Ok we got a snow day to play with so let me start stirring up the pot with some political observations. This week the guys that want to be the Republican candidates for president went to Iowa to audition for the Koch Brothers. Let me tell you I want to, I need to vote Republican. As part of the Eastern Liberal non elite I am begging you to find a candidate that I can vote for without feeling like an idiot.

So far it has been a lot of retreads. Lets cover them.

Rick Perry. If you look closer his glasses they don't have any lenses, someone told him he wouldn't look or act so stupid if he wore glasses. They forgot to tell them about why they are called glasses in the first place.


Sarah Palin. WTF she sounded like she was having a stroke. Just a series of confusing Haiku's that only she could understand. Please just go away. You are killing us.

Mike Huckabee. Buddy come on, If you can look in the mirror and truly love the guy you see then you can run for president if you cant then get some help. Small steps friend it will be okay.

Ted Cruz. You know the cliché about the closet homosexual politician that votes against gay marriage. Cruz is that guy on immigration. How can a guy with the last name Cruz be against immigration. He must cry himself to sleep every night.

Rand Paul. Do you remember that really smart, smug #^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^& you knew in college. He got elected Senator. Has zero friends knows he is surrounded by morons. Cant believe this idiots won't vote for him.

Chris Christie. The guy can be mean and mean people suck. One of his first acts of office would be arranging payback for all those fools that crossed him.

Milt Romney. I like Milt, he doesn't like me. If your goals, just happen to be the same as his goals than great, if not then your screwed.

there some other guys sniffing around the party. No real feel on them yet.

I tell you if this great party that brought us Reagan and Theodore Roosevelt and the greatest president Lincoln, wants us to vote one of the above guys in. If this is the best we can do. then maybe its time to start a new party. I do not mean the tea party. That's a whole other s-show.

If you want my vote, earn it. Don't pick on the poor and needy, don't harass the president, don't be us against them. Be humble, be cooperative and be inclusive. I really don't feel like any of the guys that went to Iowa are electable. Clean house and get moving.

How about Scott Walker?

Follow your heart Duke
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You forgot Trump!

Duke, the ones you mentioned are a sideshow. At this point, the serious candidates are Jen bush (hugely popular in Florida, which is not a red state, so he's not a hard liner), Marco Rubio, Scott walker. Walker is doing good things in his state, also not a red state. There are some great republican governors...not a lot of impressive GOP congressmen...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Trump ! Yes!!!!!!!!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Follow your heart Duke
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Following your heart may be great in creating or appreciating art. but doing so in politics will usually lead to a broken heart. Politics is an unusual beast.

The "art" of politics is persuasion rather than creation of beauty. On the contrary, it usually creates ugliness and dissatisfaction. The "science" of politics is the study of political history to satisfy intellectual curiosity, or to better understand what and how politics has worked. presumably, to produce politicians who have some idea about what they are doing.

Human nature, in all of its glorious imperfection, will tend in the end to drift, out of necessity or lust for power, from the honest scientific inquiry into demagogic persuasion. Into the "art" of politics. And, as in the other arts, what is persuaded is the heart.

The tyrant first persuades your "heart," your emotions. Without some basis in the historical record, and some solid universal principles, the voter is persuaded to be an emotional slave.

Milt Romney. No wonder he doesn't like you; you can't even get his name right........

Duke, the ones you mentioned are a sideshow. At this point, the serious candidates are Jen bush (hugely popular in Florida, which is not a red state, so he's not a hard liner), Marco Rubio, Scott walker. Walker is doing good things in his state, also not a red state. There are some great republican governors...not a lot of impressive GOP congressmen...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I like Scott Walker. Rubio is OK. But Jeb Bush?!? What's so good about him? Talk about retreads. He retreads the same BS of what's gone on after Reagan left the scene

Milt Romney. No wonder he doesn't like you; you can't even get his name right........

ha your right

[QUOTE=detbuch;1063077]I like Scott Walker. Rubio is OK. But Jeb Bush?!? What's so good about him? Talk about retreads. He retreads the same BS of what's gone on after Reagan left the scene[/QUOTE

He's better than Hilary on every issue that matters to me
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[QUOTE=detbuch;1063077]I like Scott Walker. Rubio is OK. But Jeb Bush?!? What's so good about him? Talk about retreads. He retreads the same BS of what's gone on after Reagan left the scene[/QUOTE

He's better than Hilary on every issue that matters to me
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Gee golly . . . just what we need . . . a continuation of Bush vs. Clinton . . . wonder if Chelsea is being groomed. Weren't Bush Senior and Clinton good buddies. And, oh, hasn't it been established time and again on this forum that Obama continued and expanded Bush policies? Perhaps the Obama girls are waiting in the distant wings to join in the ruling class charade.

Are Jeb and Hillary more different from each other than are Jeb and Cruz from each other? Is Jeb more different from Hillary than he is from the Tea Party?

all set with the Bush thing....no Jeb...no Mitt...thank you...it's too bad the Republicans can't locate quality candidates to battle for the nomination each year the caliber of Joe Biden, Howard Dean and Al Sharpton.....Dems don't even need a nominating process, just crown Hill...she's apparently "entitled"......sounds like Liawatha is Plan B if Hill crashes and burns....remember that O was elected because while having no experience or expertise he was really smart and spoke the right words and whenever he didn't, well that was ok, he'd grow into the position because he was "really smart".....he's successfully lowered the bar for all future candidates in terms of qualifications and now performance...if you voted for him you really have no business asking the GOP to provide some candidate that meets your criteria this time around because what?...you want to now change/reverse the socialist/progressive trend of the nation?......you were "DUPED"?..you voted for the most left leaning of any president in memory and now you want to give the house, senate and Presidency to the Republicans? "Please GOP, save us, give me a great candidate that I can vote for so that we can put the government completely in control of the Republicans"....that's funny...

I think many of the folks that will compete will be far more accomplished than the current occupant when he was considered....that's a good start...electing a president is always a crap shoot...they have history to deal with and how they deal with it determines their legacy...I've noticed that some Presidents and their supporters, particularly on the democrat side, like to pre-determine the legacy of their Presidents...establish them as GREAT before they've even taken office...doesn't work that way...

Scott Walker..Marco Rubio...Ben Carson, not necessarily in that order

Hilary was a SURE THING in 08' and look what happened

whomever the candidate is
they should be least likely to start WW3

If you look at the support staff behind the candidates I would prefer the Bush v Clinton race. I think the big problems start when you get a person that comes from nowhere and does not have the Federal government experienced support staff to get things done. My guess is it might be hard to tell the difference between the two a lot of times over the course of the campaign.

If you look at the support staff behind the candidates I would prefer the Bush v Clinton race. I think the big problems start when you get a person that comes from nowhere and does not have the Federal government experienced support staff to get things done. My guess is it might be hard to tell the difference between the two a lot of times over the course of the campaign.

Your absolutely right. If the goal is to continue our present course, the Bush v Clinton race is ideal. No matter which one wins, nothing will change.

if we are at a point where only entrenched pols and family dynasties are capable of wielding the experienced support staff to get things done by harnessing the expanding bureaucracy....then we are truly screwed...

seems to me we don't elect politicians to be experts and anything in particular, we elect them to have good judgment in representing us

[QUOTE=Jim in CT;1063105]

Gee golly . . . just what we need . . . a continuation of Bush vs. Clinton . . . wonder if Chelsea is being groomed. Weren't Bush Senior and Clinton good buddies. And, oh, hasn't it been established time and again on this forum that Obama continued and expanded Bush policies? Perhaps the Obama girls are waiting in the distant wings to join in the ruling class charade.

Are Jeb and Hillary more different from each other than are Jeb and Cruz from each other? Is Jeb more different from Hillary than he is from the Tea Party?

I loved Dubya, I'd have no problem with his brother - they both respect life, they both grasp that we're at war with radical Islam, they both believe that the free market can do more good than a massive federal government. Jeb's not my first choice either, but I like him a lot.

"Are Jeb and Hillary more different from each other than are Jeb and Cruz from each other?"

i would say yes. By a wide margin.


"Is Jeb more different from Hillary than he is from the Tea Party?"

Yes again, by a wide margin.

