Page 1 of 1 [ 13 posts ] 

Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,044
Location: Seattle

07 Jan 2014, 9:14 pm

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_ ... ponsoredd2

On politics:

Quote:
“I’ll be honest with you, I was a little naïve in 2000,” says Schweitzer. “The system’s changed since then. It’s gotten a lot worse. I found that being a member of Congress means your only job is to get re-elected. History will judge you by how many times you get re-elected, and you get re-elected by raising money. You raise it from insurance, from pharmaceutical, from big energy, and from the military-industrial complex.”


On Snowden:
Quote:
If Edward Snowden is a criminal, then so are a lot of people that are working within the CIA and the NSA who have been spying illegally on American citizens. They ought to grant Snowden clemency. Now, let me say this: Shame on us if we had a person working for a private contractor, without a high school diploma, who was in possession of our most delicate secrets. We look like Keystone Kops! But I don’t have any problem with the NSA and their mission of collecting information on foreign leaders. They spy on us; we spy on them. I’ve got a real big problem with American neighbors spying on American neighbors.


On the Middle East:
Quote:
The Iranian deal makes sense. We linked up with the Saudis before and after World War II. Look, unlike virtually every member of Congress, I have a pretty good firsthand knowledge of the Middle East. The day after I got out of graduate school, after I defended my thesis, I went straight to Libya. I was there for a year; I was in Saudi Arabia for seven. I learned to speak Arabic. I can explain to you, in a way that almost no one else in the country can, the difference between a Sunni and a Shia. I can explain to you who and what the Wahhabis are in Saudi Arabia. I can talk to you about why we, the United States, initially got involved with the Saudi royal family, what we got out of the deal. I can explain to you why we knew Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. We knew, because we supplied chemical weapons to him so he could poison the Iranians. The Iranians are Persian, not Arab; they haven’t got along for several thousand years.

So we’ve had a bad history with Iran because of what we did in 1953, replacing an elected official with a dictator. If we can build a relationship that’s a little more even-handed, if we can get them to back away from their nuclear ambition—let’s face it, their neighbors don’t even like that—if we were to step up and said we’re no longer just going to take the Saudis’ position all the time, you don’t have to worry about us attacking you from Afghanistan or Iraq, if you agree to back away from your nuclear ambitions, we’ll be neutral.


On drug legalization:
Quote:
Well, here’s what I can say. Each society has to make choices about what’s against the law. You have a large percentage of the population that’s already using this. The war on drugs is another war that appears to have been lost. This experiment with prohibition of marijuana doesn’t seem have to been working. Colorado might have it more right than the rest of us.


On the ACA:
Quote:
I will give you not just how this thing should have been written, but what it will get to be, because what we have right now will not work. No. 1: You pass national health insurance laws that say you can’t discriminate against women, charge them higher premiums than men of the same age, you can’t discriminate against people with pre-existing conditions, you can’t have annual caps. Then you allow insurance companies to compete wherever they want, in any state. Boom. The second thing is, you say to every citizen in the United States, now you have the option to buy into Medicare.

We just need to act like capitalists, not socialists. We need to negotiate to buy medicine. Now, what’s interesting is that the detractors hear that and say—this is like socialized medicine. No! Are you kidding me? France, the United Kingdom: They negotiate like capitalists to buy their medicine. The United States? We say to the pharmaceutical companies, how much would you like this for? We continue to pay them three times what they sell the same medicines for all over the world. Right after the bill was passed, big pharma was running ads for all the Democrats who voted for this thing. Even in Montana. What’d they get out of it? They now have a lot more money.


It's a good interview all around, well worth reading in the entirety. I hope he runs, cause Hillary isn't an option for me, I don't see anyone on the Republican side that looks too promising, and as much as I'd like to see a Gary Johnson presidency, I don't see that happening absent something apocalyptic befalling the current political system.


_________________
Murum Aries Attigit


Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Age: 28
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,367
Location: Permanently banned by power tripping mods lol this forum is trash

07 Jan 2014, 10:04 pm

Schweitzer is big on socialized medicine, he's misrepresenting his position. He's pretty solid a lot of other issues tho, was opposed to REAL ID too. If the Dems were smart he'd be their candidate in 2016 but I think they're going the Hilary direction.



Tim_Tex
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Jul 2004
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 45,669
Location: Houston, Texas

08 Jan 2014, 1:33 am

The one I could vote for is Joe Manchin.


_________________
Who’s better at math than a robot? They’re made of math!


The_Walrus
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 24
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,550
Location: Reading, England

08 Jan 2014, 5:23 am

Jacoby wrote:
Schweitzer is big on socialized medicine, he's misrepresenting his position.

