Senate The US Politics discussion

http://www.politico.com/politico44/2012/05/biden-recounts-thoughts-of-suicide-124580.html

Joe Biden's honest speech on suicide and surviving the death of your spouse.

 

Well, barring a miracle for the authoritarians, the Patriot act is going to go the way of the dodo.

 

Every news outlet has pre-written obituaries for famous figures, especially those who are likely to die. I didn't know he had brain cancer, but then again I don't keep up with that sort of thing.

 

This is very likely going to destroy Rand Paul's GOP nomination chances, especially if there's another terrorist attack between now and 2016.

It's also a political gift for HRC, who can paint herself as a champion of the watered-down USA Freedom Act (or whatever its called), while the rest of the GOP engages in their circular firing squad. Regardless, none of the libertarians who are Rand Paul's main base of support are ever going to support Hillary regardless, so she has nothing to lose.

She can also come across as more reasonable than Sanders or O'Malley, who may risk running too far to the left on this issue and alienate moderate voters. It's still primary season, but as Rand is demonstrating, it's never too late to sabotage your party for the general election.

Peace,

V-03

 

God I hope Joe Biden pulls through this. That's just brutal.

 

I'm really broken up about Rand Paul's chances, truly.

 

Very few did apparently, the family kept the fact that he had cancer very close to the vest until he died last night.

 

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/05/2016-hillary-vs-jeb-118466_Page2.html#.VWulE3D3arU]Thoughts?[/url] (yes it's a link).

 

We don't need another Bush.

 

No, it's not going to be Jeb Bush. He made sure of that with his disastrous Iraq invasion answer. It wasn't just the answer that was telling, it was the obvious lack of thought beforehand, followed by the clumsy attempt at damage control. If he somehow wins the nomination, that answer will be used in ads by the Democratic nominee. I would bet a decent sum of money that Clinton's team is working on an ad using it, if they haven't already finished it by now.

The complete lack of people running to Jeb's defense shows how shallow his support is, and how much he relies on name recognition. When things get rough in the nominating process, he won't make it through.

 

The problem is someone has to be the front runner and it has to be someone that independents at least think might be sane. We all remember the anyone but Romney voters, but in the end, they got stuck with Mitt. So who is the 'sane' one going to be? Bush appears most mentally stable of the current clown car. Now granted, Rick Perry was once considered a contender so who knows who might emerge, but Bush is probably in it for the long haul even if he doesn't get the nomination in the end.

 

It'll likely either end up Jeb Bush or Rand Paul for the reason cited above. Both appear the most sane (even if Paul's views align more often with the Tea Party).

 

We are seriously in trouble screwed if Rand Paul is considered sane by the majority of the electorate.

 

He just barely gets himself above the Ted Cruz level of Tea Party sanity and some of his views may well appeal to independents and democrats who with have libertarian leanings.

 

Democrats should not have libertarian leanings in the first place. That is one of the most toxic philosophies on the Earth today.

 

Not necessarily, Jabba.

I think it's perfectly fine for government to stay the hell out of women's health and gay marriage, myself.

Peace,

V-03

 

It is so odd to have to agree with Rand Paul about anything, but it's happened before on foreign policy issues. The man knows how to pull off a fantastic campaign stunt. Too bad he's such an awful, awful human being.

 

Never trust a candidate with two first names.

 

First time on this side of their forums. Guessing libertarianism and conservatism aren't popular here.

What's toxic about the non-aggression principle?

 

Conservatism (in pure form, not modern terms) is fine. But believe libertarianism doesn't believe is governmental intervention in many things that even conservatives would be for, if funded?

 

Who should Clinton pick as her VP?

 

I don't want to speak for JW, but I suspect what he's getting at is that libertarianism is typically correlated with the idea of keeping what you have, and making sure that no one takes it away from you. I'm not sure how else to say it, so I'll just say it-- libertarianism is highly common amongst whites, particularly those who are well off. Basically, plz don't use government money for stuff (i.e. my money, they say, in the form of taxes), particularly not those other people who didn't work as hard as me, etc. Hands off also means no help for those who need it, which is a considerable number in society today.

Libertarianism is fine in theory, but in practice it has some issues. I didn't make my points too articulately, but I hope what I'm getting at makes sense.

Libertarianism in the form of keeping out of women's reproductive decisions is great, and so on. I agree with that. But I think that's less libertarianism and more just good policy.

 

Fightin' Joe Biden!

Butreally, probably more someone like Jim Webb?