Depends on what your priorities are. Personally, abortion is huge for me. So are good old fashioned family values and Christian values. Through those lenses, Jeb couldn't be more different than Hilary...If all I cared about was immigration, maybe Jeb looks more like Hilary...but when I line them up side-by-side on the issues I care about, no comparison.

Whoever wins the GOP nomination would be a zillion times better than Hilary.

if we are at a point where only entrenched pols and family dynasties are capable of wielding the experienced support staff to get things done by harnessing the expanding bureaucracy....then we are truly screwed...

seems to me we don't elect politicians to be experts and anything in particular, we elect them to have good judgment in representing us

I agree, I'm not a fan of oligarchies either. I just happen to like Jeb Bush a lot more than I like Hilary Clinton. I'm not sure Jeb is electable, as there is still a lot of "Bush fatigue" out there...

if we are at a point where only entrenched pols and family dynasties are capable of wielding the experienced support staff to get things done by harnessing the expanding bureaucracy....then we are truly screwed...

Spot on. The "getting things done" at the federal level syndrome is "done" by the unelected bureaucracy, the regulatory agencies, which are THE FINAL SUPPORTING STAFF. And, until we get presidents and congress people who are unexperienced with such a support staff, who wish to be responsible and held accountable for what is "done," rather than passing it on to bureaucrats, nothing will change.

seems to me we don't elect politicians to be experts and anything in particular, we elect them to have good judgment in representing us

Yes, and that requires a fundamental process through which they can represent. Government is, basically, process. And the process by which we are governed determines the limits of our freedoms. As well, therefor, it determines to what degree we are dependent rather than free.

So, shouldn't we be concerned as voters with what process those we vote for intend to govern more than what they intend to "get done"? Shouldn't we want most of what gets done to be at more local levels by those most responsive to what our communities want, rather than to be done by one-size-fits-all distant bureaucracies? Shouldn't we demand that the distant federal Presidency, rather than inserting itself into the daily lives of the entire population, be limited to a specifically designated process rather than governing as an all-powerful autocrat?

The "progressive" process is basically fiat rule by autocratic bureaucracy. The Bush and Clinton dynasties are separated in their progressiveness only by marginal degrees. They are both prone to the progressive concept of President as one who is not limited by a constitutional process, but one who expands power well beyond the scope of the Constitution, one slightly more "progressive" than the other.

We are pretty much stuck into the progressive process of government now, but if we want to reverse course toward a more limited government process, the separation in ideology of the candidate we vote for must be in large rather than small degrees different than either Clinton or Bush. There may not be a perfect candidate at this time, but if we wish to "go in the right direction," we must wean ourselves from the notion of The President as the driver of getting all things "done." And we must promote candidates who respect us as individuals and execute, "do," the laws that we, through our representatives, enact as the will of the people, rather than execute their own personal whim and will.

Nobody mentioned John Kasich governor of Ohio....we do not need a jeb bush or hillary....R we going to be like the british and keep it in the family?

Want my opinion on what is required to vote republican? :hihi:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Yes, and that requires a fundamental process through which they can represent. Government is, basically, process. And the process by which we are governed determines the limits of our freedoms. As well, therefor, it determines to what degree we are dependent rather than free.

So, shouldn't we be concerned as voters with what process those we vote for intend to govern more than what they intend to "get done"? Shouldn't we want most of what gets done to be at more local levels by those most responsive to what our communities want, rather than to be done by one-size-fits-all distant bureaucracies? Shouldn't we demand that the distant federal Presidency, rather than inserting itself into the daily lives of the entire population, be limited to a specifically designated process rather than governing as an all-powerful autocrat?

The "progressive" process is basically fiat rule by autocratic bureaucracy. The Bush and Clinton dynasties are separated in their progressiveness only by marginal degrees. They are both prone to the progressive concept of President as one who is not limited by a constitutional process, but one who expands power well beyond the scope of the Constitution, one slightly more "progressive" than the other.

We are pretty much stuck into the progressive process of government now, but if we want to reverse course toward a more limited government process, the separation in ideology of the candidate we vote for must be in large rather than small degrees different than either Clinton or Bush. There may not be a perfect candidate at this time, but if we wish to "go in the right direction," we must wean ourselves from the notion of The President as the driver of getting all things "done." And we must promote candidates who respect us as individuals and execute, "do," the laws that we, through our representatives, enact as the will of the people, rather than execute their own personal whim and will.

So, shouldn't we be concerned as voters with what process those we vote for intend to govern more than what they intend to "get done"?

No, I am more concerned with what they will try to get done, as long as the process through which they do it, is constitutional. And so long as their "to do" list isn't intrusive. I want someone who will appoint judges who don't see their role as legislative activists; I want someone who is willing to say out loud that we are at war with Islamic jihadists; someone who believes in the free market; someone who concedes that SS and Medicre are, in their current form, a top-heavy Ponzi scheme about to tip over, etc...Per the liberal narrative, Hilary will get every single one of these things wrong.

Oh, and I want someone who will use caller id to send all of Al Sharpton's calls to a spam junk voicebox.

Nobody mentioned John Kasich governor of Ohio....we do not need a jeb bush or hillary....R we going to be like the british and keep it in the family?

He is doing some great things in Ohio, no doubt. From an electoral perspective, I like Jeb Bush with Kasich as his running mate. If that ticket could deliver Florida and Ohio, NOW we have a chance to win. I'm not saying that's my dream ticket (my dream ticket is Newt Gingrich and Condaleeza Rice), but that ticket has some serious electoral muscle behind it. The GOP ain't winning without Florida AND Ohio. Have to have them both. That ticket could well deliver those 2 key states...Romney picked Paul Ryan, who was absolutely useless. I like Ryan, but he couldn't even deliver his home state...

I really like John Kasich, good you brougt him up.

As I said, I don't lik ethe idea of political dynasties, it's not healthy. But if Jeb Bush i sth eonly candidate with a realistic chance to beat Hilary in the general, that's who I want running against her.

Not all dynasties are equally bad. The Bushes are made up of Clinton anti-matter...Couldn't be more diametrically opposite in terms of values (one family has values, one has none). That goes a long way with me.

Hilary lied through her teeth about getting shot at by snipers in Kosovo or somewhere. I still don't understand how that doesn't end her career right there.

Want my opinion on what is required to vote republican? :hihi:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I do. Seriously...

I do. Seriously...

I'll post my thoughts after work today.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Don't see it continuing the present course so much as having a better chance to work things out with the Senate and Congress and get things working better than they have been.

I like Jeb Bush with Kasich as his running mate. If that ticket could deliver Florida and Ohio, NOW we have a chance to win.
That would be the only way to pair them up and I could see an argument made to the party that it's the only way to win.

I don't think there's anything to the Bush fatigue angle. Independent voters will go for the least worst like they always do and if it's a Bush/Clinton race it's a wash.

Hillary's secret weapon is Bill on the stump. I'd like to see her paired up with Jim Webb.

I agree with Duke that the GOP field in Iowa looked more like the F-Troop than a serious party.

That being said the GOP nomination will either go to Jeb or Walker.

You're not gonna like to hear this Spence but Hillary isn't going to make it because Benghazi has not been done to death .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You're not gonna like to hear this Spence but Hillary isn't going to make it because Benghazi has not been done to death .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

How so? What new is going to come out at this point Buck... :fishslap:

You're not gonna like to hear this Spence but Hillary isn't going to make it because Benghazi has not been done to death .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

What is it 7 investigations?

It actually has been done to death.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

QUOTE=Jim in CT;1063164]So, shouldn't we be concerned as voters with what process those we vote for intend to govern more than what they intend to "get done"?

No, I am more concerned with what they will try to get done, as long as the process through which they do it, is constitutional.

Sorry, Jim . . . but what you say in your second sentence is an affirmative of your first sentence. The "as long as" clause is the controlling factor for you in accepting "what they will try to get done". So the second sentence should start with a "yes" rather than a "no," and the process, indeed, as you say, makes valid, or invalid, what is done.

