@newtboy
@Drachen_Jager
@simonm
@bobknight33

You guys are letting him get away with too many ill defined terms.

@bobknight33 needs to define
Republican-
RHINO (dependant on Republican definition) -
Corrupt-
"Lose" in the political sense (as in "Trump does not back down or lose much")
"Back down" same comment
Swamp

--------------
From my point of view, the definitions would be as follows, but I doubt he would agree, so the definition s actually need to come from him if there's ever to be any REAL communication here.

Republican- Fiscal conservative, functional but minimal government, patriotic and supports the democratic process over communism, law and order, often (but not necessarily) religious

RHINO (dependent on Republican definition) - Ron Paul and Ron Paul Jr. - Libertarians in the thinking of Ayn Rand who actually consider themselves the "true republicans" but are outside the mainstream

Corrupt- Promoting self interest over that of the people you are meant to govern - in Trump's case, I'd say it means "anyone who doesn't agree with me"

"Lose" in the political sense (as in "Trump does not back down or lose much") - Not passing legislation with any staying power, being defeated in the Legislative Branch after something is passed (See the Affordable Care Act for the opposite example)

not "Back[ing] down" same comment - I'm going to break the law or established political norms


UNTIL WE CAN AGREE ON TERMS, THERE WON'T BE ANY ARGUMENT OF SUBSTANCE BECAUSE YOU SIMPLY WON'T BE TALKING ABOUT THE SAME THINGS

i think you are onto something there about the reasons for the political extremes gaining traction.

people are far more isolated in today's world,which ironic considering how open everything is.

but now they have the option to:ignore,block or defriend.

creating a nice,warm and comfy bubble in which to reside in and never have to deal with those who may disagree,criticize or challenge anything in their pretty little head.

during the presidential election i had liberals defriend me because i was critical of hillary.

oh they LOVED me when i was telling them that sanders was going be exposed to the "ron paul" treatment.the fact that the primary was obviously rigged made no difference to them.

but when i continued to be critical of their golden child?

misogynist traitor (actual quote).

the trump supporters adored me when i was breaking down the reasons why some people may vote for trump,and that people should not simply dismiss trump out of hand.

my liberal friends despised me for this,thinking that somehow me pointing to the political climate of my country translated to support for trump.

but i was just a cis gender white privileged male who did not deserve and opinion (another actual quote).

and those trump supporters turned on me in an instant when i began pointing out the more disturbing aspects of trump,his history and politics.oh..they didn't like that.

fucking commie fucking libtard.i thought you were on "our" side! (another quote).

all in all...over 400 people,from both sides of the political spectrum,called me some impressive names..and defriended me.

all because what i was posting conflicted or challenged their cult of personality,which they had attached their ideology.

so now they all sit in their little circles and smell each others farts and call them good and righteous.

i think charlottesville,virginia,seattle are just the beginning.....i fear things are going to get much MUCH worse.

The most interesting graph happens at roughly 4:38. 3.7 trillion dollars, made up of roughly 1/7th discretionary spending, 1/7th defense, and 5/7ths SS/Medi*/Interest.

The one philosophical holdout that I still appreciate about the GOP platform is generally smaller government. But for all they harp on that, they usually do jack shit to actually cut down on that total from the graph.

That huge 5/7ths portion is close to untouchable; or at least it would be political suicide to mess with any of that stuff. The only exception is the interest payments, which *do* have to be paid, but we could work to reduce the debt which would in turn reduce interest. How to do that? Raise taxes. And suddenly all the Republicans think it's a terrible idea.

That leaves the 1/5th from Defense and 1/5th from other Discretionary spending. To me, Defense is the obvious target. If you really want to tighten the belt and be fiscally conservative, do we actually NEED to spend all that on defense? Couldn't it be cut in half or even more drastically and we'd still easily be able to actually, you know, defend the country? But again, pretty much zero Republican interest in cutting Defense budget, unless you're a kooky fringe element like Ron Paul with zero intra-party backing.

So that leaves the 1/5th of Discretionary spending. And yeah, sometimes Republicans do actually make cuts here. At best, they cut "drop in the bucket" type stuff like mentioned in the video, with negligible effect on the budget and a loss of programs that are valued by some/many. At worst, you end up like KansasBrownbackistan, with zero budget for schools, etc.

That rift between party platform and actual action is the biggest reason that I tend to have *zero* interest in voting Republican for any national office, in spite of still being registered as a Republican. State offices (governor, state legislature, etc.) are slightly more palatable places to consider voting in an R, but not by much. I do think they tend to be good options for Local government offices, especially for more rural areas. On the other hand, D's tend to be much better at promoting things like Bond Issues for improving schools, maintaining infrastructure, etc.

