anyone up for Jeb?

[callmeslick]

I am hearing(anecdotal, sources are not registered Repubs, but Independants) that registered Republicans in New Hampshire are getting called with the following push-poll:

1. If Mitt Romney were the eventual GOP nominee, would you-
a. support strongly
b. support somewhat
c. not support.

2. If Newt Gingrich were the eventual nominee, etc, etc.

3. If Jeb Bush were the eventual nominee, etc, etc


could it be that Jeb senses an opening? If so, do you think he could win the nomination, getting in so late?
I am of the opinion that if no splinter candidate runs in the General(not altogether unlikely), Jeb could beat Obama by 10 points,
as opposed to every other current member of the GOP field, who would lose by varying amounts, according to most reliable polls.
Any thoughts?

[CUDA]

God help TC is another Bush get's elected. we'd need to put her on a Suicide watch

[Zuruck]

Aren't two of the same family enough? If Obama loses he loses, but jesus how about some fresh blood?

[Tunnelcat]

God help TC is another Bush get's elected. we'd need to put her on a Suicide watch

Well, Jeb is a smidgen smarter than his brother GW, but like Zuruck said, we need some fresh blood that isn't from the same stale perpetually elected political family tree, and who's not tainted by the power disease in Washington.

[Kilarin]

Ron Paul is actually in the LEAD in Iowa right now. But they skip him entirely and bring in Jeb. <sigh>

[flip]

If Ron Paul were elected he would definitely bring a new perspective in a way that couldn't be ignored. The only argument I hear against him is his wish to focus energies at home to rebuild and strengthen America again, and any of his so-called radical ideas would be impossible to accomplish on his own anyways. Ron Paul is there at just the right time.

[callmeslick]

actually, the whole thing apparently was a ruse from some group trying to point out the weakness of the GOP field.
Oh, and Ron Paul? Really, you think he would have a prayer of winning once people sat down and analyzed what his plans would really entail?

[Kilarin]

and Ron Paul? Really, you think he would have a prayer of winning once people sat down and analyzed what his plans would really entail?

Winning the nomination would be difficult, because the Republican Party is terrified at how he would cut their power.
But IF he were to get the nomination, I don't think winning the election would be the problem. I think the problem would be the reaction of both sides once he started actually cutting back.

Our country is deeply steeped in the welfare system. Welfare for the poor, welfare for the rich, and welfare for the middle class. People agree in PRINCIPLE that the government needs to cut back. But I'm afraid that once those cuts actually HIT, we'll have the same response that Greece did. There people said, "I don't care if we don't have any money, I don't care what's going to happen tomorrow, and I don't care who else has to suffer so you can get the money, just so long as you don't cut back on MY money now!!!!"

People are selfish and self destructive idiots. But that doesn't change the fact that voting for smaller government is the right thing to do. The ship is sinking. It may already be too late to save it. But if we are going down anyway, I want to be among the people who were trying to plug the leaks, not among those making the holes bigger.

[flip]

Such as? I've listened to the guy in almost every debate. He speaks the heart of most and the mainstream media knows it. All it would take is a little favorable light and that guy would get elected quicktime. His point is that if we don't pull back and regroup and re-strengthen ourselves, we will be good to no one including ourselves.

[callmeslick]

Ron Paul would destroy everything in the way of progress this nation has seen in under 10 years. His ideas worked well in a pre-industrial, largely agrarian economy, but at the current juncture he would plunge the nation into chaos and massive suffering, were he actually successful in doing what he states. However, he could NEVER succeed, as he wouldn't have a Congress to work toward those goals in any real way. Since the guy has been around, there is no real issue with the public seeing him for what he is,
and as such, his poll numbers are consistently under 10%.

[flip]

Ron Paul, as you said, could do nothing without support of the Congress. What he would bring to the table is vocal opposition of the direction this country is taking. Not that the direction could be changed, it cannot, but why do we as Americans have to go there as slaves? If Ron could do nothing else, he could bring things out into the open and demand an honest response.

[CUDA]

Our country is deeply steeped in the welfare system. Welfare for the poor, welfare for the rich, and welfare for the middle class. People agree in PRINCIPLE that the government needs to cut back. But I'm afraid that once those cuts actually HIT, we'll have the same response that Greece did. There people said, "I don't care if we don't have any money, I don't care what's going to happen tomorrow, and I don't care who else has to suffer so you can get the money, just so long as you don't cut back on MY money now!!!!"

