Rand wasn't really despicable. Of all the major party candidates, I found him to be the most palatable. Though that of course meant that he had no chance, just like everything else I support in my life...
Man was and is a Neanderthal on many issues. The points I'm listing below are from http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Rand_Paul.htm
He voted to Defund Planned Parenthood.
Part of the "personhood at conception" crowd on the abortion issue.
Support Israel, no questions asked about Israeli conduct on the Palestinian issue.
Voted against practically every ecological conservation issue.
Very big on block grants instead of federal programs
Typical 2nd amendment fanatic, voted no on any form of gun regultation.
Supported the ban on homosexuals in the military.
He talks nicer and more polished than most of the others in the clown car, but the positions he stakes out are virtually identical.
They will. When and if a new party seems ready to take over after a discredited GOP, where do you think the political survivors from said GOP will go?
Anywhere they like, depending upon what the new party chooses to focus on. I expect that there will be a number of splinter movements, either within the old party, or new actual third parties, as they try to re-shape the political debate.
For example
* The identity politics groups would want to focus on something like a State's Rights party, so that states like Texas would have the right to restrict the building of mosques and the right not to put voting stations in the same zip codes as black people.
* The evangelical christians would want to focus on something like a Moral Order Party
* The personal freedoms groups would end up looking a lot like the Libertarians, except hopefully with real economic policy and a healthy dose of common sense.
* The big business groups would want to focus on a Prosperity party, with an eye to maximizing profits for businesses and wealthy individuals.
.... and, of course, part of the point is that they would want something that would appeal broadly (i.e. to Democrats as well). I could easily see Warren Buffett joining the Prosperity Party if it actually focused on real, sensible, reality-influenced economic policy (including long-term thinking and investment in infrastructure). I don't see most of the Trumpistas, though, following suit, and they'd either end up joining the Democrats when they realized that the Republicans were now defining themselves as Washington insider, joining a different faction/party, or simply rendering themselves irrelevant one funeral at a time.
Really, the answer to your question is implicit in the question itself. The current coalition of evangelicals, white supremacists, small government activists, and plutocrats that define the Republican party is not stable, and there's no reason that the small government activists should be any more likely to support Rockefeller Republicans over Obama Democrats. (Especially once it becomes clear that the coalition is too small to win elections and that new coalitions are necessary.)
Rand wasn't really despicable. Of all the major party candidates, I found him to be the most palatable. Though that of course meant that he had no chance, just like everything else I support in my life...Man was and is a Neanderthal on many issues. The points I'm listing below are from http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Rand_Paul.htm
He voted to Defund Planned Parenthood.
Which I'm perfectly fine with. I have no issue with the services that Planned Parenthood provides, I'm just not a fan of them being publicly funded.
Part of the "personhood at conception" crowd on the abortion issue.
So that's one strike against him, though it's mitigated ever so slightly by his support for Plan B.
Support Israel, no questions asked about Israeli conduct on the Palestinian issue.
That makes him different from any of the current candidates how?
Voted against practically every ecological conservation issue.
Source?
Very big on block grants instead of federal programs
I can see how it might be of interest to you, but it's a relative non-issue in the grand scheme of the election.
Typical 2nd amendment fanatic, voted no on any form of gun regultation.
As someone you would probably also label a "2nd amendment fanatic", you'll have to reference specific regulations which he voted against.
Supported the ban on homosexuals in the military.
Two strikes against him.
He talks nicer and more polished than most of the others in the clown car, but the positions he stakes out are virtually identical.
Sadly, two strikes is not an out, and certainly not expecting to see a "perfect" candidate any time soon, so given what we're left with, he was a far more reasonable candidate to support from my perspective than others.
The GOP isn't in trouble because of one clown and they still have a lot of power in many states and the gerrymandered House and the rurally biased Senate. They are in long term trouble due to changing demographics and social mores. They will need to change or die and so far, despite some top-down attempts, they've doubled down on their base.
It's a feedback trap I don't see how they'll escape. With every cycle the base gets smaller and more extreme. Trump just accelerated the process.
Indeed...their dominance in many rural red states means any real shift towards rebranding costs politicians in those states voters...so they are really resistant to doing anything different.
At the present, the GOP is getting to the point where they can no longer win the presidency. This may become a permanent thing. As demographics shift I expect in a couple of decades (or sooner perhaps) this will start being a problem for holding a senate or house majority. At that point, the GOP pretty much is done.
