The Evil Genius Posted January 13, 2016 Share Posted January 13, 2016 Who exactly should be fighting for that D nomination, JMS? Like the GOP of 2015, I don't see many good candidates. Should the horrible ones have run too for the D nomination only to waste millions? I mean, it's not like Fox News is banging down the doors of failed D candidates like they are/will be with the failed GOPers. The D's really have only 1 good candidate right now. So what? 4 years from now, I expect a lot of options..should Hillary lose in 2016. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted January 13, 2016 Share Posted January 13, 2016 One of the side affects of GOP domination in off year elections has been the complete depletion of the Dem bench. Biden and Warren are the only two who should be running but aren't. I guess Gore and Kerry should be thinking about it too. Otherwise you'd be looking at a bunch of nobodies like the GOP has running. It's a fascinating race on both sides. Pure entertainment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted January 13, 2016 Share Posted January 13, 2016 I'd say they are more green than nobodies - although maybe nobodies fits, Kilmer. And none have the charm of Obama 2007 nor the exposure he had (I mean he did do the DNC keynote in 2004). I fully expect one of the Castros, Cuomo, Booker, Antonio Villaraigosa, or some of the other new guard to emerge between now and 2020 (or '24 ). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted January 13, 2016 Share Posted January 13, 2016 Agree with you, Kilmer, about Warren. Granted, I don't know that much about her, other than in the most vague terms But in vague terms, it seems to me like if she were running, she might be running away with it. At least in my imagination, she's got the populist, anti-corporate, appeal of Bernie, without the "can't possibly get elected" label. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RVAbrendan Posted January 13, 2016 Share Posted January 13, 2016 Agree with you, Kilmer, about Warren. Granted, I don't know that much about her, other than in the most vague terms But in vague terms, it seems to me like if she were running, she might be running away with it. At least in my imagination, she's got the populist, anti-corporate, appeal of Bernie, without the "can't possibly get elected" label. I feel like that label isn't going to be a thing soon enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted January 13, 2016 Share Posted January 13, 2016 http://www.politico.com/story/2016/01/eric-holder-endorses-hillary-clinton-217701 Eric Holder endorses Hillary Clinton Former Attorney General Eric Holder endorsed Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination on Wednesday, praising his former administration colleague's plans to tackle a wide range of issues, from gun violence to college affordability. "Our next president can't shy away from building on the progress of President Obama, which is why Hillary Clinton is the candidate that we need in the White House," Holder said, according to The Associated Press, which first reported the news from the Clinton campaign earlier this morning. Ahead of Sunday's debate in Charleston, Holder will campaign for Clinton in South Carolina. Holder is one of several past and present Obama Cabinet officials to endorse the former secretary of state, including former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Interior Secretary Ken Salazar. Current Cabinet officials who have endorsed Clinton include Housing and Urban Development Secretary Julián Castro, Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx, Labor Secretary Tom Perez and Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted January 13, 2016 Share Posted January 13, 2016 Well, now there's no way the gun nut militia members vote for her. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted January 13, 2016 Share Posted January 13, 2016 Pro-Jeb Bush super PAC shuts down http://www.politico.com/story/2016/01/vamos-for-jeb-2016-closes-217713?cmpid=sf The pro-Jeb Bush super PAC Vamos for Jeb 2016 is shuttering its doors. The group, which was formed by political website Elephant News founder Claire Hardwick, sent a letter to the Federal Election Commission Tuesday announcing its decision to disband. "The committee has not raised nor dispersed any funds and would like to accordingly terminate and be discontinued," wrote Andrea Wong, the treasurer for the super PAC. "Up to this point the only activity done were social media pages on Twitter, Instagram and Facebook which have been deactivated." More from link. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS 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. Teddy Roosevelt was a progressive.. he started the Bull Moose Party and before that tried to move the Republican party into the progressive camp. Teddy is also the father of modern liberalism. He ran for president with 3 core beliefs which today are still cornerstones of liberal beliefs.. regulating corporations, protecting consumers from the free market, and safeguarding natural resources from overuse. Given Progressive and Liberal are literally synonyms.. What to your mind is the difference? Also consider these quotes when saying Teddy Roosevelt wasn't a liberal.. because teddy certainly considered himself a liberal. “It is essential that there should be organization of labor. This is an era of organization. Capital