid thinks he’s “outlandish”, he must really be out there.
Vote: John Whitbeck
House 87:
Jo-Ann Chase: Off the charts crazy a la John Grigsby
David Ramadan: Big money Republican establishment
Vote: Jo Ann Chase
Thanks Nat. The primary is over and of all the crazies, Dick Black is still in. I don’t believe that my vote – if I did vote – had any impact on the outcome. Thanks for the constructive comment.
WOW! This is the most ignorant blog I’ve ever read. Why would you do something so underhanded? There is NOTHING constructive about this plan of action whatsoever. If you want to do something good for the country, vote in the presidential primaries for Ron Paul and/ or Dennis Kucinich. You’re doing nothing good for anyone in this country if you just vote for screwed up politicians just because you hate another party. If you’re still stuck in this left/ right childish war, you really ought to educate yourself a bit more before you head to ballot box. It’s not about whether or not there’s a D or an R in office. It’s about being free, getting out of debt, and, as JFK said, asking “what you can for your country, not what your country can do for you”.
Liz,
I cannot find the data. Can you send me a link?
What you will find is that there is no evidence for your case in almost every situation.
Elder Berry, you want to use faith and good intentions as a mechanism for determining regulations?
The fact is that most regulations have no impact on the thing they are supposed to regulate. Please show otherwise. If not, you are only expressing FAITH in government.
Yeah, because I know that if I want to know the details about the amount of harm caused by a Gulf oil platform disaster, a nuclear reactor power plant radiation release, or a food contamination issue, I sure would look for the information from the corporation.
NOT.
In most cases the corporations are only gathering and keeping the information because the government forces them to do it. Maybe Republican thinks we’d be better off not knowing about it at all. Or maybe those of us with the means should have a private for-profit subscription service to keep track of the amount of bacteria in our hot dogs.
Republican, last week you asked me to give you data. Well, all my sources are from the government, and can be gotten for free from websites paid for by taxes. You aren’t paying me to compile ’em for you and you’ve already paid the good workers at various agencies to put them out there for you. Which is yet another good thing government does.
So get yourself on to the myriad government websites that track this stuff and see your taxpayer dollars at work!
I hope that’s true, and under normal conditions I think it would be true. Think of it this way – if a fundamentalist movement that actually would want our code and Constitution to be supplanted by a Taliban version of sharia were shown to have strong influence over a candidate’s life, that would be legitimate cause for concern. In the case of David Ramadan, you yourself have seen the evidence that those allegations are ridiculous, and are made by those who have trouble separating mainstream Islam from fundamentalism. I hope you see that I have no such trouble with regard to Christianity, and I am in no way, as one of our commenters is fond of saying, “anti-Christian.”
I’m just not that comforted by the history of people saying that there is “no chance” of this or that happening. Eternal vigilance is the price of freedom, and all that.
Republican, I’m curious. Who exactly do you think would be keeping data about the various disasters and calamities caused by lack of regulation?
The corporations?
It seems to me that if you want data on the efficacy of government regulation, you just articulated a good reason for there to be a government.
The founding fathers saw fit to give us a GOVERNMENT under law. They could have gone home to their businesses, farms, estates, plantations, and left the former colonies to libertarian anarchy, without a government, but they didn’t. They were men of reason, and they thought that government could and would do good. They thought it was necessary. In fact they even strengthened the federal government after the Articles of Confederation proved too weak.
So whatever you are, you aren’t in the spirit of the founding fathers of this nation.
I published a follow up at Disaster Voting. If the blog administrators like it, they will promote it. If not, let me know what you think anyways.
In other words, there are many other things that are more important and more likely to happen to worry about.
As an example, I give you Obamacare. You should join me in hoping it gets rejected, because it will be used by people you disagree with to push their agendas of whatever sort.
I hope you understand my point that the safest position for us all is weak government that has little power over us. Then we are all happy. All you need to do is add the word “classic” in front of your political description and you are set! 🙂
I will keep an eye on it. It seems to me to be a lot like those people worried about Shariah. Neither has a chance of happening in the US no matter who gets elected to what.
@Republican, re the obscurity of Dominionism: A. Larry Ross published a piece yesterday in the
AtlanticDaily Beast that makes a similar point. This response to that piece was exactly my own reaction, only with better links. It absolutely is a fringe theology, but one that heavily influences the beliefs of two front-runner candidates.David, re your comment:
“Epluribusunum says:
21.08.11 at 17:01
The stricken portion of the above comment represents a known falsehood.”
regarding my comment:
” Barbara Munsey says:
21.08.11 at 12:43
R and E, re dominionism: I agree with R that by and large it is a bit of a conspiracy tendency to ascribe too much influence to the diffuse spectre of such a “movement” (hence my continual annoyance with Jonathan’s continual assumptive declarations that I am a Christian(ist) Nationalist), but I sense an agreement with both of you that any melding of endtimes belief with politics is a recipe for disaster.
And I mean that in ALL evangelical religious belief structures, whether fundamentalist Christian, fundamentalist Muclim, fundamentalist environmentalist, and so on.”
may I suggest that you simply strike “continual”? in light of Jonathan’s comment:
“Pariahdog says:
18.08.11 at 20:15
Barbara,
If you spent 1/100th of your energy defending American values rather than “Christian” Nationalism, I might re-evauluate the very negative opinion that I have of your behavior.”
rather than simply blindly supporting Jonathan by calling me a “known” liar?
While I agree that there is only one instance of Jonathan’s usual accusation here on this thread (hence my suggestion of a stike on the word “continual”), it certainly isn’t the first, nor do I think it will be the last such assumptive declaration on his part.
I think our commenting policy is intended to apply to commenting, i.e., commenters being personally abusive or insulting to one another. I don’t think it’s intended to restrict bloggers from discussing a public figure in terms that we wouldn’t want commenters using on each other. I would take a different view of one commenter attacking another with the words “you’re off the charts crazy,” wouldn’t you?
Republican, I can understand the impulse to discount the danger of this movement, but elements of it have been gaining power and influence over the last 40 or so years. It’s also historically during periods of stress and dislocation that extremist movements find a more fertile environment. The only thing I’m suggesting is being observant, and basing judgments on observed fact instead of a guess.
The stricken portion of the above comment represents a known falsehood.
What struck me is how Liz won’t tolerate the use of “lame” yet allows her posters to call someone “off the charts crazy”
R and E, re dominionism: I agree with R that by and large it is a bit of a conspiracy tendency to ascribe too much influence to the diffuse spectre of such a “movement” (hence my continual annoyance with
Jonathan’s continual assumptive declarations that I am a Christian(ist) Nationalist), but I sense an agreement with both of you that any melding of endtimes belief with politics is a recipe for disaster.And I mean that in ALL evangelical religious belief structures, whether fundamentalist Christian, fundamentalist Muclim, fundamentalist environmentalist, and so on.
I cannot and will not support Dick Black or the people he supports.
I was reading more on dominionism here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominionism
I am not christian, so I wasn’t aware of it. My guess so far is they are pretty obscure and worrying about them is like those tinfoil hat anti-Shariah people. Worried about something that has almost no chance of happening.
I would run for office on the R side, but it is too much darn work to run. I would hate the campaigning. I would like doing the job, but I would not go through any of the BS to get into doing it. Not worth it for someone like me.
That’s why I posted the Huntsman thing. My criterion is reality-based world. I would like more than anything for there to be the best reality-based world candidates from both/all parties, so there could be a genuine debate about how to do things better. Forget the climate change stuff for now, that’s a sidetrack. In principle, I think we’re on the same page – effective leaders need to have more than a passing acquaintance with empiricism.
But: If the best people from the Rs in, say, the 13th are in agreement on everything except for who has the right kind of experience, that means that none of them would actually govern better than Dick Black. If there were actually a reality-based world candidate in that race, someone who thought it important to differentiate him/herself from the radical (and exceptionally statist, ahem) ideas of Black and his base instead of being obsequious to them, this entire discussion would not be happening, I think. I agree with Andrew Sullivan. I would respect the hell out of a Republican candidate who stands up to the anti-intellectual, anti-liberty, anti-American nonsense.
That’s how it will be, eventually. It just won’t come up. That pretty much sums up “the gay agenda,” I think. 🙂
E,
On the gay thing. I will take a look at the info you sent me. I don’t like commenting until I look at some real info. Like you on Global Warming I guess.
This has never been a big deal to me. I am straight. Never cared who was gay. It never bothered me. So I never really paid much attention.
My only real notice of gay issues was in the 80’s and 90’s when I lived in NYC and was around a lot of AIDS activists. I had no problem with them, but I did think they were disproportionately passionate and even militant compared to the numbers with the disease.
I did a little research at the time and found that AIDS was way down on the ways anyone could die, including gay men. I remeber thinking they should be protesting for more heart disease research since most gay guys will die of that.
But that’s me. Always weighing the data and the priorities. Silly that way. 🙂
By the way, my best male friend is gay. We live in different states now. I think we had one big talk about his being gay and it was mostly curiosity on my part on some of the practicalities and it has almost never came up again. In many years.
I understand that some people think being gay is a sin. But why they are so passionate about that sin when there are so many sins to be working on is beyond me.
See, I told you. Come to the libertarian side. We are social liberals. And I think I still qualify as one even though I am pro-life.
Barbara,
I noticed that as I read his comment to. He assumes a lot.
I don’t hate Obama at all. I have made it clear that most of my friends are like Obama and that I think libs have very good hearts and want to do good things. I think Obama wants to do good things. I just think the things he is actually doing are very, very bad. So no hate. I am not prone to hate much and see the good in most people.
