visionary Posted January 13, 2016 Share Posted January 13, 2016 I don't know how they did it, but in this campaign the GOP is the party with the most diverse ideas. I think you mean most insane ideas. But of course they're going to be diverse when there's 2,000 people running for president. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chipwhich Posted January 13, 2016 Share Posted January 13, 2016 I think you mean most insane ideas. But of course they're going to be diverse when there's 2,000 people running for president. Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and getting the same results. That is Hillary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted January 13, 2016 Share Posted January 13, 2016 You aren't a "severe liberal" if you vote Hillary. I don't know who I'm going to vote for.. I like Trump, I think he might have the most tools to be the kind of president I've wanted for a long time. I don't think he respects the office though and I'm really afraid he will blow up the world. I like Bernie, and really like that he's got all that experience in congress. I don't know if it's possible for him to get passed Hillary. If he does then I'll give him a very serious look. I really don't like Hillary at all. But I am pretty sure she won't blow up the world, so against Trump I am leaning towards holding my nose and voting for her... but she will not be able to defeat trump anyway in the general.. She has no ideas not directly stolen from her opponents, her campaign is poor given it's been 8 month and she's still getting regularly savaged in the press over those stupid emails. Worse Hillary will look stupid in a debate against Trump. I've watched all the Democratic debates, all of them. Who does she think she's fooling? She has 7 answers and just repeats them regardless of the question. It's frankly hard to stay awake when she's talking, and I'm her core constituency. She's not dumb but she's doing the same thing she did in 2008. She's over scripted and overly cautious about not making the big mistakes; and a guy like Trump who thinks on his feet is just going to crush her. It's frankly sad.. Frankly I just don't think she's much of a politician. She's a smart lady who feels like she's been hanging around Washington long enough that it's her turn to be president. Doesn't matter she's not charismatic and hasn't taken the time to learn a politicians craft. By God if the voters won't elect me I'll get Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders to run against so they won't have any other option but to vote for me. Problem is Bernie and Donald have stepped up their games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted January 13, 2016 Share Posted January 13, 2016 I think you mean most insane ideas. But of course they're going to be diverse when there's 2,000 people running for president. You would be right saying that in the last three or four Presidential elections. In this election in the first debate when Huckabee announced his plan to balance the budget by taxing pimps and whores I really thought we were going to have another circus... Bottom line, since that Huckabee low mark in the first debate, and with a few notable exceptions; all the GOP candidates look electable.. Ted Cruz who I think is the scariest guy on the stage even looks Presidential.. Rubio looks 12, but he's had very good moments in the debates. Christi terrific and his run ins with Rand Paul over the Patriot act were down right Educational.. Rand Paul a long time nut has come across in these debates not only as Presidential but scholarly and a deep thinker. I actually think Rand Paul took second place in a few of these debates.. He's been terrific. Hell we know a lot of these candidates are still the same old scary self promoting guys they've always been because the clock on them didn't start in 2015, but they've have just all done excellent at showing us a different side of themselves.. ( I'm not a big Carli Fan, when she's on camera I always envision her in a black spandex military uniform with a whip.... and not in a good way ). And again you aren't going to like it but I think Donald Trump is the reason we aren't having a Murphy Brown moment, or a which cabinet was I going to dissolve again moment, or hearing how Christian values are under sieged in our majority Christian country.. Donald has such a poison tongue I don't think the other candidates want to go head to head against him on vitriol. So rather than go negative, they are trying to differentiate with him on issues and they just look great doing it.. Even when the commentators rough up the GOP candidates, I think it's worked out great for them. All of their candidates can think on their feet and still come across as compelling. Their primary is 1000x more compelling than the Democrat debates where it's all about styfling ideas, keeping the public from getting involved, and making sure everybody know it's Hillary's turn... In the last two democratic debates when the commentators, who work for the Clinton Foundation are praising the moderators who work for the Clinton foundation and the chairman of the DNC who works for the Clinton foundation I wanted to vomit in my mouth. Hillary just walked up on stage and ignored every question, smiled a few times and recited parts of her stump speech; and the commentators are trying to convince us she won the debate. Could you believe the DNC tried to turn off the voter database access to Bernie