When I posed the question if we shouldn't be more concerned with the process our politicians follow in governing than in what they intend (promise) to do, I was pointing specifically to the current political process of our regulatory state, the administrative form of government rather than the representative republican form we were originally given. So long as we are stuck in a system that governs through unelected regulatory agencies hand in hand with progressively minded politicians who unlimitedly expand the power of the Federal Government and its bureaucratic machinery topped off with autocratic presidential power, we have little chance, as folks below the top 10%, to be more than a pawn of a despotic oligarchic system. And so long as our Presidents choose to act progressively rather than constitutionally, it won't matter much who is elected. The constitutional process would reign them in. The progressive process frees them to do anything which restricts or abolishes freedom for the rest of us.

Jim in CT:
And so long as their "to do" list isn't intrusive. I want someone who will appoint judges who don't see their role as legislative activists;

And the process you chose, the constitutional process, would lessen or negate the ability of government to be intrusive. And the constitutional process, if followed as intended, would proscribe what you consider judicial activism.

Actually, process limits action in prescribed ways, and desired goals dictate the manner or process by which those goals are achieved. The goals and the process go together. Without goals, process has no meaning. Without process, goals cannot be reached. That was why and how the Constitution was created. It was a process, a structure, a form of government, which would best guarantee the desired goal of unalienable individual freedom for all.

The progressive process, on the other hand, is a creation founded on different goals. What "freedom" exists as a goal in progressivism is firstly freedom of, by, and for the government to do whatever it considers necessary for the collective "good" and welfare. The secondary "freedom" would therefor be whatever it allows to those who are governed.

Jim in CT:
I want someone who is willing to say out loud that we are at war with Islamic jihadists; someone who believes in the free market; someone who concedes that SS and Medicre are, in their current form, a top-heavy Ponzi scheme about to tip over, etc...Per the liberal narrative, Hilary will get every single one of these things wrong.[/QUOTE]

Well . . . someone can say and believe those things, but, unless the process by which we are governed changes, what someone says, other than speaking about, and fighting for changing the process, and succeeding, then nothing substantially will change. If you cannot understand that the SS and medicare systems, as intrusive, expansive, and impossibly costly as they are, and that the tightly regulated market, and all such dependency or freedom restricting controls all contribute to the GOAL of unlimited progressive government, you will be continually bewildered by the fact that no matter who we elect, we will continue down the same path.

As for the big difference between Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton, I tried internet searches looking for a concise depiction of the political differences between them, thinking I could come up with some, but article after article failed to actually point out what I was looking for. They mostly went on about other stuff or what they did, just stuff, but no point by point actual differences. One that made me laugh was a list of 10 bullet points, one through ten, with a blank after each number. And after the end of the empty list the quote "what difference does it make." I know, I know, there are some differences, some things like nuanced differences on abortion, which matter to you (which, by the way, should not be part of presidential responsibility), and so forth, but I was looking for something which would substantially make a difference in how we are governed. I did find this interesting little piece by Glenn Greenwald:

"Jeb Bush yesterday strongly suggested he was running for President in 2016. If he wins the GOP nomination, it is highly likely that his opponent for the presidency would be Hillary Clinton.

"Having someone who is the brother of one former president and the son of another run against the wife of still another former president would be sweetly illustrative of all sorts of degraded and illusory aspects of American life, from meritocracy to class mobility. That one of those two families exploited its vast wealth to obtain political power, while the other exploited its political power to obtain vast wealth, makes it more illustrative still: of the virtually complete merger between political and economic power, of the fundamentally oligarchical framework that drives American political life.

"Then there are their similar constituencies: what Politico termed “money men” instantly celebrated Jeb Bush’s likely candidacy, while the same publication noted just last month how Wall Street has long been unable to contain its collective glee over a likely Hillary Clinton presidency. The two ruling families have, unsurprisingly, developed a movingly warm relationship befitting their position: the matriarch of the Bush family (former First Lady Barbara) has described the Clinton patriarch (former President Bill) as a virtual family member, noting that her son, George W., affectionately calls his predecessor 'my brother by another mother.'

"If this happens, the 2016 election would vividly underscore how the American political class functions: by dynasty, plutocracy, fundamental alignment of interests masquerading as deep ideological divisions, and political power translating into vast private wealth and back again. The educative value would be undeniable: somewhat like how the torture report did, it would rub everyone’s noses in exactly those truths they are most eager to avoid acknowledging."

That would be the only way to pair them up and I could see an argument made to the party that it's the only way to win.

I don't think there's anything to the Bush fatigue angle. Independent voters will go for the least worst like they always do and if it's a Bush/Clinton race it's a wash.

Hillary's secret weapon is Bill on the stump. I'd like to see her paired up with Jim Webb.

I agree with Duke that the GOP field in Iowa looked more like the F-Troop than a serious party.

That being said the GOP nomination will either go to Jeb or Walker.

Nothing to bush fatigue? Did you read the posts here, a few stated they don't want to see that name. Bush fatigue...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Jim, I'm not going to post my thoughts on voting republican. I thought about it all night and am going to stay silent. I know it will piss off a lot of people and there's no point.

My prediction- Bernie Sanders will be our next president.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Jim, a more succinct way of getting at the difference between Hillary and Jeb insofar as it would affect the way we are governed (the process), is to examine what you claimed as differences important to you:

"Depends on what your priorities are. Personally, abortion is huge for me. So are good old fashioned family values and Christian values. Through those lenses, Jeb couldn't be more different than Hilary...If all I cared about was immigration, maybe Jeb looks more like Hilary...but when I line them up side-by-side on the issues I care about, no comparison."

Abortion, family values, Christian values, are not issues for which the constitution empowers the President to politically act. Nor do they even constitutionally fall into the purview of Federal authority--in spite of some progressive SCOTUS judgments such as Roe v Wade.

So the important differences for you between Hillary and Jeb are not constitutionally valid political differences on which either could act as President.

On the other hand, on immigration policy, even though the President constitutionally is only given the power to execute congressional legislation, but not to create his own, there is that limited scope of power. But it is precisely in that constitutional empowerment that you admit that Hillary and Jeb appear to be similar. So politically there is more similarity rather than difference.

Granting that there are, for you, great non-governmental differences between them, the difference in how they govern as President may not be as great as you think. Especially insofar as they both tend toward the progressive view of presidential power, Hillary perhaps a bit more than Jeb. So, given that we have evolved into a progressive process of administrative government, and establishment politicians such as Bush and Clinton tend not to devolve that process toward first principles, it would be reasonable to assume that there would not be an essential political difference.

In fact, it seems that you may be caught up, as most now are, in the progressive mode of governance. Those personal things that most importantly distinguish differences between Jeb and Hillary, are the very type of things that the original progressives, and even more so by those that have followed, have wished to control at the Federal level. Constitutionally, those things were to be matters concerning mostly personal, individual rights with some local state control.

If, by being concerned that those non-political differences should somehow affect how the President executes his duties, if by that you assume a President, or even a Federal Congress, should have any say in regulating behaviors which are unalienable rights, then you are far more progressive than you think.

Again, the limitation of process, whether constitutional or progressive, will dictate or steer the direction in which you govern. One who would politically impose his personal views on the rest of society against the unalienable rights of others, is no better than those who would in reverse impose their views on him. Those who seek to so impose subscribe to the progressive notion that they know better than the rest and so are morally, even socially empowered to exercise power without bounds.

Jim, I'm not going to post my thoughts on voting republican. I thought about it all night and am going to stay silent. I know it will piss off a lot of people and there's no point.

My prediction- Bernie Sanders will be our next president.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

you're no fun...


surprised Spence isn't picking Biden again, you'd think after 8 years as veep he'd be the most qualified dem.....

Jim, I'm not going to post my thoughts on voting republican. I thought about it all night and am going to stay silent. I know it will piss off a lot of people and there's no point.

My prediction- Bernie Sanders will be our next president.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Fair enough. I hope your prediction is wrong! Have a good day...

Jim, a more succinct way of getting at the difference between Hillary and Jeb insofar as it would affect the way we are governed (the process), is to examine what you claimed as differences important to you:

"Depends on what your priorities are. Personally, abortion is huge for me. So are good old fashioned family values and Christian values. Through those lenses, Jeb couldn't be more different than Hilary...If all I cared about was immigration, maybe Jeb looks more like Hilary...but when I line them up side-by-side on the issues I care about, no comparison."

