DCEmu Decides the 2016 Presidential Election

[Eviltaco64X]

No, I think that sums up the basic situation pretty well.

I'm still voting for Sanders in the primary, though, because fuck self-fulfilling prophecies.

And I think it's long past time for us to start undoing the right's past several decades of demonizing the very concept of being liberal or progressive, and start changing the conversation about what government is and should be: a means of organizing and executing the people's will, with the aid of experts, to promote the best interests of the people. Sometimes government is corrupt. Sometimes it is inefficient. Sometimes it is misguided. But always, its core purpose is to organize and exercise the needs, rights, and will of the people. To get rid of government is to remove the people's ability to guide and adjust their own society.

It's always struck me as funny how the people most outspoken about "keeping the government out of our lives" are the same people who'd leave us at the complete (and much more predatory) mercy of unfettered, unaccountable corporate interests.

There's a REASON regulations and red tape exist, and peak efficiency isn't alway desirable. Efficiency comes at the expense of safety, thoroughness, and accountability; it's a balancing act.

I think the thing to undo here, more or less, is the thought that all the blame lies in the hands of a specific party. Whether it's government, the markets, conservatives, or liberals. All of them have synergistically fucked us over. The 'us vs. them' mob mentality basically has most of us in attack mode against tails and claws of the same monster, charging up the down escalators and vice-versa.

That inherent purpose of "organizing and executing the people's will", isn't that where all of the divisive polarity and means of exploitation come from? There is a never-ending ideological tug-of-war for majoritarian rule with compulsory participation for the minority, except for places that are solidly one-party (which, regardless of affiliation, generally have the highest amounts of corruption and inequality). Whether that is being forced to pay taxes for drug wars & tactical genocide, or being forced to pay fines for not being able to afford health insurance in the first place, there is always a gun at the disagreeing minority's head to do something that they don't want to do. Collectively, the two could team up, stop telling the gunman to target each other, disarm him, and sort out their differences.

Is it, perhaps, that the model of the traditional binary government is reaching it's theoretical limit of applicability? I'm convinced that there is some way that individualistic laissez-faire capitalists and expert-led collectivist communes can co-exist, share a middle-ground, and even celebrate their differences and compliment each other's weaknesses if some model of quantum government could be designed.

Rather than bouncing absolute power and emphasis back-and-forth between specific groups and their agendas (which results in kicking and screaming that slows progress down), it would have to be fixed on accounting for all the different agendas, relative to those which exist in the super-state as a whole. People that do want certain services pay taxes/volunteer for them and work together to make it what they truly want to make it, others that don't want to pay in the first place can opt out and/or seek some alternative.

The back-and-forth about Obamacare is a good example of why we need something like this. People that didn't want it were forced into it, increasing it's unpopularity dramatically. The people that didn't want it in the first place then started voting in people who promised to repeal it or gut it as much as they could, which they have been doing. Now it is a shell of it's original design, with numerous exemptions and exceptions. Compulsory mandates prevented the people who wanted out of it from staying out, and it prevented the people who wanted in on it from building a good single-payer style of public healthcare. The less roadblocks to each other's differences, the better. Saying "your inherent beliefs are wrong" only wastes more time and makes it worse for everyone.

Regulations perpetuate the cycle of corporatism. They are generally designed, lobbied for, and secured by corporations for their own interests. Markets outsmart government, buy anti-competitive protection thinly disguised as "safety", and most people barely notice or couldn't care less.

Good recent example: Hershey lobbied the FDA to ban the import of chocolate candy from the UK in the name of "consumer safety/protection" and "to help cause for less buyer confusion". Their lobbying succeeded. The FDA banned it. No one noticed, no one cared. The only ones that got hurt were little British import shops and their customers with an arguably superior taste in chocolate.

[DaMadFiddler]

start changing the conversation about what government is and should be

This is not what the government is, and it's your idea of what it should be. Not that I'm saying your opinion is invalid or wrong, but if you want to change the conversation so that the baseline is that the government is what you think it should be, then you are employing the same tactics that you are hating on the right for (i.e. ignoring that your viewpoints are opinions and then trashing anyone who disagrees as being removed from reality).

To get rid of government is to remove the people's ability to guide and adjust their own society.

That is a laughably narrow view of what a society is.

