Dem Ticket Combination

[jvikings1 40]

24 minutes ago, Actinguy said:

Who is that supposed to appeal to, who wouldn't already be standing in line to vote for Sanders alone?

 

There a good amount of libertarians who actually like Gabbard because of her foreign policy.  I don’t get it, but her on the ticket could win some of them over (especially if the Libertarian Party is a dumpster fire again).  Plus, it puts a younger female on the ticket (which contrasts with Bernie).  She’s also a vet which could gain support from that area of the electorate.

[Patine 469]

14 minutes ago, jvikings1 said:

There a good amount of libertarians who actually like Gabbard because of her foreign policy.  I don’t get it, but her on the ticket could win some of them over (especially if the Libertarian Party is a dumpster fire again).  Plus, it puts a younger female on the ticket (which contrasts with Bernie).  She’s also a vet which could gain support from that area of the electorate.

What about her foreign policy? I thought interventionist war-hawks were anathema to Libertarian ideology.

[Actinguy 862]

3 minutes ago, Patine said:

What about her foreign policy? I thought interventionist war-hawks were anathema to Libertarian ideology.

I agree, and yet also as an interventionist war-hawk myself, I also don’t like her.  Of all the candidates who could possibly break 1%, she’s my least favorite.  I’d still take her over Trump, but I can’t think of a single person I wouldn’t take over Trump.

Gabbard’s claim to fame is that she was nice to Bernie once.  Fine, but if Bernie’s on the ticket then she’s not adding anything to it.

[Patine 469]

Just now, Actinguy said:

I agree, and yet also as an interventionist war-hawk myself, I also don’t like her.  Of all the candidates who could possibly break 1%, she’s my least favorite.  I’d still take her over Trump, but I can’t think of a single person I wouldn’t take over Trump.

Gabbard’s claim to fame is that she was nice to Bernie once.  Fine, but if Bernie’s on the ticket then she’s not adding anything to it.

Personally, though I disagree sharply with his domestic policies (except his physical cash remaining in circulation and keeping full purchase power in contrast to the shift to digital currency), Ron Paul, as well as separately, Dennis Kucinich, were the two candidates who ran in major party Presidential Primaries in the 21st Century whose military and foreign policies I like the best, myself, by a HUGE margin. I especially admired Ron Paul breaking with almost every other American government figure of note and admitting the REAL reason for the rise of "terrorism" and international animosity to Americans abroad.

[admin_270 846]

1 hour ago, Patine said:

"Free," as used for a nation or society, are relative terms.

Which major country (say, any country > 100 M pop.) do you think is more free than the U.S. on the whole in the relevant ways?

[admin_270 846]

Put another way, do you think there is any country that would qualify as 'leader of the free world', and if so, why?

[Patine 469]

37 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

Which major country (say, any country > 100 M pop.) do you think is more free than the U.S. on the whole in the relevant ways?

All relevant statistics would need to be measured separately, like those big UN rankings. I wouldn't list nations as absolute placeholders in all relevant areas at once. For instance, Germany, the Netherlands, the Scandinavian Nations, and New Zealand outrank the U.S. currently for press freedom and lack of government pressure, influence, and undue restrictions on the press. The "Patriot" Act drops the U.S.' ranking in terms of due process below many (but not all) First World nations. I believe national healthcare is sign toward freedom of the citizens, not away from it. U.S. justice practices are abysmal and highly biased by demographic compared to a significant number of First World Nations. Women's rights and opportunities in the U.S. (and thus women's freedom) only exceed five First World Nations and fall below Rwanda and the Philippines, the two best-ranked Third World Nations there. The U.S.'s refusal to enforce separation of Church and State legally highly compromises it's freedom of religion - only Greece is worse as First World Nations go. Need I go on? 

27 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

Put another way, do you think there is any country that would qualify as 'leader of the free world', and if so, why?

I don't believe such a bloc really exists anymore in global politics.

[admin_270 846]

2 minutes ago, Patine said:

I don't believe such a bloc really exists anymore in global politics.

Ok, so the U.S. isn't the leader of the free world because there is no such thing anymore.

Which country do you think is the freest, China, India, the U.S., Indonesia, Brazil, Pakistan, Nigeria, Bangladesh, Russia, Mexico, Japan, or Phillippines (top 12 in population, all above 100 M)?

[vcczar 1,224]

2 hours ago, HonestAbe said:

I've never understood this outrage. Out of sheer curiosity can someone help me understand why they feel this is so important?  Outside of the "leader of the free world should be transparent" type of argument.  Before feathers get ruffled I'm not going to debate or argue anyone, I'd just like to be enlightened a bit here.  I just don't understand that angle, but I'm open to it if I hear something that changes my mind.  