Support Israel, no questions asked about Israeli conduct on the Palestinian issue.That makes him different from any of the current candidates how?
My point was that there was no substantial difference between him and the others such as Cruz. And the fact that he's a Randian Libertarian puts him right up there in his own special area of CloudCuckooLand Territory.
My point was that there was no substantial difference between him and the others such as Cruz. And the fact that he's a Randian Libertarian puts him right up there in his own special area of CloudCuckooLand Territory.
Support Israel, no questions asked about Israeli conduct on the Palestinian issue.That makes him different from any of the current candidates how?
There are several substantial differences between him and Cruz though. For starters, he's largely in support of allowing pot to be decriminalized, specifically for the purpose of stopping the over-saturation of prisons by predominantly non-violent minority drug offenders.
The GOP isn't in trouble because of one clown and they still have a lot of power in many states and the gerrymandered House and the rurally biased Senate. They are in long term trouble due to changing demographics and social mores. They will need to change or die and so far, despite some top-down attempts, they've doubled down on their base.
It's a feedback trap I don't see how they'll escape. With every cycle the base gets smaller and more extreme. Trump just accelerated the process.Indeed...their dominance in many rural red states means any real shift towards rebranding costs politicians in those states voters...so they are really resistant to doing anything different.
At the present, the GOP is getting to the point where they can no longer win the presidency. This may become a permanent thing. As demographics shift I expect in a couple of decades (or sooner perhaps) this will start being a problem for holding a senate or house majority. At that point, the GOP pretty much is done.
... unless they can find an issue or set of issues that they can use to develop broader support, which was more or less the conclusions from the 2012 post-beatdown report.
I don't think it's fair to say that "they" doubled down on their base. Trump did, and no one had the testicular fortitude to call him out for it... and more importantly, no one really tried any significant outreach activity. With as crowded a field as the Republicans had, it's not surprising that the "sensible" vote was split and Trump walked away the winner by plurality (esp. since a lot of the primary rules were set up to turn winner by plurality into winner by unanimity).
It will be very simple for the Republicans to deal with this issue in 2020, but it will take a certain amount of testicular fortitude between then and now. First, they need to get rid of the soft money PACs -- it's far too easy for a single billionaire to bankroll his preferred candidate through Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina. Second, the RNC needs to play an active role in candidate selection earlier on, and threaten (if necessary) not to support a Trump-like candidate at the national election EVEN IF HE WINS THE NOMINATION.
Essentially, the party bosses need to pick the candidate next cycle, since the party primary voters have proven not to be very good at it.
Third, of course, the party bosses need to pick a candidate who can draw in new voters (ideally over a new issue), and, if necessary, cut loose some of the stalwart demographics that actually lose them votes in the general. For example, I don't think the Aryan Supremist vote is really worth pandering to,.... but given changing demographics, I'm not sure that the evangelical Christian vote or the anti-Hispanic vote is worth pandering to, either. Especially not in the long term, but the time to start pivoting is now.
Fourth, the Republicans need to show that they can actually produce policy and govern in a way that will satisfy the base. They blew a huge opportunity, for example, in their opposition to Obamacare. If they had been able to articulate an actual viable policy, they had the votes and the media machine to sell and implement it. Unfortunately, they couldn't reconcile their various factions enough to produce a policy they could sell to the House.
Fifth, they need to cut Grover Norquist and his idiot tax pledge loose; if you're going to govern, you will need money to implement your new policies.
And sixth, but perhaps most importantly, they need to start implementing some of these changes in the downticket races as well in order to get a set of people in Congress that will cooperate with each other to get overall policy goals through.
So, yeah, it's looking like the GOP is pretty much done. I don't think they'll be willing to take that kind of medicine.
The problem is planned parenthood is funded by services provided (typically through medicare iirc) just like several other service providers are and not direct funding which pushes him into the unconstitutional bill of attainer crowd.
...
Second, the RNC needs to play an active role in candidate selection earlier on, and threaten (if necessary) not to support a Trump-like candidate at the national election EVEN IF HE WINS THE NOMINATION.
My political knowledge isn't great so correct me if I am wrong, but don't the Democrats have superdelegates partly so that they can stop nonsense like this without killing off their chances of winning the election cycle?
|
What we can comfortably predict:[/b[
Trump loses in less than a month; worst-case scenario (for Republicans) is a double-digit loss that costs them the Senate & House. Next, Trump & GOPe camps point fingers about who is to blame for such a colossal loss, with competing postmortem narratives.
