Sanders is a better candidate than Clinton

zitothebrave said:
But there's different levels of pro-life. Some believe abortion is never an option, even if the woman's life is at risk or rape etc.
Click to expand...

If you want to go down this road, which I think is correct (i.e., there are varying views on the pro-life - pro-choice spectrum), you will find that your "pro-choice" 55% isn't as much as it seems...

Again, your definition of "radical" is just dumb.
 
jpx7 said:
Someone who, in terms of our political institutions, wants to essentially destroy and/or entirely reinvent the system(s), not simply tweak them, take something away, or add something. But, I also don't any sort of candidate like that is likely in the US, because—to paraphrase someone much smarter than me—America inherently takes the revolutionary and transmutes it into reform policies.
Click to expand...

I suppose the devil is in the details of what "destroy and/or entirely reinvent the system" means and the process and length of time in view.
 
BedellBrave said:
I suppose the devil is in the details of what "destroy and/or entirely reinvent the system" means and the process and length of time in view.
Click to expand...

How about a politician whose core proposal would be to institute a monarchy in the US along the lines of the "strong prince" model discussed in the middle sections of Machiavelli's most famous work? Or a candidate for President that genuinely wanted to dispense with Congress and replace it with an honest-to-goodness, out-and-out oligarchy derived from the "myth of metals" presented in the third book of Republic?

To me, those are truly "radical" positions (and would make for truly "radical" politicians), in context of US institutional politics.
 
jpx7 said:
How about a politician whose core proposal would be to institute a monarchy in the US along the lines of the "strong prince" model discussed in the middle sections of Machiavelli's most famous work? Or a candidate for President that genuinely wanted to dispense with Congress and replace it with an honest-to-goodness, out-and-out oligarchy derived from the "myth of metals" presented in the third book of Republic?

To me, those are truly "radical" positions (and would make for truly "radical" politicians), in context of US institutional politics.
Click to expand...

What would a Communist-radical politician look like to you?

Is it better to be feared or loved? :-)
 
bravesnumberone said:
This seems to be a pretty deep divide among libertarians. They're either full-blown pro-choice or full-blown pro-life.
Click to expand...

Yep... and that is fine. It's a matter of when you see the beginning of life. If you don't think the fetus is a human life, then you side with the abortionists... If you think it's a life immediately, then you side with the lifers.

It's fine to disagree... but I get a kick out of when people think the pro-life position is "radical." Doesn't matter though, it's never going to change
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top