A bit of Hillary Clinton's past history
 

On Sun, 1 Nov 2015 13:44:20 -0500, Justan Olphart
wrote:

On 11/1/2015 12:13 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 1 Nov 2015 11:11:54 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote:

On 10/31/15 9:15 PM, wrote:


So you will **** can your most basic beliefs and pull the rooster.



My basic beliefs? Mrs. Clinton and I are aligned fairly well on most
issues. I don't expect agreement on everything with any candidate. I
like Bernie Sanders, too, but I don't think Americans are ready to elect
a self-described socialist as POTUS, even though what he describes and
stands for is pretty much mainstream. When I was growing up in New
Haven, nearby Bridgeport had Jasper McLevy, a socialist, as its
long-time mayor.

I have no concerns about Mrs. Clinton's ability to lead this nation and
help most of its people progress. There are no Republicans about whom I
feel that way.

My guess is that you will sit out the 2016 POTUS election. I don't sit
out elections for national political office.

OK but don't come crying to us when we are in Syria in force (along
with other middle east wars) and when the banksters are still screwing
you. If the democrats get their wish and the minimum wage goes up to
$15, expect a huge spike in unemployment. That will certainly do
nothing to reduce income inequality.

How do you figure that banksters can screw Harry?

I am sure some might post an ad hominem attack here but the truth is
they can screw us all by degrading the values of our investments (like
your pension plan)

A bit of Hillary Clinton's past history
 

On 11/1/15 1:51 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 1 Nov 2015 13:05:03 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 11/1/2015 12:55 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 1 Nov 2015 12:14:14 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

Hypothetically, let's assume that something comes along that causes
Hillary to withdraw from the nomination process. Could be health or
scandal ... who knows?

To whom would you then shift your support and ultimate vote for?

Webb? O'Malley? Bernie?


Trump, he has a better chance than any of those.



Scary, huh? :-)


Exactly why I am disgusted with the whole process.
BTW anyone who really thinks their one vote actually counts should
have a hard time criticizing someone else's "invisible friend".
Between the corruption of the system by big money and the electoral
college system to begin with, elections are far from being decided by
a few motivated voters.
It is clearly irrational faith in something you can't show scientific
evidence to demonstrate.


Is this the libertarian premise for 2016? As in, "we'll never be able to
field a winning POTUS candidate, so let's do whatever we can to hold
down the vote and help the Repugnicans." Because, in the end,
libertarians are Republicans just as Tea Baggers are Republicans.

A bit of Hillary Clinton's past history
 

On 11/1/2015 1:55 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 1 Nov 2015 13:44:20 -0500, Justan Olphart
wrote:

On 11/1/2015 12:13 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 1 Nov 2015 11:11:54 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote:

On 10/31/15 9:15 PM, wrote:


So you will **** can your most basic beliefs and pull the rooster.



My basic beliefs? Mrs. Clinton and I are aligned fairly well on most
issues. I don't expect agreement on everything with any candidate. I
like Bernie Sanders, too, but I don't think Americans are ready to elect
a self-described socialist as POTUS, even though what he describes and
stands for is pretty much mainstream. When I was growing up in New
Haven, nearby Bridgeport had Jasper McLevy, a socialist, as its
long-time mayor.

I have no concerns about Mrs. Clinton's ability to lead this nation and
help most of its people progress. There are no Republicans about whom I
feel that way.

My guess is that you will sit out the 2016 POTUS election. I don't sit
out elections for national political office.

OK but don't come crying to us when we are in Syria in force (along
with other middle east wars) and when the banksters are still screwing
you. If the democrats get their wish and the minimum wage goes up to
$15, expect a huge spike in unemployment. That will certainly do
nothing to reduce income inequality.

How do you figure that banksters can screw Harry?

I am sure some might post an ad hominem attack here but the truth is
they can screw us all by degrading the values of our investments (like
your pension plan)

By keeping the presses rolling printing money? It's not the banksta
gangstas doing that.

A bit of Hillary Clinton's past history
 

On Sun, 01 Nov 2015 13:55:55 -0500, wrote:

How do you figure that banksters can screw Harry?

I am sure some might post an ad hominem attack here but the truth is
they can screw us all by degrading the values of our investments (like
your pension plan)

===

The real enemy going forward is the huge US debt, the Federal Reserve,
and the Controller of the Currency. All of the above will come
together to devalue of the dollar and everything you have which
translates to fixed income dollars. It's the classic way to dispose
of massive debt: Pay it back with devalued currency. That's how the
Vietnam war was paid for. That's how Brazil and Argentina did it, and
that's how Italy and Greece are doing it now.

A bit of Hillary Clinton's past history
 

On Sun, 1 Nov 2015 14:09:03 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote:

Because, in the end,
libertarians are Republicans just as Tea Baggers are Republicans.

"Republican" seems to be anyone who disagrees with you. The fact
remains almost half of all voting aged people are so disgusted with
the process that they stay home. Are they all Republicans too?
Maybe you are right. Is that why Nixon called them the silent
majority.

A bit of Hillary Clinton's past history
 

On 11/1/15 10:30 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 1 Nov 2015 14:09:03 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote:

Because, in the end,
libertarians are Republicans just as Tea Baggers are Republicans.