Abortion, family values, Christian values, are not issues for which the constitution empowers the President to politically act. Nor do they even constitutionally fall into the purview of Federal authority--in spite of some progressive SCOTUS judgments such as Roe v Wade.

So the important differences for you between Hillary and Jeb are not constitutionally valid political differences on which either could act as President.

On the other hand, on immigration policy, even though the President constitutionally is only given the power to execute congressional legislation, but not to create his own, there is that limited scope of power. But it is precisely in that constitutional empowerment that you admit that Hillary and Jeb appear to be similar. So politically there is more similarity rather than difference.

Granting that there are, for you, great non-governmental differences between them, the difference in how they govern as President may not be as great as you think. Especially insofar as they both tend toward the progressive view of presidential power, Hillary perhaps a bit more than Jeb. So, given that we have evolved into a progressive process of administrative government, and establishment politicians such as Bush and Clinton tend not to devolve that process toward first principles, it would be reasonable to assume that there would not be an essential political difference.

In fact, it seems that you may be caught up, as most now are, in the progressive mode of governance. Those personal things that most importantly distinguish differences between Jeb and Hillary, are the very type of things that the original progressives, and even more so by those that have followed, have wished to control at the Federal level. Constitutionally, those things were to be matters concerning mostly personal, individual rights with some local state control.

If, by being concerned that those non-political differences should somehow affect how the President executes his duties, if by that you assume a President, or even a Federal Congress, should have any say in regulating behaviors which are unalienable rights, then you are far more progressive than you think.

Again, the limitation of process, whether constitutional or progressive, will dictate or steer the direction in which you govern. One who would politically impose his personal views on the rest of society against the unalienable rights of others, is no better than those who would in reverse impose their views on him. Those who seek to so impose subscribe to the progressive notion that they know better than the rest and so are morally, even socially empowered to exercise power without bounds.

"Abortion, family values, Christian values, are not issues for which the constitution empowers the President to politically act."

True, I guess, to a point. I'm not saying I want a Preident who will make it a federal law that we all watch "Leave It To Beaver". I'm saying I'd like a President, unlike the incumbent, who won't go out of his way to undermine those values. I don't want to pay for anyone else's birth control or abortion. Also, it woul dbe nice to have a President whose chracter, whose essence, didn't make me want to vomit.

Per abortion, i don't want a President to make it illegal, since as you say, that's not granted as a power to the feds. I want a President who recognizes that, and who will appoint Supreme Court justices who recognize that, and who will therefore let that question be decided by the states, which is exactly where it belongs.

I don't want Bush to instill his beliefs at the federal level. I want him to leave these decisions where they belong, at the state level. I think he's way more likely to do that, than Hilary.

If the choice is Bush or Hilary...if I'm an unborn baby, I want Bush. If I'm a terrorist, I want Hilary. If I own a business, I want Bush. That's about the end of the story with me. I'm not saying that Jeb Bush would reduce the scope of the federal government to a smaller level than any other GOP candidate. But I like his stance on the things that are most important to me.

We aren't getting a libertarian elected President in the next 25 years, it simply will not happen. While Bush isn't my dream candidate, I believe that in this country, for the office of President, at this time in history, just about any Republican is better than just about any Democrat.

Nothing to bush fatigue? Did you read the posts here, a few stated they don't want to see that name. Bush fatigue...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
I'm saying that ultimately it won't make a difference.

Here's an interesting data point to ponder. The Republicans haven't won a Presidential race since 1928 without a Bush or Nixon on the ticket.

WOW!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I'm saying that ultimately it won't make a difference.

Here's an interesting data point to ponder. The Republicans haven't won a Presidential race since 1928 without a Bush or Nixon on the ticket.

I hear what you're saying, I just disagree. Bill is an asset to Hilary. George is an obstacle to Jeb, IMO.

"The Republicans haven't won a Presidential race since 1928 without a Bush or Nixon on the ticket"

That's scary.

Hilary will be very tough to beat. I'm hoping Lie-awatha somehow beats her in the primary. How does someone who made 450k teaching at Harvard, earn political points by saying that it's unfair to saddle college grads with debt? No one spits that right back in her face, which is exactly what she deserves...

I'm saying that ultimately it won't make a difference.

Here's an interesting data point to ponder. The Republicans haven't won a Presidential race since 1928 without a Bush or Nixon on the ticket.

Yeah, that's really interesting. In the same vein, it's an even more interesting "data point" that The Democrats won elections during almost 200 years without a Clinton on the ticket.

Man . . . those are really some relevant "data points."

Anyway, Jim, if the Repubs have to have a Bush or Nixon on the ticket to win, and Nixon is dead, and there is Bush fatigue, then they aren't going to win . . . so pack it in and quit quibbling over Jeb not being your best choice but he might be the most likely to beat Hillary. The scary "data point" coupled with the "fatigue" make your quibble a futile exercise.

So, then, why not abandon the "data point"/fatigue syndrome and insist on a fresher Republican candidate? Hey . . . maybe it's time to break the Bush/Nixon stranglehold on the party. Maybe it can win elections during the next 200 years without a Bush or Nixon on the ticket. Or the party can just implode and die with the final breath of that duo.

My annual stir the pot cabin fever post. Your welcome.

"But how?" is right...

http://youtu.be/RrzD-zqWwWc

"But how?" is right...

http://youtu.be/RrzD-zqWwWc

I'd still bang her.......:humpty:

I'd still bang her.......:humpty:

With a moon bat
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

With a moon bat
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I was looking for you at the Mews tonight

With a moon bat
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

LOL...with a Piscator Bat
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I'd still bang her.......:humpty:

Naughty!!! Naughty!!!!....:)

Romney going to speak today if he is going to run for president he better put the gloves on and act like Jack Dempsey and Rocky Marciano go for a knockout blow....he was like a pussycat aganist obama

Romney is out. When it comes to Hillary, if her name was Hillary Smith and
she was running on a H. Clinton record, she couldn't run for Dog Catcher.

I'd still bang her.......:humpty:


that would require a whole hell of allot of DRINKIN
and it would have to be strong like a whole fifth of ouzo :smokin:

You're not gonna like to hear this Spence but Hillary isn't going to make it because Benghazi has not been done to death .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Is this what you are referring to:

http://www.westernjournalism.com/washington-times-bombshell-tapes-confirm-citizen-commissions-findings-benghazi/#uFxW387Ef8r3b1p4.97

I believe Hilary will win big and it makes me sick to my stomach. My last 16 years of work with those 2 clowns. All the women will vote for her because they are sure they can do a better job. It's already over IMO.
The only hope is more house and senate seats. Make her move to the center like Newt did to Bill clinton and it might be okay.
My problem is with all the egos in the Republican Party. If they could unify it would be great. Unfortunately I am not optimistic.
The root cause is it cost a billion dollars to be president and 25 -100 million to be senator. It severly limits the candidate pool and makes the incumbants slave to the big money.
I have never felt that anyone in Washington was looking out for me.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I believe Hilary will win big and it makes me sick to my stomach. My last 16 years of work with those 2 clowns. All the women will vote for her because they are sure they can do a better job. It's already over IMO.
The only hope is more house and senate seats. Make her move to the center like Newt did to Bill clinton and it might be okay.
My problem is with all the egos in the Republican Party. If they could unify it would be great. Unfortunately I am not optimistic.
The root cause is it cost a billion dollars to be president and 25 -100 million to be senator. It severly limits the candidate pool and makes the incumbants slave to the big money.
I have never felt that anyone in Washington was looking out for me.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If Hilary wins big, and that's my prediction too, it's unlikely the GOP will pick up seats. In fact, if you look at the Senate seats up for re-election in 2016, it's mostly Republican incumbents (unlike 2014) so 2016 will be a very tough year for the GOP in the Senate.

I cannot fathom Hilary's popularity, it defies all logic. Lying about getting shot at in Kosovo, in a fair world, ends anyone's career. Not her, though.

I'm hoping warren wins the Democrat primary somehow, becaus eno one will vote for her, she's impossible to like.

Ok we got a snow day to play with so let me start stirring up the pot with some political observations. This week the guys that want to be the Republican candidates for president went to Iowa to audition for the Koch Brothers. Let me tell you I want to, I need to vote Republican. As part of the Eastern Liberal non elite I am begging you to find a candidate that I can vote for without feeling like an idiot.

