Shouldn't the moderates on both the right and the left be prepared to denounce and refute the extremists within their own camps as much as denouncing and refuting the extremists on the opposing sides ?

Here's an apocalyptic vision, Daffy Donald Trump as US president in a dispute with well known war criminal and dictator of Russia Putin, the blighter with the smallest penis in all of Russia... ( not to be confused with our WebDiplomacy Putin.. The war criminal Putin makes our WebDiplomacy Putin look like a model of intellectual capability and philosophical moderation so I don't see how anyone could confuse the two but it has reportedly occurred )

The whole point of the ACA was to try to make sure everyone has access to healthcare. I think 'no one willing to insure you' shouldn't preclude you from medical treatment, which was effectively the case before the ACA.

Since you disagree that private insurers should have to insure everybody, unless you believe that people can't get insurance should go bankrupt for going to hospital, then there should be something that the government has to do.

What in your opinion is that?

Bernie says he votes for Hillary in November :)
@BBCBreakings tweet: https://twitter.com/BBCBreaking/status/746308614130917376?s=09

I disagree with just about everything Bernie has done in the last month-ish so that really doesn't change much for me.

"Forcing people to buy insurance allows insurance companies to demand insane prices that consumers wouldn't otherwise have paid for. "

Not if they are competing with each other for business. Which seems to be how things are working out... Of course if they behave in a way which acts like a cartel to fix prices, that would be illegal.

It is not as good as having the government negotiate on behalf of the people, like medicare and medicaid, (who get better deals on things because they can buy in bulk or not purchase at all)... but it's better than people getting screwed.

" Yes, in a free market, the insurance companies should be able to refuse insuring anyone they want."

So you don't want to see people being free to make wise investments and create new jobs and business? Interesting position.

"No, I will not move to Mexico or Canada..." - so you are freely making a choice to pay for your health insurance. I don't see the issue with your liberty.

""Forcing people to buy insurance allows insurance companies to demand insane prices that consumers wouldn't otherwise have paid for. "

Not if they are competing with each other for business. Which seems to be how things are working out... Of course if they behave in a way which acts like a cartel to fix prices, that would be illegal."

This is not entirely true. As a company, your best price is decided partially by the willingness of clients to buy the product and partially by your competitors.
Since the willingness of clients to buy the product is a non-factor since they have no choice, the only factor they have to consider is the competitors. This means that the negative effects to the amount of products sold is less when the prices increase than if the consumers had a choice not to buy at any company.
Basic economics.

That's part of why the Americans are still screwed compared to us as far as I know.

The rights of insurance companies do not supersede the rights of the poor, disabled, and others that cannot adequately cover their medical expenses, regardless of what the reason may be. Period. End of story.

If you are so upset that insurers are being disadvantaged through comprehensive healthcare reform, maybe you and your right-wing comrades should stop putting up so much resistance against single payer. Then we get the good of the ACA without the bad, and all you have to do is buy a few less items a year off the Dollar Menu at McDonald's in order to pay for it. (Or, better yet, pay for it by reducing careless spending elsewhere in government, but either works for me.)

George Will Leaves the G.O.P. Over Donald Trump.
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/06/26/us/politics/george-will-leaves-the-gop-over-donald-trump.html?referer=

Donald's speech at the Wall :)
https://youtu.be/CVvPPQ3SvAQ

Between a crook and a clown, the third party ticket has never looked better. Two successful governors.Both the Republicans and the Democrats deserve a good slap in the face for giving such shoddy, unethical, and even criminal candidates.

That is the Libertarian party has a presidential and vice presidential candidate who have both served as governors. They aren't perfect. I could not vote for a former Secretary of State who mishandled sensitive information, nor will I vote for a media buffoon attempting to play shock Jock for votes. My fear is that people on the democratic will not abandon Hillary. Our system desperately needs for people on both sides to refuse to support the established party. Once that happens, then the people will once again start to regain some power in this country.

Sadly, Gary Johnson doesn't stand a chance. He needs a constant stream of media coverage to stand a chance, and he's just not getting it.

