In the early days of the Republic before VP became more meaningful, yes, and you see a fairly long list of Sec States that ran for president: Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, James Monroe, John Quincy Adams, Henry Clay, Martin Van Buren, James Buchanan. There are also a few that took Sec State as a consolation prize soon after losing: Daniel Webster, William Jennings Bryan, John Kerry. 538 had a pretty good piece back in 2008 about this exact question: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/is-secretary-of-state-stepping-stone/ I still consider VP experience at least as valuable in the modern era, especially since VP changed from the runner up in the Presidential election to an undercandidate on the same ticket (allowing political parties to slot their heir apparent into the VP slot instead of appointing them Sec State)
Co-opt? Ok, I'm going to spell this out because when I hear how people hate on Obama, I want them to hate on him for the right reasons. First, as I've noted in post after post, the sea change in this country started with the 'Reagan Revolution' in 1980. What was the Reagan Revolution? And I'll save you the suspense, it ain't conservative. It's neoconservative. So let's look at his rhetoric and what he did. Rhetoric: Less Government. Actual: More government (increased the size of the military dramatically), cut spending on welfare Rhetoric: Lower Taxes. Actual: Lower taxes on top earners, tax increases on middle class Rhetoric: Fight terrorists, don't negotiate Actual: Befriend terrorists (Saudi Arabia) and sell arms to terrorists for hostage release Rhetoric: Love and Protect the Constitution Actual: Subverted the Constitution and committed Treason - yes, he did, it's called Iran/Contra. Rhetoric: Protect the Middle Class Actual: destroyed unions lowered tariffs and made foreign goods easier to get here, but also kept wages stagnant So ultimately, while his rhetoric sounded good it was only actually good for a very few people. Now, let's look at Obama: Rhetoric: Increase taxes on the wealthy. Actual: Increased upper bracket 2%, but exchanged this with Congress with a 2.5% increase on wage tax thus increasing income inequality. Rhetoric: Banks must be held accountable for their practices. Actual: Bailed out banks with little or no conditions, did not prosecute any of them Rhetoric: Health Care for Everyone Actual: Some people got health care (tax subsidies) but otherwise you were forced to go out and participate in a market - also known as hypercapitalism Rhetoric: Close Gitmo, end wars Actual: Continued wars, and in fact expanded drone war into more countries Ultimately, Obama is Bush part 3 and 4. Off the top of my head, I can't think of a significant policy of the Bush Administration that has ended under Obama's term. So to address your point, the bolded above, the entire spectrum, starting in 1980, shifted heavily right. Today's democrats look like 80's republicans. Today's republicans look even farther right than 10 years ago. In short, Obama didn't co-opt anything, he's Reagan's spiritual successor.
I am simply sharing an opinion, because you asked a question. I am not encouraging anyone to change their mind. First of all, there are plenty of Republicans or Conservatives or however they identify, that are not part of the religious right, who do not support abortion. (Though Pence clearly is.) Second, and it's a challenging issue that is nuanced, for sure. It's not that people want to tell a woman what to do with her body. At the same time, saying that being pro-life is "not their business" or the like, in my opinion, would be like saying that if their neighbor across the street is stabbing dogs is not their business. Or, if the teenage boy down the block is raping preschoolers, it's not their business. People that are pro-life believe that life begins at conception or soon after, and that life - lives that may not be able to defend themselves - deserves protection. And, I am not screaming that, and I am not screaming at people that think differently. And, I understand that many woman who face an unwanted pregnancy have difficulties making a difficult decision that can't be reduced to a bumper sticker, or even a supreme court case. I don't have the answers, but wanted to answer your question a bit.
I'm pro choice, but the whole reducing the concept of being against abortion to "telling women what to do with their bodies" is some serious bullshit. It's not just your body. It's another human being growing inside your body. That's a rather important disclaimer, don't you think? It also irks me every time I hear a woman talk as if men should have no say in how reproductive rights are legislated. I'm about as liberal as it gets on my views toward reproductive rights, and what I think the law should be, but reducing what is a very legitimate debate to religious slander is disingenuous. I don't see how people can talk about it like it's the equivalent to the gay marriage question.