@bobknight33
you realize chaos is from new zealand right?
so while the democratic party may be a disgrace,unless the party is GLOBAL,it certainly is not HIS party.

i truly do not understand your (or anybodies for that matter) continued loyalty to this broken,dysfunctional and utterly corrupt two party dictatorship.

i have no issue with you pointing out the rot that has been bleeding out the democratic parties metaphorical ass.during this election cycle the DNC was caught with their hand in the cookie jar.they were exposed as the rotten and corrupt institution we all had suspected,but couldn't prove,rigging the primaries,changing the rules of application to keep people off the primary ballot (laurence lessig),and crushing one of the most promising,and politically energized campaigns by bernie sanders.(who,just like ron paul,raised his war chest on small donations).

hell,even the recent jill stein voter recount exposed even MORE DNC voter manipulations and fraud!

but are you SERIOUSLY going to sit there,and with a straight face,attempt to make the case the republicans are better?

that they are NOT just as vile,rapacious and corrupt as the democrats?

you think the democrats are the ONLY half of this two party duopoly that engages in voter fraud?
see:crosscheck
or crushes any politician that does not tow the party line?
see:ron paul

can you REALLY,without any sense of irony or sarcasm,tell me that the republican party represents YOU?

the one thing that has given me hope during this past presidential election is that my fellow americans seem to finally be getting it,finally understanding that neither the democratic party nor the republican party represent "we the people".

they represent:wall street,big banks,the military industrial complex and multi-national corporations.

and of course....their own continued power and political domination.

binary politics does not work anymore.
this false left/right dichotomy does not work anymore.
this "lesser of two evils" is no longer acceptable..any...more.

but i gather it still works for you bob.
what a waste..
you seem a decent sort,but to continue to identify with a party that has thrown you overboard decades ago....is just sad.

and i guess you will be just like those obama voters who became disturbingly silent while obama:expanded executive powers,NDAA of 2012,zero indictments to the criminals on wall street,prosecuting more whistleblowers than any other president combined,obamacare(the biggest gimme to the health insurance industry and big pharma),assasination programs,kill lists,expanding military operations into 6 other sovereign countries,regime change in libya...

those little pussies became good little apologists,and it appears YOU ...
bob..
will become a good little pussy and do your partisan duty,and turn into a dutiful little apologist for trump and the inevitable atrocities that are most certainly heading our way.

you know,i do not always agree with chaos,but at least he has BALLS.he stands for something.
you are just rooting for a certain team,might as well be rooting for the packers.
it is just so tired and WEAK...

eh..maybe you are just messing with chaos,but if that is the case,could you bring a little more flair and energy?
your technique is a tad..stale.

so step it up BOB!
your putting the audience to sleep.

Both candidates are not the same based on their platforms which he equates to the be same which is a laughably naive notion. Beyond that, he fails to see the importance that the next president will seat at least 2 if not 3 judges on the supreme court. That isn't up for an election every 4 years. That is 30+ years. 1 supreme court vote made a difference between having Citizens United and not. Alito being dead has already had an influence on how some rulings went e.g. Whole Woman’s Health v. Cole and United States v. Texas.

Furthermore, his whole contention lies on the ability for the American people to vote people out of office. Well in 4 years George Bush managed to invade 2 nations and destroy relationships around the world and creating an even larger terrorist threat that Obama had to deal with drones because the American people wanted safety and didn't want troops deployed and you needed a third way. Then the economy tanked. I can't believe people have this view that we didn't need to bailout the banks, it was a difficult decision but the other choice was a complete collapse of the financial system. Obama just came into office. What would you have done?

I don't understand this bizarre view Americans have every 4 years that when a new president gets elected the whole thing resets like the fucking Matrix or something. A lot of what Obama had to do was to undo the damage of the previous administration. 2008 crash can be linked back directly to Bush's promise that every American deserves to have a home. All while the right and the GOP constantly undermined him. Tell me the last time the government was shut down by the GOP over a health care act meant to help Americans?

Nader got 2.74% of the popular vote in 2000, the people who voted for him might as well as burned their votes because there is no post for 2nd or 3rd place. You just lose. Nader was very well known among the American people. Who is Jill Stein or Gary Johnson?

We've all been here before. Last time it was Ron Paul. But Sanders did succeed in creating a new class of fired up people who I hope will focus on the actual battlegrounds of any progressive movement mayoral, state, senate and house races. Not just wake up every 4 years.