People are selfish and self destructive idiots. But that doesn't change the fact that voting for smaller government is the right thing to do. The ship is sinking. It may already be too late to save it. But if we are going down anyway, I want to be among the people who were trying to plug the leaks, not among those making the holes bigger.

Well said. and agree 100%

[Sergeant Thorne]

Since the guy has been around, there is no real issue with the public seeing him for what he is,
and as such ...

His poll number have been growing...

[Kilarin]

but at the current juncture he would plunge the nation into chaos and massive suffering,

That's where we are headed now. We are printing money at an unbelievable rate. We are spending it even faster. We are so far in the debt hole that complete economic collapse is imminent. And on top of all that, we have legislated entitlement obligations that are projected within just a few years to grow into completely unmanageable monsters that will devour anything left of our economy.

Our economic ship is sinking, and sinking FAST, and that is going to cause far more chaos and suffering than any cutbacks could.

[callmeslick]

Since the guy has been around, there is no real issue with the public seeing him for what he is,
and as such ...

His poll number have been growing...

and he still gets beat by Obama by 17 points......

[flip]

Welp, looks like Newt is off the Virginia ballot. Does that hurt his chances?

[flip]

http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/ar ... ead=210931

Ron Paul speaks of things NONE of the others dare too, and I honestly can't confirm if Romney is a CFR member or not. Judging by his rhetoric and tone I'd say he'd fit right in though

PS: Obama is finished

[callmeslick]

We are printing money at an unbelievable rate

not really

We are spending it even faster. We are so far in the debt hole that complete economic collapse is imminent. And on top of all that, we have legislated entitlement obligations that are projected within just a few years to grow into completely unmanageable monsters that will devour anything left of our economy.

I really don't have the time to disabuse you of all the wrong parts in this, but just ask a few questions:
1. Why is 'complete economic collapse' imminent? I mean what would cause it, and why isn't the market panicked?
2. Who are these folks making those projections you cite?
3. If things are so bad, why does the world keep buying dollars, and why is our stock market continuing to go up?

Our economic ship is sinking, and sinking FAST, and that is going to cause far more chaos and suffering than any cutbacks could.

you are clueless, and wrong, and apparently blithely unaware of the chaos and suffering I suggest would happen with dire cutbacks. And that, precisely, is the most prominent danger our nation faces. A ton of clueless, wrongheaded folks ready to ditch
a perfectly workable system which needs adjustment in favor of radical solutions that would bring misery to millions. Sadly, and I suspect you to be part of this group, most of those clueless souls are among those who will be hammered by the cutbacks, while the folks who sold you the bill of goods are living large. Wake up!

[callmeslick]

Welp, looks like Newt is off the Virginia ballot. Does that hurt his chances?

well, it speaks to the small, amateurish organization he built as a front for his book tour.

[flip]

Slow asphyxiation or amputation. Take your pick.

[Sergeant Thorne]

This "perfectly workable system" has been steadily undermining our constitution for quite a while. Some people are waking up to just how significant that is, and just how financially FUBAR our country, as a sovereign nation, has become. These people are Ron Paul supporters or admirers because he is the only one in higher public office talking about what truly matters, while everyone else is playing Days of Our Lives with our government and coming up with new ways to tweak something that is so morally and constitutionally wrong that it is staggering. The only way they sell it to the American people is by deception. By saying only as much as they know people will pallet, while hiding the bigger picture of their agenda because the majority of Americans would still find it too distasteful if stated fairly. That's dishonest, and its beneath any public office in this country. Americans need to wake up, open their eyes, and take out the trash by election, by persuasion, by education, and by force.

Edit: For your general edification, I'm not one of these folks that thinks that Ron Paul would even necessarily win the election, or that if he did things would fall into place. Every time I think of Ron Paul, or watch a video, or read an article, I wonder to myself how this could possibly work. How this kind of movement could get around the apparently insurmountable opposition posed by every person and every entity in this country that would stand to take a loss (or rather cease to gain) from the kind of freedom, economic directness, and the ideals of small government that a man like Ron Paul espouses. callmeslick may be one example, so willingly putting a certain standard of economic stability upon the pedestal where should rest a standard of liberty and economic honesty. One thing I am increasingly certain of is that America will not be America unless someone like Ron Paul is elected in place of these power-mongering, money-chasing clowns who do what they can get away with and subscribe/succumb to the political and economic insanity so prevalent in our day.