just before the last debatre! Bernie had to go to court to get them to turn it back on.. It's frankly hard to be a democrat when that kind of malfeasance is going on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted January 13, 2016 Share Posted January 13, 2016 Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and getting the same results. That is Hillary. I don't think that's fair.. Hillary isn't devoid of ideas.. she's devoid of personal ideas. The good thing about Hillary is it doesn't matter what idea it is, or who has that idea; if it's popular enough she will adopt it as her own. She's not a true believer so she's not really hung up by all the trappings of leadership where you rally your troops and set ambitious goals. She will just cherry pick the opponents best issues and make them her own.. That's what Bill did.. NAFTA, Well Fair Reform, WTO, China's mosf favored nation status, 1994 Crime Bill, Bill would just take whatever issues the GOP had which was making traction.. Remember, The era of big government is over!!... Bill Clinton said that.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinsmarydu Posted January 13, 2016 Share Posted January 13, 2016 I know we are supposed to want limited government, but damn...there are some things that only BIG agencies can handle. (I'm gonna leave that VA thing alone...not happy about any of that.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted January 13, 2016 Share Posted January 13, 2016 Cruz invites Trump to church and such......this is gonna be fun http://www.buzzfeed.com/christophermassie/ted-cruz-says-trump-embodies-new-york-values#.wavwP2rqQw “Well, look, I think he may shift in his new rallies to play ‘New York, New York’ because Donald comes from New York and he embodies New York values,” Cruz said, referring to the famous Frank Sinatra song. The Texas senator went on to say that Trump seemed “rattled” by his rising stature in the race. He added that Trump had been “unloading at every stop with direct attacks.” Cruz said he did not “intend to respond or reciprocate.” On Tuesday, however, Cruz twice appeared to take jabs at Trump, telling reportersearlier in the day that supporters of Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton were “eager to support Donald Trump and the attacks that are being tossed my direction.” In the radio interview, Cruz reiterated this argument. In response to a clip of Clinton saying Trump was “a Democrat before he was a Republican,” Cruz said, “Well, I would say, Hillary would know well how to identify Democrats. She has been a partisan Democrat herself obviously and, uh, she and Donald know each other well and I do think it’s interesting that Hillary Clinton’s key supporters are doing everything they can to echo Donald’s attacks on me.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted January 13, 2016 Share Posted January 13, 2016 Cruz invites Trump to church and such......this is gonna be fun http://www.buzzfeed.com/christophermassie/ted-cruz-says-trump-embodies-new-york-values#.wavwP2rqQw “Well, look, I think he may shift in his new rallies to play ‘New York, New York’ because Donald comes from New York and he embodies New York values,” Cruz said, referring to the famous Frank Sinatra song. The Texas senator went on to say that Trump seemed “rattled” by his rising stature in the race. He added that Trump had been “unloading at every stop with direct attacks.” Cruz said he did not “intend to respond or reciprocate.” I swear that, in order to become a politician, there must be some kind of drug or surgery or some such, that completely removes one's ability to look in a mirror. Maybe it's a disease, since it seems to have the ability to spread to a politician's supporters, too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted January 13, 2016 Share Posted January 13, 2016 Here are my definitions.. Liberal Progressive Socialist.. all synonyms. Moderate left leaning political silo. Refer to someone who seeks a new answer when faced with a problem. New means unknown, new means riskier, new also holds out the hope for being very good, sometimes turns out to be very bad. Conservative - Moderate right leaning political silo.. Refers to someone who seeks to go back to a known good solution when faced with a problem. Bent to conserve or preserve what we have. Known good means safe well understood but also a compromise and potentially less than ideal solution. Communist - An instance of an extreme Left political philosophy.. Stalin and Lenin were trying to create a new form of Government. Fascist - An extreme Right political philosophy.. Hitler and Mussolini were both trying to recreate their optimal governments from history.. Hitler wanted to create the 3rd Reich.. or the 3rd instance of the holy Roman Empire. Mussolini wanted to recreate simple the second Roman Empire .. . NeoCon... You know some folks see a glass of water as half full, and some folks see it as half empty.. NeoCon's think the glass is trying to kill them, and they need to attack that glass first or risk loosing everything!. George H. W. Bush recently in his just out biography called them the Iron Ass Wing of the GOP. Always looking to go to war with whomever. Tea Partier... a group of disgruntled voters on the moderate right. have libertarian tendencies. Typically smart, interested in politics and well read.. Only poorly informed mostly because they don't trust reliable news sources and place their trust in the