GOP kidnapped by revolution movement--now the Bern revolution movement is on track to take over the Dems? Is this the end of traditional Americanism??

No Sharia law...also no vigilante law like some crazies on OPP advocate...it seems every nation and every group has its extremists & crazies who insist on their absolutes--who tolerate no checks or balances, no division of powers or separate spheres of decision, no compromise...only their total absolutes. That's totalitarianism and the opposite of 200 years of American practice of government.

craziness

IPNM, you forget that ALL the nations that are REPUBLICS have had two-party politics as the means of WORKABLE CHOICES in government practices. If we had a parliamentary system, it would be workable to have multiple parties focused on specific issues and for coalitions after elections. As Churchill stated, our Western Civilization-originated form of governments has many drawbacks but is the only form of democratic government workable in the long run. Trump does not fit into Churchill's pattern any more than Sander's "revolution" ideas. Hillary Clinton and the Democrats are "progressive" but ironically is the conservatives in this strange election cycle. Actually the Democrats have become today's Federalist, Whig, and Lincoln's Republican party--and the Republicans have become the Jeffersonian more limited government party...in fact, presently the Tea Party faction like the more extreme and "populist" Jacksonians! The reversal of party roles occurred during the Great Depression crisis but did not become defined and recognizable to me until Reagan's 2nd term.

I voted 3 times for Nixon (and would again in retrospect--pragmatically he was the only politician with the credibility to make the "deal" with China that split China from Russia's international communist movement and in doing so ensured the fading and end of international communism). I didn't vote for Goldwater but otherwise voted straight GOP until the 2nd term of Reagan, when I realized the reversal of party roles was definite. I consider myself a true conservative--a Federalist, Whig, Lincoln Republican, & thus Democrat. Nevertheless, I have regarded the GOP presidents elected since with respect and general support.I have remained opposed to extremisms of left and right (although in junior high & high school in Knoxville, TN I was rabidly anti-Truman and rabidly McCarthyite...also as native Michigan yankee was outspoken for school integration & civil rights--acceptable in East Tennessee, which stood with the Union like west Virginia during the Civil War & has remained Republican ever since--Knoxville area Congressional district is only one in nation that has elected a GOP Rep to Congress every election since 1860!). If Sanders had kidnapped the Dem nomination (like Trump did the GOP nomination), I would have voted for the GOP nominee...reluctantly for Cruz...and definitely not for Trump, whom I regard as outside the political spectrum in any Republic.

EEK!

My goodness, what a conspiracy, EE! Scary! EEK! EEEK! EEEEEEEEEEKKK!!!!!!! So scary a theory, EagleEye, to inspire to action! You and your respondents are the only hope of the only "true" America, "true" freedom, and "true" democracy...You and the TPs of both parties!! You and the "true" conservatives and the "true" progressives are the "true" leaders of movements, causes, and principles. The "establishment" people are Rinos and Dinos. You and they are "True" to absolute and immediate implementation of your and their "true" visions! The only thing standing in the way of the perfection of your and their visions is the ignorant, bought, or uncaring people and the traitorous lying corrupt "establishment" who do the buying, take advantage of the people's ignorance, etc., etc.!!

Thank you so much, EagleEye, for seeing like an Eagle and enabling me to see the truth of what you and the "True People" are! How fantastic that you were able to see like an eagle the Establishment's actual Soviet/communist NWO conspiracy led Oful & lyin' Ryan!!! How I admire and hope for the achievement of your and the TPs' vision of totalist change in America through your TP trueisms and absolutisms!!!! You and the TPs are the hope of the immediate and and absolute perfect future!!!! How dare anyone doubt you and the TPs???!!!!!!

LOL LOL LOL

I agree that NL is exaggerating about the "wrongs" of corporations, but then, Tasine, so are you exaggerating about the "wrongs" of government.

Yes, there are flaws and wrongs in private business practices and flaws and wrongs in central govt. practices...but as Winston Churchill said about our form of government, though it has various flaws, it is the best form of govt. despite the imperfections. What lesson should we take from "flaws but best there is"? First, we should disagree with the wrongs and flaws and think how flaws and shortcomings can be corrected and/or improved...and second, we must realize that corrections will also involve flaws and wrongs--and, perhaps depending on how large or even extreme the changes are, the improvements and corrections may be more flawed and wrong than the previous flaws and wrongs...may be or may not be.

Thus, we may indeed disagree with the status quo and be for changes but disagree about what kind of changes or degree of changes or when they should occur. So when should "tolerance" begin? Our form of govt. depends on "tolerance" of change whichever direction and tolerance of the status quo. That doesn't mean "agreement" with the status quo or agreement with the specific changes or all the changes, the degree of changes or the direction of changes, but acceptance of whichever situation in anticipation of "reaction" in the next election or the election thereafter...or the acceptance of advantages of the specific change or lack of change and focus on other issues of shortcoming and/or wrong. Our form of government depends on general trust of the existing situation and assurance that unsatisfactory parts can or will be addressed soon or eventually.