It isn't so much about being a leader of the free world. It's more about whether or not if 1) The highest ranking government official is cheating on his taxes. If so, he should be punished for breaking the law. 2) Does he have business connections that should concern the voting public. 3) How does he otherwise make his money. This is the same kind of scrutiny that any candidate should face regardless of party. It's not like this is a novel idea. Candidates have done this before this election cycle. It doesn't look good when he's trying to conceal this information also. I think every Democratic candidate has released or is going to release their taxes. 

To me this is just a start. I think voters should have all sorts of details about their candidate, including independent non-partisan physical, including mental evaluation, criminal background checks, etc. 

This said, I don't think any of these should prevent someone from running. If the people want to elect a con-artist with monetary ties to Russia, who happens to also be a clinical sociopath, and is medically obese, then they should. 

I don't see much of a downside to doing this. It won't prevent anyone from running that wants to run. If everything is handled by non-partisan, independents then it isn't going to favor any candidate over another. Obviously, those conducting these tests would have to go under a severe background check as well, with those that are as close to non-political as possible conducting the tests. 

For me, the tax returns are just a start. I think this should happen for all federal and state elections. Obviously, the states would have to decide on state elections. This would help cut down on corrupt and corruptable politicians from all parties. 

[jvikings1 40]

1 hour ago, Patine said:

What about her foreign policy? I thought interventionist war-hawks were anathema to Libertarian ideology.

Gabbard is definitely not a war hawk.  She takes a lot of heat from hawks because she spoke against efforts to dispose Assad in Syria.  At minimum, she’s anti-interventionist (skeptical of international actions; seeks to avoid war; etc.)

56 minutes ago, Actinguy said:

I agree, and yet also as an interventionist war-hawk myself, I also don’t like her.  Of all the candidates who could possibly break 1%, she’s my least favorite.  I’d still take her over Trump, but I can’t think of a single person I wouldn’t take over Trump.

Gabbard’s claim to fame is that she was nice to Bernie once.  Fine, but if Bernie’s on the ticket then she’s not adding anything to it.

 

[vcczar 1,224]

1 hour ago, Actinguy said:

Are Sanders' supporters big Donald Trump fans, or something?  

My wife is a Sanders supporter, but she plans to vote for the Democrat no matter what (just as she did in 2016).

A lot of Sanders supporters are single issue anti-establishment

[Patine 469]

Just now, admin_270 said:

Ok, so the U.S. isn't the leader of the free world because there is no such thing anymore.

Which country do you think is the freest, China, India, the U.S., Indonesia, Brazil, Pakistan, Nigeria, Bangladesh, Russia, Mexico, Japan, or Phillippines (top 12 in population, all above 100 M)?

I just said, it has to be done statistic by statistic. And, only including nations over 100 million population is a highly weighted and biased sample by nature.

[admin_270 846]

Just now, vcczar said:

1) The highest ranking government official is cheating on his taxes. If so, he should be punished for breaking the law.

Wouldn't the IRS have caught this? In this particular case, Trump has scores of people who prepare his taxes, ensuring the returns comply with the law. This sounds like an odd rationale. It isn't the point of elections to make sure someone is filing his taxes properly, it's the point of the relevant revenue agency.

 

[admin_270 846]

4 minutes ago, Patine said:

I just said, it has to be done statistic by statistic. And, only including nations over 100 million population is a highly weighted and biased sample by nature.

It's a straightforward question, Senator. Which one would you say is the freest?  

[Patine 469]

3 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

It's a straightforward question, Senator. Which one would you say is the freest?  

It's not a straightforward question. I will not be baited into answering in the absolute style I so detest and feel is socially, politically, and rhetorically destructive. The social sciences are not math - no answers are simple or cut and dry.

[admin_270 846]

41 minutes ago, Patine said:

The social sciences are not math

So, you find the top 10 (or whatever) indices for relevant freedom. You then assign each country a score. You already accept doing this per your previous answer. You then weight the indices by importance. You sum the results. Voila - the social sciences are amenable to math.

Here's one, the Human Freedom Index, by the Cato Institute.

https://www.cato.org/human-freedom-index-new

For 2018, results for the countries >100M are

China 5.91, India 6.41, U.S. 8.39, Indonesia 6.77, Brazil 6.21, Pakistan 5.66, Nigeria 6.07, Bangladesh 5.8, Russia 6.27, Mexico 6.85, Japan 8.1, Philippines 6.92.

