|
Post by jdredd on Jun 3, 2015 16:50:46 GMT -5
I stuck around The Five Stooges longer than usual, and caught a story about how both Chris Christie and Jeb Bush talked about how it might be desirable for the age to get Social Security to be raised. Gosh darn, that's who I want to vote for! Someone who will make sure I will have to work even longer! Well, that probably plays well with the business owner crowd who is the base of the GOP. But are there enough of them to win Presidential elections?
|
|
|
Post by Turk on Jun 3, 2015 22:43:52 GMT -5
I stuck around The Five Stooges longer than usual, and caught a story about how both Chris Christie and Jeb Bush talked about how it might be desirable for the age to get Social Security to be raised. Gosh darn, that's who I want to vote for! Someone who will make sure I will have to work even longer! Well, that probably plays well with the business owner crowd who is the base of the GOP. But are there enough of them to win Presidential elections? Gee Whiz JD with little effort I can find mountains of reason why democrats should be eliminated from any thought process but we live in a land of balance. It is time for the pendulum to string towards common sense. If there is a someone left of center that has common sense I want to hear it. BTW your guy Obama sold out to Wall Street and your gal Hips owns wall street.
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on Jun 4, 2015 0:40:14 GMT -5
I stuck around The Five Stooges longer than usual, and caught a story about how both Chris Christie and Jeb Bush talked about how it might be desirable for the age to get Social Security to be raised. Gosh darn, that's who I want to vote for! Someone who will make sure I will have to work even longer! Well, that probably plays well with the business owner crowd who is the base of the GOP. But are there enough of them to win Presidential elections? Gee Whiz JD with little effort I can find mountains of reason why democrats should be eliminated from any thought process but we live in a land of balance. It is time for the pendulum to string towards common sense. If there is a someone left of center that has common sense I want to hear it. BTW your guy Obama sold out to Wall Street and your gal Hips owns wall street. Yeah, well, nobody's perfect. I'm not disagreeing with you that raising the retirement age might make sense, but is it the way to get votes? I suppose the pendulum could go the other way, but I wouldn't hold my breath. The GOP might have more luck sticking to "ISIS is coming to get us". BTW I always accidentally hit the "edit" button instead of the "quote" button.
|
|
|
Post by Turk on Jun 5, 2015 8:12:02 GMT -5
BTW I always accidentally hit the "edit" button instead of the "quote" button. Old age
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on Jun 7, 2015 11:57:31 GMT -5
www.nationalreview.com/article/419420/rand-pauls-faux-libertarian-opposition-patriot-act-andrew-c-mccarthyAt Powerline this week, Steve Hayward penned a post aptly entitled “The Insincerity of Rand Paul.” The senator’s legal arguments against the Patriot Act, he posits, mimic papa Ron Paul’s 2003 calls for a formal declaration of war against Iraq: mere “constitutional punctilio to cover his real feelings.” Steve is right. Congress statutorily authorized the use of military force in Iraq. Nothing more was constitutionally required. The real reason for Representative Ron Paul’s formalistic nattering about a declaration of war was his opposition to American intervention in Iraq. That, in turn, was driven by his theory that it was American national defense policies that cause anti-U.S. animus. Senator Rand Paul’s overwrought constitutional claims against the Patriot Act similarly camouflage his real objection: He is anti-government even with respect to national security, one of the few things for which we actually need the federal government." I need the federal government to protect me from people who read the National Review! But this is interesting for how the war-loving GOP establishment is having a hard time co-opting it's Libertarian anti-American Empire wing, which is absolutely necessary for the Republicons to get some of the youth vote. But eventually I believe they will strip the Libertarians of their anti-interventionism, but keep the "free market" dogma which is so useful to the billionaire plutocrats.