FYI the politifact piece that Jon is going by is written by Riley Snyder,. With all the retweets he does of Jon Ralston(one of the bigger "violent bernie-bros" pushers) I highly doubt he gave the claims a fair investigation.

He clearly ignored the Roberta rules being pushed through at 9:30 while delegates were still in line to get in. It did not have a 2/3 majority. The rest of Riley Snyder's fact checking was just as reliable.

It is politics as usual, and not nearly as bad as what happened to Ron Paul supporters in the Republican primary.

Vote for the candidate that you think will represent you the best not just the lesser of two evils.

Wow.
True enough, nothing will likely happen because almost all of them break the law daily....
...but then to devolve into a ridiculous, factless, even actually claimless attack on Clinton (not even sure which Clinton you mean, or what 'hideous' occurrence, or when) while admitting ALL politicians do the same things is just laughable.
If you admit all politicians on both sides share Clinton's faults, why single Clinton out? Why not instead single Sanders out as the most honest and consistent politician in high office, or Warren,...or even go old school Republican with Ron Paul, who may have had some nutty ideas, but was certainly not a liar or a wind sock (turning which ever way the wind blows).

Today, US politicians won't prosecute other politicians that are in their party no matter what their crime, but are willing to prosecute those on the other side of the isle for non-crimes, which is a clear conflict of interest and proof that their prosecutions should not be in their own hands.
As a prime example, I note that there was no censure or any repercussion at all, much less prosecution for Grimm who was caught on camera making hideous death threats directly to a reporter for asking a question he didn't like. (although he was later convicted of other felonies, but not by congress)

Hillary is worse than Bush and Obama combined. I have no idea how anyone could vote for her, unless they are as corrupt or stupid enough to still believe her lies.

I really wish Sanders would win, but I highly doubt it. It reminds me of the Ron Paul hype that suddenly got so much air time and was mentioned so many times on the Internet, polls actually looked good for him. Yet we all know how that ended. Plus hes very old and we all know what happens to presidents who go against the establishment, the real people in power.

@Lawdeedaw
i get what you're saying and no,i don't think that makes you a prick.

totally forgot about ron paul's stance of reverting to the gold standard.that would certainly fall into the "kook" category.i had some issues with ron pauls politics but i admired how he was consistent and stuck to his principles (which CANNOT be said about his son).

this is a similar reason why i dig sanders.while i do not agree with everything he proposes and have some issues with his politics as well.the man has been fairly consistent through his career.

which i think we can all agree that we want principled,honest politicians in our government.we can disagree with someones politics and still admire them for being principled and honest people.

ultimately this is about power and who wields that power.maybe i am just biased in cheering for the anti-establishment candidate,because the establishment has proven over the years that they only seek to perpetuate a dysfunctional and corrupt system which serves their needs at the expense of the majority.

so fuck the establishment.

Here, let me see if you agree.

Basically, there were three camps around Ron Paul.

1st was the conservative camp. 2nd was the liberal camp. 3rd was the everyone who voted for Paul camp.

In the 1st one people hated Paul because he didn't follow their platform. He didn't want to ban abortion at the level of the federal government, he didn't want to make gay marriage illegal with a broad pen stroke and he wasn't keen on telling people they could drink but not smoke pot. He believed the states should decide.

In other words, this camp was solely based on their own selfish beliefs. Me me me, greed greed greed. Give me. Fuck the honest guy.

In the second camp people hated Paul because he didn't follow their platform. He didn't want federal government handouts, one-sized fits-all approach to education or legalization of gay marriage or abortion at the federal level. He believed states should decide.

In other words, this camp was solely based on their own selfish beliefs. Me me me, greed greed greed. Give me. Fuck the honest guy.

Then there was the 3rd camp. They valued him as a candidate, and said fuck the platform. Platform voting has been destroying our country and polarizing our nation since the beginning.

What makes me so pissed is that the first 2 camps believe they were doing the right thing. Like a rapist in India trying to make a lesbian straight...yeah, great morals there guys...these delusional whack jobs disgust me. Yeah, it is fine to vote against Ron Paul without being labeled as such, so long as you 100% believed your candidate was morally superior to Paul. And as long as that belief had nothing to do with platform...

Or am I just being a prick?

Ron Paul was not goofy, but he was a (partially) fringe candidate. The gold standard being his biggest kookiness. But as far as just being loved by libertarians, well, that's what the media sold and that's what some poor saps actually believe.

As more a liberal leaning guy I swapped parties to vote for Paul. His honesty was nice but would have been unverifiable. However, his willingness to buck those he could have been bought by and made president from amazed me. He wasn't a populist except insofar as that his message was against those in power.

