I do, he said very clearly in a recent interview that he does not believe everyone is entitled to an education. That offends me. He has also made it blatantly obvious he doesn't want the government doing anything for it's people, which would send us right back to a pre-FDR 2 class system.

He also made it clear that he wants people doing things for other people, and used his own service as a doctor working for $3/hr as an example.

Then he's not just insane, he's incredibly naive. People are never going to just "do things for other people". I'd love to live in a world where just help each other out of the goodness of their hearts. It's never going to happen. We're predators by nature. That's why we need a larger predator to keep the more powerful ones in check.

Some (hopefully many) people will. And the more localized your strongest source of government is, the more people that will. It's much more compelling to help people you actually know, than those who live 3000 miles away.

The rest are to be kept in check by economic competition (the government's role in the economy is to enforce anti-monopoly restrictions, and not anything else). Instead of making a pyramid of predators and trusting blindly that those at the top of the food chain will be friendly, you force competition within the ecosystem to keep things balanced.

That all sounds wonderful. It's too bad the real world doesn't actually work that way.

This is relevant to my interests.

After reading that, it seems like the government does a lot in that country. For Christ sake, they own the entire rail system. That would be considered socialism by our standards!

Look at their economic policies.

The railroad situation isn't ideal from my perspective, but the more local the government, the better. Compare their population to some US states.

That was going to be my next argument. They have a much smaller and more homogenous population than we do. There's a much smaller base in which corporations can farm for cash, and much less reason for people to dislike each other. You ever step foot in an American city? No-one helps each other. When times are especially tough, they'll even mug or try to kill you for your money. That's why we need government intervention. Without it, the rich will get richer while the poor suffer and die, killing each other over mouthfuls of water and crumbs of food.

You're taking entirely the wrong lesson out of this. We want small pockets of government over relatively small and homogenous populations. The federal government's only job in the economy should be to ensure competition and break up monopolistic practices so the rich can't get richer through economic abuse.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly#Monopoly_versus_competitive_markets

Economics: I don't think you understand how they work.

Local government sounds nice, but what happens when some local governments stop providing for and protecting their citizens as a result of corporate influence(it's much easier to buy a smaller government than a larger one)? You get the same rich get richer, poor get poorer effect, ultimately leading us back to a dual class system.

That said, if you really want local government, why would you even consider associating with Republicans? They've done nothing but consolidate power at the highest levels, imposing broad federal legislation like the Patriot Act and taking over small governments that don't go along with their own agenda(Michigan anyone?). At least a liberal government(ideally) would give power to the people, not the gentry.

Yup. We are in for some class warefare. The rich and the corporations represented by the republicans and the poor and middle class represented by the Democrats. If the republicans win it will be time to move to another country. I even heard on the news that one state is trying to repeal the child labor laws so that companies can have a source of cheap labor. That is just plain evil!

Oh God yes. And he forcibly took down a mural, from the department of labor, because depicted the labor movement. Godwin's law notwithstanding, these people are Nazis; they maintain their power through propaganda and impose their own social agenda on the people.

And your saying the Dem's don't do the same? Are you serious, Rachael Madow is just as bad if not worse than her Republican counterparts in Glen Beck and similar. Both parties have their crazies and ignoring this is just showing how ignorant you truly are. I am really getting tired of this Democrats can't do no wrong that comes out of you when both sides are just as guilty of F'ing up things in this country. Not to mention the fact that things just are not that black and white and unless your states representatives are idiots they will not just blindly vote the party line but actually try and do what is better for their state. If you disagree with their view of what is the best path to follow then inform them of your opinion and/or vote them out of office.

It is fine to discuss what you think the path is on this forum but calling people Nazis is irrelevant to the issue and does nothing for the conversation. None of our representatives are members of "National Socialist German Workers' Party" and trying to label them as such is just dumb.

Also keep in mind there is more to politics than republican and democrat and just because someone is running under the title of one or the other doesn't mean they don't hold more libertarian or socialist views, let alone liberal and conservative. The world is not black and white and there is more than one way to skin a cat so to speak.

I never said it was black and white, or that dems are perfect. Everyone makes mistakes, but after following this from multiple sources for years now, it's become apparent that dems make mistakes while trying to help people, while the GOP makes mistakes in it's quest to help the rich. The Ryan budget plan(which every Republican in the house of representatives minus 4, voted for) is a perfect example of this. It gives the rich ginormous undeserved tax breaks for no f--king reason while completely destroying medicare and medicaid(you know, those pesky programs that help poor and old people) to pay for it. Even then, it still adds nearly 6 trillion to the deficit before lowering it at all. It's asinine by any reasonable person's standards, and it's become the standard of the white right. As for calling them Nazis, that refers specifically to the leaders who have gained the most power, and subsequently abused the living hell out of it in ways never before thought possible(you know, like the PATRIOT ACT or that dictatorship that's been established in Michigan). Completely taking over smaller governments and removing the rights of citizens is what the Nazis did. I'm sorry, that's just historical fact. If you don't like it, go join the conservative Texas school-board so you can change that part of history too.

And don't be dissing Maddow. There is a difference (although a small mind won't see it) between fact-checked complex logical arguments and the ramblings of a madman.

I've tried to be reasonable, but what Republican leaders have proposed and the behavior they've exhibited(earth-shattering record number of filibusters anyone?) has gone far beyond reason. Even my once die-hard conservative father can no longer stand by this insanity.

http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/2011/04/26/the-american-parliament-our-nations-10-political-parties/

The bottom third of the image is what America actually wants (Democratic and Republican citizens alike), the upper 3/8ths of the right half is what America actually gets (Democratic and Republican politicians alike). In either case, the candidates I support run in that buttom 5/8ths of the right half, which is exclusively Republican territory. Restrain your vitriol, which is not helpful to a productive discussion of politics, or this topic will end up getting locked.

Uh, maybe you're having trouble reading this but most of the democrats are in that bottom half(only one small minority finds intself in that upper half, and surprise, their the ones I disagree with), with half the Republicans in the upper half. The ones you claim we get appear primarily in today's Republican party. Most democrats are in that bottom half, even if they're not in that bottom right you prefer, they still aren't the fascists that make up half the other side.

Sorry, I meant "upper 5/8ths". The only Democrats who ever get elected are the Blue Dogs and the New Democrats. On the right, and in the upper 5/8ths. When was the last time you heard of a Green or a real Progressive getting elected?

[edit]
Just to help undifferentiate this fine folks for you, we have here:

Trump the Democrat flirting with a Republican nomination: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/04/27/politics/washingtonpost/main20057806.shtml
McCain-the-almost-Democrat who got a Republican nomination: http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/10351.html
and of course we have Hillary, President of the Wellesley Young Republicans.

Al Franken? Chris Coons?

Okay, and Ron Paul is a true libertarian. So that leaves...3 people in the bottom half of the chart between two legislative bodies with a combined population over 500. Being generous and assuming there might 2 others that leaves 99% of the elected officials in that upper 5/8ths.

If you do some research and can get me down to 98% I'll be impressed. 95% and I'll be shocked.