As to the Obama/Bachman question, Barbara also gets it. I think that even if Bachman wanted to do odd things, we are well protected against her. Obama is far more able to push through statist agenda items with statist Republicans and democrats though.
If those were my two choices, I would pick Bachman, but she is not my preferred choice on the R side. I would love for Paul or Johnson to win, but we Libertarians never win. 🙁 So my next choice in mainstream candidate would be Romney. But I prefer some other mainstream people not running yet. I would love to have Paul Ryan or Chris Christie. Gulliani would be good too.
So you can see my preferred list is not Christian conservative, but that is by chance. The christian aspect is of little concern. They can do little.
Economic concerns win. This is why you guys really need to primary challenge Obama. He was never a good candidate to be a President. We need a good choice on both teams to get the best result.
And this where Jonathan’s argument falls apart. What we need are the best people. His theory is unproven and has no historical precedent. It would lead to more people in place to do more things he doesn’t want.
Since this is a language-careful blog (and I am enjoying immensely the discussion between R and E), Jonathan, can you assume that R “hates” Obama?
His arguments in that realm have been policy-based, and noted the protections in the system that would prevent a Bachmann from doing what you fear.
Couching it as “hate” for Obama may not be giving you an accurate data point (and consider that a discussion between two people on one blog is not necessarily providing “data”, but a few personal opinions (note R’s continued requests for actual compiled data, and the methodologies for collecting and evaluating).
I understand that you mean no offense. For what it’s worth, I wouldn’t classify heterosexuality with bestiality or necrophilia either – because those are very different kinds of things.
There are a multitude of what we call paraphilias – unusual fetishes and such, some of which, as you point out, are and should be illegal because they violate the rights of others. I don’t think there’s any evidence that stuff like that has any biological basis. In some ways, sexual response is very malleable, and people can be easily conditioned – for example, that’s why people become addicted to pornography, or fetishize certain “types” or scenarios.
Orientation is a very different thing, and is more similar to gender itself in that there are actual brain structures (not just patterns of brain activity) that differ. Orientation to one or both genders is in reality much more than a sexual response. It has to do with the gender a person is drawn to spend intimate time with, is the best way I can explain it. That includes sexual interaction, but isn’t limited to it. If you are in love with someone, I’m sure you understand that your attraction isn’t merely a sexual one.
A lot of the pertinent research has been compiled here (don’t let the heading throw you), and Milton Diamond would be another good name to look up. The conclusions that these human studies point to are consistent with what we know of the variability within other species as well. That gender and orientation are biologically determined – not socially constructed – attributes, is well established at this point. The shrill minority that still insists otherwise is not basing its assertion on science but on fundamentalist ideology. That shrill minority, by the way, includes extremists on both the left and the right.
Well, exactly. You can’t make the assumption that voters will even be aware of the radical agenda of your proposed candidates, let alone recognize that it’s a serious threat to our democracy. Republican started out saying don’t do it, you might get what you ask for, then confirmed it by saying he himself would be willing to vote for Bachmann as the lesser of two evils.
That is a useful data point.
Republican,
Wow! Your last comment just added another data point.
“I have never heard what you are talking about with Michelle Bachman. Given her or Obama I would go Bachman”
My premise is that:
1. The wackiest candidates will cause libertarians like yourself to vote any party but R.
2. If voters are fooled and elect the crazy, the backlash will come quickly (e.g. Marilyn Musgrave)
3. If the backlash doesn’t come quickly, there is a weird equilibrium with the elected continuing to overreach while the population vacillates between acceptance of ‘hyperbole’ and outright outrage. We see this with Delgaudio.
Even in the worst case #3, the arrow of time moves in one direction, and eventually, the crazy will be labeled so and their political career will be over.
It’s interesting that your classification system is so different from mine, but understandable given that you had not heard of Christianism. I’d like to understand why you hate Obama so much that you’d choose a Christianist over him. That’s the biggest challenge to my proposal.
If libertarians who don’t know anything about Christianism will vote for the Christianist and Democrats can’t explain why that’s a bad thing, how is the proposed primary voting tactic a good idea?
Here is Milton Friedman looking at some of the principles around regulation.
E,
Hope you see this. The comments system on here is wacky and I can’t reply where you posted.
I am going to start off by getting something off my chest. I DEFINITELY have a problem with some republicans. They are – indeed – statists in one form or another. I wish the libertarians in the democratic party and the larger number in the Republican party would actually get together and eliminate the statists on both ends. I am sometimes so upset with Republicans that I want to leave. The problem is those thoughts come when I come across one that is a statist jerk. I could never be a democrat. Statists are most of the party and the platform is openly statist.
Moving on.
So you are gay? Had no idea. No idea if you are mail or female. I don’t normally follow this blog. Just saw pariahdogs idea which is definitely a VERY BAD one. He will get these people elected and make more problems.
You say that there is science showing orientation is set early – even pre-birth? First of all show me the science. This is not a challenge. It is a genuine interest.
If true, then is all sexual orientation predetermined or heavily biological? Why would homo sexuality be special. By that I mean why is beastiality or pedophilia or necrophilia or attraction to blondes or redheads or big breasts or whatever not determined pre-birth. It seems a bit illogical to say that same sex attraction is, but attraction to sexual attraction to objects like a wall or car is not.
And I mean no offense by linking these other things to homosexuality. I am only trying to understand what you are saying the science says about orientation since male and female aren’t the only options and preferences can go much more specific.
I will concede there are real differences in the acts I listed above in that the three most unusual ones are all illegal and should be since the other side is non-consenting. But as you point out we are talking about attraction – not the act. If someone is sexually attracted to horses, is that an orientation that is pre-birth?
My guess is these rarer variations in human sexuality are less studied than gay which is probably the largest variant while still rare. I recognize that gayness is a spectrum thing with females typically having a wider spectrum than males.
I have never heard what you are talking about with Michelle Bachman. Given her or Obama I would go Bachman. She would be blocked by the Senate for any big social stuff, so she will stay focused on economic. I wish the dems would put someone up I could really support instead of Obama. He is about as anti-libertarian as Pat Robertson. 🙂
I see there are at least a couple of gay people who post on here. I am sorry my party gets caught up in this marriage stuff. It is such a waste. I also don’t want the government to recognize gay marriage, but as you know I don’t want them to recognize straight marriage or anything with marriage at all except contract enforcement.
This gay marriage thing is a great example of why people who think they are liberals should stop being statists and creating new government programs. If the government had nothing to do with marriage you wouldn’t have this issue? Who gave them the power to license marriage anyway! Its none of their business.
I know. I know. Nobody listens to the libertarian. Sigh. Humans have always wanted strong government. From the beginning of our history. They want to be cared for and controlled. It is a psychological need.
By the way, if you want to see a really fun video on free market economics versus Keynsians, look at this:
I should add that there are also people who are resistant to the conclusion that gender and orientation are hardwired for the reason that those who think that some variants “shouldn’t” exist will try to use medical technology to eliminate them.
They insist that the only argument for equality should be the same as yours, that “none of it is my business. Let any of these people do or don’t do what they want.” That’s a perfectly valid argument on its own, but at the same time we can’t reject knowledge just because we don’t like it for some reason.
Regarding the study, no argument there. I have a lot of the same questions, and would love to see the method and raw data. I’ve seen some pretty laughable “research” myself. Presumably, though, these guys are a bit more reputable than a Gaffney. If their method is flawed I’m confident we will find out.
As for Bachmann, it’s not merely that she’s not a libertarian. I would say that some of her views are profoundly anti-American. Her entire political career has been pretty openly driven by and aligned with a fringe movement of the fundamentalist right whose stated goal is to place civil government, along with the rest of American society, under the “dominion” of God’s representatives (which they believe themselves to be). In the world they would like to live in, only Christians would have liberty, and biblical law would supplant our ideals of equality and pluralism. That might seem like a joke to you, but it’s deadly serious to them. It’s certainly statist, and in an ugly way. Their theology literally requires that this dominion be established on earth before the Second Coming can be put in motion. I don’t know about you, but I think that’s wacky – and I don’t appreciate the idea that my existence – not just marriage equality, but me – is seen as a problem to be eliminated.
Of course Bachmann is not going to openly identify herself with this movement, she has to appeal to people outside of it. She is trying to pass off her beliefs as mainstream, such as when she claimed that “submission” just means “respect.” Look at her entire history, her allies and influences, and do some research on this, don’t take my word for it. You said that you didn’t know what Christianism means. Look up “New Apostolic Reformation,” “Dominionism,” “quiverfull” and “Seven Mountains theology.”
Keep in mind that supporting a person’s right to try to change their own sexual orientation as a matter of personal liberty is very different from believing that gay people are broken and must be fixed whether we agree or not, or failing that, exterminated. Yes, there are people in this movement who believe that.
I support the former idea – and note that it goes both ways. We do know quite a bit about this, though. The people who practice this kind of pray-away-the-gay therapy generally admit that even a “successful” outcome doesn’t mean an actual change in orientation, it means a behavioral change, and ethics demands that this be acknowledged up front. Behavior is and always has been a choice. We can all choose to live in ways that are more or less honest or natural for ourselves.
The conclusion the research is pointing to is that gender and orientation are both neurologically wired, and that the neurological development is influenced by prenatal environmental factors. People often want to reduce biological determinants to a “gene,” but no. It’s a complex system.
And what do you think the scientific consensus you have heard of is?