So far it has been a lot of retreads. Lets cover them.

Rick Perry. If you look closer his glasses they don't have any lenses, someone told him he wouldn't look or act so stupid if he wore glasses. They forgot to tell them about why they are called glasses in the first place.


Sarah Palin. WTF she sounded like she was having a stroke. Just a series of confusing Haiku's that only she could understand. Please just go away. You are killing us.

Mike Huckabee. Buddy come on, If you can look in the mirror and truly love the guy you see then you can run for president if you cant then get some help. Small steps friend it will be okay.

Ted Cruz. You know the cliché about the closet homosexual politician that votes against gay marriage. Cruz is that guy on immigration. How can a guy with the last name Cruz be against immigration. He must cry himself to sleep every night.

Rand Paul. Do you remember that really smart, smug #^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^& you knew in college. He got elected Senator. Has zero friends knows he is surrounded by morons. Cant believe this idiots won't vote for him.

Chris Christie. The guy can be mean and mean people suck. One of his first acts of office would be arranging payback for all those fools that crossed him.

Milt Romney. I like Milt, he doesn't like me. If your goals, just happen to be the same as his goals than great, if not then your screwed.

there some other guys sniffing around the party. No real feel on them yet.

I tell you if this great party that brought us Reagan and Theodore Roosevelt and the greatest president Lincoln, wants us to vote one of the above guys in. If this is the best we can do. then maybe its time to start a new party. I do not mean the tea party. That's a whole other s-show.

If you want my vote, earn it. Don't pick on the poor and needy, don't harass the president, don't be us against them. Be humble, be cooperative and be inclusive. I really don't feel like any of the guys that went to Iowa are electable. Clean house and get moving.

Well . . . trying to figure out who, or what, could earn your vote, or not make you feel like an idiot if you did vote for him/her, is kinda hard considering what you said about the six Repubs you mentioned and then what you summarized as earned requirements at the end . . . maybe a mendicant priest or holy man with a Harvard degree in personal grooming with a minor in speaking smooth bullchit.

Good luck with that. Don't think there are any Dems or Repubs running, or existing, that could match those qualifications. A third party would probably be what you need, but not sure what kind of platform such a party could concoct to fit your preferred candidate.

Then, again, maybe you like Hillary. But, you apparently don't like retreads, and she has several more old treads encrusted on her political tires than any of the Repubs you mentioned.

And her glasses, when she wears them, don't look any better or more authentic than Perry's.

And she may not sound like she's having a stroke, as you say Palin did, but she can screech like a banshee or drone on in manly monotone about boring platitudes and wonkish policy.

She probably could, unlike what you think Huckabee couldn't, look at herself in the mirror and not only truly love what or who she sees, but ask "mirror, mirror on the wall, who's the fairest of them all?"

And she would certainly compare in contradiction as you say Cruz does with the closet homosexual who votes against gay marriage. By your comparison, someone with a name like Cruz being against immigration might compare to someone with the wealth of Hillary being against the rich and for the poor.

And what you said about Rand Paul--my gosh, could fit Hillary to a tee--"Do you remember that really smart, smug #^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^& you knew in college. She got elected Senator. Has zero friends knows she is surrounded by morons. Can't believe these idiots won't vote for her." Everybody knows she is the smartest woman in the world, and smarter than most men if not all of them . . . certainly smarter that any Republican.

And, for sure, ditto what you said about Christie can be said about Hillary--being mean and all, and arranging payback for those that crossed her.

And, OMG, just like what you said about Mitt--"If your goals, just happen to be the same as her goals then great, if not then your screwed."

Well, It looks like, when it comes time to pull the lever or punch the chad, you're screwed.

Or, maybe, you might consider voting for President someone who does not aspire to being the political all-in-all. Someone who will perform only those duties that are given as his/her responsibilities in the document he/she swears to protect and defend. Someone who does not desire, or even think she/he has the right, to intrude in most every aspect of your life, but leave you free to live your life and pursue your happiness in your own way. If such a one exists any more. I think they do.

But you have to want more than the shiny turds that well-polished politicians tend to offer.

BTW, Reagan and T. Roosevelt, though both had strong personalities and were inspiring speakers, they were opposite in political philosophy. Roosevelt was a Progressive, the first progressive President, and had little respect for the Constitution. He considered himself, as President, to be above and beyond the Constitution and openly disavowed the limits it placed on him. He believed government, especially the President, to be all-powerful and the "solution." Reagan was far more "conservative" and respectful of the Constitution. He considered government to be the problem.

Just for the record. I would move to Syria before I would vote for Hillary Clinton. Just want a Republican I can get behind. The holy grail of politics.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Here's how you vote GOP. At the national prayer breakfast today, Obama made sure to remind us that religiously motivated atrocities are not unique to Islam, remember the crusades, blah, blah, blah. First, the crusades was a morally just quest by Christians in response to Islamic violence. Saying that the Christians were aggressive and bloodthirsty is akin to saying that the Americans at Normandy beach were tormenting the peacefully vacationing Germans. This is why I say liberalism is a full blown mental disorder. If one can look at the world today and believe that Christians represent a violent threat in any way comparable to that represented by Muslims, then that person has a loose propeller, and that's all there is to it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Just for the record. I would move to Syria before I would vote for Hillary Clinton. Just want a Republican I can get behind. The holy grail of politics.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Look at Scott walker, Marco Rubio, or bobby jindal. All more serious then most on your list. No such thing as a perfect candidate...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Look at Scott walker, Marco Rubio, or bobby jindal. All more serious then most on your list. No such thing as a perfect candidate...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So, Jim, if the Republicans maintain control of Congress and win the Presidency in 2015, but don't get rid of the ACA, don't actually control immigration (especially since the rest of the world seems to able to do so), don't seriously begin to downsize the federal government and devolve power back to the states, don't begin to harness in and dismantle the regulatory bureaucracy, don't restore a "pro-growth" government interface with business, don't make serious changes to the federal tax code toward a flat or "fair" tax . . . for starters . . . what then?

So, Jim, if the Republicans maintain control of Congress and win the Presidency in 2015, but don't get rid of the ACA, don't actually control immigration (especially since the rest of the world seems to able to do so), don't seriously begin to downsize the federal government and devolve power back to the states, don't begin to harness in and dismantle the regulatory bureaucracy, don't restore a "pro-growth" government interface with business, don't make serious changes to the federal tax code toward a flat or "fair" tax . . . for starters . . . what then?

Detbuch, it's a pretty big leap, I think, to assume that a GOP president would be so wishy washy that they wouldn't even be pro business. I'll grant you that if we elect a republican like you describe, it's not much of a victory...though even a republican that pathetic would be a huge improvement over Hilary. But I don't think any republican running would be as bad as what you describe. But the fact is, the country isn't ready to elect a hard line tea party/libertarian like I assume you and I might both like, but it's not going to happen. I want to nominate the most conservative candidate who is electable. Let me ask you...if the choice is we nominate a moderate who will win, or nominate a hard liner who will lose to Hilary, is one of those two scenarios closer to your ideal than the other, or not?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Detbuch, it's a pretty big leap, I think, to assume that a GOP president would be so wishy washy that they wouldn't even be pro business. I'll grant you that if we elect a republican like you describe, it's not much of a victory...though even a republican that pathetic would be a huge improvement over Hilary. But I don't think any republican running would be as bad as what you describe. But the fact is, the country isn't ready to elect a hard line tea party/libertarian like I assume you and I might both like, but it's not going to happen. I want to nominate the most conservative candidate who is electable. Let me ask you...if the choice is we nominate a moderate who will win, or nominate a hard liner who will lose to Hilary, is one of those two scenarios closer to your ideal than the other, or not?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Up until a couple of years or so ago, I was of the same mind as you. First win, then govern well. But, in retrospect, it appears to me that the Bush's and their "ilk" (a term you like to use) in Congress messed that little formula up. They won, but, being "moderate," they governed that way instead of governing what I would think of as "well." They wasted the "trajectory" (to use a Spencist perspective for "balance") that Reagan started.

