I want to vote Repulican but how??

[Duke41]

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.

[detbuch]

How about Scott Walker?

[Nebe]

Follow your heart Duke
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

You forgot Trump!

[Jim in CT]

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

[Nebe]

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

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Nebe

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.

[nightfighter]

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

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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

[Duke41]

Originally Posted by nightfighter

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

ha your right

[Jim in CT]

[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

[detbuch]

[QUOTE=Jim in CT;1063105]

Originally Posted by detbuch

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?

[scottw]

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

[Raven]

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

[rphud]

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.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by rphud

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.

[scottw]

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

[Jim in CT]

[QUOTE=detbuch;1063113]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by scottw

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...

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by scottw

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.

[Fly Rod]

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?

[Nebe]

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

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by detbuch

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.

[Jim in CT]

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

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Fly Rod

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.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Nebe

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

I do. Seriously...

[Nebe]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

I do. Seriously...

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

[rphud]

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.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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.

[buckman]

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