Going back to Hillary and this disaster we insist on calling an election... She's just blowing her campaign. She hasn't lost, but her recent decisions are unbelievably short sighted. More importantly, I don't see how it's not a greater concern that people within our government were not only telling the media what to write, but so many Americans couldn't see that was happening until the leaks. Then, after the leaks they write it off. Not even the Russians are that stupid. No way to be certain, but I don't think the general election would have even been close had Bernie won the primaries. Whether he would have won in a democratic primary that stayed true to the principles of democracy is another question, but not an unreasonable one. Just because there are so many good reasons to not like Trump, I still kind of get the less of two evils argument. But Hillary doesn't give a fuck about what this country stand for. She doesn't give a fuck about the constitution. She doesn't give a fuck about the bill of rights. That's not hyperbole, it's a demonstrable fact.
I hear this a lot. So demonstrate it for me. I have yet to see how Hillary doesn't give a fuck about the Constitution. Show me.
Except they are. The Pro-life right wants to end all funding of Planned Parenthood. More than 90% of planned parenthood's activities/expenditures are for women's health, excluding abortions. Hey, you wanted to be honest. http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallp...lanned-parenthood-spend-that-government-money
I've always been vaguely pro-choice because if you don't even want your kid, I certainly don't want that future petty criminal, but the argument that really got me on a solid logical basis was the following: Less than a month after a child's birth, if they have a medical condition that requires say a bone marrow transplant, the government cannot violate the mother's bodily autonomy to compel a donation. No one is advocating otherwise and this is a wholly uncontroversial aspect of law. So the idea that the government can, or should, compel a similar violation of bodily autonomy, on a much larger scale, during pregnancy seems incongruent with the law as understood and consented to even if the fetus is a person.
When you try to shoehorn the conservative position on abortion in with their positions on welfare, family values and criminal justice; it makes absolutely no sense at all: 1. You want to remove the right to abortion, which is a medical procedure primarily used by unwed women from lower socioeconomic classes 2. You preach family values to include the sanctity of marriage 3. You want to cut welfare in all forms 4. You want to be even harsher on crime None of those line up. You want women to have children they either don't want or can't support, who will be driven in to poverty. All while likely out of wedlock, childern with no father figure in their life. This almost ensures a bad outcome for the child, they are likely to be involved in crime at some level and be incarcerated. Generally speaking, once you enter the system for a felony or any charge with probation or parole for a 5 year term, you are always going to be in the system. So the cost to the taxpayer goes way up, all because you want to protect a fetus that once it leaves its mothers womb, you no longer give a shit about. I would prefer to pay for the abortion with taxpayer funds and spare the lifetime welfare and incarceration costs.
After many years of thought, here's where I've landed on abortion: If you feel abortion is wrong, then you should follow your conscience and not ever have one.
Let's see. - Voted for the patriot act. Clear violation of the 4th amendment. Apparently that was deemed, and still is deemed, too politically inconvenient. - She has on several occasions infringed on the freedom of the press to secure her nomination. She hasn't been directly implicated, but if you think she wasn't involved you're out of your mind. There's the first amendment. - 2nd amendment. She hasn't outright violated this one, but she has supported holding manufacturers liable for crimes committed by their products. She's not quite wiping her ass with the second amendment on that one, but it's borderline. - How many times was the 8th amendment violated during her tenure as secretary of state? Where do you draw the line between enhanced interrogation, and cruel and unusual punishment? What about the 5th amendment? The 6th amendment? Very interesting article written towards the end of Hillary's tenure as secretary of state. You're a lawyer. How much would you implicate or absolve her? - What about article 1, section 9 of the constitution? She doesn't give a fuck about that one. Oh well. - How many times has she bragged about exceeding Obama on executive orders and using them to go around a GOP controlled congress? Like her tip toeing on the second amendment, this one is also borderline, but I have little doubt she would/will exceed the constitutional authority of her position for political benefit. So yes, I think it's obvious she cares more about securing power and taking advantage of her position than she does about the constitution or any other law she perceives as a hindrance. You hear it a lot because it's true.
Lets everyone take a moment and remember this: the only alternative to Clinton is Trump. HRC is an old school Washington crony who is in bed with all the major corporations; will spout any policy that's en vogue and will garner votes; has lied and broken massive security laws; is completely out of touch with the lower and middle class. All of this is true. BUT LOOK AT DONALD TRUMP. I don't think he has the sense God gave goats. His kids will handle the major decisions. He'll say incendiary things that will throw the markets and international security into chaos. He'll rabble rouse the crazy elements of the US to either discriminate against non-white men (best case) or actively commit hate crimes against anyone not white. He's run almost every business he's owned through some kind of bankruptcy. He wants to build a wall that can't be built using money and labour the country doesn't have. He lies in every single speech. And on and on... I'll be the first to admit that neither candidate is desireable, but the time to address that problem has passed. As for, "Hillary voted for the Patriot Act" being evidence against her...all but one senator voted in favour of it. So I'm not sure that her voting in favour implies she's crooked; only that she goes with the flow. And at the time voting against it would have been political suicide.
