I want to vote Repulican but how??

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by 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

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

[spence]

Originally Posted by 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

What is it 7 investigations?

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

[detbuch]

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."

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

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

[Nebe]

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

[detbuch]

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.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Nebe

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 in CT]

Originally Posted by Nebe

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 in CT]

Originally Posted by detbuch

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.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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.

[Nebe]

WOW!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

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...

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

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.

[Duke41]

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

[Nebe]

"But how?" is right...

http://youtu.be/RrzD-zqWwWc

[Piscator]

Originally Posted by Nebe

"But how?" is right...

http://youtu.be/RrzD-zqWwWc

I'd still bang her.......

[Nebe]

Originally Posted by Piscator

I'd still bang her.......

With a moon bat
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Nebe

With a moon bat
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I was looking for you at the Mews tonight

[Piscator]

Originally Posted by Nebe

With a moon bat
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

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

[Fly Rod]

Originally Posted by Piscator

I'd still bang her.......

Naughty!!! Naughty!!!!....

[Fly Rod]

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

[justplugit]

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.

[Raven]

Originally Posted by Piscator

I'd still bang her.......

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

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by 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

Is this what you are referring to:

http://www.westernjournalism.com/was...87Ef8r3b1p4.97

[sburnsey931]

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

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by sburnsey931

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.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

[Duke41]

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

[Jim in CT]

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

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Duke41

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