But what is most funny is this. Paul didn't do bad in the polls for basically being a 3rd party candidate. In that he smashed Nader and most other 3rd party candidates. Even knowing his defeat, those still willing to show their vote to him was astonishing. Now some would argue that he technically wasn't third party since he ceremoniously went under the Republican brand...but that's about stupid logic there.

@ChaosEngine

if you are referring to the established political class,the pundit class and those with relative power and influence i would agree with your assertions.

which is pretty much what i am talking about.

if you look how ron paul was being treated by his own party and compare that treatment to sanders by the DNC,there are some glaring similarities.

while both paul and sanders have differing politics,they did align in a few areas i.e: audit the fed,citizens united,money in politics and restructuring the military to name a few.

they both had/have immensely popular grassroots support.ron paul garnering 20 million in small donations and sanders broke that record with 30 million.

they both held large rallies with high attendance.

they both had a populist flavor that appealed to their own political base.challenging the current corrupt power structures.

and they both have/had experienced a weird media blackout,even though they were/are incredibly popular with the voters.

now we can question WHY that is,but i don't think it too much a stretch to come to the conclusion that both candidates challenged the current power structures that dictate this countries dysfunctional and corrupt political system.add to that mix a paid propaganda pundit class that never challenges the current narrative,all put on display on corporate media which is owned by what? 5-6 entities? who just happen to be the biggest lobbyists in this country?

nader experienced pretty much the exact same treatment from the DNC in regards to media exposure and it went even further in his case with him being outright denied to some debates,or made to jump through almost insurmountable dictates to even get ON the debates.

so when i assert this is a well crafted and intentional practice by the parties,i do so with precedent.

because all three,nader,paul and sanders all had/have massive public support from the voters,but not their respective parties.

so when ron paul started to become a real thorn in the RNC,who did not want him anywhere near the nomination.they changed the tactic from ignoring or downplaying pauls message..to creating the "kook" myth.this was from his own party!!

nader received similar treatment,though in a different context.the establishment as a whole came out against him.

so what can we assume,based on previous tactics from these political parties in regards to sanders?when they can no longer ignore his popularity? his grassroots campaign donations? his rally attendances?

there will soon come a time when they can no longer ignore sanders and his grassroots success,and they will respond the exact same way they did with nader and paul.they will concoct a narrative that plays on peoples fears and biases and begin to portray sanders as an anti-capitalist "kook".that somehow him being a democratic socialist means the end of our civilization.just the word "socialist' makes many a republican wet their panties.

could i be wrong?
oh please god let me be wrong.
i happen to like much of what sanders is promoting,not everything,i have issues with some of what he proposes,but over-all i dig not only what he is saying but how he is going about conveying his message.

there is one huge problem if sanders gets the nod,and that is the support you mentioned.he has almost none in the legislature.which will make much of what he is trying to change in washington damn near impossible.

which will create it own political mess and just create fodder for the pundit class to ineffectually pontificate on,just so they can have a job.

i think it would be such a great thing for this country if sanders got the nomination,but the establishment has already made its intentions clear:they dont want sanders,they want hillary.the establishment does not play by the rules nor do they play nice.

playing by the rules and being decent is for the peasant class.

hope i am wrong.
i hope that every single point i made will never occur.
i hope that sanders gets the nod and things may change,because this country needs a fucking enema.
but my cynicism really struggles with that kind of hopeful optimism.

"if this tactic is unsuccessful,they will do what they did to ron paul and demonize sanders.they will portray him as a "kook" a weird,fringe "goofy' candidate.which is exactly what was done to ron paul."

Except that Paul WAS a goofy, fringe candidate. He had no mainstream support from either side. Sure, the libertarians loved him, but the conservatives hated his stance on drugs and progressives hated his stance on, well, pretty much everything else.

Sanders probably has more actual support amoung his liberal base than Paul did amoung the conservatives, but there's a very real chance that he WOULD lose a presedential race against a moderate conservative.

Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see Sanders get in. Ironically, I think the only chance he has is if Trump gets the republican nod.

Oh, Rand Paul spoke like his father and that's what Maher loved about Ron...if I remember correctly Maher was foaming at the mouth to denounce Ron Paul. He would have swallowed a million gallons of Islamic jizz in order for one man to vote against Ron Paul...fuck Maher, little cock-weasel.

thanks man!
i remain cautiously optimistic.
grassroots,small campaign donations,populist language that appeals to the majority of americans?
who else did that? ron paul and look what the establishment did to that man.