The really funny thing is that most people will admit that voting for the "lesser evil" over and over again is a big part of the reason we have the candidates we do(and also how Bernie got as far as he did), yet the thing you hear over and over again is some form of "vote for Clinton because she's the lesser evil"....did I say funny? I meant depressing...
Can someone give me insight into the Libertarian Party? I'm finding myself drawn to the group because I am fiscally conservative and socially liberal. It seems that party represents those values. But I'm really in the dark when it comes to their policies.
The thing that always gets to me about the Libertarians is that they are truly 100% isolationist. Seriously, they want to eliminate all foreign bases and military presence and stop any military and economic aid to foreign countries. Considering that the president's biggest realm of influence is foreign policy a Libertarian president could be pretty dangerous to our standing as a world power. However, they don't have much of a chance of winning the election and I think a third party getting a significant amount of votes would be a nice shock to the system. There's plenty of website that will give you there policy stances so do the research if you're considering it. Link below is to where I got my info on their foreign policy. http://www.ontheissues.org/Celeb/Libertarian_Party_Foreign_Policy.htm
On the surface, Gary Johnson's ideas are pretty good. He seems normal and reasonable. But when he gets into the nitty gritty of specifics, he starts to lose me a little. At times, it strikes me that he doesn't understand how the world works. And there was an interview he did recently when he didn't even know who Harriet Tubman was. When he went on Joe Rogan's podcast, it was a really good interview but when pressed for specifics on certain things, he didn't really have any good ideas. But, I feel that he's a reasonable person compared to the mainstream candidates. So take that for what you will. http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/07/25/gary-johnson-the-third-party-candidate That's the article I was referring to about the Harriet Tubman question.
You don't get to downvote, call something stupid, and then say you're not going to get into a back and forth over it. You're not Trump.
https://www.isidewith.com/elections/2016-presidential-quiz I don't know if this has been discussed on this thread leading up to the election or not but this is actually a pretty good quiz. Someone above mentioned Johnson's appearance on Rogan above and they discussed it there so it made me think of it. Who do you side with?
I hate the patriot act, but by your standard, every single legislator, and government official that was around did exactly the same thing. This is not specific evidence against her. How? By not talking to them? That's not infringing on it. In short, what 'several occasions are you referring to? How is holding a manufacturer liable infringing on the right to bear arms? They're separate issues. Advocating for liability is not infringement. It's not borderline, it's not anything at all. Do you have specific instances? Is there evidence? Enhanced interrogation ended under her tenure - not that she was responsible for it anyway, as it was the CIA that conducted those interrogations. The article? I guess it's ok, but again it is not specific to her, it can be applied to every government official. Again, details. Her foundation accepted money, and it was not paid to her. Do I like it? Nope. Is it illegal? Nope. Did she specifically violation the constitution? Nope. She's bragging? Really? I'm not even sure what to make of the mess in the portion above. I'm not sure if your accusing her of bragging, subverting Obama, dancing, or playing hokey pokey. You made no such thing clear. It's the usual Hillary hate I've been witnessing since '92. She was a lot more open then, by the way. But the press eviscerated her, told her that she should mind her own business, not have an opinion, and basically go away. So yes, she got more tight lipped after that. But don't buy into the talking points. I used to think that the opposition by Republicans to Obama was not racially motivated (mostly). But given the rise of Trump, I had to leave the party because it was clear to me that there is a strong misogynistic and racist base in the party. I really wanted to believe otherwise, but I can no longer close my eyes to it. No one has been investigated more in the past 25 years. And please, don't tell me 'she hushed it up' because that's the bullshit you hear. 'The Clintons are powerful' - so powerful, he was one of two Presidents in US history to be impeached. And the current email scandal? Yeah, started with Benghazi - 5 reports there - then on to the 'email scandal' - several more reports - and now probably an investigation into the investigation of the emails. It's ludicrous. Do I like Hillary? Not really. She's tied to the banks (like every President over the last 40 years), and is way too hawkish for my taste. But in the end, none of the articles cited or your assertions points to her infringing the Constitution. But by all means, hate on her, I could care less. Just do it for actual reasons, and not the mindless drivel that gets thrown around. Be more discerning, you're better than that.