In that regard we can be assured that shortcomings and wrongs will be reacted to and made into issues. And while often the majority is either unconcerned or indifferent or opposed to the degree or the direction of the change or opposed to any change because of commitment to the existing situation or even because of advantage to self or one's group despite disadvantage or wrong to others...despite these and other difficulties for major change, one can be assured in America issues will be made of almost anything--right or wrong, large or small--by individuals or small or general groups or specific interest organizations (NRA. Planned Parenthood,Chamber of Commerce, etc.) or by the political organizations or factions within them that operate at the decision or administrative levels of our several levels of government. Moreover, in America with various levels of decision and action (fed, regional, state, city, district. corporate, govt. departments or specific responsibility and/or expertise, and each of 350,000,000 individuals), not only will various issues be raised but various actions as well as inactions are certain to occur at some of the countless places, levels, or parts of American society and government...and, depending on the effects and reactions, may fade or expand or even become the new status quo.

Thus, unless extremists of one extreme or the other (or both in successive reaction) destroy our form of government in their fanaticism to achieve their notion of perfect society and government (or, more likely, not just that but with the excuse of preventing the other side from from achieving their "wrong" ideal of society and government that they regard as too wrong to allow), each side and each issue and each interest can be assured of its chance and testing and new chances to do better, just not immediately or totally. Moreover (or however), it's not just a matter of what is right or wrong or of what works or does not, it's also a matter of time and situation. In a free society and economy, social and economic circumstances or situation change dramatically over time--sometimes relatively short time and sometimes long and lingering time. The Industrial Revolution changed the social and economic situation and thus the issues & choices of action...and the political parties reversed roles--the Federalist-Whig-Republican Party sequence that favored central government action to advance the economy and financing and industry became the limited central govt. action party against govt. taxation of industry and investment...and the Democrat party that had opposed central govt. action like promoting a national railroad system, etc. became the party of central govt. action to regulate industry and banking and promote the interests of the working class (now called "the middle class). This did not happen all at once, but the Industrial Revolution made those working in factories the new common man whose interests to promote and protect and the farmer common man and former farm economy was transitioning into farm consolidation that today is more or less farm industry and farm corporations in fact though not in name. Nor did it happen all at once nor did we then nor do we necessarily even now realize how changed our situation by mid-twentieth century had become from the economic and social situation in the mid-nineteenth century.

Besides the economic situation change two major landmark social changes--in fact, social revolutions related to but beyond economics--have occurred--the revolution in the status of women and children begun and largely accomplished by the Victorians although flaws and shortcomings continue. That it was a revolution and hallmark of modern and Western Civilization is demonstrated by the art publication phenomenon of the nineteenth century and early twentieth in the UK & America and later in Europe, the chief subject of which was children, the first time in human history that children have been the subject of a civilization's art...also the second chief subject was women--lovely but also independent women. The other revolution has been accomplished in the USA by our peculiar circumstance of plantation and slavery (an exaggerated form of the Old World's fadingmanorial system and serfdom transferred to the New World). The central idea of America was and is equal right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. From the beginning the contradiction between freedom and slavery was realized but accepted as economic and social necessity and existing practice in the hot climate farm (plantation) states. Its wrong was clearly recognized in areas where climate smaller scale self-practiced independent farming was more possible. When slavery was abolished, freedom was achieved but social and economic equality wasn't possible by existing economic circumstances and social equality both from economic and social situation differences, not to mention visible color difference. "Separate but equal" was the accommodation between ideal and circumstances, and it took a century for those circumstances to be changed enough for social shortcomings to fade so that actual equality and often superiority from overcoming existed and the idea of equality could be practiced or become the standard for practice and the wrongs of forced separation and of discrimination corrected, although the effects of inequality and discrimination still affect Black American communities, and a degree of segregation into such communities results from economic circumstances from past wrongs. Nevertheless, we have reached a place where equality and real integration is not just an ideal but can be and is practiced--the first time in history where differences are can be a matter of appreciation rather than separation and discrimination or even taken for granted, not a matter of disagreement or tolerance but of acceptance as ordinary, or appreciated as interesting or even wonderful.

Well, in the hundred years since the Industrial Revolution changed situation and issues, although we did not necessarily recognize the changed situation--since then we are in the middle of another revolution in circumstances, a technical revolution with changed circumstances and new possibilities, new problems and shortcomings to work out as well as old ones remaining and crises and achievements and failures. Much of the disagreements of today will seem irrelevant or foolish in future circumstances.