riskier publications or web sites. Thus Prone to being co-op'd by jackasses. You helped prove my point there. I wouldn't combine Liberal and Progressive all the time. Also, wouldn't just put socialist with either all the time. I don't know where you got the whole Tea Partier is typically smart. I don't know if they are or aren't. But the birther stuff didn't seem smart. Conservatives don't want to converse resources and while they want lower taxes, we haven't seen them spend less in forever. Also, the whole known good solution thing. Not sure about that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted January 13, 2016 Share Posted January 13, 2016 Lots of polling out today. Showing what we were saying the other day. Clinton camp is worried because the polls are moving towards Sanders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
btfoom Posted January 13, 2016 Share Posted January 13, 2016 Lots of polling out today. Showing what we were saying the other day. Clinton camp is worried because the polls are moving towards Sanders. It wouldn't surprise me to see Biden decide to get into the race if Clinton looks vulnerable after the first round. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGoodBits Posted January 13, 2016 Share Posted January 13, 2016 It wouldn't surprise me to see Biden decide to get into the race if Clinton looks vulnerable after the first round. Biden had nice things to say about Bernie the other day. I really don't think a run is even remotely on the table for him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGreatBuzz Posted January 13, 2016 Share Posted January 13, 2016 Biden had nice things to say about Bernie the other day. I really don't think a run is even remotely on the table for him. I was really surprised when I saw that interview. It makes me wonder about the whole "establishment" setting everything up for Hillary bit. I would imagine if that was the case, Ol' Joe would have done the opposite. I wonder what's going on inside the party. Though it's also a well known fact that no one can control what Joe says. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumbo Posted January 13, 2016 Share Posted January 13, 2016 I liked her. We'd disagree on stuff, but I think she and I could have a future. Would want to check the teeth in person, of course, before really committing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted January 13, 2016 Share Posted January 13, 2016 You helped prove my point there. I wouldn't combine Liberal and Progressive all the time. As for Liberal and Progressive, I don't think most Americans would combine them. Problem is they are literally synonyms in the English Language. So when Teddy Roosevelt called himself a progressive; he was literally saying he's liberal and not saying he belongs to some secret society bent on controlling the world which amazingly is the popular American definition of progressive.. Dictionary for Progressive says it's synonym is Liberal http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/progressive Progressive Synonyms 1, 9. liberal. you can look it up in a dozen dictionaries or thesauruses.. They are synonyms. Also, wouldn't just put socialist with either all the time.. And again socialism is the moderate left leaning political sylo. Most democracies in the world consider themselves socialist. Canada, Japan, Germany, France, Tony Blair when he was PM had the constitution of his own party changed to include the word Socialism. None of these folks who use the word globally equate it with an extreme left leaning ideology. Most Americans hear socialism and think communism because the soviet union called themselves "The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics".. so socialism has to be communism.. Only for some reason they don't include Republics with Communism.. Anyway its a falsehood. Communism was an extreme left leaning philosophy they called it socialist because it made them look moderate.. Like China calls themselves the Peoples Republic of China.. that doesn't make all Republics communist. I don't know where you got the whole Tea Partier is typically smart. I don't know if they are or aren't. But the birther stuff didn't seem smart. The tea party personal observation. I think they are pretty smart in both forming and following complex arguments. So that's my metrix. Birthers I wouldn't equate with tea party. Conservatives don't want to converse resources and while they want lower taxes, we haven't seen them spend less in forever. Not conserve resources.. they want to conserve politically, socially, governmentally what they see as the status quoe. if their is a problem they want to fall back to what's worked before, or ideally keep the same system and just introduce small reforms to "fix it". They avoid creating a new solution. Again that's a dictionary definition of the word conservative. Conservative - disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/conservative?s=t Also, the whole known good solution thing. Not sure about that. So most Americans know why they consider George W. Bush or a Ronald Reagan conservative.. Its because of where they stand on certain issues right?... But how about the Roman Senator Kato, or founding father Alexander Hamilton why were they considered conservative, Why was Thomas Jefferson or MP William Wilberforce considered Liberals. You can't use issues categorize Liberals and Conservatives down through time because the issues (societal