Can science tell us we MUST lower CO2 to protect the earth? Is that a scientific question or a public policy question?
Do you know how much of what you have heard is consensus are questions of public policy versus science?
You do know the IPCC had many more political people in it than actual scientists right and that only one section of the report dealt with science, right? And that section wasn’t alarming at all.
Have you read it?
There is some limit on replies. I will put it here. I would like to address your question of female liberty. It is inherent that when a life is created that she is in a special position. It is not my desire to limit her liberty, but the desire to protect the liberty of another that is overriding.
So I am not doing this to deny female liberty. I wish she could have it. The male is bound in my mind as well as much as he can be. Once the life is created both are responsible from that moment forth to protect the liberty (starting with life) of the human which is dependent on them for life.
It really is irrelevant whether that life came about because of accident, lack of understanding, or even force. Once it exists, it is inherently deserving of civil rights protection. It cannot be held responsible for the actions of those that created it. By killing it, we are denying it the liberty it should enjoy for as long as it can.
It is a balancing question. For sure someone’s rights will be trampled on. In the one case we have an absolute trampling in the form of death (I am against the death penalty by the way), and in the other case we have a small risk and inconvenience.
You must agree we are weighing the relative rights to come to our conclusions. You would likely not be OK if we ended that pre-born persons life at 8 months gestation. At that point, you have weighed this same equation of rights and decided to protect the pre-born human.
I have decided to take the most “liberal” definition of the life deserving of civil rights protection and therefore will balance that right all the way back to when it is an individual human life with its own genome. At that point it should be endowed with protections by society to the greatest degree possible.
You will point out corner cases of course. And if all we had were corner cases, I would probably not consider it a big issue. But unfortunately we end the lives of millions of people without those corner cases being in play.
E,
First of all, without knowing the details, why does consensus matter?
Secondly, how do you KNOW there is consensus. Who told you?
This is something you’ll have to take up with someone who can discuss the science with you competently; it’s not my field. I would suggest some of the folks at Sustainable Loudoun. What I do know is that the overwhelming consensus says the opposite conclusion is true.
How is one “caused by the actions of another” any more than the other, and how would we even know what actions caused a kidney failure, or some other condition that requires someone else’s sacrifice to save a life?
Beyond that, why would the person with the affliction be any more at fault than a fetus? They didn’t make a choice to need a bone marrow transplant or whatever, either.
“..solely because of (in almost every case) the mother’s choice to engage in sex.” Really? What if the couple’s method of birth control fails because of some defective product; whose actions have been the cause then? What if the failure is due to user error, because they were opted out of Family Life education? It seems to me that there are a lot of potential actions involved in the event of an unintended pregnancy other than just the woman’s presumed “choice to engage in sex,” and to flag it as the sole cause of the very thing that you are arguing trumps her liberty is disturbing.
I don’t see how you can make that particular assignment of responsibility without defining women as inherently, by being women, less entitled to liberty. It’s not necessarily a religious argument, but it is an essentialist argument at its core. Either women are full human beings, with no asterisk, or they are not,
I see a summary of this study, but I can’t find the data. Where is it? Honestly I would need to see the questions asked, the methodology for analysis and the raw data to judge whether this assessment is accurate.
I will not deny these people exist in the TEA party, but they are rare in my experience at meetings and events or even online in comments sections where they are anonymous.
So I am suspicious of this study and would want to look closely. It reminds me of Frank Gaffney’s study of Muslim Mosques that found 80% of them or something were extremist in the US.
I actually opened a PDF of the study that had a description of the details of study including raw data. It was so ridiculous to me that I spent time on it. When you looked closely they judged extremist by whether the Imam had a beard. They check the jihad literature box without actually reading what the pamphlet said about Jihad. It was a stupid methodology.
How these authors judged that TEA partiers had negative views of blacks is VERY suspicious. I want to see how they gathered that info.
So lets see the actual study. It is like the climate science. You read some summary in the newspaper and then look at the actual study and there is a serious disconnect.
The republican party as a whole is maybe 30% actual libertarian. I would say another 40 would be truly small government but not libertarian. About 30% maybe meet the criteria that people freak out about.
And what does Michelle Bachman believe that is so wacky. I hadn’t heard. She makes sense to me whenever I hear her. She is no libertarian. But she is not way out of whack. Not supporting gay marriage for example is still so mainstream that Obama is one of them.
If you question the idea whether gays can be “fixed”? I have no idea and I would guess nobody does. If someone wants to be “Not Gay” they have as much a right to try to find a way as someone who wants to be “Not Fat”. Will it work? Who knows. This is an area that we have no good science on. I am happy to see gay guys stay gay if they want to. It doesn’t hurt or bother me. It is their right. Hey more women for me when I was single! 🙂
But if someone believes that being gay is wrong and they want to get help from anyone using any method that is their right. People get help all the time for things most of consider fine.
If you want to argue that being gay is something you are born with and we should never allow someone to help someone not be gay, like a genetic thing, then you would also be outside the bounds of science. There is no gay gene we know of.
Bottom line is we know so little about what makes human have all the forms of sexuality they have from gay to straight to bi. And none of it is my business. Let any of these people do or don’t do what they want.
One specific note. I understand the physics of CO2 as a greenhouse gas. If you respond, you must show that you understand the concepts of negative and positive feedbacks or forcing and how they can impact the basic physics. If not, I can refer you to a link (IPCC so you trust it) to explain. It is critical to understanding why the science shows us nothing to worry about so far.
We can have a great conversation on Climate Science now. This is a personal hobby and passion of mine and I read the full studies. I have read the IPCC report word for word (what a mess). I understand completely the science as much as any scientist.
That may seem bold to say, but if you engage me on the topic, you will see that it is at least somewhat true.
Here is what climate science tells us:
1] CO2 is a weak greenhouse gas.
2] The earth is warming. A very little.
3] The earth has been warming for 200K years in the bigger cycle and around 20K years in the current cycle. We are exiting an interglacial.
4] The earth has had much more CO2 on it before.
5] The earth has been much warmer before. As recently as 1930, but also several times in the last 2000 years.
6] There has been no statistically significant warming since around 1998.
7] The role of human CO2 emissions in warming the planet is extremely small. The impact of human activity on a global scale on temperature is not measurable.
8] The predictions in the latest IPCC report are already wrong and they were not alarming in the first place.
9] Polar bears are fine. Record populations now.
10] Ice Caps melt every few hundred years. They will melt and freeze again.
There is NO science. I mean none. That shows that human CO2 is causing any warming that can be measured. It is an unproven theory that is not based on any experimental data. If you debate this with me, I will walk through the studies with you and show you the methodologies they employ and what they tell you.
If there was warming from CO2 we could easily counter it. Easily. There are many positive impacts from both warming and increased CO2.
There is no danger from CO2 emissions.
It is not appropriate to regulate CO2 in any way as it poses no danger and there is no evidence it poses danger. When someone says they choose to believe the “scientists”, they don’t know what they are talking about since almost all climate scientists do not make the outlandish claims that Al Gore touts and the few that do number less than 10. Seriously.
I am happy to walk through this issue in a facts-based and scientific way using the actual studies and peer-reviewed papers. It could get boring for some when we are examining data quality issues in tree-ring paleoclimate data.
So did you catch what I was saying. The world is warming. A little. Humans have almost nothing to do with it. We should do nothing about it and it is mainly a good thing the earth is warming. There is no science that supports an alarmist viewpoint.
I understand your argument and it is why so many libertarians will come down on your side.
The child with the kidney problem was not caused by the actions of another.
The fetus will be killed solely because of (in almost every case) the mother’s choice to engage in sex. I know that is unfair on the male/female thing. But it is not the fault of the innocent fetus who made no choice to go from a piece of two different people to a single individual person,
Note I use no religious argument. Religion should stay out of politics. It is a civil rights issue. You cannot deny you are taking away a core civil and human right from one entity to protect the rights you see in another.
We make these choices all the time. I don’t think cows deserve civil rights. I am ok with ending their lives to feed people. Same with carrots. I am not OK with killing them for fun. That is taking away the right to life of the cow in a way that is not balanced by another need.
So we must answer the question – when do we support the civil rights of the pre-born to be protected? My view is that in almost every case, the rights of the mother to avoid risk are superseded by the rights of the pre-born to completely avoid death. It is a simple equation to me.
Now if the mother starts to have an issue that raises the probability of death such that it is now well above the norm or that her life is in danger, then I am fine with an abortion. The rights have rebalanced.
The reality is that almost all abortion is for convenience. Not for such protection of the mother. And that is why I believe that the civil rights of those humans who would be killed must be protected.
Now if you want to force a man to care for that mother and child after birth I am OK with that too. The responsibility is equal and we basically recognize such paternity laws. They are covered under the personal safety role of government in forcing parents to care reasonably for the life of their children.
Republican,
I appreciate the introduction of the term “statist”. I don’t consider myself one. I certainly don’t want the state telling me that I need to intercess in the name of Jesus or General Dynamics or free-market, or comrade. I think we agree that the two party system comprised of Republican and Democrat isn’t working.
Regarding historical examples, there are many where the crazy loses.
1. Christine O’Donnell – She won the primary and gave a Deleware Senate seat to a Democrat. Too crazy.
2. Dick Black 2005 – He overreached when he instigated an anti-gay censorship campaign. Voters don’t like crazies, plus Dave Poisson was a very strong opponent.