It's always struck me as funny how the people most outspoken about "keeping the government out of our lives" are the same people who'd leave us at the complete (and much more predatory) mercy of unfettered, unaccountable corporate interests.

Sure, sometimes private entities are corrupt. Sometimes they are inefficient. Sometimes they are misguided.

But in most markets there are competitors to choose from, creating a way to vote for your desires with your dollar.

See, you can't just ignore the problems with government and give it the benefit of the doubt and turn around and trash the private sector. It's not making a fair comparison.

That is, by definition, what a representative government (such as a democracy or a republic) is supposed to be. That's the POINT of representative government.

And comparing government corruption to corporate corruption is a flawed premise. The raison d'être for representative government is for this type of government is to exercise the needs, will, and interests of the populace at large, but business exists, at its heart, to make money. There is no inherently social-minded or humanitarian dimension to it.

A free market NATURALLY corrupts as it develops. As businesses succeed, they grow in power and influence to the point where they gain the ability to fix the game to a large extent. The oft-touted equalizing force of competition only exists in new markets and at the very early stages of a capitalist society; the only way to keep that force working to any extent is to have an outside regulatory force that can set limits and arrest the development of market forces that are getting too unbalanced. Free-market capitalism is the biggest crock of shit that has ever been sold to the American people.

I'm most certainly not saying that government can't be corrupt, or harmful, or turned to bad purposes, or that we shouldn't guard rigorously against it. But there is a fundamental difference of purpose between the government and private business, and to ignore that difference is to radically distort the conversation. I guess the main thing I'm driving at is the folly of an overly libertarian approach to governance.

[|darc|]

I think the thing to undo here, more or less, is the thought that all the blame lies in the hands of a specific party. Whether it's government, the markets, conservatives, or liberals. All of them have synergistically fucked us over. The 'us vs. them' mob mentality basically has most of us in attack mode against tails and claws of the same monster, charging up the down escalators and vice-versa.

I couldn't agree more. We are a bit lucky that it appears the people are, to some degree, understanding of this. Trump and Sanders are within the margins of error in polling enough to call them both front-runners, and neither of them are actually from the party they're representing.

Unfortunately, they're a populist fascist and a socialist.

That inherent purpose of "organizing and executing the people's will", isn't that where all of the divisive polarity and means of exploitation come from? There is a never-ending ideological tug-of-war for majoritarian rule with compulsory participation for the minority, except for places that are solidly one-party (which, regardless of affiliation, generally have the highest amounts of corruption and inequality). Whether that is being forced to pay taxes for drug wars & tactical genocide, or being forced to pay fines for not being able to afford health insurance in the first place, there is always a gun at the disagreeing minority's head to do something that they don't want to do. Collectively, the two could team up, stop telling the gunman to target each other, disarm him, and sort out their differences.

Is it, perhaps, that the model of the traditional binary government is reaching it's theoretical limit of applicability? I'm convinced that there is some way that individualistic laissez-faire capitalists and expert-led collectivist communes can co-exist, share a middle-ground, and even celebrate their differences and compliment each other's weaknesses if some model of quantum government could be designed.

Rather than bouncing absolute power and emphasis back-and-forth between specific groups and their agendas (which results in kicking and screaming that slows progress down), it would have to be fixed on accounting for all the different agendas, relative to those which exist in the super-state as a whole. People that do want certain services pay taxes/volunteer for them and work together to make it what they truly want to make it, others that don't want to pay in the first place can opt out and/or seek some alternative.

This is where states' rights comes into play. We as a nation need to respect a limited form of federal government and allow the states to individually choose their destinies. The federal government need not concern itself with matters such as which plants the citizens can grow and consume. The federal government ought to be more concerned with matters of national defense, for example.

That having been said, the federal government should enforce standards for the basic rights of all men, as established in the constitution, and protect the citizens from local and state governments that infringe on these constitutional rights. That is, I agree with the incorporation of the Bill of Rights (for those who are less Constitutionally savvy, the original position of the SCOTUS in the 19th century was that the Bill of Rights applied only to the federal government, and that state and local governments could restrict those rights, even after the passing of the 14th Amendment; however, in the early 20th century, the SCOTUS started to interpret part of the 14th Amendment as applying the Bill of Rights to state and local governments).

This is one of the things I liked most about Rand Paul: when asked about his views on particular topics, he often said (paraphrasing) "I believe <one view>, but I would recognize a state's right to <opposing view> as a President adhering to the Constitution."