You'll notice that he's saying "socialised" medicine has some benefits traditionally associated with capitalism, because most countries with free healthcare don't have the government producing everything. Negotiating for everything drives prices down further when the contract is bigger. That's part of the reason why healthcare spending is lower in the UK and France and, well, everywhere, than in the USA.



jrjones9933
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 May 2011
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,280
Location: The end of the northwest passage

08 Jan 2014, 1:02 pm

I agree with what he said, more or less.



Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,985
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

08 Jan 2014, 1:06 pm

Jacoby wrote:
Schweitzer is big on socialized medicine, he's misrepresenting his position. He's pretty solid a lot of other issues tho, was opposed to REAL ID too. If the Dems were smart he'd be their candidate in 2016 but I think they're going the Hilary direction.


Don't start with the H word already.

Image


_________________
“Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views.”
- William F. Buckley


sonofghandi
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Apr 2007
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,672
Location: Cleveland, OH (and not the nice part)

08 Jan 2014, 1:22 pm

Dox47 wrote:
I hope he runs, cause Hillary isn't an option for me, I don't see anyone on the Republican side that looks too promising, and as much as I'd like to see a Gary Johnson presidency, I don't see that happening absent something apocalyptic befalling the current political system.


^that is exactly where I am. There are few still standing on the Dem or Repub side that I have even a tiny bit of respect for. Gary Johnson would definitely be my #1 choice, but his realistic views are not appealing to major sources of campaign funding. Give me practicality over preaching any day.


_________________
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently" -Nietzsche


Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 40,576
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

08 Jan 2014, 2:21 pm

Dox - -
You're going to have a heart attack, but I actually agree with you! I sincerely like Schweitzer - though I doubt he'd have a chance against Hilary, which is too bad. And speaking as a German American, it would be nice to have a President with a German name, since Eisenhower.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,985
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

08 Jan 2014, 2:37 pm

Schweitzer has an NRA "A" rating which is one good thing, as long as he holds to it. I have mixed feelings about his stand on other issues, some good some not so good.
In some ways he might be better than some of the candidates the GOP has propped up in the past two elections.


_________________
“Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views.”
- William F. Buckley


Misslizard
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Jun 2012
Age: 55
Gender: Female
Posts: 13,895
Location: Aux Arcs

08 Jan 2014, 2:54 pm

Raptor wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
Schweitzer is big on socialized medicine, he's misrepresenting his position. He's pretty solid a lot of other issues tho, was opposed to REAL ID too. If the Dems were smart he'd be their candidate in 2016 but I think they're going the Hilary direction.


Don't start with the H word already.

Image

Cool!I wonder if Hillary is in Slytherin?


_________________
"Security is mostly a superstition.It does not exist in nature,nor do the children of men as a whole experience it.Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure.Life is either a daring adventure,or nothing." Helen Keller


American
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jan 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 285

08 Jan 2014, 4:57 pm

The problem is that a Democrat in the Senate will vote with their fellow Democrats on almost every important issue except gun control (and, even then, none other then Joe Manchin was leading the charge). Mark Begich voted for Obamacare. So, regardless of how many issues the candidate gets right, if he has a D next to his name, don't send him to the Senate.



Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Age: 28
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,367
Location: Permanently banned by power tripping mods lol this forum is trash

08 Jan 2014, 5:02 pm

American wrote:
The problem is that a Democrat in the Senate will vote with their fellow Democrats on almost every important issue except gun control (and, even then, none other then Joe Manchin was leading the charge). Mark Begich voted for Obamacare. So, regardless of how many issues the candidate gets right, if he has a D next to his name, don't send him to the Senate.


Absolutely, even the supposedly principled Dennis Kucinich was swayed to vote for Obamacare after he let him have a ride on Air Force One.



American
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jan 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 285

08 Jan 2014, 5:13 pm

Jacoby wrote:
American wrote:
The problem is that a Democrat in the Senate will vote with their fellow Democrats on almost every important issue except gun control (and, even then, none other then Joe Manchin was leading the charge). Mark Begich voted for Obamacare. So, regardless of how many issues the candidate gets right, if he has a D next to his name, don't send him to the Senate.


Absolutely, even the supposedly principled Dennis Kucinich was swayed to vote for Obamacare after he let him have a ride on Air Force One.


The House is a different story. There are dozens of Democrats in the House willing not to go along with every loony Democrat legislation, such as Obamacare (there were a lot more of these Democrats in 2010 than there are now). However, I don't think Kucinich was never a viable defector. The big problem is that the House passed a version of Obamacare (which includes new taxes) that originated in the Senate, even though the Constitution explicitly requires revenue raising legislation to originate in the House. But then again, the Constitution also gives the federal government limited, enumerated powers and prohibits the government from infringing on "the right of the people to keep and bear arms." And who in Washington D.C. takes any of that seriously?