[Kilarin]

We are printing money at an unbelievable rate.

not really

http://www.safehaven.com/article/8030/c ... ney-supply

Just to clarify, when I say "Printing Money" I don't mean actually producing physical currency, I mean we are increasing the amount of money in the system. Most of it is not physical currency of course.

I really don't have the time to disabuse you of all the wrong parts in this,

I understand time limitations. But if you ever do find some spare time, you might find some research into our economic situation to be very enlightening.

1. Why is 'complete economic collapse' imminent? I mean what would cause it,

Economic impact is imminent because we are heavily, HEAVILY in debt, and thats just the tip of the iceberg because we have entitlement obligations that are about to explode.

and why isn't the market panicked?

for the same reasons the market didn't panic until the last minute over the sub prime lending crisis. The oncoming disaster was obvious, the economic strategy was ridiculously bad, and yet the market didn't see it. Why? Because the market is stupid. They greedily ignore oncoming collapses as long as the current short term gains still keep coming in.

2. Who are these folks making those projections you cite?

David Walker for one. David Walker was Comptroller General from 1998 to 2008. The comptroller general is in charge of the General Accounting Office, now known as the Government Accountability Office.

When he was Comptroller General he looked at the numbers coming through his office and said that the nation will soon be unable to meet the obligations it has promised to pay for Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. You could eliminate all waste and fraud and the entire Pentagon budget and the long-range financial problem still wouldn't go away.

When he informed Congress, they ignored him. Not because his numbers were wrong, but because they preferred hiding their heads in the sand. David Walker is still crusading for this cause. In a recent interview with CNBC he said:

We are less than three years away from where Greece had its debt crisis as to where they were from debt to GDP

A few links, Google will find a lot more.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/03/ ... 8226.shtml
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/03/27/pysk.walker/index.html
http://www.infowars.com/former-comptrol ... is-coming/

David Walker isn't some Republican tool, he was appointed by Clinton, and did his job so well that George Bush kept him there. And if you don't think that the man who ran the General Accounting Office for the government is in a place to know what the economic outlook is, who WOULD you trust?

3. If things are so bad, why does the world keep buying dollars, and why is our stock market continuing to go up?

UN has recommended that countries move away from a reliance on the dollar because it is just not stable anymore.
http://money.cnn.com/2010/07/14/news/ec ... /index.htm

China has been very unhappy with our debt problems and actually said "China, the largest creditor of the world's sole superpower, has every right now to demand the United States address its structural debt problems and ensure the safety of China's dollar assets"
http://articles.nydailynews.com/2011-08 ... t-problems

But really, most of the world is in nearly the same debt/entitlement mess that the US is, and a lot of it is in even worse shape than us. So where to go?

you are clueless, and wrong,

This is very often true, but I think if you'll take time to look at the numbers, you'll see that they back me up in this case. You can't keep spending more money than you have.

and apparently blithely unaware of the chaos and suffering I suggest would happen with dire cut backs

Greece keeps saying the same thing. If there are cut backs, there will be much suffering. So they riot. But the fact is, they are out of money. And there is only so long that Germany will agree to keep having to work until they are 67 to support the Greeks retiring at 61. Since thre rest of Europe is tired of supporting them, and yet they still refuse to cut their spending, they are going to go under. And the suffering from that collapse is going to be a LOT worse than spending cutbacks would have been.

A ton of clueless, wrongheaded folks ready to ditch
a perfectly workable system which needs adjustment in favor of radical solutions that would bring misery to millions. Sadly, and I suspect you to be part of this group, most of those clueless souls are among those who will be hammered by the cutbacks, while the folks who sold you the bill of goods are living large. Wake up!

I'm certain government cutbacks would have an effect on my life, I like roads without potholes, public libraries, and police patrols. But we are spending money we don't have. Consider it as if it were a family:

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

We certainly need a wake up call. I know you are short on time, but just look at the numbers above. In 30 seconds you can see that this is NOT a workable system in need of a few adjustments. This is a complete and total disaster. We can NOT keep spending more money than we have like that. The simplest logic can recognize that the entire system is going to topple. Soon.