[b]Moderate speculation:
Will Trump's diehards disengage from the political process, or will they remain a destabilizing force in Republican politics? If not (I think this is more likely), then the Republicans will probably continue trying to muddling through with their increasingly old & white base, kicking the can down the road for a decade. If Trumpers decide to make a serious long-term play for control of the Party, it'll probably cost them 2-3 elections while they battle it out.
Major speculation:
I predict the new conservative party (whenever it arrives) will be more secular & libertarian-oriented, with evangelicals still a part of the coalition but much less central than they have been. They might even successfully make a play for the (overwhelmingly Catholic) Latinx voting bloc; white nationalism (even the dog-whistle) simply isn't a viable strategy for national relevance in a majority-minority USA.
Of course, any major restructuring of the right-wing will probably shake things up in the left-wing too, albeit to a lesser degree. It will be an interesting decade.
The problem is planned parenthood is funded by services provided (typically through medicare iirc) just like several other service providers are and not direct funding which pushes him into the unconstitutional bill of attainer crowd.
The real sin of Planned Parenthood is the same as that of ACORN. They increased voter registration in demographics that tend to vote Democrat.
In theory, but even the existence of super delegates was enough to send some Sanders supporters into a tizzy. Imagine the riots if hypothetical Republican super delegates handed the nomination to Kasich.
Some??
Rand Paul has an unusual outlook on Israel.
Shrug. Seem that just about every politician is willing to get on their knees for Israel and Netanyahu. Remember Ryan and Biden bragging about who "Bebe" loved more? That was really sickening. It very clearly shows what prostitutes they are for that sweet arms money and AIPAC support, and don't care about human rights.
I was sad that even Sanders sucked up to Israel to a shameful degree.
I think the Republican party will do just fine. There is way too much money riding on maintaining the two party illusion of democracy. The democrats need it, the Republicans need it, and the people with money need it. It isn't going anywhere because the people with power don't give it up.
I strongly suspect Hillary will be a one term president, and it will be a similar situation to when George HW Bush extended Reagan's two terms by 4 years.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Breaking: DNC Chief Donna Brazile Leaked Sanders Info to Clinton Campaign
Acting DNC Head Donna Brazile Urges Employees Not to Read Hacked Clinton Emails
This is the best election ever.
Not all the emails are legitimate.
The link details how an email from Sydney Blumenthal has been altered. The original content has been changed to a Newsweek article (the email may have contained the article as a link/attachment originally).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not all the emails are legitimate.
The link details how an email from Sydney Blumenthal has been altered. The original content has been changed to a Newsweek article (the email may have contained the article as a link/attachment originally).
I think you need to read the article you posted again. I could be wrong, (I only read it once) but it seem the reporting about the email was bad, not the email produced by wikileaks.
EDIT: "The Russians were quoting two sentences from a 10,000-word piece I wrote for Newsweek, which Blumenthal had emailed to Podesta. There was no mistaking that Blumenthal was citing Newsweek—the magazine’s name and citations for photographs appeared throughout the attached article. The Russians had carefully selected the “of course” paragraph, which mentions there were legitimate points of criticism regarding Clinton and Benghazi, all of which had been acknowledged in nine reports about the attack and by the former secretary of state herself."
The issue here seems to be that Blumenthal was quoting someone, and they edited it and said that it was Blumenthal's statement. I would love to blame this on the Evil Russia, but it happens ALL the time in US press and politics.
What we can comfortably predict:[/b[
Trump loses in less than a month; worst-case scenario (for Republicans) is a double-digit loss that costs them the Senate & House. Next, Trump & GOPe camps point fingers about who is to blame for such a colossal loss, with competing postmortem narratives.[b]Moderate speculation:
Will Trump's diehards disengage from the political process, or will they remain a destabilizing force in Republican politics? If not (I think this is more likely), then the Republicans will probably continue trying to muddling through with their increasingly old & white base, kicking the can down the road for a decade. If Trumpers decide to make a serious long-term play for control of the Party, it'll probably cost them 2-3 elections while they battle it out.Major speculation:
I predict the new conservative party (whenever it arrives) will be more secular & libertarian-oriented, with evangelicals still a part of the coalition but much less central than they have been. They might even successfully make a play for the (overwhelmingly Catholic) Latinx voting bloc; white nationalism (even the dog-whistle) simply isn't a viable strategy for national relevance in a majority-minority USA.Of course, any major restructuring of the right-wing will probably shake things up in the left-wing too, albeit to a lesser degree. It will be an interesting decade.