And there is also precedent for tampering by TEA party activists. Somebody (Jim DeMint?) interfered with the Democratic primary process in the 2010 South Carolina Senate race. Jim DeMint humiliated a “Democratic” opponent who didn’t even have the money to file for the race.
Loudoun is becoming more tolerant. Crazy candidates have a greater chance of losing. If they win, they can sit next to Bob Marshall. If they lose, they can kowtow to the Republican caucus and move to the right.
Epluribusunum,
I am advocating for non-statist candidates no matter what party. There are a few democrats like that. More republicans. But mainly, they – like the general population – think that the proper role of government is “whatever I think is good”.
I have been in Loudoun for 3.5 years. In my life, I have lived in Europe for 4 years, Asia for 5 years, California, New York, NJ, Maryland. All blue states.
And almost all of my friends an the majority of my family (including my father) are libs. I know libs are good hearted. I just wish they would see that my desire to end government help for the poor is based out of that same good heart. It bugs me that the idea is such cognitive dissonance for them that the only explanation they can think of is that I am evil and love the rich and hate the poor.
I don’t ascribe negative motivation to libs even though I know they are HURTING the poor with their help. They should do the same to us.
You know what would make this proposal entirely moot? Something like this.
Below, Sullivan is referring to this tweet by Jon Huntsman:
“To be clear. I believe in evolution and trust scientists on global warming. Call me crazy.”
But for some reason, he can’t win that way, and neither can Republicans in Loudoun, apparently. At least, not in 2011. I agree with Republican that we have to follow where the data lead whether we like it or not. There are plenty of cases of not liking it to go around, and there are many kinds of fundamentalism.
So now it sounds like you’re advocating a third party. Can you show how that strategy would work, or has worked? I’m not being facetious here at all. We may not agree on some things, but I agree with you that by and large, we want the same things in life and should work together to find solutions.
I’m by no means advocating for pariahdog’s suggestion. I think it’s been a very interesting discussion-generator, though. You said somewhere in here that you aren’t that focused on local elections. If you don’t mind my asking, how long have you lived in Loudoun, and what was your previous territory like politically?
He’s an Independent.
I have seen your postings now elsewhere and I now understand Baraba’s issue.
All I can say to you is whether you vote for the Repubs or Dems you get war. Neither one ACTUALLY gets you peace. Extremely leftist statist groups like The Soviet union and China have killed hundred of millions in the name of good.
Whether they are right leaning or left leaning. If they are a statist, then they are dangerous.
And you are really playing with fire. I asked you for a historical example of how your strategy has ever worked.
I think you may be in the minority here. The NYT recently analyzed a fairly large data set:
Obviously, this isn’t you, and it doesn’t capture the diversity that includes you. But it does explain a great deal about the popularity of certain candidates like Michele Bachmann, who are off-the-charts disconnected from reality, and about as far from libertarianism and the principles you value as one can get. And yes, Ron Paul captured nearly as many votes, illustrating quite a split. Is it your opinion that there is as much of a split within the Tea Part(ies) as there seems to be within the Republican Party? How would you explain this data?
p.p.s. Republican,
I’m independent. In this particular election, I think that the Republicans should run the crazies, and I want to help. IMHO, the crazies are more statist than even the most progressive of Democrats. For example, Denis Kucinich thinks the U.S. should fund a Department of Peace. If we can spend trillions on a military industrial complex and a spying homeland security apparatus, why not a few million to teach peace studies? Peace promoting actions by the state may actually reduce the need for large military and domestic spying expenditures. It may be possible to invest in the state to reduce the size of the state.
Republican, thank you for all of your thoughtful engagement. It’s giving me a lot to think about, but I just want to return to the reproductive freedom issue for a moment. I think you are missing Liz’s point with the kidney illustration.
“But government cannot force me since I have a right to protection of my kidney.”
Exactly. You have (or should have) an absolute right to your own bodily autonomy. There is nothing more basic to liberty than that, imo. Women have (or should have) an identical right to their own bodily autonomy. Even when another person’s life could be saved by violating that autonomy. It may be true that many people would willingly donate that kidney, and that many people would willingly carry that baby to term. But no one should have the right to force them to.
The analog is between you and the woman. You both have the right and capacity, but not obligation, to willingly contribute your own bodies in order to save someone else’s life. To treat you and the woman differently is to say that she is entitled to less liberty than you are, by virtue of her reproductive role.
So use reason and moral persuasion to convince her that she should make that choice (as I assume you would make that choice yourself if you could), but don’t use the power of the state to force her to do so.
Having just read through everything thus far, I don’t see anything that qualifies as an ad hominem attack. It seems like a pretty civil discussion to me so far. But I tend to come down on the “liberal” side of that question, so to speak.
“Not at all. You are just as I assumed you would be. Perfectly willing to live in a conformist, almost tyrannical environment if you think you hold controlling influence.”
My one vote in my community is not controlling influence. I would never agree to tyranny on the part of my HOA. Tyranny is not in the covenants I signed. I read the covenants and the governance and I chose them because I mainly like them. On the other hand I do not want YOU are anyone else to be forced to live in my HOA or live your life the way we all agree to. You can choose to join another HOA or none at all. This is the individual choice of libertarianism. We can choose to be as free or restricted in area of our life as we wish.
“(And, HOAs can put liens on your property if you don’t pay fines for violations of their regulations — that’s pretty harsh in terms of financial redress…. so they do have the power to harm you.”
Absent government they have no way to enforce their fines. I am not sure why you don’t understand this. If I make a business contract to deliver a product and agree to a penalty if I am late, then is that fine somehow like government? No. I chose freely to enter into that contract. You cannot choose freely to enter into only certain governmental laws. Do you understand the free choice aspect of it?
” I have the distinct feeling you probably would advocate a “community patrol” in your neighborhood if you felt the town or county authorities were not protecting you adequately. )”
Sure would. But since protection of my person and property IS an appropriate role of government, then I would also advocate the government get off its bu%& and do it. I am not an anarchist. You are not paying attention to the core principles of libertarianism. We are not against all government. We just see a very limited role for it.
“And, many people who would like to move out of their current residence cannot because of the drop in housing values and the lack of a market for their property…. so being stuck with regulations you abhor is a very real possibility…especially if corporations move in to snap up low-cost investments and then stage a Board coup.”
And that is the business risk I took in entering into a contract. The same can be said if I enter my business into a contract with another company. I could end up controlled by that other company if I make the wrong deal and things go haywire. Bad stuff happens. Governments role is not to prevent bad things from happening. Especially since they cannot succeed, or in many cases can’t even influence.
But your whole worry confuses me. If a corporation goes in and buys up a bunch of properties, WHY DID THEY DO IT? To what end? To resell? Why would they make the place unatractive if they want to resell? To Rent? Same thing. Why make it unattractive for people to rent.
You will have to explain what the corporate motivation is to be “tyrannical”. Why would they? They have no motivation to if they want to make money. Now, they could engage in fraud or other illegal activity as a reason, but that is covered under my definition of government. If they defraud homebuyers somehow with their control, then this is covered under my appropriate roles for govt.
“My point is that the fact that you are willing to deal with HOAs restricting your freedom to paint your door or plant a tree or goodness knows what else”
If I want to. I chose to live where that is true.
“…. just means you will give up your freedom and others’ freedoms as well, if you think the Governing Body is protecting your financial interests.”
Not if anyone is forced to be a part of it. We all freely enter into a mutual agreement to restrict our freedom in ways we all support. You and anyone else IS NEVER forced to be restricted. How could I? you didn’t sign the same contract as me.
“Right now you don’t believe the Federal Government is protecting your personal financial interests.”
True. But how does that relate? We are called classic liberals for a a reason. We have been around since the 1600’s, Prior to the formation of the United States.
“I hope you’ll consider the swimming pool analogy again…. I think it is a microcosm of the larger community, currently.”
As an analogy it doesn’t make sense. Why? Because the corporation from Deleware WOULD NEVER DO THAT. Ever! Why would they! Who would ever buy those homes from them? Or who would rent them when there is a community next door with a lifeguard and a clean pool.
The desire of the corporation to make money off of those homes and the competition from other options will mean they will definitely do the right thing.
So, explain what this corporation from Delaware is doing this for?
Oh, the hypocrisy in the language used in the post and comments. Does this look familiar?
•No ad hominem attacks.
•Don’t get offended if we call you out for using belittling (racist, sexist, homophobic, disablist) language. It’s not censorship; it’s basic decency.
Republican wrote: “You may consider it odd that I choose to live with regulation privately while advocating government remove it.”
Not at all. You are just as I assumed you would be. Perfectly willing to live in a conformist, almost tyrannical environment if you think you hold controlling influence.
(And, HOAs can put liens on your property if you don’t pay fines for violations of their regulations — that’s pretty harsh in terms of financial redress…. so they do have the power to harm you. I have the distinct feeling you probably would advocate a “community patrol” in your neighborhood if you felt the town or county authorities were not protecting you adequately. )
And, many people who would like to move out of their current residence cannot because of the drop in housing values and the lack of a market for their property…. so being stuck with regulations you abhor is a very real possibility…especially if corporations move in to snap up low-cost investments and then stage a Board coup.
My point is that the fact that you are willing to deal with HOAs restricting your freedom to paint your door or plant a tree or goodness knows what else…. just means you will give up your freedom and others’ freedoms as well, if you think the Governing Body is protecting your financial interests.
Right now you don’t believe the Federal Government is protecting your personal financial interests.
I hope you’ll consider the swimming pool analogy again…. I think it is a microcosm of the larger community, currently.