The back-and-forth about Obamacare is a good example of why we need something like this. People that didn't want it were forced into it, increasing it's unpopularity dramatically. The people that didn't want it in the first place then started voting in people who promised to repeal it or gut it as much as they could, which they have been doing. Now it is a shell of it's original design, with numerous exemptions and exceptions. Compulsory mandates prevented the people who wanted out of it from staying out, and it prevented the people who wanted in on it from building a good single-payer style of public healthcare. The less roadblocks to each other's differences, the better. Saying "your inherent beliefs are wrong" only wastes more time and makes it worse for everyone.

Problem with this is that ObamaCare was never going to work unless everyone was forced in. Because ObamaCare mandates that pre-existing conditions are covered, for example, it means that the only way to prevent people from staying uninsured or severely underinsured until they have a condition is to force them to participate in a plan that meets a certain level of coverage, or face consequences.

Basically, if you let people opt in or out of the system, it dooms the health insurance industry much the same as letting people opt in and out of paying taxes would doom the government.

Regulations perpetuate the cycle of corporatism. They are generally designed, lobbied for, and secured by corporations for their own interests. Markets outsmart government, buy anti-competitive protection thinly disguised as "safety", and most people barely notice or couldn't care less.

Good recent example: Hershey lobbied the FDA to ban the import of chocolate candy from the UK in the name of "consumer safety/protection" and "to help cause for less buyer confusion". Their lobbying succeeded. The FDA banned it. No one noticed, no one cared. The only ones that got hurt were little British import shops and their customers with an arguably superior taste in chocolate.

Indeed.

[|darc|]

That is, by definition, what a representative government (such as a democracy or a republic) is supposed to be. That's the POINT of representative government.

The raison d'être for representative government is for this type of government is to exercise the needs, will, and interests of the populace at large

But that "definition" can be interpreted in different ways. For example, if I wanted to be particularly extremely obtuse about it, I could say that I need food and want Burger King today, so under your definition the government owes me Burger King for dinner. Of course, that's not what I think it means nor do I think you think it means that, but a definition is useless if it can be interpreted in so many different ways. That is to say that the point of representative government is still an opinion.

And comparing government corruption to corporate corruption is a flawed premise. [...] business exists, at its heart, to make money. There is no inherently social-minded or humanitarian dimension to it.

Comparing government to business is establishing a false dichotomy. I am comparing public entities to private entities. Private entities include charities and non-profit organizations, which pretty much exist for social-minded and humanitarian reasons!

A free market NATURALLY corrupts as it develops. As businesses succeed, they grow in power and influence to the point where they gain the ability to fix the game to a large extent. The oft-touted equalizing force of competition only exists in new markets and at the very early stages of a capitalist society; the only way to keep that force working to any extent is to have an outside regulatory force that can set limits and arrest the development of market forces that are getting too unbalanced. Free-market capitalism is the biggest crock of shit that has ever been sold to the American people.

I'm most certainly not saying that government can't be corrupt, or harmful, or turned to bad purposes, or that we shouldn't guard rigorously against it. But there is a fundamental difference of purpose between the government and private business, and to ignore that difference is to radically distort the conversation. I guess the main thing I'm driving at is the folly of an overly libertarian approach to governance.

But the majority of business monopolies "fixing the game" is not through some free-market principle voodoo, but through buying influence and lobbying the government regulators that you would have established! Most truly free market monopolies do not last long. The question isn't whether government can be corrupt, it is when the government will be corrupt. It is an inevitability, as anyone who has the slightest understanding of history should recognize. And when the government is corrupted, it is a hell of a lot harder to change considering the will of the government is backed by all of the resources handed over to it happily by its people over time, including enormous amounts of power, money, and physical force.

This isn't to say that I don't have any appreciation at all for regulation, and I do think there is a place for it; however, if we do not fight the expansion of government powers just as rigorously and with as much vigilance as we fight the corruption itself, then the corruption will be a foregone conclusion.

[Christuserloeser]

But the majority of business monopolies "fixing the game" is not through some free-market principle voodoo, but through buying influence and lobbying the government regulators that you would have established!

The purpose of any business is to earn money. Nothing more and nothing less. Without regulation a business will try to grow or sustain itself regardless of the cost and consequences for others.