Looking back, Reagan didn't run as a moderate. Because of Goldwater's shellacking by Johnson before that, the Repubs were afraid to appear too "hard line conservative" when Reagan tried for the nomination the first time. So they went more moderate and he lost to Ford. Of course Ford lost to Carter. But, if I remember correctly, Carter actually seemed to be, in some ways, more "conservative" than Ford, especially so as he ran as a "born again" Christian.

Of course, Carter was so inept that Reagan beat him and then later easily won a second term. But he had won the Republican nomination AGAINST the desire of the establishment Republicans, again, because they feared he was too "conservative."

Reagan chose Bush Senior for VP for political rather than ideological reasons. And, after being elected POTUS on Reagan's coattails, Bush Sr. slid back into the more pleasant "moderate" mode. Duh! So when he ran again, the choice would be Democrat heavy vs. Democrat lite. Actually, most Americans would rather go for the gusto, so Bush Senior bit the dust and was a one-termer. His son was touted as a "conservative," when he ran for Pres., even by such as Rush Limbaugh. But he basically turned out to govern as a Progressive-lite and even more "moderate" than his father. But he was a likeable cuss, "heh heh," and won a second term. So, guess what . . . the Repubs kept sliding into moderacy and came up, after Bush, with everybody's, especially the media's, favorite moderate Republican, John McCain. Ohhh . . . he was so nice and moderate in his tone and message running against Obama, he almost seemed not to mind at all that he got whupped by his also very "moderate" sounding opponent.

Of course, Obama has lost the "moderate" flavor and is coming across as immoderate to the left of any Pres. since Wilson and FDR. And Hillary seems to be only a little right, if at all, to Obama's leftism. So, maybe an actually "moderate" Republican could beat her.

But, as in the past, moderate Republicans govern moderately, not conservatively. And the trajectory would continue, therefor, in that direction. Just at a bit slower pace.

But as we approach the finish line of this moderate trajectory, the pace becomes less relevant. Though it may have taken longer, when it is over, the length of time won't matter. And certainly, Obama has been in a freakish overdrive to get to the finish line in the fundamental transformation of America, and has sped up the process at a dizzying pace.

And I no longer buy notions such as "moderate" or "hard liner." Certainly don't agree that true "conservatism" is extremist. I still like Goldwater's "I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!" It took merely the progressive way--propagandistic "interpretation" and phony twisting of those words --to discredit Goldwater.

But there comes a point where you either take the path to Reagan's "rendezvous with destiny," or you just give it up. I am very pessimistic that yet another "moderate" will lead us to that rendezvous. Rather, it will just weaken any will to strive for it. It will just be a temporary hiatus or slow down in the inevitable opposite direction.

I don't buy that a "hard line" will lose. I don't believe the line is "hard." That is a characterization, a fiction, a "narrative" spouted by the elites, the progressive minded "moderates" who rule the party. Truth, justice, freedom, are not moderate. And if the real truth is that the people prefer warm fuzzy moderate lies and utopian propaganda, and dependence rather than responsibility, then the race is over. Voting will then have become irrelevant.

I think the reason Scott Walker is such a buzz, not with the establishment Repubs, but with the rank and file, is that he fiercely stood up against everything the Dems and their union cohorts threw at him in Wisconsin. He didn't try to moderate. He stood his ground, stood firm in what he believed was the right thing to do for his state. He is a fighter. He would not negotiate away the principles by which he governed. And he won. Again and again. I don't think that is being "hard." It is being principled. And I don't care about his views on abortion, or religion, or family values. I don't want him to share those with me, nor to try to bend the rest of us to his will on those matters, as President.

I think that his appearing to stand against progressivism, as a political mode, in governing as President, and being limited constitutionally rather than ruling as an autocratic Progressive, makes him not only attractive to people like me, but would be so to a majority of voters. I think Ted Cruz, maybe even more so, speaks as though he would govern that way and stand firm against the expansion of federal executive power. But he may have been successfully demonized.

Detbuch, that's a heck of a response, difficult to argue with. All I can say is that while I agree Jen bush is not ideal, the country would be significantly better off with him than Hilary. I have a friend who is a libertarian in Virginia. In their senate race last November, the libertarian candidate handed the election to a big government, socialist liberal candidate. My friend made your argument as to why she didn't vote for the moderate republican. I fail to see how that helped her cause. I believe that when social security and Medicare start bouncing checks in 20 years, even msnbc will be forced to concede that Paul Ryan was 100. Percent correct. That could be the death of liberalism for 100 years, because the required fix will force everyone to take notice and think about we got there.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

One of the biggest problems that i have seen for a long time and especially as of late is that the GOP is controlled by the 0.01% of this country- the billionaire class. take the Koch brothers for example and the XL pipeline mess.. GOP is hell bent on getting this thing passed because of all of the campaign contributions that they have taken. ( Koch brothers have huge leases on the tar sands production in Canada)

So you have the GOP being mostly funded by the ultra wealthy and then you have the fact that the GOP's main base of voters is the religious conservative right who want to limit women's rights limit personal freedoms, and basically impose a lot of laws on people that they feel that everyone should follow because it is what their religion tells them what is right. ( Im thinking abortions, marijuana laws, gay rights, etc)..

When you think about the definition of life and liberty, justice for all, pursuit of happiness, separation of church and state, i can't justify ever supporting a political party that panders to a religious group, namely conservative christians.

When the GOP comes up with a platform that is solely focused on the greater good of this entire country both financially and socially, maybe i would be swayed away from supporting a democrat.. but as it stands now, my money is on Bernie Sanders.

Detbuch, that's a heck of a response, difficult to argue with. All I can say is that while I agree Jen bush is not ideal, the country would be significantly better off with him than Hilary. I have a friend who is a libertarian in Virginia. In their senate race last November, the libertarian candidate handed the election to a big government, socialist liberal candidate. My friend made your argument as to why she didn't vote for the moderate republican. I fail to see how that helped her cause. I believe that when social security and Medicare start bouncing checks in 20 years, even msnbc will be forced to concede that Paul Ryan was 100. Percent correct. That could be the death of liberalism for 100 years, because the required fix will force everyone to take notice and think about we got there.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I'm not saying don't vote for Bush if he wins the nomination. I'm saying that we shouldn't fall prey to fear in selecting a nominee. Doing so just leads to the continuous bleeding of founding principles till eventually the blood of the Constitution is totally drained. Constantly choosing "moderates" is always a partial victory for the opposition as well as a partial loss for constitutional governance. And since the Progressives don't bend, but stick to their principle of government control, they constantly go even further toward their goal rather than moderating or "coming toward the middle." They don't accept partial victory for their opponents, and certainly don't accept partial defeats for themselves. That's why and how they succeed. If they were to concede some flaw in their ideology, coupled with the prevailing failure to deliver their utopian dream, the emperor's clothes would be seen as the naked truth--an imperious system that strips freedom and prosperity from individuals and delivers those to an all-consuming State. So the Progressives cannot admit a chink in their armor. They cannot bend, or "moderate." Rather, they must always convince you that, though things may seem to be getting worse, it is only because they haven't been given the absolute power to make things better. That they constantly have to fight against the "conservative" boogieman whose mission is to enslave you for the benefit of the filthy rich.

And if you constantly bend, or "moderate" in their direction, you will eventually get there yourself. So, go for the gusto in the primaries. Don't be afraid of losing. If you are, you will surely lose. If not all at once, then little by little.

One of the biggest problems that i have seen for a long time and especially as of late is that the GOP is controlled by the 0.01% of this country- the billionaire class. take the Koch brothers for example and the XL pipeline mess.. GOP is hell bent on getting this thing passed because of all of the campaign contributions that they have taken. ( Koch brothers have huge leases on the tar sands production in Canada)

So you have the GOP being mostly funded by the ultra wealthy and then you have the fact that the GOP's main base of voters is the religious conservative right who want to limit women's rights limit personal freedoms, and basically impose a lot of laws on people that they feel that everyone should follow because it is what their religion tells them what is right. ( Im thinking abortions, marijuana laws, gay rights, etc)..

When you think about the definition of life and liberty, justice for all, pursuit of happiness, separation of church and state, i can't justify ever supporting a political party that panders to a religious group, namely conservative christians.

When the GOP comes up with a platform that is solely focused on the greater good of this entire country both financially and socially, maybe i would be swayed away from supporting a democrat.. but as it stands now, my money is on Bernie Sanders.