Liz,
just a grammatical note.
Stirrup… “…A slick sleazy anti-hispanic hater”
You may want to insert commas to change the meaning of the definition such as…
A slick, sleazy, anti-hispanic, hater. or A slick sleazy hispanic-hater.
My sense is that since Stirrup co-sponsored the “let’s racially profile” statute that he actually likes (or perhaps loves, in a platonic way) anti-hispanics
b
Jonathan, you know who you attack, no matter the subject or whether there is any intersecting context. How should one classify your behavior? Obsessed? You have a set of talking points to sell, and sell them you do in full passive aggressive mode no matter the day, time, hour or event. Your right to do so. Does it create a need anywhere other than your own mind for me to respond in only ways you approve? Sorry, but I think not.
Pariahdog,
Take a look at a Republican with my beliefs who is supporting gay marriage. There are two of them running for President right now that support gay marriage.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QGaBAb_oS84
For what its worth, I am straight with three kids. Just so you don’t think I am a gay Republican with an internal agenda to grind.
One other quick note. Don’t fall for the idea that the religious right is the majority of republicans.
In the recent Iowa straw poll, Ron Paul – a libertarian – came in a very close second.
And best not to consider Liz’s odd suggestion of moving to another country which supposedly has the freedoms I want. The USA is one of the most libertarian countries on earth. It started of VERY libertarian. It has slowly degraded especially post WW1. It will be bad for us to move further towards the statist end of the spectrum. As we move there we get more problems. Financial and social.
Oh and I know this will freak you out…. but I am a TEA party member.
Yes. I know. We are all ignorant neanderthal bigoted homophobes. 🙂
Except we are not. The TEA party movement is fundamentally libertarian in character. Read contract from america:
http://www.thecontract.org/support/
Not one social issue. If you guys don’t take the time to understand the TEA party and what we want, then you will never be able to find a way to work with us towards shared goals. Is there anything on that list you can support?
I elected to go into a contract that has the risks you describe. I consider those risks low, so I enter the contract. If your scenario occurs, nobody can force me to remain in the HOA. I can sell my home and buy another.
With government, I can only continue to vote in the system. I can leave that county or state or maybe country. Country is not a guaranteed option which is why the federal government’s power is the biggest problem. If my state goes pear shaped I move to another state. Same with my county. Country? Might not be possible to get permission to leave or enter another country.
You may consider it odd that I choose to live with regulation privately while advocating government remove it. It is only odd if you conflate things with are orthogonal to one another.
When I play football, I like lots of regulations. I freely choose to enter into the sport with the regulation and I can choose not to play it or choose to start another league with different rules.
With government, I don’t have individual choice. I have only influence and not much of that.
And by the way, I think my (and most) HOA’s have too many and too detailed regulations. I advocate against some within that private contract. If I get annoyed enough I can move and exit the contract.
Remember that I chose to buy that house. On the other hand from the day you are born (and even before), you are subject to government whether you want to be or not. At the minimum the feds and state. No choice. Can’t opt out.
That is not what an HOA is.
And, the HOA governing system you say you willing submit to, has some of the most strict regulations to be found anywhere. (Since they keep others in line with your values, you are ok with this lack of “freedom.”(?)
However, consider this possibility: HOAs are elected by one vote per property. So let’s say that a corporation from Delaware buys enough properties to sway the election of HOA board members. Then they reduce HOA fees (“taxes”) by doing away with the Lifeguard at the pool, using less chemicals in the water and not inspecting it for bacteria.
I suspect you’d be down at the HOA Board meeting objecting to this lack of regulation and safety (especially if you have children; if not, well then maybe not)… however, you’d be totally unable to affect their decision, unless you owned more property than the corporation who has taken over. What would you do?
Of course, if you are a shareholder in the corporation and you have no children and don’t use the pool, you might be cheering this decision simply because it lowers your HOA fees.
But I could be wrong about that. I hope you’ll let me know.
Hi Ann,
This is not splitting hairs. I think you should think about this more.
Making a freely entered into mutual contract – even amongst many parties – is not government. Whatever form of governance is described in the contract does not make “government”. I am working on a deal today at work amongst 3 parties. When we do a contract it will describe governance, penalties and expectations for a business transaction. In doing this we will not be creating a government.
What differentiates a contract from a government? There is one key answer. Force. Government can use force to do what its members agree to. This force can include violence against the members of that society. No contract can do that.
Even an HOA. An HOA relies on government to enforce its private contract. Without government an HOA could not force anything. There is no HOA police that can arrest me for disobeying. The HOA has to sue me in the government to enforce the contract. An appropriate role of government.
In a private matter, it is totally the parties concern how they wish to be governed in that contract. Whether marriage or HOA or business, that is a private matter and can be as restrictive as the parties wish to agree to.
Do not confuse governance with government.
You are splitting hairs, “Republican.” An HOA board is an elected governing body
that makes regulations and collects money to use for the community (common good). People choose to surrender to it because they believe it does in fact operate for the common good. People like you work within the HOA system because you believe you can affect the system to serve you (and others) better.
This IS government…. the way our country was meant to be founded. A contract between and among the people and their elected leaders. (by the people, of the people, for the people)
The fact that you feel the Federal government no longer serves you or your interests or that you cannot affect the system to serve you (and others) better does not detract from the fact that you are certainly willing to be governed — if only you have a system you believe in.
Barbara,
You know who you defend and you know what they believe. How should one classify your behavior; amoral, depraved?
Jonathan, if you spent 1000X less of your time accusing everyone with whom you disagree of being a militant religionist, I might think there was something more than angry one-dimensional sloganeering to the bulk of the opinions you express. I neither go to any church, nor do I preach nationalism. I’m sorry that you have so much rage.
One small point. There are very few true anarchists. Most of them live in Alaska. 🙂
Almost everyone who calls themselves an anarchist and runs around breaking stuff and rioting is really a socialist if you ask them about what they think about things. They are usually just young and stupid and don’t know what they think.
“Enforcing drunk driving laws and harsher punishments have decreased highway deaths.”
This is within the function of government. The safety and acting recklessly to harm to others.
“Enforcing child safety seat laws have reduced infant deaths due to highway accidents.”
I have looked at hundred of examples on my way to becoming a libertarian. This is one of the few that is true.
” Regulating standards for cribs have reduced deaths. ”
Doubt it. Show the data. You have to look at a long period before and after the reg and show that the trend was positively affected. I know you believe this is true. I bet you can even find stats that show that they have gone down between the period of the reg and now. But what you would be missing is the period before the reg. If they were already in decline, and the slop remains unchanged, then the reg did nothing. The decrease is due then to some other factor (usually technology).
“Regulating the use of certain medicines have reduced infant birth defects and mortality.”
Again, show the data. All of the medical examples I have looked at (even smoking) have proven to be wrong. So you need to look at a specific medicine class. Look at the data before and after and see an impact on the trend.
” Regulating infant formula has reduced deaths.”
Nope. Trend is unchanged. It was already reducing and there were almost no deaths to start with.
” Regulating drinking water has reduced disease and death. ”
Depends on what you mean. Pollution control is OK role for government and libertarians agree on this.
“Regulating the way industry disposes of toxic waste has reduced disease and death.”
Again, pollution control is inside of proper role of government. I will say, that when we deal with these regs, what is done in 10000 pages could be done in 6. Seriously. I hope you are not going to defend the complexity and detail of the regulation.
“Sometimes more regulation isn’t the answer when an already existing reg is unenforced.”
Almost ALWAYS. Not sometimes.
” However, when regs are full of loopholes or are not answering the need for the regulation, then new ones are needed.”
This is fundamentally wrong. Loopholes and never killed with more reg. See financial regs. The answer – when regs are needed is SIMPLER and BROADER regs, not more with smaller and smaller detail. The lawyers are winning in America because we allow laws to be too detailed and give judges too little leeway.
If you want to fix loopholes ELIMINATE REGULATION detail and return it to its essence. Does that make sense?
” I understand that some people want NO regulation of anything – freedom of choice.”
There is only one group who wants this. Anarchists. Libertarians want far less and simpler. Not NO.
” However, since taxpayers end up footing the bill for unintended consequences of stupid people misusing their freedom, there has to be a benchmark of what’s acceptable in a society, and what isn’t.”
Wrong. Society foots the bill because society has given more and more roles to government. If they have less roles, then the bill to “society” is less and the bill to the stupid guys family and friends and local commnuity (charity) is higher where the stupid guy will feel far higher pressure to do right from then on. When govt solves the problem, everyone feels entitled. When you have to go to friends and family and charity to solve a problem, then the pressure is much higher to do the right thing going forward.
” For example,iIt shouldn’t HAVE to be illegal to abuse a child…but I am glad it is becuse it sends the message that we won’t tolerate it, and gives a way to seek justice for the victims.”
This is my pro-life example. A child is an individual human deserving of civil and human rights protection. You can no more beat a child than beat another person on the street. This is an appropriate role of government.
Pariahdog,
Congrats on 28 years. That’s a long time! I don’t do anything in local politics. Never met most of the local players including Minchew. So I can’t directly change them.
It is still a mystery though why you would pick the democrat party. The ultimate leader of your party is against Gay Marriage too – President Obama.
And they keep trying to create bigger government that will allow future leaders more power to control gays.
The only political group I know of that is consistently OK with gay marriage or any other marriage is libertarians.
Again we are the classic liberals. You have aligned yourself with modern liberals and they will not really help you or your cause.
You should think about what the proper role of government is IMHO.