 

[Sunnymentoaddict 39]

6 hours ago, vcczar said:

Right now? Biden/Harris. I’d rather the ticket be something else like Buttigieg/O’Rourke. Ideal ticket would be Sanders/Warren or Warren/Sanders but that would never happen. I think if the nominee is youngish then Sanders should be the VP to keep his voters voting. 

To be honest, I want Harris as AG in a Democratic Presidency, and not as a useless VP

[Patine 469]

24 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

So, you find the top 10 (or whatever) indices for relevant freedom. You then assign each country a score. You already accept doing this per your previous answer. You then weight the indices by importance. You sum the results. Voila - the social sciences are amenable to math.

Here's one, the Human Freedom Index, by the Cato Institute.

https://www.cato.org/human-freedom-index-new

For 2018, results for the countries >100M are

China 5.91, India 6.41, U.S. 8.39, Indonesia 6.77, Brazil 6.21, Pakistan 5.66, Nigeria 6.07, Bangladesh 5.8, Russia 6.27, Mexico 6.85, Japan 8.1, Philippines 6.92.

 

Top population nations are not as relevant and a be-all-and-end-all idea as you're making them out to be. You're trying to manipulate my answer and viewpoint with a parameter that is not really that relevant.

[admin_270 846]

1 minute ago, Patine said:

Top population nations are not as relevant and a be-all-and-end-all idea

I'm open to other suggestions. I'm simply trying to avoid the 'Iceland is freer!' or 'St. Kitts and Nevis is freer!' sort of response - those countries very well may be, but to be the leader in a global sense requires a significant population. Where exactly is the cutoff? I don't know, but 100M seems like a reasonable point to me. 

[jnewt 37]

6 hours ago, vcczar said:

They polled Bernie supporters and something like 20% would vote for Trump over Warren. That's a problem. It also doesn't make any bloody sense. 

Do you have a link for this? I always hear about statistics like this but I don't know any Bernie supporters who would ever vote for Trump. If Dems put up another awful candidate I'd be likely to vote third-party or write-in, but I would never vote for Trump. And if Warren were the nominee I would absolutely vote for her. She's one of the few Dems I can pretty much guarantee I would vote for regardless of Veep choice.

[Patine 469]

34 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

I'm open to other suggestions. I'm simply trying to avoid the 'Iceland is freer!' or 'St. Kitts and Nevis is freer!' sort of response - those countries very well may be, but to be the leader in a global sense requires a significant population. Where exactly is the cutoff? I don't know, but 100M seems like a reasonable point to me. 

Here's my problem. Bangladesh is a very populous nation, but other than manufacturing a majority of the WORLD'S factory-made, off-the-shelf, textile clothes, has next to no GLOBAL power or influence. Pakistan and Indonesia are regional powers, and receive disproportionate news coverage in the West mostly due to "terrorism," rather than their GLOBAL political and economic clout and importance. Nigeria, with it's mismanaged oil slush fund, is dirt poor. Brazil has a strong economy, but not nearly as strong as Canada, Australia, or several European nations, each with a fraction of Brazil's population - and, outside a small token force in WW2 and a minor intervention in the Colombian Civil War, has not levied it's military power since the very turn of the 20th Century. On the other hand, Germany is undisputedly the de facto crowning nation - politically and economically - of the whole EU, France and Britain, while not global colonial powers anymore, are still very formidable global presences, and Canada is a respected leader in many global issues, even if not as a military titan.

[Sean F. Kennedy 14]

Sanders/Gabbard or Sanders/Turner all the way 

[Patine 469]

Just now, Dr. Insano said:

Sanders/Gabbard or Sanders/Turner all the way 

Whose Turner? I hope not Ted Turner, jr.

[Sean F. Kennedy 14]

11 minutes ago, Patine said:

Whose Turner? I hope not Ted Turner, jr.

No, it's Nina Turner, she was a former state senator from Ohio and a strong progressive. 

[WVProgressive 56]

11 minutes ago, Patine said:

Whose Turner? I hope not Ted Turner, jr.

Nina Turner, a politician from Ohio, she was a surrogate for Bernie in 2016 and ran with Dennis Kucinich for governor of Ohio in 2018.

6 hours ago, vcczar said:

They polled Bernie supporters and something like 20% would vote for Trump over Warren. That's a problem. It also doesn't make any bloody sense. 

Isn't it a good thing that he's winning people who would otherwise be Trump voters? Isn't one of the arguments for Biden that he could win over Trump voters?