You might want to check your facts, or consider from where you get your facts.

(1)Most in the GOP don't want a federal law outlawing abortion. Most conservatives, like me, say that since the word abortion isn't anywhere in the list of things the constitutoin gives the feds to regulate, it should be an issue decided by the states. And if enough people in a state want to outlaw abortion (regardless of the reason, whether they are motivated by religion or not) it can be outlawed. That's called "democracy".

(2) "you have the GOP being mostly funded by the ultra wealthy "

A liberal myth. Does George Soros not give big $$ to Democrats? To labor unions not give big $$ to Democrats? So I guess when liberals donate money to democrats, that's just being an engaged citizen. But when conservatives give money to Republicans, that's somehow undermining the integrity o fthe political process? Sorry, I fail to see how Republicans are more beholden to their special interest groups than Democrats are.

(3) "want to limit women's rights "

A huge number of women in thi scountry, tens of millions, are opposed to abortion. That tells me that it's not a fundamental woman's right. Again, you are phrasing the issue in a demonstrably false way, in order to demonize those who disagre with you.

(4) c"separation of church and state, i can't justify ever supporting a political party that panders to a religious group,"

Again...you are OK with the fact the Democrats are influenced by their own special interest groups (labor unions, Hollywood, trial lawyers, etc). Thos egroups donate to like-minded politicians to promote their individual interests. That's no different than what happens when religious-based conservative groups do th esame exact thing. We are all gfree to support politicians we like - it does not matter what the basis is for why we like those politicians. Beliefs that are derived from religion are no less legitimate than beliefs that are derived from one's parents, school, or civic organiztions. That's not in any way a violation of church and state, that's another liberal lie. "Separation of church and state" means that the feds cannot prohibit anyone from practicing whatever religion they see fit. It does not mean that one cannot make political decisions based on morals that derive from one's religious beliefs.


(5) "When the GOP comes up with a platform that is solely focused on the greater good of this entire country both financially and socially"

Despite what you hear on MSNBC, here is the GOP platform, as it exists today at the national level...



Sanctity of all life, including the unborn
Small federal government, in accordance with the constitution
Promotion of individual liberty
Promotion of the concept of individual's being responsible for their own actions
Letting our free market do its thing, subject to a reasonable level of regulation (the free market provides more econoic upward mobility than any system derived on this planet)
Very strong national defense, including secure borders
Fiscal responsibility (not spending ourselves into oblivion on useless pork projects)
En
couraging charity towards our neighbors

I would genuinely like to know...do you dent that's an accurate list of GOP ideals, or do you deny that list helps benefit all of us?

The Democratic agenda?

Spending ourselves into bankruptcy
Insane benefits to unionized employees
telling people "if it feels good do it", which has caused a spike in abortions, adultery, divorce, babies born out of wedlock
welfare as a solution to everything, which cripples the desire to excel for many Americans
Creating groups of victims, and telling those people that nothing they do is ever their fault
Worsening the racial tensions among us
imposing tax rates that cripple those in the middle class, and make it very difficult for small businesses to grow

I'm not saying don't vote for Bush if he wins the nomination. I'm saying that we shouldn't fall prey to fear in selecting a nominee.

Agreed. But the time to do that is in the primaries, and once a nominee emerges, we all need to support him, even if it means plugging you rnose a bit as you do so.

So NEBE...U R saying the Gop is controlled by the billionaire class....U mention the Koch Brothers...your buddy Harry Reid brings up the brothers.

U must wear blinders Reid and the democratic party have more Billionaire donors then the Repubs....Dems cast the repubs as the party of big money, but yet the dems rely more on the rich....just to name a few....Tom Steyers...George Soros and Mike Bloomberg....so the dems R controlled by the left billionaires....take the blinders off....:)

Agreed. But the time to do that is in the primaries, and once a nominee emerges, we all need to support him, even if it means plugging you rnose a bit as you do so.

I explicitly referred to the primaries as the time to do that, to not act out of fear. I said: "So, go for the gusto in the primaries. Don't be afraid of losing. If you are, you will surely lose. If not all at once, then little by little."

There is this belief by some football wonks that teams who have a lead, especially a small one, in the fourth quarter, and play from then on not to lose, rather than playing to win, will usually lose in the end. Those who habitually try to win close contests with defensive offense can comfortably be exploited. Their predictable timidity and strategy of safe plays for fear of making some fatal mistake, renders them vulnerable not only to be countered by a bolder and more imaginative strategies which can exploit predictability, but also vulnerable to fear itself. Fear can constrict mental and physical ability as well as erode confidence.

If you play the "game" of politics with timid, predictable "centrist" rhetoric, retreaded "safe" messages geared to impress a complacent, comfortable "middle," and your opponent historically has already and mythically owned that ground, and can demagogically cast you as the hypocrite trying to be what you are not . . . that you are not for the "middle," they are . . . and if your opponent has long ago, and continuously since, sowed the seeds of class warfare . . . then you are fighting on ground that they own. If that is all so, then you will likely lose. And if you win, having fought on their ground, then you must govern by the rules laid out for that ground. And you will govern, and be, like them.

So, if you are truly not them, you will have lost by "winning." You will have lost the soul of who you are . . . if you have a soul.

If you claim to be a "conservative," and if such a thing still exists, then you should be able to describe that thing--in a political, not a personal sense. Is it strictly economics? The "economy" is a great and important thing. Is political conservatism balanced budgets? Can "liberals" never balance a budget, and would they then become "conservative" if they did?

Please tell me Jim, what a political conservative is at the federal level. And then tell me how such a politician should campaign for election. Should he/she be true to that conservatism, or should she/he dissemble, play to the so-called "middle"? Should the conservative be afraid to ask for votes because of his true conviction on what is good and proper government?

Then, if such a conservative is running in the primaries against moderates, should we not passionately and openly encourage and bolster his campaign? Fearlessly approve and support it rather than discourage it, suppress it, silence it , for fear that it might be demonized by liberal press and politicians? That it might not appeal to the "center"?

I understand the fear of losing by being "hard core conservative." But history doesn't support that being "moderate" is the best strategy. Republicans have been losing the presidency of late as moderates. And winning at State levels as more open conservatives. And Democrats, contrary to accepted wisdom, have been winning, not as moderates, but by constantly shifting to the left. This might, especially, be the time when Republicans discard the "moderate" mantle.

One of the biggest problems that i have seen for a long time and especially as of late is that the GOP is controlled by the 0.01% of this country- the billionaire class. take the Koch brothers for example and the XL pipeline mess.. GOP is hell bent on getting this thing passed because of all of the campaign contributions that they have taken. ( Koch brothers have huge leases on the tar sands production in Canada)

If the aim of Koch brothers contributions was to control government in order to impose their will on the rest of us, they should have chosen the Democrat party as recipients of their money. The Dems have a better record of controlling the people and dictating what they can and cannot do.

Insofar as the Koch's donations go, they have donated to a large number of various organizations many, or most, of which are not political, including groups geared to bettering the welfare of minorities or the underprivileged, funding medical research, and supporting the arts. They've been listed among the top 50 philanthropists

They are generally social liberals.---for women's right to choose, gay rights, same sex marriage, stem cell research; oppose war on drugs, and against the Iraq war. They push for the repeal of victimless crimes including marijuana convictions and restrictions on gay relationships.

Politically they lean Libertarian. One even ran as VP for the Libertarian Party in 1980. They support minimizing the role of government and Maximizing the role of the private economy and personal freedoms. They are basically free market libertarians. And they oppose corporate welfare.

So, if they oppose crony capitalism, why should they want the government to approve the XL pipeline? I would suspect that in a free market, the federal government would not interfere in the first place unless the pipeline creates some clear danger to the US. And, apparently it doesn't: http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/2014/01/31/22524683-report-keystone-pipeline-would-have-minimal-environmental-impact. As for the filthy amount of money the Koch's stand to gain from the pipeline, if that were true, then somebody, if not the Koch's, would gain the money. Why so adamantly opposed to the Koch's getting it? Why paint them as some economic vampire? Besides, it might not even be true: http://www.kochfacts.com/kf/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Waxman-Whitehouse-Ltr_041014.pdf

So you have the GOP being mostly funded by the ultra wealthy and then you have the fact that the GOP's main base of voters is the religious conservative right who want to limit women's rights limit personal freedoms, and basically impose a lot of laws on people that they feel that everyone should follow because it is what their religion tells them what is right. ( Im thinking abortions, marijuana laws, gay rights, etc)..