I'm not one of these folks that thinks that Ron Paul would even necessarily win the election, or that if he did things would fall into place.

Yep. Sad but true. But, like you said, slim or not, its the only chance we have.

[Spidey]

Don't worry Kilarin...if we just tax the rich …everything will be ok.

[CUDA]

those that forget their past are doomed to repeat it

Economic Causes of the fall of the Roman Empire

1. As productivity declined, Rome became more dependent on foreign products.

2. A breakdown in the labor force occurred as the traditional work ethic declined.

3. The infrastructure of the cities declined and began a steady decay.

4. A balance of trade deficit began to occur.

5. The cost of government, including the military and welfare, became burdensome.

6. Class economic warfare broke out between the rich and poor.

7. Parts of the empire were not taxed while others were overtaxed.

8. The small farm all but disappeared.

everyone of those reason are in play in the United States today, and we are too stupid to see it and even want to stop it.

[callmeslick]

my point is that we are hardly so far gone, with so few available resources(see:Greece) to avert every problem facing us.
Further, those who scream 'imminent collapse' and other such claptrap only cause the vacation of the sort of level headed thinking that will have a positive outcome.

[flip]

I think Kilarin's point is echoing Ron Paul's. It is unsustainable.

[callmeslick]

I think Kilarin's point is echoing Ron Paul's. It is unsustainable.

no more so that Paul's idea. You would have revolution in a month or two, were all provisions to kick in. Ever seen the projections for 15 years AFTER the baby boomer peak(2030 or so)? You really aren't in as dire a situation as above. Really, you aren't. Things were moderatedly sustainable as of 2000, Bush fuxxorred with the tax balance, for no other reason than to give back to the wealthy, then fought two wars off the books. That started a bit of a deficit. Then, the economic bubble burst, far more the fault of an unregulated private sector than any sort of governmental design, but the result was even more severely diminished revenues, and a sharp spike in demand for entitlement spending(unemployment, welfare, et al). The facts remain: We have a problematic, but still somewhat prominent industrial base, the largest source of agricultural production on the planet, our currency is well-thought of, our debt still gets purchased at low interest. All in all, any analogies to Greece are laughable. Any suggestion that collapse is imminent is ludicrous, as are comparisons to Ancient Rome. Get a grip, folks. What is needed is reason and compromise from real public servants in DC, and you don't have that in the present Congress. Essentially, their continued dithering is the worst strain on the economy, and what could force the political class into truly dangerous ground is a lot of folks actually buying into the hysterical claptrap that is being sold by Kilarin above.

[flip]

The current U.S.A. population is over 311 million people.

House of Representatives 435 Members (192 Democrats, 240 Republicans, 3 Vacancies)
Senate 100 Members (51 Democrats, 47 Republicans, 2 Independents)
1 President
9 Supreme court justices.

There were more people than that at the stupid Christmas play I was forced to watch. That's a very small group of people to look after the interest of over 300 million and none of them appear very bright to me and more than likely are just like most others.
I doubt any of them would trade their position or the respect of their peers to tell the exact truth, except Ron Paul. He is focused on a fight that protects personal liberty and encourages personal responsibility. The rest just want in the club.

[Kilarin]

You really aren't in as dire a situation as above. Really, you aren't

You keep saying that. But what do you base it on?

The numbers for the debt ratio above are a bit out of date, but things have gotten worse, not better since then. http://www.usdebtclock.org/

Current debt: 15 trillion
Debt per citizen: $48,453
Debt per tax payer: $134,452
Current government income: 2.3 trillion
Current government expenses: 3.6 trillion
Current government deficit: 1.3 trillion

If you question the numbers, you are welcome to go to the US Department of Treasury and check them out yourself: http://www.treasury.gov/press-center/pr ... g1328.aspx

To see how the debt has increased over time, go here:
http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/faq.html
There is a two very nice charts just a little way down the page. The growth rate is exponential.

I've provided you with numbers, and with expert opinion on those numbers (The Comptroller General). You haven't tried to prove the numbers wrong, and you haven't provided any alternate expert opinions. You haven't yet made any arguments to support your point of view. You just keep saying, "Nah, trust me, its not that bad"

Look at the numbers, on what basis do you think this is not a dire situation? And note, thats without accounting for the projected explosion in Medicare/Medicaid/Social Security.

