All that said, you could have been slightly more respectful and just said "no, I don't care for the Reform Party". But go ahead and play the victim card instead, you play it often.
More than once you have argued for the federal government to step in when you felt that state governments were doing the wrong thing.
Well, yes. That would be an example of the vertical checks and balances I was mentioning. You wouldn't want, for example, chattle slavery to return.
If you want to talk about slavery, we need to acknowledge that many of the additional "free market reforms" that your friends advocate for bring us much much closer to functional slavery than any other proposals that anyone would bring about.
Though in more immediate application, there are many times when you have called for the federal government to step in and prevent states fro making decisions that you simply don't agree with.
There are many definitions of liberty
One of the side effects of our Progressive setting of emotion over reason is imprecision of language. But that makes it easier for our liberal fascist overlords to keep the people divided and parked on the plantation.
So why is your definition inherently more accurate? Has it occurred to you that differing sets of priorities for "liberties" is not automatically a bad thing? Not everyone thinks that your notion of "freedom" - as applied to the market before the individual - is the most important.
You are pants are on fire?
He's just trying to get a rise out of me by throwing around "lying" (and related terms) without any meaning or support. Nothing to see here.
(a) The GOP has the majority, though that has amounted to roughly shag-all in the way of fiscal sanity.
Even when the GOP did not have numeric majority they were in the driver's seat as they took ownership some time ago of the meanings of "American", "patriotic", and other terms that are key to legislative agendas; they used them against the spineless democrats to silence discussion and progress on anything they disliked.
(b) Democrats have to, you know, reflect the will of the people who are going to turn out for the election. Or not.
Why only them? The GOP has happily flown the bird at the public demands on matters, telling the voters "they know what is best". Furthermore, by "the people" do you mean all of America or just the constituents the senator or representative is elected to represent?
But how do you square your argument with. .
For the first question, Bernie is elected as an independent. He caucuses with the democrats to get things done but is not beholden to the party and represents ideas that are much further to the left than anything the party has dared to offer in years.
For the second question, no he is not a side show. He is a serious candidate.
Federalist is a strange choice of word from you
"Federalist" means understanding that our separation of powers, historically, meant three levels of government in addition to three branches.
That would be a great platform, if only you stuck to it consistently. More than once you have argued for the federal government to step in when you felt that state governments were doing the wrong thing.
Liberty-oriented is, however, just a weasel term in politics.
Liberty-oriented means anti-statist, anti-Progressive, and skeptical of anything the Left has to say.
So then we agree it is indeed just a partisan weasel word. There are many definitions of liberty that do not automatically mean "only what a conservative believes in (this week)".
My team (the reform team)
If by "reform team" you mean the "Reform Party", I will point out that arguably the most successful politician who called himself part of the Reform Party was Jesse "The Blowhard" Ventura. As governor of Minnesota, he primarily taught the state what they could accomplish without him. His platform mostly came down to two soundbites applied as "solutions":
Light rail transport
Other than that, he was just another conservative governor in Minnesota's sad march towards ever-more-conservative governance (until reason took over and they elected one of very few governors who have refused to surrender to ISIS - by the way, this "godless commie sodomite" as you would say is from the same family that started Dayton's and Target).
More to the point, though, Ventura's light rail seems counter to your ambitions of "less government" (even if it was actually launched with the intention of driving the transit authority bankrupt), and eliminating half of the legislature seems like it would counter your ambitions to make sure that the US senate would always be available as a conservative counter to anything that the house aspires to.
While the last 7 years have shown the GOP to be substantially equivalent to the [...] Democrat party
In reality that statement is completely backwards. The GOP hasn't moved anywhere but further to the right. The Democrats have given up on the left entirely and followed the GOP to the right. Again, if we actually look at facts we will see this to be the case; The Lawnchair Administration has made administrative decisions that are more conservative than any that came from the Reagan Administration. Reagan, Bush, Nixon, Ford, etc all look liberal now not because they were in any way liberal but because the current POTUS is so extremely conservative in action.
Republicans [...] the work of restoring a capitalist, federalist, liberty-oriented system in these United States.
Capitalist? I'm pretty sure we should be able to agree on what that means. And the simple fact is that President Lawnchair has signed off on more capitalist-driven "solutions" than did any before him, most notably the Heritage-foundation influenced HIIBA 2010 "health care reform" bill.
Federalist is a strange choice of word from you, though. Wouldn't federalist be an action favoring the federal government? A few weeks ago - with the exception of your request to vastly expand the house of representatives - you were very strongly opposed to a strong federal government. Are you just following your buddy Trump in favoring sweeping new federal powers now?
Liberty-oriented is, however, just a weasel term in politics. Just because your team claims ownership of it doesn't mean they have exclusive rights to declare what it means. Your "liberty-oriented" initiatives very plainly oppress the liberties of certain other people.
My team (the reform team) has yet to inhabit the White House.
But yet you celebrate every GOP victory. You keep telling us how much better the policies that President Lawnchair has supported were when they were instead supported by GWB, GHWB, or Reagan. To claim there have not been presidents whose actions support your ideals is being petty.
It's been variations on the theme of Progressive, statist tools (with the notable exception of Reagan) this last century
We have already established using actual facts that President Lawnchair is demonstrably more conservative than Reagan, so you need to add him to that list. Along with both Presidents Bush, President Nixon, and President Ford (to barely get started).
I am saying they are not economically powerful.
So, who staffs the IRS, BLS, DOJ, &c
Public sector unions - who don't even count the majority of public sector employees in their membership - have vanishingly little (arguably none, in fact) influence on any of those.
The IRS was attempting to do its job of collecting taxes and that somehow made you and other conservatives mad when they looked at people who were trying to apply for tax exempt status while encouraging people to outright cheat on taxes.
The BLS is basically just a statistics department. They evaluate the numbers, and publish them. Your mail carrier has as much power over federal decision making.
The DOJ is largely still staffed with carry-overs from the GWB administration, as they match President Lawnchair's conservative economic agenda. Ordinarily it largely gets flipped with each presidential administration, and if we had an actual liberal POTUS currently it would have been flipped somewhat at the start of his.
How can one be an incompetent tool and an evil mastermind simultaneously?
I think #SillyHashTag tends toward 'tool' on foreign policy, and evil master baiter on domestic issues.
How could he be "an evil master" on domestic issues when he hasn't done anything in response to any of them?
There is no economically powerful lobby supporting single payer
Are you saying public sector unions do not exist?
I am saying they are not economically powerful. You can't honestly say that your party has not been constantly assaulting every union from every front for the past several decades. There is a reason why union membership in this country is at its lowest in decades, and it is the same reason why the economic disparity between the lowest paid workers and the highest paid executives is the greatest it has ever been. As union membership continues to dwindle, their economic power continues to dwindle as well. They have about as much clout in DC right now as the group that wants to preserve the penny.
Interesting that you have had such an about-face on President Lawnchair. You put a lot of energy in to telling the world what a mad power grabber he has been, and how he has been preparing the world for the ultimate takeover by communist atheist anarchist reptoid illuminati. You tell us about all these awful things he has personally done to make your life awful. Now you claim he is the one being manipulated?
You behave as though these two concepts are mutually exclusive.
How can one be an incompetent tool and an evil mastermind simultaneously?
She is very clear on this
The only thing very clear about Her Majesty is an insatiable lust for power.
If that statement is correct, then she has no choice but to remain opposed to single payer throughout her career. There is no economically powerful lobby supporting single payer, and this country will never see one.
Seriously. #SillyHashTag is an example of a tool.
Interesting that you have had such an about-face on President Lawnchair. You put a lot of energy in to telling the world what a mad power grabber he has been, and how he has been preparing the world for the ultimate takeover by communist atheist anarchist reptoid illuminati. You tell us about all these awful things he has personally done to make your life awful. Now you claim he is the one being manipulated? Is this just your observation that the clock is running out and none of your conspiracies will materialize? Too bad comments aren't deleted here (although of course eventually slashdot will just collapse upon itself).
We also know that Hillary Clinton, should she be elected POTUS, would never sign single payer into law either. Those are non-negotiable facts.
How do you refer to a potential future event as a non-negotiable fact?
Because there is no potential future event where she would do anything else.
First of all, she has many times taken a stance against single-payer. She is very clear on this, she does not support single payer.
Second, she is very heavily funded by wall street and insurance interests, who all oppose single payer. She would not dare take an action that would be so opposite their stands.
But even if she were to get hit in the head by a flying toilet and forget how she got there (assuming she ever were elected POTUS, which is far from certain), there is still the fact that there is almost no chance of single payer ever being presented to her as a bill. Look at the US senate election for 2016 (in spite of your consistent opposition to letting people vote in this themselves). There are 34 seats up for election in 2016, of which 10 are democrats. If the democrats completely swept the election (not a chance in hell), they would end up with 68 seats in the senate. The GOP would still be able to hold up bills like this as long as they want, and would still be able to terrorize democrats by calling them "Un-American" for proposing anything they don't agree with. Even then, the democrats would need to pull it off before the 2018 senate elections and they'd need to win enough of the house to make it happen. There is a better chance of you being named the next Tzar of Russia than those events happening.
namely single-payer healthcare and a lawnchair-driven attack on Benghazi - have never happened
And it will take continual vigilance (the price of liberty) to maintain this assertion.
In the case of the former, we already know with absolute certainty that single-payer health care at the federal level won't happen under the Lawnchair Administration; we have known this since at least 2010 when HIIBA 2010 was signed into law. We also know that Hillary Clinton, should she be elected POTUS, would never sign single payer into law either. Those are non-negotiable facts.
In the case of the latter, as you are now admitting that indeed there was no lawnchair-driven (or lawnchair-sponsored) attack on Benghazi, why do we need to keep wasting money on additional "investigations" in to it?
Within the scope of Syria, Turkey is a major regional power, supporting their Turkmen allies, as the article points out.
Sure, but the Turkmen don't seem to aspire to take over all of Syria - and indeed many are known for avoiding engagements against the Syrian army. It would seem that at most the Syrian Turkmen just want to be able to retain the parts of Syrian where they have lived for the past several centuries. This seems to make it hard to really say that Turkey has strong interests in Syria as a whole (aside from preventing ISIS from taking over the whole place).
God is real, unless declared integer.