Ann,
Yes. An HOA is a private entity in which everyone agrees to a contract. One of the proper roles of government is enforcement of contracts. In general though, I work within my HOA to limit its scope and reduce regs that are silly.
But like I said, an HOA is not government. It is a private contract you enter into willingly.
Interesting discussion, and I appreciate “Republican’s” lengthy explanations of his viewpoints. I’m not going to belabor them just yet —
My curiosity at this point is to know: Do you live in a neighborhood where you pay HOA fees?
Republican,
I’m a man who has been married to a man for 28 years. Convince your Republican friends to rescind the state-level one-man-one-woman laws and constitutional amendments, and I’ll think about it. You can start with Virginia. Find a single member of the VA house or Senate willing to go on record. Get Randy Minchew to go on record “I will draft legislation to start the process to rescind VA’s anti-gay constitutional amendment”.
If you can do that, I’ll vote for Minchew in the primary, donate money to his campaign, and knock on doors for him.
Enforcing drunk driving laws and harsher punishments have decreased highway deaths. Enforcing child safety seat laws have reduced infant deaths due to highway accidents. Regulating standards for cribs have reduced deaths. Regulating the use of certain medicines have reduced infant birth defects and mortality. Regulating infant formula has reduced deaths. Regulating drinking water has reduced disease and death. Regulating the way industry disposes of toxic waste has reduced disease and death.
Sometimes more regulation isn’t the answer when an already existing reg is unenforced. However, when regs are full of loopholes or are not answering the need for the regulation, then new ones are needed. I understand that some people want NO regulation of anything – freedom of choice. However, since taxpayers end up footing the bill for unintended consequences of stupid people misusing their freedom, there has to be a benchmark of what’s acceptable in a society, and what isn’t. For example,iIt shouldn’t HAVE to be illegal to abuse a child…but I am glad it is becuse it sends the message that we won’t tolerate it, and gives a way to seek justice for the victims.
One last thought. If your concern is the takeover of government by the religious, then the democratic party is the last place you want to be.
Why?
Because statism leads to concentration of power. That allows religious zealots who are handed that power to weild it. This is my Obamacare example. Obamacare gives power to pro-life people (like me) to use the government to stop abortion.
Every time you cede power to a government, you are risking what happens when it is in the hands of people you don’t like.
Little regulation for example means few ways religion can be used to regulate.
The safest bet for all of us is the libertarian philosophy. Everybody do what they want within the bounds of safety for each other. The government is very weak and we don’t have to freak out about whomever gains power because they have so little influence on us.
Come to the dark side with us libertarians… 🙂
Oh my gosh, I read my own writing. By limiting children, I mean MArraige to children!
Asto sorting out whether it is a good idea for you to follow your strategy, I would look to history. Has it ever worked? I can think of no case where it did,
What is the protracted assault against your family? Are you a polygamist? If so, it is a real shame that they come down on you guys. This IS NOT a role of government. Government should stay out of marriage. ALL marriage. Straight, gay, etc. They can limit children. They can enforce the legal marraige contract between the parties, but otherwise, you didn’t see this on my list of proper roles of govt.
So can you explain further how you are under assault?
And yes, I am against religious forms of government to. Christian, Muslim, Atheist, or whatever – govt must stay secular. I don’t see a big danger though of that happening in the US. It is a pretty secular country.
So what’s your story? And why aren’t you a republican? Most of us are not the “Christian Right”.
p.s. Republican,
I am a Messianic Jew and a member of a Christian church. I’m active in my church and attend services regularly.
Barbara,
If you spent 1/100th of your energy defending American values rather than “Christian” Nationalism, I might re-evauluate the very negative opinion that I have of your behavior.
Republican,
Christianists are not Christian. Christianism is a neo-fascist political movement. I suggest you read American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War On America.
If you don’t like statists, you definitely won’t like corporatist statist who want to impose their version of Old Testament law on everyone, everywhere.
As for the question of how “electing people who you disagree with help you long term?” That’s a very good question. As I said in my comment, my intuition says do it, and I have yet to connect that feeling with a rationale. I’m working on a follow up post to explain.
Bill Clinton, a Democrat and not the most exemplary model of a family man signed the Defense Of Marriage Act. Since then, Republicans, with the help of Democrats have lead a protracted assault against my family. They’ve tried to take everything that I hold dear away. I’d have to be crazy to think that following an unwritten “ethical” protocol (see Bob Moses’ comment) will somehow create a miraculously different outcome.
Pariahdog,
Your logic escapes me. I don’t follow you, but I guess you have something against Christians? Or maybe really strong ones? Not sure. I am not a Christian, but do not share your fear of them or their displays of christianity.
In any case, how is electing people who you disagree with help you long term? I guess your theory is that when these bad people ACTUALLY get power that everyone will finally see them for who they are and they will never vote for them again and we will finally be rid of them?
That won’t work. And a lot of people could be hurt along the way. Can you give any historical example of your strategy working? Any?
If that is not your strategy then just what is your vision of what will happen?
You should vote for whoever is best in your mind no matter what and when you are voting.
In Virginia, the primaries are open. There is no party registration. Show up, ask for a ballot, and vote. All’s fair in love and war, and frankly, this is war.
Bob Moses,
I’m surprised at your comment. Remember the South Carolina Democratic Senate primary. Do you think there was no Republican interference? Have you been living in a cave? This is the citizen’s business. Let the people vote! If the Democrats aren’t leveraging this primary to their advantage, they’re being foolish.
Ivory Coast by the way does not operate on free market principles. Using that as an example shows how little you know about Ivory Coast or China or Bhopal.
All of them have many regulations and plenty of corruption. If you hold China forth as a libertarian, free market example, then you are not being intellectually honest.
Show otherwise.
I am sorry to put you through this, but you have done the shallow analysis typical of the average liberal and not looked at what ACTUALLY works. Plenty of assertions. No data.
Why did OSHA have no impact on the trend in workplace fatalities?
“Deregulation has increased the number of fatal incidents in coal mines, withholding of funds to pay for enforcement has similarly increased fatalities.”
Show the data.
“Deregulation and lack of enforcement has increased the number of fatal incidents around food safety.”
Show the data.
“Deregulation and lack of enforcement has increased the number of toxic spills.”
Show the data.
And I mean show an equal and long time BEFORE and AFTER the regulation or deregulation.
Good luck. At the moment you have made unfounded assertions.
Liz,
Simply put, you have provided no evidence. You provided one anecdote. What was the trend in workplace deaths in the from 1800 to now. That is the data that you would need to show that the regs following that fire had an effect.
And the fact is you will not find it. I already showed you that the time preceding and following the creation of OSHA had no impact.
So, I ask again for proof. I mean actual proof. I can prove that companies are altruistic by showing you the one company that gave away most of its money to charity. Does that one example make my case?
You need to actually LOOK AT THE DATA. Seriously. Post it here. What is the trend for 50 years before and after that fire?
You will be shocked when you see the regs had no effect.
Now enforcing law, I am in favor of. The actions of the people who owned that factory WERE ALREADY ILLEGAL when it happened. So a bunch of politicians – instead of realizing that they just needed to enforce the laws that had been in place since the late 1700’s and arguably already present under English common law for 100’s of years – created MORE LAWS and STILL HAD NO IMPACT. Just more cost. More inspectors. More detailed regs that had no impact.
You are actually proving my point. Not one valuable thing came out of the regulations that followed that fire that couldn’t have already been enforced on simpler law.
And if you want to claim otherwise, the onus is on you to show the data here and not just make outlandish and unsupported claims that the regulations imposed in the 20th century helped anything.
Time for proof Liz. No more anecedotes. I provided data on OSHA. You ignored that and gave an anecdote. Now prove that the regs had an effect. Show the impact on the trend line.
By the way, it IS possible. Seat belt laws (and enforcement) DID have an impact. They are an exception to my rule. I can’t deny the data. Enforcing seat belt laws is still wrong, but it IS effective.
Now you show the data that the regs around the factory fire had an effect.
Do not vote in the Republican Primary period. We do not want them to vote in ours. Let each other pick their fate and stay out each others business.
My point is that government can be a force for good when it’s allowed to be. When it’s important to the citizens that the laws protecting them be enforced. If you don’t fund for enforcement, then you can point to incidents that happen while the laws are on the books and say, “See? THe laws didn’t change anything.” Well, I call bullshit on that.
When the laws were better enforced, there were fewer incidents. Before deregulation happened, there were also fewer incidents.
Liz, a nitpicking point in your response to republican, re the Triangle Fire: you said they were common before existing laws were ENFORCED. Creating regulation and enforcing it are two different things, and it often seems to me that when a simple lack of enforcement is the culprit, some respond with a cry to enforce, and some with a cry to write more laws on top of the one that isn’t being enforced. That may have a bit to do with the ongoing discussion.
Jonathan, I repeat: it’s a shame you have no options to vote FOR in your own party, and are reduced to “feeling” that you have to vote to screw up the opposition for religionist reasons.
I can see you perhaps holding forth that any candidate your party fields is automatically better than any of the opposition (and you have every right to FEEL that way), but be prepared to also consider that makes you a bit of an “ist” of your own.
re the 10th: After receiving Minchew’s off the wall fliers in my mailbox EVERY THREE DAYS,I have been tempted to vote in the primary, and for ANYONE but him, because I now think ANYONE would be BETTER than him. The two GOB’s Whitbeck and Minchew are just spreading testosterone around, so I hope Cara wins because I truly feel she is better than both the macho men running in that district. Right now, all Butler has to do is “not screw up” unless. If Cara wins — then it will be a debate on issues, not machismo. The other two (Minchew and Whitbeck)are just pissing people off. Yoiu may not like Cara’s comment re god, but Minchew has gone off the deep end, and Whitbeck has always been there.