[callmeslick]

Kilarin, you are looking at things at a period of very repressed revenue-collection, and low economic growth. The nation has had worse debt situations in the past, relative to GDP(post WWII). Further, I do doubt the projections of one ex-comptroller General, sorry. That's my take. Certainly, to return to the original point, NOTHING, and I mean NOTHING, that Ron Paul offers up will solve any of this, without causing a societal rupture that will be irreparable. Hell, even Gingrich admitted that he couldn't vote for Ron Paul, that should tell you something......I think.

[flip]

You know how Obama made all these promises about transparency of government and change of how government is run? Well, that's the change people bought into and exactly what Ron Paul would provide. Transparency.

[Sergeant Thorne]

Societal rupture? Maybe you could elaborate on that. I don't see how any of his policies could cause a "societal rupture" beyond a backlash from people who scorn Ron Paul. Most of his policies pretty much defuse major social issues in politics. If there's a backlash I would think it will be from people with purely political interests.

[callmeslick]

You know how Obama made all these promises about transparency of government and change of how government is run? Well, that's the change people bought into and exactly what Ron Paul would provide. Transparency.

no, he would essentially dissolve the government functions the nation wants and has come to expect. Ain't going to happen, so really little point debating it. BTW, Santorum on the way up in Iowa. Makes sense, it is his turn......

[callmeslick]

Societal rupture? Maybe you could elaborate on that.

gladly, Sarge. Where I see problems are on two very large-scale fronts:
1. Eliminating the social safety net after a 20 year run of massive income divergence would leave so many people hurting, and many hurting really badly that a massive chunk of the populace would be ripe for violence, or dictatorship.

2. The key element of his economic plan, eliminating the Federal Reserve would, by default, cause an upheaval of uncertain length in the stability of the currency. Coupled with the above, you could get the perfect storm of a volitile population and the rest of the world bailing on our currency and probably calling in debts.

as you can see, this is not a scenario in any way limited to folks 'opposed to Ron Paul', or 'purely politics'. However, as I stated above, Ron Paul is NEVER, EVER going to be elected POTUS. Hell, folks in his own party largely view him as a crackpot, his national poll numbers never hit 10% on his best day. It just isn't going to happen, so why worry about it?

[Sergeant Thorne]

1. Eliminating the social safety net after a 20 year run of massive income divergence would leave so many people hurting, and many hurting really badly that a massive chunk of the populace would be ripe for violence, or dictatorship.

This is exactly why I'm drawing up plans for a massive billboard and commercial campaign I would like to call the "get off your miserable ass and go fight for a job" initiative (joking). Actually I understand what you're saying. What I don't understand is where you get the idea that a Ron Paul presidency would abruptly eliminate the social safety net. I know that eliminating the social safety net, as you call it, is his stated goal, but you imply an abrupt end to the programs, which, in my understanding, is not his position.

2. The key element of his economic plan, eliminating the Federal Reserve would, by default, cause an upheaval of uncertain length in the stability of the currency. Coupled with the above, you could get the perfect storm of a volatile population and the rest of the world bailing on our currency and probably calling in debts.

Will give this some thought. My only comment is that this argument, and most any other I've heard against Ron Paul's economic ideas seem to take the position that there are no more actions after the initial, abrupt execution of his goals (which have been known for 4+ years now), only a long string of apparently uninterrupted consequences. In my mind this tendency betrays an intellectually-dishonest (or lazy) bias against the policies.

However, as I stated above, Ron Paul is NEVER, EVER going to be elected POTUS. Hell, folks in his own party largely view him as a crackpot, his national poll numbers never hit 10% on his best day. It just isn't going to happen, so why worry about it?

In short I "worry", or concern myself because I am looking at Ron Paul and trying to deal with questions that I personally still have about his policies. Some of the things I've seen from him are so good that I keep coming back and wondering if maybe he doesn't have a point to make regarding foreign policy. What I've looked for specifically is a tow-line instead of a line-of-thought, so to speak--a loyalty to party (libertarianism) over reason. I haven't seen it yet. Frankly I'm at a place in my thinking where unless his election would result in the mass extermination of our allies, or the invasion of the U.S. by Iran (hehe), I might be willing to give him a chance in the face of what in my mind has always seemed to be questionable foreign policy.

