tshile Posted August 6, 2015 Share Posted August 6, 2015 In my view the GOP policies are generally the opposite of what we should do (on nearly all social issues and taxation I am for the opposite of what they propose). Why exactly should I want a party of bad ideas to be "fixed?" I want them to lose, and then to be replaced with different ideas. Because realistically, that means the GOP will survive on an ever shrinking base, while quite a few people are removed from having a voice at all (they hate the dems' policy, can no longer support the GOP, and effectively left without an option). The net result is the Democrats gain leverage over the entire system until something radical changes (if... something radical changes.) IE: it seems much more reasonable that hopping the GOP dies results in the democrats maintaining control... which makes me question the claims of status of moderate/independent when they think the best option is to put us in a 1 party system... I mean maybe this idea that a 3rd party will spring up and be reasonable and relevant is better than I think, maybe I'm just overly cynical of the system. It certainly doesn't seem like a real option to me... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan T. Posted August 6, 2015 Share Posted August 6, 2015 Interesting - Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders is scheduled to speak next month to the students of Liberty University, the conservative Christian college founded by Jerry Falwell. The school's convocation schedule lists him as the speaker on September 14. http://www.liberty.edu/index.cfm?PID=18495&MID=162165 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted August 6, 2015 Share Posted August 6, 2015 Interesting - Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders is scheduled to speak next month to the students of Liberty University, the conservative Christian college founded by Jerry Falwell. The school's convocation schedule lists him as the speaker on September 14. http://www.liberty.edu/index.cfm?PID=18495&MID=162165 Guy's got some classy moves. And some guts. And props to Liberty, too. It's not like only one side, here, chose to reach across. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nonniey Posted August 6, 2015 Share Posted August 6, 2015 Larry, you made me think of this, but it's not just you... But I'm confused with some of you guys. You say your problem with the GOP is with the extreme, that you're moderate/independent/not party affiliated, but you advocate for the most extreme rep for the party. It seems like you say if the party wasn't so extreme you'd consider their viewpoint, in the next breath you say you want the party to be extreme... I don't understand it. Why is anyone that's not extreme to the right, or totally committed to the democrat party, advocating for someone like Ted Cruz? That likely spells doom for the party, and if he was somehow elected it would be terrible for most of your viewpoints... If you are moderate/independent/etc it would seem to me you'd be rooting for someone to lead the GOP that's not on that extreme right... unless you're not actually moderate/independent/etc and you're not interested in having a viable GOP candidate.... Your confused because the people you are refering to are Democrats or supporters of Democrats. Any and all Republicans will be said to be extreme. There are several that are running that are not (Bush, Rubio, Walker, Kasich). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
88Comrade2000 Posted August 6, 2015 Author Share Posted August 6, 2015 http://www.politico.com/story/2015/08/democrats-debate-schedule-nevada-october-13-121092.html?cmpid=sf Dems debate schedule. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chipwhich Posted August 6, 2015 Share Posted August 6, 2015 Why would you need to seize a classified USB stick? I mean she has cleared Counsel. http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/250400-judge-asked-to-seize-clinton-email-thumb-drive Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted August 6, 2015 Share Posted August 6, 2015 http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/06/politics/martin-omalley-democratic-debate-outrage/index.html Martin O'Malley outraged about Democratic debate schedule -- others not so much Presidential candidates set to participate in the six newly announced Democratic National Committee-sanctioned debates responded with either outrage or had not much of a reaction at all. Bill Hyers, a top strategist for former Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley, who has regularly criticized the Democratic committee for what he says is tilting the scale for Hillary Clinton, the Democratic frontrunner, said the debate schedule "seems geared toward limiting debate and facilitating a coronation, not promoting a robust debate and primary process." "The schedule they have proposed does not give voters -- nationally, and especially in early states -- ample opportunity to hear from the Democratic candidates for president," Hyers said in a statement released almost immediately after the DNC put out the schedule. The DNC announced Thursday that the five Democrats running for president would debate at total of six times. The first debate, hosted by CNN, will be October 13 in Nevada. Only two debates announced by the Democratic body would fall after the Iowa caucus and New Hampshire primary. O'Malley's team has tried to use the DNC debate schedules to cast the governor as fighting for voters in Iowa and New Hampshire over party leaders in Washington. Hyers said the debate schedule is "one of the slimmest that I have ever seen. Literally." Holly Shulman, the DNC's national press secretary, said the party is "thrilled to hear that Governor O'Malley is eager to participate in our debates." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Going Commando Posted August 6, 2015 Share Posted August 6, 2015 I don't want some BS candidate like Cruz to win the nomination even though I think it gives the Democrat a better chance to win. What if he wins? Then we're stuck with a loathsome, truly damaging presidency. That said, if Cruz won the nomination, I think it would be fascinating election if Bernie Sanders won the Democratic nomination. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted August 6, 2015 Share Posted August 6, 2015 http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/08/06/donald-trumps-first-place-surge-isnt-as-impressive-as-his-image-rehab/ The rehabilitation of Donald Trump’s image is jaw-dropping For all of the focus on polling over the last weeks -- a side effect of Fox News' decision to limit its debate to the top 10 candidates in national polls -- there really haven't been that many polls since May. There have been 23 surveys, according to Real Clear Politics, which is a lot in general. But for those of us who like to obsess over the figures, there are huge gaps. Particularly since not every poll asks every question or about every candidate. If we want to track the favorability of, say, Ohio Gov. John Kasich over time, it's tricky to find enough poll data to be particularly useful. (Part of this is his fault: He jumped into the campaign very late, with the goal of riding his announcement bump into the debate.) (Which worked.) Other people are left off of polls because asking about the favorability of 17 candidates -- only, say, four of whom anyone has ever heard of -- gets a bit tedious. But it's worth tracking. After all, you've probably seen this graph, which is the Real Clear Politics polling average over time. The dark red line on there is Donald Trump, who wasn't even included in the RCP average at the beginning of May, leapfrogging everyone with great relish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted August 6, 2015 Share Posted August 6, 2015 I keep seeing posters announcing that Jeb is a moderate candidate for President. I will note that W ran on a platform of being a "compassionate conservative". But that's sure not the way he acted, the day after he got elected. But that's kinda a side thing. Talking about two different people. I'll instead cite a few things about what Jeb actually did, while Governor. Granted, I really didn't pay that much attention to Florida politics, at the time. So I can't claim that my memories of him were all that extensive. And yeah, it's possible that I only remember the things that ticked me off. But here's a few. There's the Republican efforts to disenfranchise tens of thousands of voters, by cancelling their voter registrations (in secret, without even telling the voter), before the elections of 2000 and 2004. Here's a Politifact article that goes into some of them. (It doesn't mention some of the things that I remember, from those issues. But I assume that they're being more neutral than what I remember. And they do cover the big things.) Politifact: Hillary Clinton revisits Florida's 2000 and 2004 voter purge when Jeb Bush was governor "In Florida, when Jeb Bush was governor, state authorities conducted a deeply flawed purge of voters before the presidential election in 2000" and "in 2004 a plan to purge even more voters was headed off." — Hillary Clinton on Thursday, June 4th, 2015 in in a speech at Texas Southern University He was pretty much the flagship for the notion of sending taxpayer dollars to religious schools. When a court pointed out that the Florida constitution forbids giving taxpayer dollars to religious institutions, he tried to amend the constitution to get rid of that clause, but then decided to convert his signature program to tax credit (against a tax which does not exist), instead. Here's a WaPo ar5ticle that goes into it, and several other topics. (Note: I observe that there's some things in this article that are, at best, making apples-to-oranges comparisons. I'd suggest reading carefully.) WaPo: Here’s what Jeb Bush really did to public education in Florida Also on the topic of education, I'll mention the Florida Regents. Used to be, in Florida, the state Universities were run by the Board of Regents. The Board received funding from the legislature, but they actually ran the University system. (Although, they were appointed by the Governor, and confirmed by the Legislature.) Now, Jeb (and, as I recall, the Legislature) had some problems with the Board. From my memory, one of the big issues was that the Republicans wanted to create a medical school. The Regents opposed that idea, saying that there were already two medical schools in Florida, and there wasn't enough demand to create a third one. But many of the legislature wanted a medical school in their district. (The Wiki article I'm going to link, below, claims that the issue was that Jeb wanted to end affirmative action.) Solution? Disband the Regents. Now the Legislature can dictate, directly, to individual universities. Result? Suddenly FSU has a new medical school, with funding coming from cuts to the two already-existing ones. Wiki: Florida Board of Regents St Pete Times: Bush signs law abolishing board of regents [university Chancellor] Herbert said individual boards for each school would mean further turf wars over resources. Other critics said lawmakers were simply seeking revenge on the regents, who had repeatedly denied their requests for new goodies for their alma maters. ---------- Here's an article I found, while looking for links about the Regents, that goes into all kinds of things, good and bad, about Bush's tenure as Governor.: Des Moines Register: Jeb Bush's record as governor of Florida It mentions several things. He not only ended affirmative action in the state universities, but also in state hiring and contracting. He signed the Stand Your Ground law. He privatized a lot of state government functions. He was part of the political movement to keep Terry Schiavo on life support forever. Added an anti-abortion state license plate. Here's a good one, that the Des Moines article led me to research: Politifact: Jeb Bush did not appoint a guardian for a rape victim's fetus, but he fought for one Note: The Politifact article starts with a picture of an advert that some political group did, "5 things you should know about Jeb Bush". The advert's first claim is that Jeb once appointed a guardian for a rape victim's fetus" The other 4 claims are similarly flamboyant. Politifact ruled that the first claim was false. (Bush did not appoint a guardian. He asked a court to appoint one, got turned down in court, kept fighting till the fetus was born, and then the court appointed a guardian.) But they also ruled that the other 4 claims were true. ---------- Now, I'll ask people. Is this person a hard core conservative? Or a moderate? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nonniey Posted August 6, 2015 Share Posted August 6, 2015 I don't want some BS candidate like Cruz to win the nomination even though I think it gives the Democrat a better chance to win. What if he wins? Then we're stuck with a loathsome, truly damaging presidency...... Well, not a Cruz fan but you never can tell for certain what you'll get. After all, after the 2008 election no one really thought (even Republicans) that we'd be stuck with a loathsome, truly damaging presidency but that is what we ended up with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hersh Posted August 6, 2015 Share Posted August 6, 2015 Well, not a Cruz fan but you never can tell for certain what you'll get. After all, after the 2008 election no one really thought (even Republicans) that we'd be stuck with a loathsome, truly damaging presidency but that is what we ended up with. What has Obama's presidency damaged? Please be specific or name a few things and how they are damaged. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted August 6, 2015 Share Posted August 6, 2015 Well, not a Cruz fan but you never can tell for certain what you'll get. After all, after the 2008 election no one really thought (even Republicans) that we'd be stuck with a loathsome, truly damaging presidency but that is what we ended up with. I'd ask what color the sky is, in your world. But I can already tell it's red. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted August 6, 2015 Share Posted August 6, 2015 ---------- Now, I'll ask people. Is this person a hard core conservative? Or a moderate? seems moderate to me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PF Chang Posted August 6, 2015 Share Posted August 6, 2015 Well, not a Cruz fan but you never can tell for certain what you'll get. After all, after the 2008 election no one really thought (even Republicans) that we'd be stuck with a loathsome, truly damaging presidency but that is what we ended up with. Nothing like 2000-2008, eh? You know, the time where we entered into a costly, eternal war against an abstract opponent and had foreign policy that could be summed up as "hey, **** you!" seems moderate to me Only by comparison. Which is why I'm not buying the BS telling me I should encourage the idea of "moderate" GOP candidates. Give me one who is actually moderate (except he'd be booed off the stage). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tshile Posted August 6, 2015 Share Posted August 6, 2015 Larry, in part you're talking to me (at least in part) so as a quick response: I don't know a lot about Bush, so I'm open to being entirely wrong about him. I'd also say that in my view, being a moderate republican, doesn't mean being a moderate on every issue. Given how the GOP is, I feel like being a 'moderate republican' fits reasonably well with what you've pointed out. Some of those things irritate me, some of them seem more about being corrupt politician than hard core conservative, and rest seem to not go against the idea that he's a moderate republican. It could also be that I, previously, was only really looking a couple of issues. For a republican to come out and be ok with with: common core illegal immigrants (OK meaning proposing a solution other than round them, ship them back, build a wall, oh and make sure to say they're all mexicans) gay marriage (again, OK meaning not saying if you're gay you're a pedophile and/or you're going to hell) That seems pretty 'moderate republican' to me... So I appreciate the additional information, but it doesn't really change my stand so much. But I must admit I haven't had time to read your links thoroughly (and probably wont for another week, skipping town here soon ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted August 6, 2015 Share Posted August 6, 2015 well if ya are comparing him to Bernie or Obama . What is moderate in ya'lls world? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tshile Posted August 6, 2015 Share Posted August 6, 2015 Only by comparison. Which is why I'm not buying the BS telling me I should encourage the idea of "moderate" GOP candidates. Give me one who is actually moderate (except he'd be booed off the stage). Oh, well, I was more referring to 'Moderate republican' not just 'moderate' I don't expect either party to nominate a true moderate, only a moderate relative to their party... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted August 6, 2015 Share Posted August 6, 2015 I don't think Bush is the Moderate Republican or the most NeoCon either. He's an establishment politician. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted August 6, 2015 Share Posted August 6, 2015 Right, I guess my problem is that you say that, then root for chaos. Instead of rooting for the party to be fixed. Again, it's not just you. It's majority of the people who claim to be independent/moderate. Their desire seems to be to watch the GOP burn to the ground, leaving us with one party... It's like a death spiral. The GOP is pandering to the extremes because that's where most of their support is, so they keep outdoing each other to be more extreme to get more support from 'the base.' Meanwhile the people claiming to be moderates don't have any desire to give the GOP support, then **** that the GOP doesn't ever seem to try to reach out to them. Jeb Bush seems more of a moderate to me, but he has the wrong last name for too many people. If the current GOP burned down, we would not be left with one party, because the people who champion actual conservative tenets would rise to re-take control of a party that is