As far as I can see the GOP has two directions that they can head into:
They could rebrand themselves as the "small government party", but that would mean ditching a lot of the religious dogma underlying key party platforms (Abortion, LGBTQ rights, etc) and probably focus on deregulation and various libertarian ideas. This would probably be the angle that would make them most attractive to an increasingly secular-minded white middle/upper class.
Or they can become the "religous morality" party, but that means being more inclusive and being more supportive of social programs and such. There are a fair number of religious and conservative minded minorities out there that such a party could outreach to
The current GOP thinks they do both but those are pretty polarized groups. So the small government stuff gets tossed aside if it conflict with aspects of fundamentalist idealogy, but maintained when its impact is concentrated on groups that are not composed of straight white males.
|
Polls are showing that about 3/4ths of Republicans and 'leaners' want to stick with Trump / do not have a problem with the tape or any of the other horrible things he has done.
That's about 35% of the country overall, which is disgusting, but 75% of the GOP. That could become a real problem for them. What if other candidates latch on to what Trump has revealed? That the vast majority of GOP voters are driven by various forms of bigotry and/or anti-establishment paranoia? They could run on the same playbook he has, with slight variations (e.g. maybe get someone who can speak coherently about foreign policy) for years to come and be likely to win GOP primaries, but lose elections (except in heavily GOP areas).
The republican party has been morphing in this direction for decades, but what is to stop it from becoming the new normal now? A national political party solely for the brainwashed masses of right-wing radio enthusiasts? Horrific where they are in power, but thankfully outnumbered two to one overall.
|
|
Here's a thought - you can break down the different 'political' groups by their view of reality... as dictated by their preferred news sources.
Right wing - Right wing talk radio, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity. These people still believe Obama is a Kenyan born muslim socialist terrorist who faked the Sandy Hook shooting to take away their guns. They represent ~35% of the population, love Donald Trump, and now control the Republican party.
Plutocrats - Fox News in general (though they also have many right wing elements), the Wall Street Journal, Koch industries, et cetera. These people believe that trickle down economics works, any form of regulation on industry is a commie plot, Ronald Reagan was an economic genius, and Ayn Rand was a prophet. They represent ~10% of the population, love Paul Ryan, and until recently controlled the Republican party because they could steer the right wing via massive propaganda spending.
Mainstream - The 'mainstream media', ABC, CBS, NBC, New York Times, Washington Post, et cetera. A vast disorganized sea of people representing about 55% of voters, but without much unity or direction. Democrats, democrat leaning, and independents that might vote either way.
So what do the 'plutocrats' do now that they have lost control of the 'right wing'? Try to get it back? Double down on subverting the 'mainstream' (which they've made slow inroads on for decades now)?
How that group reacts and what degree of success they have will probably be the biggest factor in determining the evolution of US politics from this point forward. I don't think they have enough sway to take over the mainstream. They MAY be able to get the right wing back in line, but that could also depend on Trump... if he cries foul and refuses to accept the election results they may become uncontrollable.
Left as a separate entity, without plutocrat funding, the right wing will shrivel and die. The plutocrats will always be around so long as there are foolish people with money, but without a large group of dupes to elect their pawns they can only do so much damage. Thus, I'm mildly optimistic. Worst case scenario is probably a return to the GOP status quo. Best case is a permanently crippled, infighting, and slowly shriveling GOP... eventually replaced by the 'mainstream' splitting in two.
Well...the plutocrats will shift more to the democrats (the dems have rich patrons as well, lest we forget). A good chunk of the GOP platform is stuff they don't really care that much about.
Trickle down economics might get shuttered, but I have no doubt there are other ways to make money and stay afloat without that particular bit of philosophy.
The republican party has been morphing in this direction for decades, but what is to stop it from becoming the new normal now? A national political party solely for the brainwashed masses of right-wing radio enthusiasts? Horrific where they are in power, but thankfully outnumbered two to one overall.
I am not sure how future "trump" esq nominees will do. While someone like trump I think was inevitable with the direction of the GOP the last few decades, he is also unique in the sense he's was a name well known to most of the populace before he got in the race, and the GOP leaders were not really prepared to deal with a populist candidate of his nature.
Next election we might see a more typical republican who doesn't cater to the base in as rabid way, but will he garner anywhere near the support? and what role will Trump play after the election. He has an almost invulnerable sway on the party base and could settle into a kingmaker style role, especially if he founds a new even further right media company with Breitbart.