Finally I don't care who thinks what of who, if I believe he's the man for the job for some very serious reasons, and those reasons are apparently scorned by his adversaries, it becomes a political commentary on them. This ain't a fuckin' celebrity popularity contest, to me. In my mind they disqualify themselves inasmuch as they take advantage of the ample opportunity to dismiss what Ron Paul stands for just because he's radical. If you ask me the position we find ourselves in as a country is pretty radical, next to what we might reasonably imagine as an ideal situation (sound currency, thriving industry, secure borders, a manageable or non-existent national debt, and a general healthy respect for the documents that our laws are founded on--the constitution and bill of rights). The question is can we expect better of a government? My upbringing tells me that excuses are unacceptable in real life, and we most certainly can. Are we getting better? No, what we're getting is a political, economic, and societal transition away from our founding ideals, and individual and national sovereignty, at the expense of the above! And its being sold to us through fear and refined, expert, social and economic and political propaganda.

[Kilarin]

The nation has had worse debt situations in the past, relative to GDP(post WWII).

Ah, here you bring up a point we can discuss, good!



You are absolutely correct, as a percentage of gdp our debt was worse off during WWII. But think about what that means. At that time we were spending money like mad building a war machine and using it to fight the really bad bad guys.

Notice below how defense spending has changed over time as a percentage of GDP:

ImageShack.us

See that HUGE spike at 1945, it matches up with the spike on the deficit chart. Which tells us that the enormous deficit we built up then was largely for the war. When the war was over, we quit spending like mad, and used the new healthy economy to pay off the debt.

Now notice on the defense spending chart that there is NOT a huge spike starting in 2001. Despite two very expensive and very long wars, defense spending is NOT the major component of our current deficit climb. And yet, the deficit climb begins in 2001 (1981 really), and by 2007 we've hit a slope nearly as steep as the deficit slope during WWII.

This points out the major difference between then and now. The spending that is going on now is NOT short term. There is no enemy to defeat. Here is the 2010 budget:



Medicaid/Medicare/SocialSecurity make up 43% of our budget, more than double defense spending, even though defense spending is very high right now. If the current deficit growth rate continues, we will reach and surpass the 1945 deficit percentage in just a few short years. And the largest component of our deficit spending, entitlement programs, are NOT projected to decrease, but to INCREASE. DRASTICALLY. This makes our deficit problems VERY different from those in 1945.

Further, I do doubt the projections of one ex-comptroller General, sorry. That's my take.

Ok. That's your take. But WHY? He's the man who had access to the numbers, he has the training to understand the numbers, and managed to obtain the trust of two presidents from two different parties. Do you have a particular reason to doubt his projections, or do you doubt them just because you don't like them?

even Gingrich admitted that he couldn't vote for Ron Paul, that should tell you something......I think.

Sounds like a plus for Ron Paul if you ask me.

Eliminating the social safety net after a 20 year run of massive income divergence would leave so many people hurting, and many hurting really badly that a massive chunk of the populace would be ripe for violence, or dictatorship.

Letting the current situation continue is leading towards the entitlement programs going bankrupt, and that is CERTAINLY a recipie for misery and violence.

The key element of his economic plan, eliminating the Federal Reserve would, by default, cause an upheaval of uncertain length in the stability of the currency

I don't understand how anyone who is upset about the "massive income divergence" could be supporting the Federal Reserve. The Fed is simply giving money away to rich people in gigantic quantities. The big sub-prime bailout was just the tip of the iceberg. When Ron Paul forced the Fed to let Congress have a tiny peek into just a small section of their books they found that the Fed had been giving away huge interest free loans to rich people all over the place, without any kind of accountability. They then offer those same people the opportunity to immediately deposit this no interest money back into the Fed AND GET INTEREST ON IT. If you want to know why the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer, just take a look at the Federal Reserve.

what we're getting is a political, economic, and societal transition away from our founding ideals, and individual and national sovereignty

Exactly. Unfortunately, this seems to be the inevitable direction democracies go. Plato once asked the question: is democratic behavior the behavior that democracies like, or the behavior that is good for democracy.