flying itself into the ground. Regardless, the country will not convert to only one line of thinking. As it is, current members of the GOP consider anyone who does not toe the crazy line a RINO anyway, and believe they are liberals no matter how many ways they espouse actual conservative values, and resist the 'social agenda' and overall religious shove of the hardliners. Those people aren't gone. Most of them are referring to themselves as independent or moderate these days,, to the heaping scorn of the loonies left behind. Things would drift on the right back closer to the middle, and as a result, the left would drift further to the left as people who are now considered pinko commie leftists by the ravers re-join the right. Balance would be there. But i very much doubt the radicals who have hijacked the right will go down without blood being spilled.. and not just figuratively. They'll have their holy war. ~Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted August 6, 2015 Share Posted August 6, 2015 What is moderate in ya'lls world? I'll toss out one. Saving (not eliminating, not replacing) Social Security. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tshile Posted August 6, 2015 Share Posted August 6, 2015 If the current GOP burned down, we would not be left with one party, because the people who champion actual conservative tenets would rise to re-take control of a party that is flying itself into the ground. I disagree. If the GOP was burned the ground, what would likely rise in its place is a bunch of smaller parties. If there was a way to unite everyone, then it'd be done now... there's not... The end result would be a large democrat party, and a bunch of smaller parties. Which at the local level may not change much, but at the federal level it would give the democrats a huge advantage. Of course, I'm just guessing... You could absolutely be right. I just have a hard time believing that if you're a moderate the best thing you think could happen is the GOP be destroyed and something better would take its place. That seems like a view someone who supports the democrats, but claims to be a moderate, would support. Because it destroys a party they very much hate competing against... To me, the best thing that could happen is that someone that's more moderate (but still a republican) take the reigns of the party and pull them back from the ledge. Though, to be fair, I don't know if that's even possible at this point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted August 6, 2015 Share Posted August 6, 2015 If the current GOP burned down, we would not be left with one party, because the people who champion actual conservative tenets would rise to re-take control of a party that is flying itself into the ground. Regardless, the country will not convert to only one line of thinking. As it is, current members of the GOP consider anyone who does not toe the crazy line a RINO anyway, and believe they are liberals no matter how many ways they espouse actual conservative values, and resist the 'social agenda' and overall religious shove of the hardliners. The only thing keeping more conservative, more liberal, or more progressive folks from leaving the R's and D's to form new groups....is the R's and D's. They act like they hate each other. But keeping that two-party system in place ranks just above protecting this country from being attacked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted August 6, 2015 Share Posted August 6, 2015 To me, the best thing that could happen is that someone that's more moderate (but still a republican) take the reigns of the party and pull them back from the ledge. Though, to be fair, I don't know if that's even possible at this point. For a while, there, I had hopes that John McCain was that person. One of my fantasies was that once he was elected, he'd decide (secretly, not announce it) that he's too old to run for a second term. Therefore he doesn't have to be all timid and cautious and spend his entire first term working on getting re-elected. Instead, he can come into town on the wave of being newly elected, and spend that political capital on things that other first-term Presidents wouldn't dare touch, for fear of ruining their chance at a second term. That he would actually chose to address some big issues that other politicians were scared to touch, but that needed to be dealt with. In my fantasy, the first thing he did when he took office, was to say "Hey, folks, we gotta do something about the nation's retirement plans. And I think the least painful way to deal with that problem is to raise the retirement age to 70." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nonniey Posted August 6, 2015 Share Posted August 6, 2015 What has Obama's presidency damaged? Please be specific or name a few things and how they are damaged. Are you a slow pitch softball pitcher? 1) Foriegn Policy - Our Enemies are stonger, more numerous, emboldened and on the march - Allies are fewer, weaker, in retreat and no longer trust us 2) Race relations (Which we all hoped would improve after the 2008 election) have seriously deteriorated, largely (heck I'd say primarily) due to how the adminstration injected itself into the issue and how it uses race as a weapon against it's opponents (ie opposition to his policies is racist? How often have we seen that trotted out?) 3) Domestic Policy - Economic policy undermined recovery causing historically slow recovery - ACA self explainatory 4) Political Ineptitude - The stimulous package set the tone. What was it he said to the Republicans that wanted some input - "elections have consequences" and rejected all Republican proposals for the stimulous deal and repeated this behaviour throughout his Presidency. This led to his adminstration being completely unable to deal with the Republicans initially and eventually started to spread even to his own Democratic side of Congress. A lot of you believe the problem for failure to compromise is entirely on the Republicans when in fact it is mostly on the President. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.