Not seeing the need for regulation is not understanding capitalism.

If the right keeps calling Obama a socialist, people who support Obama might not think twice about pulling the lever for a self-labelled actual socialist.

I agree: Calling Obama a socialist for demanding something every other civilized nation takes for granted has completely demystified the term. Which is good! seeing as there's nothing negative about it in itself.

And yes, to a degree Obama is a socialist indeed - but then again so is everyone else involved in a modern democracy. How much depends on your point of view.

The interesting thing about Sanders as opposed to his predecessors and co-candidates seems to be a truly heartfelt understanding that the rich are too rich and the poor are too poor, the government is too corrupt, the big corporations and banks are too big, and that the government needs to stop spying on its citizens.

Sanders seems to be what people had hoped Obama was.

[Eviltaco64X]

Just like to add as an afterthought:

3 months ago, I took up the risk of going into business for myself after toying around with the idea for many years.

It's been 80 hour work-weeks, non-existent weekends. Everyday has been a battering learning experience. One where the last 10 steps in the journey tend to explode into 1000 more a lot. It may take a few more weeks to truly make the vision gain some traction, maybe a few more months.

Everyday, failure is inevitable - at least according to armchair executives and doubting Thomases. Everyday, I could give into the illusive reality of the status quo and be consumed whole by it, debt and all. Everyday, I could stop dead in my tracks, say "it's too much!", and go bitterly jump on the first shitty job I can find with my tail between my legs.

I refuse, because I know there are serious problems and inefficiencies in that line of work and they do more harm than good. No one is solving them. Everyone at the top is content resting on their laurels and scoff when the norm is challenged. I could give up so easily, but why should I? There is so much opportunity to improve things, to solve serious problems, and help people and on many different levels.

Most revolutionary entrepreneurs, inventive types, and genuinely talented types start their journey broke, doubted by most, restless, and sucking at what they do. Thomas Edison, Milton Hershey, J.P. Morgan, F.W. Woolworth, Benjamin Franklin, Clara Barton, Jobs, Gates, Zuckerberg, Jack Ma (in the late 90s, he couldn't even get a job at KFC, now he's the richest man in China). So many more... Haven't even touched on successful artists, musicians, philanthropists, or athletes.

Many are extremely jealous of their wealth and status. They see the success, morph their egos to see themselves as deserving of the same position, and greedily want all that as if it's just owed to them, despite the fact that they've done nothing to achieve it. They don't take into account that the most prominent billionaires and industrialists are self-made people that spent 80%+ of their careers failing miserably, getting nothing for it but debt, doubt, and derision.

They finally realized their vision by taking the risk to (I can't stress this enough) help people, to their benefit, in some tremendous way and on a grand scale. The wealth that followed was merely an afterthought. Should Thomas Edison be respected for going mad, fucking up a lot, and finally inventing so many of the things we use everyday? Or should he be loathed for having more money?

As long as one has the mindset and discipline to go out and make people's lives better and more convenient, to honor their time, to invest in their cause and conveniences, by helping them, you can't go wrong! This is the mindset that has the potential to improve everyone's livelihood drastically, and we need more of it.

If everyone embraced the "nah, screw the whole thing, the game's rigged and the world hates me me me" victim mentality, we would still be living in caves.

[|darc|]

The purpose of any business is to earn money. Nothing more and nothing less. Without regulation a business will try to grow or sustain itself regardless of the cost and consequences for others.

Not seeing the need for regulation is not understanding capitalism.

And what's the problem with businesses growing or sustaining themselves?

Funny about things that try to grow: government always tries to grow its power, size, etc. Just as many politicians are in it for the greater good as businesses are. The GOP claims it is the party of small government, but in reality it just grows the government and special interests in different sectors than the Dems do.

Sanders seems to be what people had hoped Obama was.

You're right, Sanders does seem to be what I hoped Obama was when I was a lot younger and more naïve and pulled the lever for him 7 years ago.

[Christuserloeser]

Sorry, my language might be too imprecise: of course I am speaking of big business not smaller local companies and most certainly not start ups.

And what's the problem with businesses growing or sustaining themselves?