Besides changes in circumstances and expected advances in American and Western Civilization, the whole world is advancing economically and socially and in hopefully in ideas and government but also possibly disastrous reactions...or something like climate change might involve changes too big and extreme to overcome despite overcoming or surviving social and economic changes. We can only hold on to the ideals and keep trying to achieve them and not panic and go to extremes about disagreements.

While there are abuses in pricing that need guarding and correction, you are correct, SD, that American private enterprise has enabled advances that might not or do not occur in economies with "universal health care." Universal health care gives care but necessarily has to limit the extent (expense) of that care...as our Medicare system demonstrates...good care compared to many nations with universal health care but still limited...still a good deal for the drug companies as providing a guaranteed market for proven treatment drugs, an income base that provides the corporate operational size to enable research & investment for new products in a competitive business.

Obamacare? That was basically a compromise between universal health care and having choice of degree of coverage--with private corporation competition's role continued & a degree of government (our) money subsidizing movement toward universal coverage and at the same time maintaining an income base for private companies and their competition for new and better products--in effect not only a subsidy for the poor to select & have coverage but also providing indirectly income for needed research & products by private business.

Thus, our medical system is, some people say, as much as twice as expensive as in other nations but also the most creative and advancing medical system. As a compromise and muddled system with various flaws, it is considered totally wrong by both TP extremes--and specifically by "True Progressive" Sanders and "true Tea Party" Cruz.

I was diagnosed with Parkinson's a year ago and thus have become personally aware of research and advances being made dealing with brain chemistry and functions that relate to stopping and perhaps reversing cell deterioration in the brain--Parkinson's affecting the part of the brain dealing with movement and balance (and sometimes extending to short-term memory problems similar to Alzheimer's) and Alzheimer's affecting the part of the brain that connects directly to thinking and memory. That new and very complicated and theoretical research and treatments that apply to an ever-growing part of the population as life span keeps expanding is being done here in the huge American medical community...or perhaps with my shorter memory tendencies I have forgotten some reference to European medical market research and advances? ha.

We tend to see and focus on the flaws and shortcomings of the present, which is natural and useful if we think in terms of improving...but in the process we often fail to appreciate what America has accomplished, appreciate what America really is and is attempting to make even better, and what it can accomplish in the future. Well, maybe I am Pollyannish to believe in what America has been, is, and will be instead of being disillusioned and angry and seeing only corruption or even conspiracy because my notions of absolute perfection aren't there.

So it's a question of "true" conservative and "true" liberal? Is it democratic or republican (small letters) to label as Rino and Dino any "moderate" Republican or Democrat who does not toe the "true"? especially when as a matter of fact the question is whether those doing the labeling are so far out that they are the ones who are GOP or Dem "in name only"?

Is it conservative to be for immediate complete reversal of programs and practices in place for 3 generations now, for one third of United States history? and to advocate "lock & load" to get it? Is it liberal to advocate a "revolution" and promise advances that can be made only by by-passing Congress with Presidential dictatorship?

Fact is, the "True Progressives" faction of the Democrat Party is the extremist equivalent of the TP faction in the GOP. Both TP factions are small compared to the party "establishments." It isn't that the "establishments" do not agree with the ideas or ideals of their side's extremists, just that they are aware of existing limitations and possible negatives, are cautious about going too far, and willing to compromise when necessary...thus in the view of the "true" people, uncommitted, untrue, traitors, sell-outs, blah, blah, blah. The extremists of both sides see everything in America as wrong. Both are themselves even more wrong...both because they do not appreciate what America is and because they do not realize their self-righteous "true" extremisms and how far they would go to realize their "truenesses" might destroy America and the hope of future civilization.

Ordinarily the extremists and radicals are a small group who serve the useful function of defining issues and causes and pushing for action--which, however,is doubted, questioned, tested and, in the end, decided by the party "establishment" more aware of limitations, reactions, & workability...and often with some adjustments to the objections of the other party.

The present crisis is that we are in a time of social and economic changes much larger than those resulting from the industrial revolution. The technological revolution has already created economic and social bigness changes that make it seem the sky is falling...and we have all sorts of Chicken Littles squawking that...and others squawking that on the contrary the sky is the limit. In theory we could become serfs or feel like serfs to bigness made possible by automation...or with material needs provided by automation, a new freedom and individualism might be enabled. Either one or some of both is possible. What will be needed will be avoidance of extremes and effort to achieve decisions reserved at each level as practiced in our government--central govt. decision limited sphere of decision with limitations by checks and balances, reserved sphere of decision at separate sections level (states), reserved sphere of decision at separate subsections (counties) level and to corporations (townships, towns, cities, and districts levels within those separate subsections, and reserved power of decision to organizations and groups (companies and organizations), and sphere of decision reserved to individuals. Within that set-up. practiced now for 240 years in these United States, kinks and problems and opportunities from the technological revolution of our day can be worked out and on, so long as we don't panic and allow radicals to push us to rushed extreme decisions.