organizes and therefore labor must organize.” ~Theodore Roosevelt 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. I think there has been a well orchestrated persistent commitment by some to change the meanings of common words in this country. This began with conservative = good and liberal = bad... and it's progressed from there. The net effect is today liberals and conservatives don't speak the same language. That fact stifles discussions. One can not consider an idea, from the other side of the political isle, if one literally ascribes different meaning to the language that other person uses. When you let your political ideology define your vocabulary... it really means you are allowing others to control your thoughts. I therefore would say it's very important for all political discussions to use the same language, the common language, the English language; and today we don't do that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted January 13, 2016 Share Posted January 13, 2016 http://www.politico.com/story/2016/01/poll-gop-voters-217705 Poll: Republicans warm to Cruz, cool to Trump As Ted Cruz and Chris Christie have risen in the esteem of Republican voters, so have fallen Ben Carson, Jeb Bush and Donald Trump, according to the results of the latest ABC News/Washington Post poll out Wednesday morning. Carson is still the most favorably viewed candidate, with 62 percent expressing a positive view of the retired neurosurgeon, though experiencing an 9-point drop in the last two months. Meanwhile, Cruz gained seven points, rising to 60 percent favorable. Florida Sen. Marco Rubio remained static with 58 percent favorable. Donald Trump, meanwhile, dropped 12 points among the Republican voters surveyed, from 69 percent in November to 57 percent this month. Christie shot up 18 points, from 35 percent to 53 percent, as the governor has also risen in early-state polling, particularly in New Hampshire, where the governor has devoted much of his time campaigning. Like Trump, Bush also fell 12 points, from 56 percent to 44 percent, as the former governor of Florida continues to struggle in early-state and national polling. On the Democratic side, 84 percent of voters viewed Hillary Clinton favorably. The poll also asked voters' opinions of former President Bill Clinton, who along with daughter Chelsea has begun campaigning for his wife solo in early-voting states. Nearly the same share — 83 percent — saw the former president favorably, while Sanders is seen favorably by 58 percent of Democratic voters, closer to where his would-be Republican opponents sit among their partisans. Among all adults surveyed, former President Clinton led the way with 53 percent favorable, followed by the former secretary of state with 48 percent and Sanders with 44 percent. Cruz, Carson and Rubio were the top Republican candidates among all surveyed, with 42 percent, 41 percent and 40 percent favorability, respectively. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/01/13/on-ted-cruzs-dismissal-of-new-york-values/?postshare=2021452717310785&tid=ss_tw On Ted Cruz’s dismissal of ‘New York values’ https://twitter.com/politico 'Duck Dynasty' patriarch Phil Robertson endorses Ted Cruz in duck-hunting video http://politi.co/1mWuMcz | Getty 3:47 PM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted January 13, 2016 Share Posted January 13, 2016 Well, now there's no way the gun nut militia members vote for her. Eric Holder, Isn't he the guy who proclaimed the United States Government has the right to extra judiciously execute American citizens on American soil with drones? To my mind he and Alberto Gonzales were the two criminals who inhabited that office. Two guys who never had any business being the chief defenders of American laws, because they broke them when politically expedient to do so. Both should be in jail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted January 13, 2016 Share Posted January 13, 2016 Teddy Roosevelt was a progressive.. he started the Bull Moose Party and before that tried to move the Republican party into the progressive camp. Teddy is also the father of modern liberalism. He ran for president with 3 core beliefs which today are still cornerstones of liberal beliefs.. regulating corporations, protecting consumers from the free market, and safeguarding natural resources from overuse. Given Progressive and Conservative are literally synonyms.. What to your mind is the difference? Also consider these quotes when saying Teddy Roosevelt wasn't a liberal.. because teddy certainly considered himself a liberal. 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. I'm on my 3rd biography of him. Obv started with Rex. Then kind of went sideways with River of Doubt before jumping back to Colonel. Those quotes are good ones and apply to a different era of over 100 years ago. Granted today he wouldn't be a Republican. People say Reagan wouldn't be today either and that's only 30 years difference. But those quotes remind me of stories from my Great-Aunts during WWII. When their Brothers were in the military and stateside you had Victory Gardens, people opening their homes to traveling enlisted, etc etc. That was doing your part because you were giving back. it was expected of you by your community. We aren't like that anymore. It's been turned into being called Socialist somehow. Sadly, the Bull-Moose Progressive Party could be used today. I think it