Discussion (9)¬

1. Macushla Bubbe says:

   October 25, 2011 at 1:24 am

   Thank you for the link to that outstanding commentary by Lawrence O'Donnell, Darrin! I don't have cable/dish network, so I would have missed it. Can't believe all the lefty Facebook pages I subscribe to hasn't posted it on Facebook– so I posted it on my wall.

2. jonthebru says:

   October 23, 2011 at 11:45 pm

   I get it, the brainwashed teabag Obstructionist constituency is frickin' nuts. For real.
   The best part is that none of them will get elected President. And even better, it will take so much money that no sane candidate can get into the race and be able to earn enough money to play in the game.
   We need campaign finance reform, we need to shut the revolving door of lobbyists and Legislative aides. And we need to stop the undue influence that large corporations have over our government.
   These remarkably are not new thoughts or ideas but only recently have they entered the mainstream thanks to some very brave American Patriots. Lets all help them.

   • Darrin Bell says:

     October 26, 2011 at 9:35 am

     Unless we get a constitutional amendment ridding our elections of private money and declaring once and for all that corporations are not people, the right-wing Supreme Court will kill any efficacious campaign finance reform.

3. Jim says:

   October 23, 2011 at 4:05 pm

   Those audience members were insane, no doubt. And many of the GOP candidates are nuts as well. There is, thankfully, one rational candidate running; Gary Johnson. He's pro-gay rights, pro-choice, anti-war, pro-civil liberties, and for fiscal responsibility. He's better than any Republican running, and in my opinion, better than Obama.

   • Darrin Bell says:

     October 26, 2011 at 9:33 am

     Two things about Gary Johnson: (1) He's worth looking at, and (2) He'll never be nominated by the Teapublican Party.

     • Jim says:

       October 27, 2011 at 2:34 am

       If Johnson were to run as an independent or third party candidate, would you consider voting for him?

       • Darrin Bell says:

         October 27, 2011 at 2:35 pm

         No. There hasn't been a third party victor since Abraham Lincoln (and in that case, he had a large and growing party/movement behind him). Every third party candidate since then has been nothing but a spoiler. Voting for Johnson, or Nader, or whomever, would be the same as voting for Mitt Romney.

         • Jim says:

           October 27, 2011 at 3:37 pm

           Well, no offense, but that kind of attitude against independents and third party candidates just prevents REAL change from happening and ensures that the American people will keep getting screwed over.

         • @candorville says:

           October 27, 2011 at 11:29 pm

           No, that attitude recognizes that we don't live in a parliamentary democracy where third parties get to form coalition governments. We live in a winner take all system, in which third parties can't be any more than spoilers in federal elections. The only way to change that, short of introducing a parliament, is to amend the constitution to replace our system of voting with ranked voting. In the meantime, third parties can get their people elected to local positions more easily, and get the ball rolling; but they never seem to make much of an effort there.

           That requires a lot of groundwork by members of a third party, groundwork they usually don't do. Instead they seem to come out of nowhere every four years and rail against the two parties, and suggest there must be something wrong with voters who choose not to consider a candidate who represents a third party that has no real power base, very little breadth, and hasn't put in the work the republican party of the mid 1800's did to build a credible movement.

           When Libertarians and other third parties do what the GOP did and win state and Congressional elections to build a power base, then voting for one of them for president won't be throwing your vote away. Until then, it is.