problems) change. What remains constant is where these political leaders find their inspiration when looking for solutions to societies problems. Like Hamilton do they look back in time to find a time when things worked better, maybe reform a previous way of doing things, and try to fall back to that time.. (Hamilton was a monarchist and wanted to appoint Washington King, failing that he wanted a strong central government, with the ability to tax and borrow money, over the states; He was looking to use Britain as our model of government.. Kato was a Roman Senator when the Roman Republic was changing to an Empire. Kato wanted to preserve the historic Republic, and squash the new Empire ) Or Like Wilberforce (to abolish slavery) do they think up an entirely new way to approach the problem. These are the real definitions of Liberal and Conservative which transcend time and issues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted January 13, 2016 Share Posted January 13, 2016 Well, again. I wouldn't consider TR a liberal. Progressive? Yes. He was forward thinking and looking to new solutions while rejecting tried and failed ideas that others claim were the way to go. Going back to the original point and not dictionary def. I think its more complicated.....but people go towards who represents most of their views. I don't debate what you're posting as what the on paper definition for these different groups would be. I just think they are outdated and inaccurate now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted January 13, 2016 Share Posted January 13, 2016 Lots of polling out today. Showing what we were saying the other day. Clinton camp is worried because the polls are moving towards Sanders. Hillary has the money, and the entrenched party leadership support. Bernie is going to have at least in the beginning the momentum, charisma, and some interesting ideas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted January 13, 2016 Share Posted January 13, 2016 Hillary has the money, and the entrenched party leadership support. Bernie is going to have at least in the beginning the momentum, charisma, and some interesting ideas. So does Jeb. See what that's brought him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chipwhich Posted January 13, 2016 Share Posted January 13, 2016 Wow, I love this girl. Her handlers were probably squirming backstage. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-explains-what-white-privilege-means-to-her_5695269fe4b09dbb4bac9f99 Hillary Clinton Explains What White Privilege Means To Her "Where do I start?" Clinton said. Hillary Clinton was asked to address how she has benefitted from her white privilege at the Iowa Black and Brown Forum Monday night during Fusion’s two-hour presidential forum. Clinton, along with other Democratic presidential candidates Martin O’Malley and Bernie Sanders, were pressed on issues deemed important to minority communities including healthcare, criminal justice reform, immigration, education and economic development. “Where do I start?” Clinton said to Thalia Anguiano, a junior at Drake University who asked the question of the former Secretary of State. Anguiano's question was arguably one of the stand-out moments of the evening. Her question in full: “Can you tell us what white privilege means to you and can you give me an example from your life or career when you think you have benefitted from it?” The prompt ushered in cheers from the crowd. “I think it is hard when you are swimming in the ocean to know exactly what is happening around you so much as it is when you’re standing on the shore perhaps watching," Clinton responded. Clinton then said she considered herself a “lucky person” growing up and listed a few examples of when that luck came into play in her early years. “I was born white, middle-class, in the middle of America. I went to good public schools. I had a very strong, supportive family. I had a lot of great experiences growing up. I went to a wonderful college. I went to law school,” Clinton said. But it was until she was 11 years old when she said she had a strong understanding of just how “different” her life was. She shared her experience of baby sitting children of migrant workers on Saturday evenings: Clinton's remarks didn’t satisfy Anguiano, who said she was "disappointed" in Clinton’s response. She told Fusion following the forum that her reaction was: "I don't know where you're going with this... I feel like she didn’t answer it." I remember going out there taking care of these adorable little kids. And... I kind of thought, well, they’re very different from me. They’ve got different experiences but they were just little kids. At the end of the day... the bus stopped and the parents and older brothers sisters got out and when little kids saw them they just dropped everything and began running for their mothers and fathers holding their arms out. And I remember it like it was yesterday watching that and I was thinking I used to do that with my father and i’m watching these kids and their families and they have to work so hard and the place they live is not very nice and I just felt, I just have a different kind of life. I didn’t call it a particular name but it was a different life and i knew that.