Let me give you an example: I often hear people complain about the meat industry mass murdering hundreds of billions of animals and burning down the Brazilian rain forest to feed their animals. But the root of the problem here is not the meat industry. All they're doing is making money. If you provide a legal frame work where it is totally fine for McDonalds & co. to mass murder animals and to deforest the planet then you cannot go and complain about the evil corporations destroying the earth: You allow it to happen.

[Christuserloeser]

You're right, Sanders does seem to be what I hoped Obama was when I was a lot younger and more naïve and pulled the lever for him 7 years ago.

It seems Obama got a lot of stuff done despite the constant blockades by the republicans who behaved like two year olds during a temper tantrum. By far his biggest mistake was to try to find common ground with these people.



http://mic.com/articles/122011/watch-yo ... .TUM7iOVua

[RyoDC]

I'm not an US citizen by If I would, I would vote for Bernie Sanders

[BlueCrab]

Well this certainly makes the election take on a bit more of an important turn... Especially since Republicans in the Senate have already basically said they won't allow a replacement to be confirmed until next year...

[S. Thompson]

Well this certainly makes the election take on a bit more of an important turn... Especially since Republicans in the Senate have already basically said they won't allow a replacement to be confirmed until next year...

Damn cherry-pickers. Justices are supposed to be selected by the standing US president. I'm not sure what the timeframe is, but waiting until the election seems self-serving as all hell to me.

- Steve

[BlueCrab]

Well this certainly makes the election take on a bit more of an important turn... Especially since Republicans in the Senate have already basically said they won't allow a replacement to be confirmed until next year...

Damn cherry-pickers. Justices are supposed to be selected by the standing US president. I'm not sure what the timeframe is, but waiting until the election seems self-serving as all hell to me.

- Steve

It is self-serving -- they're counting on a Republican winning the Presidency so that the court doesn't have a liberal slant.

It's totally ridiculous to call for the President to wait, and without any precedent at least since 1900. Hell, there's a justice on the Supreme Court right now (Justice Kennedy) who was confirmed in the last year of a President's second term (1988), and by a Senate that was controlled by the opposite party of the President (Democratic Senate, Reagan was President). He was confirmed 97-0, if I recall correctly. Thus the whole argument of there's precedent and that both sides do it is complete and total self-serving BS for the Republicans in the Senate.

[Eviltaco64X]

Well this certainly makes the election take on a bit more of an important turn... Especially since Republicans in the Senate have already basically said they won't allow a replacement to be confirmed until next year...

Damn cherry-pickers. Justices are supposed to be selected by the standing US president. I'm not sure what the timeframe is, but waiting until the election seems self-serving as all hell to me.

- Steve

It is self-serving -- they're counting on a Republican winning the Presidency so that the court doesn't have a liberal slant.

It's totally ridiculous to call for the President to wait, and without any precedent at least since 1900. Hell, there's a justice on the Supreme Court right now (Justice Kennedy) who was confirmed in the last year of a President's second term (1988), and by a Senate that was controlled by the opposite party of the President (Democratic Senate, Reagan was President). He was confirmed 97-0, if I recall correctly. Thus the whole argument of there's precedent and that both sides do it is complete and total self-serving BS for the Republicans in the Senate.

“There are some, who believe, the president should have complete authority to appoint his nominee and the senate should only examine whether or not the Justice is intellectually capable and an all around good guy. But once you get beyond intellect and personal character there should be no further questions as to whether the judge should be confirmed. I disagree with this view. I believe firmly that the Constitution calls for senate to advise and consent. I believe that it calls for meaningful advice and consent that includes an examination of a Judges philosophy, ideology and record. “ - Barack Obama

Pro-Dem media when it benefits Dems:

Jan 24 2006, "Why the Senate Should Not Confirm Alito"
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2006 ... t-cold-war

Jan 30 2006, "Obama joins Filibuster Against Alito"
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2006 ... nfirmation

Pro-Dem media when it doesn't:

Feb 17 2016, "Cracks emerge in GOP refusal to consider Supreme Court pick"
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nati ... story.html

Feb 18 2016, Black Lawmakers Say GOP Supreme Court Obstruction Is Racist
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/gop ... fac127ccab


Double think is a toxic thing.