That's the attitude that keeps things from changing. Imagine if the Libertarians went from 3% to 33% and people ignored the media. It doesn't take that much gray matter to use the internet and look up three candidates. Side by side Johnson is the clear choice. If we stop looking at a vote for Libertarians as throwing our votes away, things could change. For 6 years, we've had two parties so concerned about not letting the other side "win" that we all lose.

I agree. I prefer Johnson. But the mainstream media pretends like Clinton and Trump are our options and do very little to report on third parties. That has to change before Johnson has a shot at winning. He needs to stay in the public eye constantly to win.

Maybe not, we all have the outlet of the internet and social media now. It is clearly a choice of a Crook, a Clown, or an experienced Governor.

If change is quiet, the status quo will have the advantage. For example the 1948 election. Dewey was likely to win, and it made sense. He faced an unpopular incumbent who faced challenges within his own party (Dixiecrats) that threatened to split the vote. This should have helped the Republican chances considerably, so Dewey didn't want to risk his shot by doing something stupid. So he became bland and without many notes to be said of him. The incumbent won because the challenge from the different party was not strong or loud enough.

Think about it like this, I have never voted Libertarian before. Have you? That's a little bit of change right there. Do you think it would be hard to talk a few people you know into abandoning such pathetic choices as the Hillary and Trump? Abandon the idea that a third party candidate can't win. I don't know about you, but if my vote sends the message that I hate both the democratic and republican machines in this country, I wouldn't consider it a wasted vote no matter what the outcome. In fact it would be the most meaningful vote I have ever cast.

I understand, but I also think that giving in is no way to effect any change at all. The only reason that I would vote for Trump would be to attempt to keep Hillary out of office. That's piss poor reasoning for voting for a world leader, and I reject it. If the majority of the people in this country want either Hillary or trump then so be it. I will not participate in the ascension of either.

That puts me squarely in the "reasonable" conservative category that peterlund hopes for. I hope for reasonable democrats that would prefer a sane conservative over a crooked liberal. I mean it is the Chief Executive of our country we are deciding upon. Are there really people out there who would prefer an unethical candidate simply because she favors some of the same issues? Being looked into for possible criminal charges BEFORE you're elected hardly makes you a good choice for president. I am sure that there are people who plan to vote for Hillary simply to keep Trump out of office. Why not vote for the best candidate instead of the lesser of two evils?

Also, media aren't going to cover Johnson as long as the group of people who would actually vote for him is far too small.

Giving the ball to the media won't cause change because they show what the general public wants to see. The public, including you, has to want it, 'demand' it.

I believe that Trump is a physical danger to me and my kids and the rest of the world, so I prefer ANYONE else to get elected regardless of the use of private email servers or not. Hillary is the safest card to put your money on to stop this maniac from being elected.

How so? Do you think he's going to go up to you and punch you?

Clinton is more of a warhawk than Trump.

Cough, State Department promotion of downfall of Gadaffi under Clinton, cough

Don't trust that man with the big red nuke button, nor do I trust him to have any chance at all to work as a leader in NATO. This are two major security threats to the World. :(

People who think Clinton is "safe" for the world are insane and need to do their research on her. She's as hawkish as they come. She pandered for war on basically every possible occasion as Secretary of State - you know, the department that's supposed to oppose giving the Pentagon undue influence by creating more international conflict. She wanted Iraq, she wanted war in Libya and Syria. She will be the first to escalate things with China, which would be awful for the US, and first to eradicate peace agreements and diplomatic ties established by Obama. Trump wouldn't do any of those things, not because he's not a hothead with the shortest of short fuses (is that a subtle joke about his dick?) but simply because he doesn't give a fuck about them.

The idea that the United States, the most powerful nation in the world *by far*, is on the cusp of electing one of either an incompetent foreign policy idiot in Trump or the biggest warhawk since LBJ in the first point in time since WWII that peace actually has a chance to prevail over endless war around the globe is pretty fucked up.

NATO and the world don't want an isolationist dove in the white house. That would open up completely to the aggressive Russia. We need a competent president that can handle Russia and world affairs in general and that knows how to balance "hawkiness" and "doveiness" in order to achieve a good end result peace and freedom for as many as possible.