It's funny, but as I commented on my facebook a short time ago, the one group of people who seem totally excited about this election are the political historians. Witnessing the collapse of a national party in their lifetime would be like me finding a new river dolphin species in Africa. You have to go back into the 1800's to get anything close to what is going on now.
@thejeff: Radical jihadism? Safety has always been a big seller in politics.
Trump loses in less than a month; worst-case scenario (for Republicans) is a double-digit loss that costs them the Senate & House. Next, Trump & GOPe camps point fingers about who is to blame for such a colossal loss, with competing postmortem narratives.
And then the GOP goes back to business as usual.
The GOP is (sadly) losing this election because everyone is hearing what they mean, rather than their usual dog whistle tactics of class warfare, racism misogyny, class warfare and homophobia. They sadly have no reason to go back to what has worked for them in the past with a different public face and hope things are bad enough that people won't vote in 16-20 years of democratic rule, but will probably have to content themselves with taking back state and local elections to block the president.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The conditions that produced Trump are not going away anytime soon. There are many indications that the recession that officially lasted from December 2007 to June 2009 was and is going strong for most of the people in the US. Over a decade of watching the gains of the economy go almost entirely to the rich under Democratic presidents is going to become very difficult to justify. She is already VERY unpopular, and a president who pushes neo liberal economics and austerity while the super rich become super ultra rich will make her approval ratings drop to the teens.
In 2020, Hillery is going to be almost as old as Reagan did in '84, and she is going to seem like a snake oil salesman from the 1800's to anyone under 30 years old. A charismatic young republican who makes a bunch of empty promises - "Its morning in America!" would destroy her in an election.
NOTE: You can take all of my political predictions, and their 0% accuracy, to the bank! It's a total lock!
I'm more worried about the Republicans doing everything they can to deny her any ability to accomplish anything, then blaming her for everything going wrong and capitalizing on that to vault back into power.
Red,
That may be but I'm hopeful for the fact that change comes. It never stays the same.
Also the Republicans might want to re-brand themselves as perhaps "the Anti-Fed" party.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I like unicorns and dragons! :)
|
|
Over a decade of watching the gains of the economy go almost entirely to the rich under Democratic presidents is going to become very difficult to justify.
You'd be right... if this situation hadn't already changed.
2015 had the highest increase rate for middle class wages... ever.
The period of 'most of the gains going to the rich' already ended. Unless there is some catastrophe or Clinton (or a GOP congress with veto over-ride) were to significantly change the current budgetary balance, the next four years are going to be good ones for the middle class. Income inequality will continue to slowly roll back, as it has been doing since the expiration of the high end Bush tax cuts. Wage growth will continue to pick up. Full time employment will continue to improve. Et cetera.
At this point, economic stalemate is a win for the Democrats. Enough so that Hillary may be tough to beat in four years... despite being the least popular Democratic presidential candidate ever right now.
It doesn't seem plausible that the GOP will be able to get enough power to make major changes before 2020... and is remotely possible that the Democrats could win big enough this year to make improvements in the ACA and other areas which could really improve things.
Breaking: DNC Chief Donna Brazile Leaked Sanders Info to Clinton Campaign
Acting DNC Head Donna Brazile Urges Employees Not to Read Hacked Clinton Emails
This is the best election ever.
Not all the emails are legitimate.
The link details how an email from Sydney Blumenthal has been altered. The original content has been changed to a Newsweek article (the email may have contained the article as a link/attachment originally).
What Comrade Fergie said. I was reading the article Citizen Seas posted this morning and then went and read Glenn Greenwald on the Sputnik/Eichenwald/Blumenthal kerfuffle.
In the Democratic Echo Chamber, Inconvenient Truths Are Recast as Putin Plots
Second part, starting with "More insidious and subtle" is about the kerfuffle under discussion.
Income Inequality and the 2015 Blip:
BILL CLINTON’S INEQUALITY WHISPERER EXPLAINS WHAT TRUMP GOT RIGHT
and, further to the left:
Bump
With appended article:
U.S. top one percent of income earners hit new high in 2015 amid strong economic growth
At first glance, it seems to be working off different data than the other articles, but
"The bottom 99 percent of income earners registered the best real income growth (after factoring in inflation) in 17 years, but the top one percent did even better.."
Oh, here's another one at the end:
"The latest data from the IRS suggests the 2013 reforms proved to be fleeting in terms of reducing income inequality."