Prove that government works? Okay:
Workplace fires where workers die inside the building (like the Triangle Shirtwaist fire). Happened regularly in the US before rules against locking fire doors and blocking exits were enforced. Still happen in China and other places where such rules don’t exist or aren’t enforced. They don’t happen here anymore. The sock factory fire in one of the Carolinas a few years ago is an exception, the person responsible for enforcing the rules was being bribed by the company.
Deregulation has increased the number of fatal incidents in coal mines, withholding of funds to pay for enforcement has similarly increased fatalities.
Deregulation and lack of enforcement has increased the number of fatal incidents around food safety.
Deregulation and lack of enforcement has increased the number of toxic spills.
And yes, individuals in corporations care about whether or not they’re hurting people, but corporations don’t. Corporations can’t. They are formed to make money for their shareholders. That is the total reason for their existence. And that’s fine as long as there is a method of ensuring that the health and safety of workers, customers, and neighbors is being looked out for. Which doesn’t happen without oversight and enforcement.
Now, if you disagree, I encourage you to move to a place in the world that operates on the principles you admire. Ivory Coast, for example. Or China. Or, say, Bhopal.
One other point Liz.
Lets reverse the question. How about you show me how government DOES good rather than just has good intentions?
I mean hard data. Not anecdotal examples. Show me that financial regulation has decreased financial scandals. Or that health care regulations improved the quality of care. Or that product safety inspections actually changed the safety record for products.
In order to do this, you will have to look an equal time BEFORE and AFTER the regulations and plot the trend. Does the addition of the regulation affect the trend. If not, then government played no role other than adding cost.
I know this is hard to imagine for you. I used to be a lib, so I get it. You are focused on the intention rather than the results. I am focused on the intention AND results. Because I want to achieve the results without negative side effects,
Just as one data point, I will give you workplace deaths. OSHA has had no positive benefit on the pre-existing trends. You could eliminate OSHA and by doing so, help the poor with prices and the unemployed with jobs. And you would have just as much safety.
Here is the graph:
http://coyoteblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/Workplace-Fatalities-since-1933.jpg
Now show me graph that proves to me that a government reg or agency had a positive impact.
I know it is fashionable to call people who are dedicated to facts and logic “crazy”, but we are not. The era of big government is over.
In fact, the government you love is an outgrowth of the industrial age. Centralization made sense (supposedly). In the information age, decentralization makes sense. You are supporting a 20th century model in the 21st century while calling yourselves progressive. In reality, you are regressive. You want to create centralized power bases that have failed humanity over and over again.
All with the best intentions in the world.
Liz,
I am happy to engage with you on these issues, but I would ask one thing. Truly think about what I am saying and try to understand my perspective. Because of my personal and professional circumstances the overwhelming majority of my friends are liberals. I lived exclusively in blue states until moving to VA, and my professional field is overwhelmingly democrat/liberal. So I COMPLETELY understand your perspective even when I disagree with it. I also know that you are sincere and do not have evil motivation.
I think President Obama is either the worst or second worst president of my lifetime. But I ascribe no evil to him. He is a typical statist. He thinks he can use the government at his disposal to do good. Even in the face of his failure, neither he nor his supporters will be prepared to recognize that his government simply CANNOT do the good thing he want it to do.
Let me be clear. I – as a Republican and libertarian – have the same EXACT goals as you. I want the poor to have better lives. I want everyone to prosper and be safe. I just discovered that government cannot provide much of that. It is a reasonable analysis of history.
Now to your questions.
The prices on the Greenway seem fine for the service. The problem here is that they have no similar competition. As I stated, an appropriate role of government is to maintain a competitive marketplace. They should enable another similar road with similar characteristics (toll – lower traffic – similar start and end) to exist. This would create competition between the two roads and enable market prices to find their true balance. If ALL roads were privatized and no taxes taken for roads, you would automatically create a situation where 267 would be forced to compete in a marketplace.
I think with all your points about bad things that have happened you are inadvertently MAKING my point! Bad things happen. Those bad things ALL happened WITH government regulations. In fact, the involvement of government made it EASIER to perpetrate those things because the companies were able to lobby for special treatments of one form or another.
The reality is that the trend on these things is getting better WITH OR WITHOUT regulation. As an example – electronics is a largely unregulated industry. In that space, product safety is improving and customers are mainly happy. Yes, bad things happen (battery fires as an example), but the companies fix them with no regulatory issue BECAUSE THERE IS SO MUCH COMPETITION.
I would challenge you to find a study that shows that government regulations in ANY sector of private business have had any difference in WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENS. If you look, you will see that the trends are unchanged before and after regulation. Financial scandals happen at the same rate and severity no matter how much you regulate. Safety gets better whether you regulate or not. Look at the data. Most importantly graph a trend line from before the regulation to after. You will see that regulations do nothing but cost money.
And in costing money, they HURT the poor the most. The products get more expensive. So my desire to reduce regulation is driven primarily out of a desire to help the poor.
I am not against ALL regulation. I am in favor of simple and easy regulation. In many cases, the regulations can be 1/1000 the complexity of what they are today. What is the point of 100K pages of financial regs if the scandals keep coming. In fact, the 100K pages make it EASIER to commit fraud because nobody understands them all and there are too many loopholes. Make the regulations simple. Screw your customers with bad faith and you will spend time in jail or give up even more money. Simple is actually MORE EFFECTIVE. and doesn’t hurt the poor.
“Companies care about money. Period. ”
And here is the fundamental difference between you and I. I know this is not true. Companies are made up of people that care about many things. I could make an similar blanket statement about Government. And be equally wrong. The reality is that companies care about people and their customers the most. You have developed a hate for companies I guess that makes it hard for you to see that. Even if I take your position, they MUST care about their customers in order to make money. Otherwise they go to another company! So in caring about money, they are forced to care about people.
As long as competition exists. Unfortunately competition does not always exist. That is one of the proper roles of government.
Now onto your kidney question. Not sure I get it. First of all, I think you are going after a corner case here. Almost all abortions are not for the protection of the life of the mother. And I am OK with abortion when the mothers life is threatened or even health is severely threatened.
I personally would give that Kidney. Many people would. But government cannot force me since I have a right to protection of my kidney. In the same way, the fetus has a right to protection from harm as an individual. That is ITS civil right. The mother carrying it has civil rights too. But here is where it gets complicated. Sometimes you have conflicts of rights. In that case, the more basic right should prevail. And there is no more basic of a human or civil right then the right to stay alive. Without this right, no other rights can be enjoyed.
Furthermore, and I know you will be sensitive to this. The mother made a choice in almost every case to engage in the activity that led to that life, and thus was not forced. There are exceptions of course. If those exceptions were all that happened, then I would not be concerned. In reality almost all abortion is elective, based on elective activity that led to the pregnancy, and is not for the health and life of the mother.
So when balancing all of the rights, the right to stay alive of the individual human preborn lifeform wins in almost every case. There are people who used to consider black people as less human that others and thus deserving of less rights. Society evolved. Same with gays. This abortion thing is another civil rights issue where society is slowly coming along towards protecting the rights of another segment of society.
So, Republican, how do you feel about the prices on the Greenway?
“Companies don’t want to hurt their customers” Are you kidding me? Companies don’t give a flying leap about their customers, as can be seen by the baby formula scandal in China and by the pet food scandal here. And the lead paint on toys scandals. And the ecoli in food scandals. Oh! And the fact that tobacco companies intentionally add toxic (but addictive) chemicals to cigarettes.
Companies care about money. Period.
And, Republican, let’s say that you are the only person in the world who has a compatible kidney for a day-old infant. It’s not going to kill you to donate that kidney, right? And if that infant doesn’t get a kidney, it’s going to die. Right there. Die. That kid has a civil right to live, right? Should you be forced to donate your organ to that child? Granted, you could die during the surgery, or from complications following the surgery, but that child will definitely die without your kidney. YOURS. You have 12 weeks to decide.
Thanks for all the feedback. It really has me thinking. I understand the sentiment of “voting for the best candidate”. I felt the same way in the 2005 District 33 House race when I voted for May over Oprison in the Republican primary.
Something changed between then and now. I spent about an hour trying to explain what changed and I couldn’t find an analytical reason. It’s just a feeling. It feels like the right thing to do. I’m sifting through facts to help me clarify why I changed my opinion and will publish a follow up. I’m going at it with an open mind, and may change my position based on further analysis. I’ll also seriously consider the input from commenters.
I’d like to respond to many of these comments individually, but have been swamped at work. I’ll circle back before Tuesday.
Also, thanks for the political philosophy discussion. That’s also something that requires a follow up post. The take away is that we all have many political philosophies; too many to be classified as a “this” or a “that”. And that’s why, in my gut, it seems right to vote for Christianist candidates. As a lobbying and voting block, they don’t have a complex philosophy. They represent a predictable pole, and I believe that the sooner they take over the Republican party, the better, for two reasons:
1. A slow takeover gives them time to calibrate and consolidate their power. Frank Wolf is a perfect template for the slow takeover model.
2. They are so crazy, that whenever they have an advantage, they’ll overreach.
If opposing candidates can’t put together a counter-campaign, they deserve to lose. The party that fielded them deserves to be humiliated. And the voters the Christianists deserve to be embarrassed. I know that’s harsh. It’s a tough world out there. It’s best not to have illusions.