Y'all have it all wrong. It won't be widespread huge FEMA camps. It will be a few small mental hospitals for people who have a history of mental instability, obsession with guns, and weird notions of persecution and violence. That seems to be the basic idea of "gun control"--not taking guns from hunters or the general public but from the mentally unstable.

Y'all can judge for yourselves whether your conspiracy notions and "lock and load" statements could be regarded as evidence of mental instability and reason to not allow you to have guns.

Gee, do you think the idea of gun control with mentally unstable people is aimed directly at yourselves and a part of the NWO conspiracy??!!!

Awwwww, that's just conspiracy theory. ha. Really!

CK, JHMO, LAP--Glaucon's artile about positive thinking seems to have hit a nerve. Your instinctive response should signal to the 3 of you that you have a problem of attitude you need to address.

Gee whiz..."crony capitalism" & "the elite"...that sounds like Bernie and his "revolution." In the end, whichever extreme prevails, radical right or left, it's insurrection and overturn of the "establishment."

You've heard it said by extreme right that there's no real difference between "Rinos" and the Democrats. And while I haven't noticed it said in so many words, the extreme left (the Deans, Sanders, Warrens wing) seems to think they're the ony true "progressives" as opposed to the "Dinos." The Rinos and Dinos who are willing to compromise and meet in the middle muddle are the "establishment" reviled by both extremes.

Do the two extreme camps realize that their "populist" revolutions to end "the establishment" would also result in the end of our established form of government? Winston Churchill stated, democracy is a flawed form of government, just that it's the best possible when compared to all alternatives. One can agree with many of the ideals & specific proposals both extremes claim to be the only true uncompromising advocates of but still question whens and hows and whethers. Extremes do not tolerate questioning or compromise or limitations or qualifications.

Doc, you apparently do not understand that the internet "news articles" you cite are editorials, not reports of facts. Do YOU comprehend the difference??! ...BTW, you are the one who needs to stop the marginalizing degrading statements. ...Also, if you think "liberalism" is a mental disorder, what should that tell you about your own particular slant on things? Perhaps Doc110 should check with a real doc about this obsession with internet "news media" and their "news articles"?

Vroom...vroooom! Read the CONSTITUTION and educate yourself regarding elected representatives making laws. Government and laws decided by elected representatives are defined as our system of government. The Civil War defined the limits to secession from the constituted government. You 'militia' types don't accept local, state, or national government...much less self government...and probably even much more less 'international' law. Need I remind you that the League of Nations and the subsequent United Nations were constituted by us...the US...with the same concept of government limited to defined spheres of decision & a degree of division of power to make and enforce decisions within those spheres.

I realize the principles of individual, local, state, national, and international spheres of decision is very complicated and difficult to understand and sometimes contradictory or contradicted--not to mention frustrating in practice. Take to heart Winston Churchill's statement that our system of representative government is indeed full of flaws but still in the end the best form of government compared to alternatives.

Nice well-groomed poodle, Vroom. I prefer mutts myself as more congenial (and less pretentious), but poodles do have the advantage of not shedding their fur all over the house. In any case, a choice within the sphere of individual decision so long as my choice doesn't inconvenience neighbors. Now if my choice were a tiger, that decision might be subject to local decision. (In fact, one suburb here is considering a local ordinance banning or regulating 'exotic' animal ownership.) Even ownership of dogs may be subject of local decision or regulation. For example, our younger daughter was fined $350 for the family black lab Lenny's barking when let outside after dark (warned twice)...not here in Green Bay but in a small rural town elsewhere (very small, very rural--wonderful place to live). Local decisions (laws, regs) may sometimes be somewhat arbitrary and 'peculiar.' ha. That's also the case with individual, state, regional, national, international decisions and the agencies that carry them out (bureaucracy). Moreover, the larger the jurisdiction and the further away from the individual the decisions are, the more difficult it is for us to understand the decisions of our 'representatives.' Questioning or trying to persuade change in decisions is the right of any individual and also of any organization or corporation & of any local, state, region, and 'bureau' entity affected by the decision in the larger sphere. Also, perhaps to lesser or larger effect & degree, outside parts may weigh in with opinions.

Disagreement and public protest are legitimate parts regarding decisions, but vigilante action is questionable...though where would we be without the original Tea Party action? What we don't appreciate enough is that the American Revolution was also a British Revolution on British principles and that some British statesmen agreed with the colonies on principle and made decision to accept separation...a wise decision, as it turned out, for the Brit ideals & practices in government...ideals they themselves at the time couldn't put fully into practice but would during the Victorian period...ideals they also passed on in their later colonies in Asia and Africa, which have been the "Free World" parallels among "Third World" nations & models for all Africa and Asia and made possible not only our winning the "Cold World War" but also the assurance for the future of self-government in all nations.