Interestingly, I googled "Washington Center for Equitable Growth" to see who they were. Found an article entitled The Washington Center for Equitable Growth – Neoliberalism Reloaded? and laughed when I read it was headed by John Podesta.
Robert Reich from the first bumped article:
Last year, median income growth outpaced average income growth. Does that mean income inequality is actually decreasing?
That, yet again, I am afraid is a temporary phenomenon having to do with the business cycle. We saw the same thing in the late 1990s. In fact, in the late 1990s, even people at the bottom were briefly doing substantially better than people at the top, and income inequality shrank. That’s largely because the labor market became so tight that employers had to start paying people in the bottom half of the income distribution more money in order to attract them into jobs. We haven’t seen quite that dramatic of an effect yet. I hope we do.
But the important thing to keep in mind is that this is still a cyclical phenomenon, it still has to do with where we are in the business cycle. A recession is not out of the question, in fact, quite the contrary—a recession is an absolute certainty. The real question is does it happen next year, or in three or five years? If I were a betting man, probably within the next two or three years and then in all likelihood, we go back to the long-term trend line, which is widening inequality
Breaking: DNC Chief Donna Brazile Leaked Sanders Info to Clinton Campaign
Acting DNC Head Donna Brazile Urges Employees Not to Read Hacked Clinton Emails
This is the best election ever.
Not all the emails are legitimate.
The link details how an email from Sydney Blumenthal has been altered. The original content has been changed to a Newsweek article (the email may have contained the article as a link/attachment originally).
What Comrade Fergie said. I was reading the article Citizen Seas posted this morning and then went and read Glenn Greenwald on the Sputnik/Eichenwald/Blumenthal kerfuffle.
In the Democratic Echo Chamber, Inconvenient Truths Are Recast as Putin Plots
Second part, starting with "More insidious and subtle" is about the kerfuffle under discussion.
Yup, looks like it's been over hyped. I agree with that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Running Subtheme: Prison Strike
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Most interesting part, for me, was when Mike encourages American voters to read Hegel.
24 Hours After Last Nights Debate, Mike Rowe Makes A Huge Confession On What He Sees Wrong With This ElectionMost interesting part, for me, was when Mike encourages American voters to read Hegel.
The most disappointing part, for me, was when Mike equates both Presidential candidates to the same level of malfeasance.
24 Hours After Last Nights Debate, Mike Rowe Makes A Huge Confession On What He Sees Wrong With This ElectionThe most disappointing part, for me, was when Mike equates both Presidential candidates to the same level of malfeasance.Most interesting part, for me, was when Mike encourages American voters to read Hegel.
Malfeasance is "wrongdoing, especially by a public official". Mike Rowe makes no such comparisons.
24 Hours After Last Nights Debate, Mike Rowe Makes A Huge Confession On What He Sees Wrong With This ElectionI guess Mike is suggesting people that are uninformed to not vote if they know they're uninformed, but sadly there's a large number of people who think they're informed voting for Trump.Most interesting part, for me, was when Mike encourages American voters to read Hegel.
Seems to me that he is saying that responsible citizens should become informed about what they are voting for/against. Do so in such a fashion that you can debate your opinions, and be willing to adjust such as necessary.
Otherwise voting becomes a highest-stakes 'reality competition' show over the course of a ~2 year long grind...
24 Hours After Last Nights Debate, Mike Rowe Makes A Huge Confession On What He Sees Wrong With This ElectionThe most disappointing part, for me, was when Mike equates both Presidential candidates to the same level of malfeasance.Most interesting part, for me, was when Mike encourages American voters to read Hegel.
Well, I don't know anything about Mike's politics, but seeing how Economics In One Lesson is a popularization of the Austrian school, I can make some guesses.
And I can see how one can say "Read Keynes, Hayek, Marx" to widen your views, but who, other than doctoral candidates, reads Hegel on political economy?
24 Hours After Last Nights Debate, Mike Rowe Makes A Huge Confession On What He Sees Wrong With This ElectionThe most disappointing part, for me, was when Mike equates both Presidential candidates to the same level of malfeasance.Most interesting part, for me, was when Mike encourages American voters to read Hegel.
Well, I don't know anything about Mike's politics, but seeing how Economics In One Lesson is a popularization of the Austrian school, I can make some guesses.
And I can see how one can say "Read Keynes, Hayek, Marx" to widen your views, but who, other than doctoral candidates, reads Hegel on political economy?
It would appear that he did read Hegel, Comrade Anklebiter. ;)
Actually, who, other than doctoral candidates, reads Hegel at all?