Liz,
“fire departments”
Yes. Covered under personal safety.
“Police”
Yes. Same.
“roads”
Certainly none at the federal level. Most or all can be privatized. I can almost guarantee I would pay less in tolls than in taxes.
“schools”
Nothing federal. Should be mostly privatized. Charity would cover needy kids and local taxes would drop to near zero, so many people could afford.
“mail delivery”
Clearly private.
“safety rules”
Don’t do anything. No safety rule from government actually ever made anything safer. Look at a chart of deaths in the workplace for the last 100 years. Note when OSA comes in. Note that OSHA had ZERO effect on the trend. Workplaces have gotten safer because of technology and changes in job types.
” and inspections for food/vehicles/medicines?”
Again, does nothing. No evidence that it is anything other than good intentions. The companies don’t want to hurt their customers. And in a competitive environment they cannot and will voluntarily be smart about inspections.
“Pro-life libertarian”? Are you kidding me? That’s something that exists?”
Of course. It depends on whose rights you are protecting right? Libertarians believe murder laws are valid. If you believe the fetus deserves civil rights, which is a reasonable argument given it is an individual human life form that is definitely alive, then you would be pro-life. If you are against civil rights for individual humans in particular forms (like before birth), you would be pro choice.
Amen DC.
So, Republican, what is your take on fire departments, police, roads, schools, mail delivery, safety rules and inspections for food/vehicles/medicines?
“Pro-life libertarian”? Are you kidding me? That’s something that exists?
There is no way I could ever vote for Plastic Fetus Man. I don’t understand the logic in voting for the ultra conservatives in the primary, the Dem candidates are not that strong and we could end up with PFM/Black back in office and that scares the crap out of me.
There is absolutely no circumstance that justifies a vote for Dick Black. None!
So back to my original comment. You help elect a John Whitbeck or Dick Black or any other rabidly socially conservative, big spending Republican, and then we ALL get the worst of all worlds.
You don’t mess around like that. You will very likely get the person you hate the most. Bad, bad idea.
I don’t care if you vote in the repub primary, but you must select the best possible candidate in case you get them,
I have chosen to be a Republican. Why? Because being a libertarian doesn’t get you far at the moment. And if I look at the platform of the democrats and the platform of the republicans, at least the republicans say more that I agree with.
The biggest issue I have with democrats is that they are mainly statists. They believe that government can do good. I say that with no malice. They genuinely believe it. And with all those good intentions, history shows a march towards totalitarianism to one degree or another. All in the name of doing good. Stalin was doing “good”. So was “Mao”. And they are on the liberals socialist specturm.
What stops the Maos, and the Stalins, and the Hitlers is freedom. It may sound corny to someone as clearly jaded as you, but I mean this practically. Freedom and limiting the power of the state is the best way to prevent abuse.
To close out, I will give you an example. I bet you supported Obamacare. Why? Because you wanted something good to happen and the people who pushed it had good intentions. It doesn’t matter to you for some reason that the good result will never happen. (millions will remain uninsured). It seems to be the intention that matters most to modern liberals – not results.
But here is the danger you don’t think of. President Obama may be a nice guy to you. And I am sure you think he will use the state aparatus of Obamacare for good. But think about this…. That same apparatus will eventually be in the hands of a “Sarah Palin” or equivalent and what will he or she do with that power?
The reality is that the Obamacare legislation could be twisted to ban abortions in the US and I guarantee you that a pro-life president will go down that path.
So you get unintended consequences. Now we have ideological battles played out in health care.
But if you had kept all of that out of the state, you would have had about the same practical result and no power ceded to the state to be abused. If Obamacare is not declared unconstitutional, you can say goodbye to abortion in the US. If the commerce clause can be extended to health insurance, then it can be argued that the act of terminating a pregnancy is an interstate commerce issue because you affect the market with that termination and the elimination of that customer.
I hope this explanation has been helpful. My suggestion? You guys start thinking long and hard about what it means to REALLY be a liberal. Stop giving more power to the state.
What a great idea! Lets rally the troops to vote for Dick Black!
I cringe at the thought of Black winning, but the evil that lurks inside me is so hoping for a 2 vote victory thanks to one of the Lovettsville precincts.
Please wise up and accept that whoever wins this primary is most likely going to win the election in the overwhelmingly conservative 13th.
In practical terms, what does this mean in the modern world?
You will find that – in general – libertarians will agree with liberals on social issues. We are generally ok with anyone marrying anyone (and in any number), and we are against prohibition on drugs, and many other socially liberal causes. The one exception to that is that libertarians are split 50/50 on abortion. It depends on whether you think that life form is deserving of civil rights. If yes, then the libertarian is pro-life. If no, they are pro-choice. I am pro-life as I see it as a civil rights issue for a part of society that is defenseless.
On the other hand we generally agree with conservatives on economic issues. At least in theory. I say in theory, because many “conservatives” actually are statists too who are happy to expand government and spend money. George W. Bush had more in common with a modern liberal than with a libertarian or economic conservative.
The converse of all of this is we generally disagree with social conservatives and with economic liberals.
A good example of a modern and well known libertarian is Ron Paul. I would bet you have never really listened to him speak and what his positions really are. Another example on TV would be John Stossel.
More in my last post….
Pariahdog,
I think it is important that you and other “liberals” understand this difference. I will say first that I am glad you are taking on the moniker progressives since calling yourself liberals was never accurate.
For a wikipedia thing, see here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism
My thinking:
A classic liberal is often today called a libertarian. We believe that liberty is a core value in how society should organize itself and it is that from which all other positive values are derived inherently.
So we believe that limiting the role of government only to that which is necessary is the best way to insure the best result for everyone. In general, we are on the same spectrum as anarchists, but we DO think there is a role for government. The role of government is:
To Protect our Person from the Harm of Others
To Protect Our Property from the Harm of Others
To Enforce Contracts between Parties
To Prevent the Rise of Monopolies and Maintain a Free Marketplace
That’s pretty much it. A corollary to this is that we believe that all of this should be done in the lightest way possible and with the least amount of government possible.
This philosophy is consistent with the constitution and most of the founders considered themselves “liberals”.
What is often called a liberal today is really a statist. This means they believe that government can play an extensive and positive role in society. Liberty is a concern, but is secondary to government maintenance of the welfare of the masses.
Generally, what is called a liberal today is on the same spectrum as a socialist. Historically, they are derived from the same intellectual base as those who argued that benevolent monarchies and feudalistic societies provided the greatest benefit to all.
More in my next post.
Like, wow, like, man…Jonathan! It’s like, the SYSTEM, and we have to…like, BURN IT DOWN, because, it’s, like….all, like, BROKEN, and…like wow!
Are you frothing just a bit yourself?
We have no party registration in VA, so Jonathan can vote any way he wants on any ballot (just once, though).
If anything is broken, it may be the idea held by some on both sides that the wondrous ability we HAVE to vote is best thrown away in messing with other people’s choices.
(and maybe everyone needs to re-watch the South Park episode where Stan refuses to vote in the election for new school mascot?)
Republican,
I’m curious that you label yourself both a Republican and a classic liberal. I’d love to hear your story.
Stevens,
The system is broken. It’s all gaming. If we don’t play the game we lose. We need to get out the vote to insure that the crazy Republican froth rises to the top. If we don’t make that happen quickly, it will happen slowly, and that’s much more dangerous.
No.
Primaries are for choosing who some voters want to win in the general. Gaming them approves of gaming.
Don’t do it.
Jonathan, you are a 24K hoot.
If you think this will help a la some reverse Operation Chaos, have at it, but I find it interesting that you would emulate Rush Limbaugh in any way, shape or form.
It’s a pity that your own party has no choices for you to make, other than whether or not to come out and check the D box in November next to whom you’ve been given.
Have fun!
You must not do this. You are playing with fire. You could actually GET who you hate the most. Vote in the Repub primary, but vote for the best candidate.
That is: Fitzsimmons, Minchew, Ramadan
Otherwise you could end up with the nightmare of both classic liberals like me and modern liberals like you. Please be smart.
Vote for whom you think is actually best.
You must not do this. You are playing with fire. You could actually GET who you hate the most. Vote in the Repub primary, but vote for the best candidate.
That is:
Fitzsimmons
Minchew
Ramadan
Otherwise you could end up with the nightmare of both classic liberals like me and modern liberals like you. Please be smart.
Hey guys. Listen. Please don’t mess around. What may seem obvious to you from your worldview as “crazy” could very well be what enough other people are willing to vote for. You are not the first people to think of messing around with primaries with a view towards winning the election. And you won’t be the last to make that mistake.
BECAUSE YOU MIGHT ACTUALLY GET WHO YOU VOTE FOR.
Seriously. Don’t screw around. I encourage you to vote in the republican primaries. Because we need more votes for the REASONABLE candidates. Otherwise, you could end up with your worst nightmare in office. And then you won’t be laughing.
The right votes are:
Fitzsimmons
Minchew
Ramadan
Please, please vote. But please vote for someone you can stand. You know that we classic liberals agree with you modern liberals on a bunch of stuff. Don’t mess around or we are all screwed.
For the House 10th: Cara Townsend is actually the most moderate of the three (even with that comment). Whitbeck is the Dick Black clone that you want to vote for.
For the Senate 13th: Next time they debate, put the phaser on wide-angle stun and try to send them all back to the 15th century where they came from.