[BlueCrab]

“There are some, who believe, the president should have complete authority to appoint his nominee and the senate should only examine whether or not the Justice is intellectually capable and an all around good guy. But once you get beyond intellect and personal character there should be no further questions as to whether the judge should be confirmed. I disagree with this view. I believe firmly that the Constitution calls for senate to advise and consent. I believe that it calls for meaningful advice and consent that includes an examination of a Judges philosophy, ideology and record. “ - Barack Obama

Advise and consent. That's exactly what is being asked here. Not totally ignore and not even bother doing either of those things, which is what the Republican Senate leader and many other Republicans in the Senate have proposed. Nobody's asking for a blank check for Obama to nominate whoever he wants without any challenge on that person's merits. All that is being asked is to let the President do his job and to have the Senate do their jobs -- as they are spelled out in the Constitution. If that ends in a filibuster on the merits of the nominee, so be it. But ignoring the nomination in the first place is just stupid.

Also, note that even though the Democrats could have potentially held a filibuster on Alito (they had at least 40 members of the Senate), they didn't. Cloture was invoked on the nomination on the first attempt and Alito was confirmed shortly thereafter.

Also, you could easily find pro-Republican media reports on both these situations as well -- I'm sure a quick search on foxnews.com would do the trick. Everyone knows that various media outlets have some bias one way or the other.

[Eviltaco64X]

“There are some, who believe, the president should have complete authority to appoint his nominee and the senate should only examine whether or not the Justice is intellectually capable and an all around good guy. But once you get beyond intellect and personal character there should be no further questions as to whether the judge should be confirmed. I disagree with this view. I believe firmly that the Constitution calls for senate to advise and consent. I believe that it calls for meaningful advice and consent that includes an examination of a Judges philosophy, ideology and record. “ - Barack Obama

Advise and consent. That's exactly what is being asked here. Not totally ignore and not even bother doing either of those things, which is what the Republican Senate leader and many other Republicans in the Senate have proposed. Nobody's asking for a blank check for Obama to nominate whoever he wants without any challenge on that person's merits. All that is being asked is to let the President do his job and to have the Senate do their jobs -- as they are spelled out in the Constitution. If that ends in a filibuster on the merits of the nominee, so be it. But ignoring the nomination in the first place is just stupid.

Also, note that even though the Democrats could have potentially held a filibuster on Alito (they had at least 40 members of the Senate), they didn't. Cloture was invoked on the nomination on the first attempt and Alito was confirmed shortly thereafter.

Also, you could easily find pro-Republican media reports on both these situations as well -- I'm sure a quick search on foxnews.com would do the trick. Everyone knows that various media outlets have some bias one way or the other.

Fair point. Ignoring it outright would be foolish, and I could imagine the pro-GOP media utilizing an inverse of the exact same double think logic (2006 - "it's the President's duty!!!", 2016 - "tyranny! our values are at steak!!!")

In any event (grim as it may be), the next 4-8 years could see three or more seats open up and that may cause this back-and-forth to linger for awhile. Upside, it may lead to some positive change and teach a new generation or 2 why it's so important to pay attention to this sort of thing. On the dark side, it could lead to a decade or two of unstoppable one-party domination.

It's unhealthy that SC Justice deaths turn into vulturous hyper-politicized spectacles (all aside, they are just people that are no more). What's at risk summons it, I suppose.

[BlueCrab]

Well, we have already had a good generation or two worth of conservative rule of the Supreme Court.

Depending on various things, I think that Ruth Bader Ginsburg will retire from the Supreme Court within the next four years (although, I expected her to retire a couple of years ago, to be perfectly honest, so she might surprise me some more), after all she's already 82. Beyond that, I'm not sure whether to think that the next couple of Justices (by age) would retire or not, namely Anthony Kennedy (79) and Stephen Breyer (77). Beyond those three, I don't see any potential retirees during the next four to eight years (the rest of the Justices are young enough that I don't see any of them retiring any time soon -- 67, 65, 61, 61, and 55 are their ages, for reference).

As an aside... now I want steak. I think you meant "stake" but that mistake made me want steak... Sadly, I'm having chicken for dinner tonight.

Also, I forgot I had this image, but it's relevant to the situation...

[Eviltaco64X]

Tyranny Steak is the new Eggs Benedict. The typo is delicious

Why do you think Mitch McConnell has suddenly started flip-flopping on the TPP? Back in May, he was all for it to the point that he and Obama shared an "outer-body experience" about it. Now he's back-pedaling, nit-picking, much like with the SC nominee thing saying that it's better to wait until after the election.