would be a true Centrist Party today.It wouldn't have been the short burst it was if he won the GOP Nom in 2012 against Taft. But he didn't and rolled on his own. Which is next to impossible today. I think a Progressive keeps an eye towards the future and looks for solutions before the problem is out of control instead of waiting until it is too late. It's about recognizing reality of the situation and getting things done. Roosevelt lived in that era. American know-how and hard work. Using the Gov't to get stuff done that is a legit need. Making sure that our food and water isn't tainted. Making sure our roads aren't falling apart. Making sure we don't run out of X,Y,Z. To me it is being pragmatic. I personally see Liberalism as more rooted in Ideology and less in practicality. That's why I don't see the ACA as Liberalism. But a progressive idea like having which isn't all that different than having National Defense or a CDC under one roof. That's how Conservatives could be for whatever they called with around Romneycare and before that. It's possible to be for that kind of thing from all sides. To the differences from Conservatism. People will say that it has everything to do with going back to what is tried and tested. We've seen this idea that tax breaks and deregulation will fix the economy. But when has that worked? The job creators aren't motivated to use more $$ to hire better or more labor is there are no rules in place to keep them from doing the opposite. What will abolishing the IRS accomplish? The idea of National Education? What is the end-goal with that? Bottom line is that I believe a person can be a Conservative-Progressive, Centrist-Progressive, or a Liberal-Progressive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted January 13, 2016 Share Posted January 13, 2016 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/01/13/on-ted-cruzs-dismissal-of-new-york-values/?postshare=2021452717310785&tid=ss_tw On Ted Cruz’s dismissal of ‘New York values’ I'm thinking Trump's response should be "Last I checked, New York was in the United States". Doesn't really say anything, but it comes across as superficially witty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted January 13, 2016 Share Posted January 13, 2016 Bush takes another dig at Rubio: 'I don't have a height issue' Jeb Bush dug a bit deeper into Marco Rubio on Wednesday, taking a veiled shot at his Republican opponent's record and another dig at his height, a day after a super PAC supporting him released an ad alleging that the Florida senator has flip-flopped while alluding to the high-heeled boots he wore in New Hampshire earlier this month. On Tuesday, the pro-Bush super PAC Right to Rise unveiled a digital-only ad knocking Rubio for his absence from the Senate and other policy decisions. (One of the lines, to the tune of "These Boots Are Made for Walkin'": "You keep leavin’ when you oughta be votin’. Now what’s work is work, but you ain’t earned it yet"). More from the link. http://www.politico.com/story/2016/01/jeb-bush-marco-rubio-2016-election-height-issue-217706 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted January 13, 2016 Share Posted January 13, 2016 Who exactly should be fighting for that D nomination, JMS? Like the GOP of 2015, I don't see many good candidates. Should the horrible ones have run too for the D nomination only to waste millions? I mean, it's not like Fox News is banging down the doors of failed D candidates like they are/will be with the failed GOPers. The D's really have only 1 good candidate right now. So what? 4 years from now, I expect a lot of options..should Hillary lose in 2016. Right.. So the Democrats have quite a few good potential Candidates with differing ideas who cross the polical spectrum.. Why didn't they run, or why aren't they running now.. Clinton.. Clinton has actively maneuvered to keep them out of the race. She's got the DNC leadership in her employ literally, and she's even had some of the moderators in her employ like Anderson Cooper. The Clintons have engineered the Democratic field with as few viable options as possible... and I've heard some tin foil hat stories from political insiders who say they've even had some fingers in on the GOP side of the house. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted January 13, 2016 Share Posted January 13, 2016 I guess it depends on which "they" you are talking about. Biden didn't run because he didn't have it in him anymore, especially with Beau's death. Gore didn't run because he hasn't been relevant since 2000. Warren didn't run because likely she is friends with Hillary. Who else qualified are you talking about? Because really..there isn't much in the new blood department right now that has both the charisma and the national name that Obama and Bubba C. did. Also..I think you are getting into the tin foul hat side too much JMS. Next you will be telling us about that Clinton hitlist and how Hillary secretly helped El Chapo escape. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chipwhich Posted January 13, 2016 Share Posted January 13, 2016 Charlie Rangel comes to mind.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted January 13, 2016 Share Posted January 13, 2016 Charlie Rangel comes to mind.... For what? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted January 13, 2016 Share Posted January 13, 2016 I'm on my 3rd biography of him. Obv started with Rex. Then kind of went sideways with River of Doubt before jumping back to Colonel. Those quotes are good ones and apply to a different era of over 100 years ago. Granted today he wouldn't be a Republican. I don't know if that's true. Teddy wasn't a Republican because republicans of his time were liberals and agreed with him. Teddy was a republican because he was a reformer like his father before him; and in NY being a reformer meant you were going against the Democrats and Tammany Hall. I think Teddy was just so powerful presence that he moved his party to his own ideals like Reagan did in the 1980's. I don't think Teddy cared if his party particularly agreed with him on whatever.. Teddy was a popularist. Teddy Took aim at injustices and rallied folks behind him.. Among GOP insiders he wasn't popular early on. They made him VP not because they liked him, they made him VP to bury him. Made him VP for McKinley's second term in office, an utterly powerless position where his GOP enemies thought he would languish for 4 years.. Problem was McKinley was shot 5 months into his second term, died and that propelled TR to become the youngest president in the history of the country to that point.. We aren't like that anymore. It's been turned into being called Socialist somehow. I don't know.. I mean after 911 their was such an outpouring of emotion and patriotism I really think I could imagine seeing what the country was like after Pearl Harbor. I don't think we've changed that much. People still love the country.. it's more about what the country asks of us now.. After Pearl Harbor FDR asked for soldiers and for citizens to volunteer to do their patriotic duty. After 911 Bush asked us all to shop. Sadly, the Bull-Moose Progressive Party could be used today. I think it would be a true Centrist Party today.It wouldn't have been the short burst it was if he won the GOP Nom in 2012 against Taft. But he didn't and rolled on his own. Which is next to impossible today. Teddy Roosevelt was one of the most popular and greatest presidents in American history. He hand picked his successor in Taft. Taft was one of Teddy's best friends and his chief of staff. Then Teddy missed the office so badly he decided to try to displace Taft and do war basically with his own machine. Teddy and Taft ended up splitting the liberal / Progressive vote which allowed Wilson to get in. I think a Progressive keeps an eye towards the future and looks for solutions before the problem is out of control instead of waiting until it is too late. It's about recognizing reality of the situation and getting things done. Roosevelt lived in that era. American know-how and hard work. Using the Gov't to get stuff done that is a legit need. Making sure that our food and water isn't tainted. Making sure our roads aren't falling apart. Making sure we don't run out of X,Y,Z. To me it is being pragmatic. Roosevelt lived in an age of corruption and trusts. Where 10% of the workforce of Carnagie Steel could expect to die on the job in any given year. ( became US Steel in 1901).. Where one banker in JP Morgan had more control over the US economy and stopping and starting economic turmoil than the US Government. The age of Upton Synclair detailing how dangerous the US food supply was. An age when the majority of Americans lived far below the poverty line and wealth was concentrated in the hands a very few. And into that age Teddy Roosevelt threw himself like a bull into a china shop. I personally see Liberalism as more rooted in Ideology and less in practicality. That's why I don't see the ACA as Liberalism. But a progressive idea like having which isn't all that different than having National Defense or a CDC under one roof. That's how Conservatives could be for whatever they called with around Romneycare and before that. It's possible to be for that kind of thing from all sides. The Affordable Care Act wasn't liberal because it wasn't a new idea it was about tweeking the existing system so the existing system could continue. It was a conservative plan first proposed by the conservative heritage foundation and first championed by Richard Nixon. Liberals Lead by Ted Kennedy opposed it and voted it down in the 1970's. It was a conservative plan because at it's core it was about reforming the existing system. Liberals wanted a single payer system and universal healthcare, President Obama gave up on those ideas before the debate even began. To the differences from Conservatism. People will say that it has everything to do with going back to what is tried and tested. We've seen this idea that tax breaks and deregulation will fix the economy. But when has that worked? The job creators aren't motivated to use more $$ to hire better or more labor is there are no rules in place to keep them from doing the opposite. What will abolishing the IRS accomplish? The idea of National Education? What is the end-goal with that? I think there are a lot of ideological conservatives who look back fondly on the 1880's - 1920's as the model our nation should subscribe too. A time when private industry championed the automobile revolution,.. Championed electrifying the country, Building the transcontinental Railroad and the rail road system which was among the most comprehensive in the world at the time, Building the steel industry which allowed for bridges across our nations great rivers and sky scrappers to move our cities towards the heavens.. Championed our movement away from an agrarian society and into an industrial society. A time when Great things needed to happen, Business men stepped up. I think this philosophy are much less aware / concerned with the problems of this era. basically all the problems faced by those who weren't ultra wealthy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted January 13, 2016 Share Posted January 13, 2016 I guess it depends on which "they" you are talking about. Biden didn't run because he didn't have it in him anymore, especially with Beau's death. Bidden didn't run because he was scared off by the Clinton Machine. That machine as I said had a lock on the polls, funding, party leadership, funding and a well financed Clinton foundation behind it with all the long tenticals that implies.. That is why nobody of merit ran in 2016 against Hillary on the Democratic side. She was just too formidable. By the times the cracks started appearing in her campaign it was just to late to jump in. Also..I think you are getting into the tin foul hat side too much JMS. Next you will be telling us about that Clinton hitlist and how Hillary secretly helped El Chapo escape. I agree with you.. The Roger Stone stuff is definitely tin foil hat stuff. I bring it up because I have two friends who are political activists both who have worked for Stone when he was with the Reagan campaign. Both have worked for him with Trump too. They are Republicans hired by Trump as stone was, to help with Casino zoning issues. This is what they are saying and I thought it would be fun to throw out here. The conspiracy theory goes like this... Trump establishes his credentials as a conservative, ultimately Trump runs as an independent and takes votes away from the GOP.. As Ross Perot's campaign did for Bill twice. Allowing Bill to win elections with the lowest vote percentages in 70 years... Bill never got the majority of either presidential election he ran in.. He won with 43% and 49% respectively and in both elections he looses if Ross Perot doesn't run. It just wouldn't be that hard to do. What would you need? (1) A gifted political activist driven by money rather than political loyalties.. Check! (2) This political activist would need to be known to the Clintons.. Check!.. . (3) Money to fund the plan going back to 2004... Check. (4) A candidate who would be receptive to the idea he could be and should be president on the fringe of the political system who could be convinced to go independent. (5) A good political message for that candidate to use to sell himself to between 4-10% of likely GOP voters, check Stone is credited with giving that to Trump, his core issues and his stump speech. (6) Clinton's fore knowledge they would be running in 2008 and then again in 2016 beginning in 2004 when Stone officially breaks with the Clintons and starts recruiting Donald. (7) Finally the imagination and balls to manipulate the American political system. Check. Bill/Hillary are political savants. Anyway it is tin foil hat stuff, it's fun to talk about, it can't be proven. It also hasn't ultimately worked out in Hillary's favor. Donald isn't going to run as an independent, and I don't think he's a weak candidate vs Hillary. In the latest polls he's not only getting support from the GOP but now he's taking voters from the Democrats. 20% of likely democratic voters said they would suppot Trump over Hillary in the general. It would make it very interesting tin foil hat stuff if Rodger Stone re-appears in the Clinton Camp after the election. He is no longer associated with the Trump Camp as of the first debate.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted January 13, 2016 Share Posted January 13, 2016 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoony Posted January 14, 2016 Share Posted January 14, 2016 I really can't remember a POTUS race with such a terrible group on both sides I would vote for Mitt Romney or John Kerry before I'd vote for anyone in the race currently Just sad. Really wish Biden would run. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted January 14, 2016 Share Posted January 14, 2016 I really can't remember a POTUS race with such a terrible group on both sides I would vote for Mitt Romney or John Kerry before I'd vote for anyone in the race currently Just sad. Really wish Biden would run. The most capable are also too smart to put themselves and their families through the process. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StillUnknown Posted January 14, 2016 Share Posted January 14, 2016 http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/265775-haley-hits-rubio-on-amnesty-bush-on-common-core In her address, Haley implored Americans not to "follow the siren call of the angriest voices."She said Wednesday that Trump's call for a temporary ban on Muslim immigration to the country is what compelled her to speak out.“You know, the one thing that got me, I think, was when he started saying ban all Muslims," she said. "We’ve never in the history of this country passed any laws or done anything based on race or religion," she added. "Let’s not start that now." how does one even construct that sentence? and she's a VP candidate? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinsmarydu Posted January 14, 2016 Share Posted January 14, 2016 She could be. That's what's really sad, unless she's pulling a Palin... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.