"Republican" seems to be anyone who disagrees with you. The fact
remains almost half of all voting aged people are so disgusted with
the process that they stay home. Are they all Republicans too?
Maybe you are right. Is that why Nixon called them the silent
majority.




All the self-described "libertarians" I've heard of who *hold* elected
federal office ran as and run as Republicans, and the self-described Tea
Baggers do the same. Now, there are some self-described libertarians who
eschew the Republican moniker and run as libertarians for federal
office, but...they don't seem to get elected.

Years ago, I described libertarians as Republicans with even less of a
sense of civic responsibility. I've not read anything that would make me
change my mind. I understand self-described libertarians don't like
foreign military adventures and are in favor of legalizing pot, and want
to do away with all manner of regulations so the "free market" will
prevail. Well, I've always thought libertarianism was way over the line
on simplemindedness. I'm not a big fan of foreign military adventures,
either, and I see advantages to decriminalizing pot, but I don't favor
going back to the "wild, wild west" domestically.

A bit of Hillary Clinton's past history
 

On Mon, 2 Nov 2015 07:54:30 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote:

On 11/1/15 10:30 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 1 Nov 2015 14:09:03 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote:

Because, in the end,
libertarians are Republicans just as Tea Baggers are Republicans.

"Republican" seems to be anyone who disagrees with you. The fact
remains almost half of all voting aged people are so disgusted with
the process that they stay home. Are they all Republicans too?
Maybe you are right. Is that why Nixon called them the silent
majority.




All the self-described "libertarians" I've heard of who *hold* elected
federal office ran as and run as Republicans, and the self-described Tea
Baggers do the same. Now, there are some self-described libertarians who
eschew the Republican moniker and run as libertarians for federal
office, but...they don't seem to get elected.


It sounds like they have fallen prey to the same pragmatism that you
posses. You have to go along to get along. I think that is mostly the
stacked deck we have dealt to 3d parties. You need to pick a major
party to even get a seat at the table. Yeah right "free elections".


Years ago, I described libertarians as Republicans with even less of a
sense of civic responsibility. I've not read anything that would make me
change my mind. I understand self-described libertarians don't like
foreign military adventures and are in favor of legalizing pot, and want
to do away with all manner of regulations so the "free market" will
prevail. Well, I've always thought libertarianism was way over the line
on simplemindedness. I'm not a big fan of foreign military adventures,
either, and I see advantages to decriminalizing pot, but I don't favor
going back to the "wild, wild west" domestically.

You ignored a number of issues that align closer to Bernie than
Hillary or any of the republicans but I am not surprised.
Even if we had a significant Libertarian membership in congress and
holding the white house, I doubt they could make a serious dent in the
4th branch of government, US Civil Service.
That is a reality that confronted Carter and Reagan significantly and
all presidents to some extent.
I remember Carter coming to town and how that reality bitch slapped
him in the face. He had the goal of "streamlining government" and he
created a few stream lined agencies but what he didn't understand was
that it was "additive", hiring more people but the existing agencies
were still there. They were not leaving. They just changed all of the
signs.

A bit of Hillary Clinton's past history
 

On 11/2/15 11:02 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 2 Nov 2015 07:54:30 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote:

On 11/1/15 10:30 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 1 Nov 2015 14:09:03 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote:

Because, in the end,
libertarians are Republicans just as Tea Baggers are Republicans.

"Republican" seems to be anyone who disagrees with you. The fact
remains almost half of all voting aged people are so disgusted with
the process that they stay home. Are they all Republicans too?
Maybe you are right. Is that why Nixon called them the silent
majority.




All the self-described "libertarians" I've heard of who *hold* elected
federal office ran as and run as Republicans, and the self-described Tea
Baggers do the same. Now, there are some self-described libertarians who
eschew the Republican moniker and run as libertarians for federal
office, but...they don't seem to get elected.


It sounds like they have fallen prey to the same pragmatism that you
posses. You have to go along to get along. I think that is mostly the
stacked deck we have dealt to 3d parties. You need to pick a major
party to even get a seat at the table. Yeah right "free elections".


Indeed, I am politically pragmatic. I've stated many times I like
Sanders and admire him, but I don't think he can win the presidency.
I also like Mrs. Clinton and admire her.

I rarely agree with more than 75% of any politician's positions,
proposals, et cetera.

I'll be happy if Mrs. Clinton wins the election. I'd be happy if Sanders
won it. But I don't believe that possible.

There are no Republicans among the current choices with a chance to win
the nomination who I could vote for.

A bit of Hillary Clinton's past history
 

On Mon, 2 Nov 2015 09:39:10 -0800, Califbill billnews wrote:

wrote:

Hard core survivalists want the metal, not the paper.
I am not quite there.



Will gold be the standard? Or cell phone minutes? Or canned goods?

Food, ammo and access to clean water will be the important things.
Everything else is a luxury.
A well rounded skill set will be king. The economy may depend more on
barter than money. People who have skills will never starve.
Neighborhood watch will take on a whole new significance.
People will be making friends with their neighbors.
We get a little glimpse into that after a hurricane.
You certainly find out how good your neighborhood is.