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mistertim Posted January 13, 2016 Share Posted January 13, 2016 I swear that, in order to become a politician, there must be some kind of drug or surgery or some such, that completely removes one's ability to look in a mirror. Maybe it's a disease, since it seems to have the ability to spread to a politician's supporters, too. I believe it is called being a psychopath. IIRC there have been studies that show that, by far, high level corporate executives and politicians have a disproportionate amount of psychopaths/sociopaths compared to the rest of the populace. (paging Jumbo) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chipwhich Posted January 13, 2016 Share Posted January 13, 2016 I believe it is called being a psychopath. IIRC there have been studies that show that, by far, high level corporate executives and politicians have a disproportionate amount of psychopaths/sociopaths compared to the rest of the populace. (paging Jumbo) I call it being a Narcissist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mistertim Posted January 13, 2016 Share Posted January 13, 2016 Wow, I love this girl. Her handlers were probably squirming backstage. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-explains-what-white-privilege-means-to-her_5695269fe4b09dbb4bac9f99 I think you'll be more devastated than anyone if Hillary loses. You won't know what to do with your time. lol I call it being a Narcissist. Well, the two do tend to go hand in hand, I think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted January 13, 2016 Share Posted January 13, 2016 It wouldn't surprise me to see Biden decide to get into the race if Clinton looks vulnerable after the first round. If Clinton looks vulnerable and Bernie looks like he's competitive.. The race is literally wide open and the nomination is anybody's to take. Biden, Gore, or Warren have been discussed about 1 or all getting in. The problem is though that there are 50 states and each state has a fairly involved balloting process. For someone to get into the race now and try to set up an organization in all 50 states and successfully navigate that process is an insurmountable task. The only way someone could do it is if they already had that infrastructure in place. So now the calculation becomes.. how many ballots can they get on. Could they get on enough ballots to win the nomination.. and that's where we are now. I can't get on Oregon, but I could get on California.. I can't get on New Hampshire but maybe Massachusetts. I think the window has set on any new comers to the race. The process bar is set too high. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted January 13, 2016 Share Posted January 13, 2016 So does Jeb. See what that's brought him. Yes I 100% agree with you. The GOP has done an outstanding job of allowing the primary to evolve naturally. Some of the leadership have jumped into smack Trump with a newspaper from time to time.. but overall they've left election to evolve and have stayed out of it. Jeb looked weak and disinterested in the first debate and the party pretty much left it to him to fix himself. Trump has just buried him. Jeb will be back though in some future race, he's a young man and their are a lot of savy political advisors his family can call on, too bad Jeb hasn't used many of them so far in this election. What the GOP also did an outstanding job on was their debates. Allowing the wide open structures which have allowed the candidates to explore the differences amongst themselves. The back and forth with Paul and Christi, or Paul and Fiorina, or Cruz and Rubio, Bush and Rubio.. Trump and about everybody.. It's been terrific TV. I know a lot of the candidates have complained about it but I really think even when the questions have been devastatingly hard, the candidates have risen to the challenge. Even Megan Kelly of Fox.. Donald Trump wasn't hurt at all by her line of questioning.. He told the truth and by and large his followers respected that. If he were to have tried to finesse her questions it wouldn't have worked out nearly as well for him. Rand Paul has crushed several moderators who were dismissive of his ideas. Rubio has had some of the most comprehensive answers on foreign policy not sure too many of the candidates on the stage could even follow him. There was a Show on HBO called NewsRoom a year or so ago... Premise of the show was the anchor of the show was a conservative and the producer was more liberal; but they pitched an idea to the GOP to host a more open debate in order to allow the people to vet the candidates better themselves. It appears to me the GOP was watching that now cancelled show. Very disappointed on what is happening on the Democrate side of the house with regards to the debates. Where the GOP wants lots of debates each lasting for hours, wide open discussions and hard hitting questions specifically tailored to the believed shortcomings of each candidate... The Dems ( aka Hillary campagn ) want very few debates, shorter in time, heavily scripted, limited or no exchange of Ideas and they want to hold them in time slots which means they won't have a very large audience. Democratic Debates in 2015-16 election..(6) Democratic Debates in 2008 election.....(26) GOP Debates in 2015-16 elections........(11) GOP Debates in 2008 election ...........(21) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chipwhich Posted January 13, 2016 Share Posted January 13, 2016 Very disappointed on what is happening on the Democrate side of the house with regards to the debates. Democrats debates more like Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.