What women's rights do conservative's want to limit? Abortion? If the Constitution were followed, only the people could do that, state by state. In the abortion question, it is a progressive Federal government, against the Constitution, that is limiting the peoples' right to choose, not conservatives. Women are the majority. They would be very well represented in state elections. And the great number of men, like yourself, could support whatever position they took.

What personal freedoms do conservatives want to limit? Under the Constitution, unalienable rights cannot be denied. It is the progressive federal government that contradicts the Constitution and limits our rights, not conservatives.

The Progressive/Democrat party is far, far, more guilty of imposing "a lot of laws on people that they feel that everyone should follow" as you put it. It is the Progressive/Democrat party that has emptied the Constitution of the vast residuum of rights which are not specifically enumerated as Federal government power, and therefor reserved to the people. It is the Progressive Democrat party which, after eviscerating the vast rights of the people, then created out of whole cloth special rights for special people, discriminating against the rest--like "gay rights." Your thinking is constricted to thinking and seeing only in terms of the progressive view that we are not inherently free, but only have freedom that government gives us. So you do not see how government imposition of law that sounds reasonable to you denies others what was once their right to think and act differently. And, because you understand that freedom can only be granted by government, you fear that the wrong people, "conservatives," in power will trample all over what you consider your rights. THAT CAN ONLY HAPPEN, IF IT CAN, BECAUSE PROGRESSIVES HAVE DESTROYED THAT WALL OF SEPARATION BETWEEN GOVERNMENT AND YOUR UNALIENABLE RIGHTS. You, unconsciously if not overtly, subscribe to the progressive notion of all-powerful government, and therefor you, consciously or unconsciously, do not insist on constitutional government.

When you think about the definition of life and liberty, justice for all, pursuit of happiness, separation of church and state, i can't justify ever supporting a political party that panders to a religious group, namely conservative christians.

Well, there it is. It is Christians who must be feared. There must be a wall of separation between church and state, but not such a wall between government and your freedom. No, you insist that government not only protect your special rights, but it must tell you what they are.

So, government must not pander to a religious group, but it can pander to everyone else? How about pandering to no one. Do Christians not have a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That's strange, considering they had such a great influence on propagating those rights. How about, since government can grant special rights to special groups, shouldn't government grant some special rights to Christians? Of course not. Nor special rights to other groups.

When the GOP comes up with a platform that is solely focused on the greater good of this entire country both financially and socially, maybe i would be swayed away from supporting a democrat.. but as it stands now, my money is on Bernie Sanders.

Isn't Bernie Sanders a socialist? I guess that would be compatible with the view of government that you seem to espouse. Government control of societal norms. And of everything else.

Does anybody here believe ugly, poor Honest Abe could make it today ? Most cases the big money will control everything and everyone .

Does anybody here believe ugly, poor Honest Abe could make it today ? Most cases the big money will control everything and everyone .

Tagger, you touch upon an age-old problem--the multitude being subservient to a ruling class. Money and power have always slept together and bred into the historical record offsprings evolving in different forms of ruling politics, but always with the essential chain of DNA--power=wealth/wealth=power/power=wealth/etc., etc.

Every now and then, there is a mutation in the code, a revolution; a religious movement; or a philosophical or political "enlightenment." For a time, usually relatively short, a society forms from a break in the chain and flourishes, or seems to, as an egalitarian one. There is prosperity among the people, or seems to be. But the ruling class remains, either wealthier at the start, or getting there in time.

So what is the difference that enables the new societies to provide the masses with a "fairer" portion of the wealth? In a word, virtue. Optimistic belief fosters faith and adherence. So long as the people and the rulers continue to "believe" and virtuously abide by their principles, all is well.

What destroys the more equitable balance? In a word, corruption.

Either the "people" are so eager to finally be able to assert power that they create a chaotic despotism which is so brutal that the ruling class must quell it quickly and revert back to an old tyranny, as in the French Revolution, or over time, as in the Russian Revolution.

Or, the ruling class becomes filled with cynics, or despotic ideologues, who once again seize the opportunity to transform power into wealth. Quickly, or, as in our American case, over time.

Our American system has lasted longer than other nation states as an egalitarian, or relatively so, society. "Ugly, poor, honest Abe" was electable because "Four score and seven years" into the American experiment there was still a large remnant of the original ruling and societal virtue inherent in the political process. There was still a strong belief in founding principles mostly unsullied by noticeable degradation in a cherished constitution. The people were still, in the main, politically innocent and optimistic about being free to build their own lives. The societal virtue based on inherent personal right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and a still prevailing ruling class virtue of not usurping the constitutional bounds which prevented stepping on those inherent rights, combined with an exceptional American spirit not only of freedom, but a spirit that was moved by high principles and lofty, beautiful rhetoric speaking those principles, a spirit that valued those principles and one who represented them over some good-looking slickster who promised them the moon if they would overlook some little sacrifice of freedom was the spirit that made Honest Abe electable then.

And if he were not electable today, you're right. The old, seemingly inevitable DNA chain of intertwined wealth and power has resurfaced from its latent rest. Our system, from politics to personal life has been corrupted. Virtue is definitely not rampant among the ruling class. The politicians have all but destroyed our constitutional foundation and abandoned the protection of the principals which created it. And the American spirit has been corrupted in half or more of the people. You're right, good looks and slick words, promises of transferring wealth to the people rather than letting them making their own--basically just pretty lies seem to be the ticket to victory. And wealth can pay for that, as well as winning can lead to the enrichment of the political class.

The politicians debunk the old notions of virtue in our founding principles by saying that the founders were hypocrites. They were wealthy slave owners. How could they believe in their high-minded notions of inherent equality and liberty?

Thus, they unwittingly debunk their own notion of democracy. The original creators of democracy, (Golden age of Greece?) were also slave owners, were a small ruling class of wealthy elites who truly lived off the backs of the masses under them, masses who had no right, inherent or otherwise, to make a life on their own. So if this notion of some slave owners, even in cooperation with those who did not own slaves, could not possibly philosophically consider that all men are created equal with certain unalienable rights, how could it have been possible for even more oppressive tyrants to create the notion of democracy?

It was so for our founders because humans can rise above their own failing. There is this beauty in our nature that enables even the most depraved among us to recognize something better than themselves. And in the less depraved, that they can recognize that there are fundamental, inalienable rights which each must respect and protect for the rest or lose their own. The trick is to reach for it.

Of course, they can also conspire with others to deprive the rest in order to enrich their own. That is half of the problem in our country, or may be a result of the other half. That being the ideological belief in top-down all-powerful government rather than bottom up consent of the governed. Together it all becomes the corruption of our ruling class. And it leads to the destruction of the legal foundation which was created to prevent that, and which depended on the virtue of the people, including and especially the ruling class. It has opened the gate, created the breech, through which and by which our present corrupted, lie infested, ruling class control us.

And the beauty of it, for the ruling class, is that the basic moral corruption of society makes it easy to dupe it and manipulate it with incessant and attractive little (or big) lies such as the Gruber obfuscation about the ACA, or Obama pretending to be against gay marriage in order to get elected, or Bush manipulations for war and Patriot act, by Clinton lies, and Nixon lies, and LBJ great society lies, and the massive FDR lies not only to get into war but to shred the Constitution, and the hypocrite elitist Woodrow Wilson machinations, and on and on.

So, anyone aspiring to political office as one who wants to revert to founding principles has been demonized as an "extremist." Obviously, that demonization is necessary because founding principles combined with the virtue to adhere to and protect them, would send this ruling class packing.

What a bunch of blowhards.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

What a bunch of blowhards.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You're welcome.

Jim, I'm not going to post my thoughts on voting republican. I thought about it all night and am going to stay silent. I know it will piss off a lot of people and there's no point.

My prediction- Bernie Sanders will be our next president.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

:pats::pats::pats::pats::pats::pats::pats::pats: