Runnin
Well-known member
Principles based in fantasy aren't worth anything.
Gary Johnson
- Thread starter 57Brave
- Start date
57Brave
Well-known member
Bernie Sanders @BernieSanders 4h
4 hours ago
When @HillaryClinton says she’s going to make public colleges and universities tuition-free, you know what? That's a very big deal.
57Brave
Well-known member
Isn't the cut off 15% ? Double digit -- but not 15 -is that correct ?
It isn't that they aren't "allowing" him to debate. He doesn't qualify
Are you advocating changing the rules at this point in the game to suit Johnson ?
Why is this an issue now and wasn't back in January-February-March when Johnson was in witness protection.
What did he do then to ensure a spot?
jpx7
Very Flirtatious, but Doubts What Love Is.
Talk about doublespeak.
jpx7
Very Flirtatious, but Doubts What Love Is.
I'm not sure that the private prisons issue is so minor of a thing, actually—but the situation is nightmarish.
jpx7
Very Flirtatious, but Doubts What Love Is.
What bothers me, in that calculus, is not the "Trump is so horrible" clause; I do believe that he is both a terrible candidate and would be demonstrably worse for the US than Hillary Clinton. But I also believe Hillary Clinton would/will be bad for the US. If I, or any one else, truly think there's a third or fourth or fiftieth option out there that would actually be good for the US—or would even be, minimally, better than either major-party candidate—why shouldn't we cast our vote in that direction?
It's funny: Sanders supporters, on the left, were initially attacked from the liberal middle for demanding the ballyhooed ideological purity in a candidate. Now that some are defecting to Stein, Johnson, or other non-duopoly candidates, the attacks from the same liberal middle follow the tenor of, "Well they're not perfect, either!"
---
On a somewhat related note, I have to say I'd find the establishment Democrats a lot more palatable if they simply admitted Clinton was faulty, but argued more coherently that she's a lot less faulty than Trump. (For instance: I'd rather buy a 2008 Passat with misleading emissions standards than a 2002 Mercedes whose engine is actually a bird's nest and whose gas-tank is filled with candy-corn—neither's a great purchase, but one probably won't explode as soon as I drive it off the lot.) Presenting Clinton as this perfect candidate—the best we've ever seen, dammit!—beyond reproach, and essentially ready for hagiography—nay, apotheosis—before she's even seen her coronation ... well that's pretty ****ing off-putting from a party that should be spending less time courting Henry Kissinger's blessing and a hellofalot more time convincing its cynical and youthful left-wing that Clinton isn't great, but she's maybe good enough for now whynot.
sturg33
I
The commission has basically assured that no third party can ever get on the stage.. 15% is nearly impossible for someone who - no matter how qualified - is always described as fringe and has no chance of winning.
Like Perot, you won't get to 15% without the opportunity of the national debates... But you can't get in the debates without 15%.
And the commission is controlled by republicans and democrats.
You see no issue there, I assume?
sturg33
I
I saw that tweet...
I tweeted back to him: "Shouldnt you first understand WHY college is not affordable? Of course you don't, because you don't understand math"
Unfortunately, he didn't respond
zitothebrave
Connoisseur of Minors
Public colleges should be tuition paid, but exclusive.
sturg33
I
I was in Australia for a week, so it was nice to have a big break from the action. As I've come back, I've noticed the orchestrated campaign from the left about not "wasting your vote" on the third party
I guess they can read the polls.
I'm surprised Trump's not threatening to sit out debates without Johnson. He should recognize that he helps him more than he hurts.
jpx7
Very Flirtatious, but Doubts What Love Is.
I'm a socialist who, following Aristotle's Politics, believes education should be central and state-sponsored to ensure best government.
But barring a real dictatorship of proletariat, there are a lot of reasonable concessions I'd be quite happy to see. One of the first would be "public colleges [being] tuition paid"—with varying degrees of exclusivity across institutions, in terms of admissions, and an independent arbitration-panel to adjudicate that—but robust funding throughout the public system (and with dumbasses like myself, who want to go to an elite private university, left to **** themselves over for that subtle but non-trivial pedagogic benefit).
However, even before that, I'd also like to see college-level education cease to be a requirement for so many entry-level positions, since—even though I think that level of education is a real and tangible public good for everyone*—it's not really a feasible mandate under our current, mostly-capitalist system. Indeed, I've held a few positions in my (relatively young) life for which a college degree was preferred (read: essentially required), but which was by no means necessary, or even very relevant.
*US society could also probably meet that standard of public good by meaningfully improving high-school-level education. Nobody say I'm not amenable to multiple types of solutions.
57Brave
Well-known member
yu are again confusing policy with politics.
Your argument began in the political realm but slid inot a totally different discussion
Meaning, Bernie has not sold out - just found an ally
sturg33
I
Oh... Bernie has sold out alright... which should have surprised nobody
sturg33
I
I'm a big advocate of your second point... but I of course would leave that to the business to decide
Unfortunately, what has happened - is that the government has encouraged all to go to college (a noble goal, but a misguided one)... they've given kids the easy access to money, so there is no longer an excuse not to.
Now everyone is going to college, which is essentially making a degree much less valuable. College is the new high school - and many employers see it as a pre-requisite just to prove you're not lazy/stupid.
weso1
<B>Clique Leader</B>
Why are you a socialist?
jpx7
Very Flirtatious, but Doubts What Love Is.
Because—despite my nostalgic affinity for late-nineteenth / early-twentieth century upper-middle-class and aristocratic European culture—I believe in radical equality of economic means.
weso1
<B>Clique Leader</B>
That doesn't really answer my question. Why are you a socialist as compared to a pure capitalist? Both seek economic equality.
jpx7
Very Flirtatious, but Doubts What Love Is.
... not really.
Capitalism, at least in a pure and unfettered realization, seeks economic liberty. That's very different from economic equality.
To put it another way: capitalism sees economic justice as that meted out by the market, according to principles of exploiting motives of supply and demand. Socialism—in equally and admittedly basic terms—sees economic justice as the equitable distribution of resources, largely irrespective of market considerations.
AerchAngel
<B>Secretary of Statistics</B>
Communism?
57Brave
Well-known member
Wasn't the time to voice these concerns 2014-15 ?
You remind me of the baseball parent that can't understand why her/his kid isn't playing SS because if only given more opportunity he could eventually make the throw to first on less than two hops. In spite of the fact there is another that can make the throw
Yes it is rigged -- do the work and un rig it. As someone did that set the mark at 15%
Personally I don't care if it is 7% or 20%.
But there has to be a cut off - as long as everyone knows that number going in.
What number do you see as fair ?
In real politik, if you spent the time you / (L) spend on debunking Bernie Sanders (who is no longer a candidate for anything) promoting Gary Johnson he might have made the cut