If it does get pushed off til next year (which I hope it does so it has a better chance of being killed outright), only Trump and Sanders would fight it. Everyone else in the race shilled for it until it was more relevant for them to shill against it.

[|darc|]

Sorry, my language might be too imprecise: of course I am speaking of big business not smaller local companies and most certainly not start ups.

And what's the problem with businesses growing or sustaining themselves?

Let me give you an example: I often hear people complain about the meat industry mass murdering hundreds of billions of animals and burning down the Brazilian rain forest to feed their animals. But the root of the problem here is not the meat industry. All they're doing is making money. If you provide a legal frame work where it is totally fine for McDonalds & co. to mass murder animals and to deforest the planet then you cannot go and complain about the evil corporations destroying the earth: You allow it to happen.

I'm not sure in which universe laws against the slaughtering of lives and the destruction of property are grouped in with economic regulation, but hey.

Here's a good excerpt from Ron Paul's Revolution: A Manifesto on free markets and environmentalism:

Some people falsely believe that advocates of the free market must be opponents of the environment. We care only about economic efficiency, the argument goes, and have no regard for the consequences of pollution and other examples of environmental degradation. But a true supporter of private property and personal responsibility cannot be indifferent to the environmental damage, and should view it as a form of unjustified aggression that must be punished or enjoined, or dealt within some other way that is mutually satisfactory to all parties. Private business should not have the right to socialize its costs by burdening other people with the by-products of its operations.
Economist Martin Anderson puts it this way. Dumping garbage on your neighbor's lawn is wrong. But pollution is just another form of garbage. For that reason, proposals to charge pollution fees, which get higher the greater the pollution, neglect the demands of justice. Anderson compares it to taxing thieves as a way of giving them an economic incentive not to burglarize your home. If the practice is wrong, the law should treat it as such. "If a firm creates pollution without first entering into an agreement, or if the parties cannot come to an agreement fixing the cost and degree of pollution, then the court system should be used to assess damages," say economists Walter Block and Robert W. McGee.
In fact, that's how American law used to treat pollution. But a series of nineteenth-century nuisance cases changed that: the courts suddenly decided that a certain level of pollution could be allowed for the sake of the greater good. The implication was that if, for example, a few farmers had their property destroyed by passing trains, that was just the price of progress. (Easy for them to say!) These cases allowed private industry to invade the property rights of others and deprived those others of legal recourse. I do not see this as a free-market outcome.*
Imagine if the previous legal approach to pollution had not been overturned, and polluters continued to be legally liable for any such invasive practices. Block and McGee suggest that we would long ago have "begun enjoying a non-pollution-intensive technology where there were no open-ended smokestacks. Instead, these pipes would have led back to chemical cisterns, the latter to capture otherwise errant soot particles."
This approach would also have encouraged the growth of an environmental forensics industry that would allow us to identify those responsible for pollution by determining its exact source, just as DNA evidence now permits us to identify rapists and murderers.

*I do not claim that pollution consisting of a few undetectable particles must be prohibited, or that no airplanes would have the right to travel high above people's homes. These are legitimate matters for the courts, where such matters have been properly decided in the past.

You're right, Sanders does seem to be what I hoped Obama was when I was a lot younger and more naïve and pulled the lever for him 7 years ago.

It seems Obama got a lot of stuff done despite the constant blockades by the republicans who behaved like two year olds during a temper tantrum. By far his biggest mistake was to try to find common ground with these people.

Obama is the President, in the executive branch, meaning that he doesn't create law, which is a power granted to the legislative branch (Congress) in the U.S. constitution. It is not his job to create law; it's the job of the Congress in power (i.e. those Republicans). Granted, the Republicans have acted like big babies for sure, but blockading proposals they do not agree with is their job. It is simply customary for the President to propose an agenda/plan for the country; it is up to the legislation to actually approve/disapprove it and iron out the details. The only real power the President has here is the veto.

Regardless, "finding common ground" with Republicans on legislative issues has little to do with why Obama has failed to live up to expectations. The Obama Administration's Department of Justice, for example, has raided and prosecuted more medical marijuana dispensaries than President Bush. Let's not forget Obama's pre- vs. post-election complete flip-flop on NSA surveillance:

[I.M. Weasel]

Hilldogs going to win the nomination. Back to the same old bullshit.