|
|
|
Post by tpfkalarry on Jun 7, 2015 14:18:40 GMT -5
I stuck around The Five Stooges longer than usual, and caught a story about how both Chris Christie and Jeb Bush talked about how it might be desirable for the age to get Social Security to be raised. Gosh darn, that's who I want to vote for! Someone who will make sure I will have to work even longer! Well, that probably plays well with the business owner crowd who is the base of the GOP. But are there enough of them to win Presidential elections? Gee Whiz JD with little effort I can find mountains of reason why democrats should be eliminated from any thought process but we live in a land of balance. It is time for the pendulum to string towards common sense. If there is a someone left of center that has common sense I want to hear it. BTW your guy Obama sold out to Wall Street and your gal Hips owns wall street. There was a time when politicians would further a cause, or solution to a problem, and would be forced to collaborate with other politicians, and their causes, in order to move forward. They were essentially forced to work across the aisle to pass anything meaningful. Currently there seems to be a willingness to forget solutions or causes and play a zero sum gain version of politics. I don't have to get anything done as long as I am able to stop the other side from getting anything done. If I play ball with the other side than I risk having that used against me by my own party next election. This has both eliminated the benefits of a two party system and marginalized the voters in the middle. I don't know if progressives can be effective if they are just left of center any more than conservatives can be just right of center. It seems wrong that Virgina and Florida have become so important in winning the White House. Social security, immigration and the faith based initiatives are all becoming second term issues. Since presidents seem to lose seats in Congress at the mid-terms they are going to get band-aid reform until something changes in the way Washington keeps score.
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on Jun 9, 2015 12:41:40 GMT -5
america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2015/6/the-conservative-base-is-overrated.html"The Republicans’ power to divide national Democrats on so-called wedge issues —whether they are Nixon’s “law and order” or George W. Bush’s “gays, guns and God” crowd — is declining. That suggests the political realignment that started decades ago is finally coming to a close. Because the Republicans can’t poach “moderate” Democratic voters anymore, they are trying to drill down into the base as much as possible, even if that narrows their long-term horizons. The Republicans are thus returning to their historical role as the party of the minority, while the Democrats are reclaiming their historical role as the party of the majority. Years from now, perhaps decades from now, we may look back on the Reagan years as not so much a conservative revolution but a long interruption while the Democratic Party rebuilt its coalition under political circumstances more favorable to its majoritarian principles. The conservative base doesn’t matter like it used to" Every week I read an obituary on either the Democraps or the Republicons. Maybe they are both dying. Or not.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 5, 2015 17:21:53 GMT -5
Sheesh! Repukes trying to make themselves look pretty, Attacking Trumps Truthful comments on Illegals! Translation they will cater just for Votes! They are just as scums as liberals! They dont want to enforce Immigration Laws. Repukes just as same as liberals on Illegals
|
|
|
Post by Turk on Jul 5, 2015 20:11:34 GMT -5
I think the thread title should be why the establishment should lose. Hillary is a POS (piece of shit) anyone voting for her is pathetic. Jeb, Rubio, Christie, Perry,et al are no different. The bunch will be politics and the same BS we've heard more than a few decades. There are only two people running that for better or worse would make a change. So accept the status quo and vote for the same crap or step outside of the norm. Ben Carson is miles ahead all combined when it comes to brains. The Donald has more balls than all combined. Neither stand a chance but wouldn't it be wonderful if we elected someone that cared about our country more than their political future and personal gain.
|
|
|
Post by Turk on Jul 5, 2015 20:35:19 GMT -5
Check that, I'd add one more name, Bernie Sanders. I might not agree with him on the time of day but how refreshing it would be that we elect a person that is honest, cares and truly wants to make a change that they believe in and not someone that blows hot air. BTW we don't need hot air that will fuel Gore Bull warming.
|
|
|
Post by tpfkalarry on Jul 7, 2015 16:30:05 GMT -5
I think the thread title should be why the establishment should lose. Hillary is a POS (piece of shit) anyone voting for her is pathetic. Jeb, Rubio, Christie, Perry,et al are no different. The bunch will be politics and the same BS we've heard more than a few decades. There are only two people running that for better or worse would make a change. So accept the status quo and vote for the same crap or step outside of the norm. Ben Carson is miles ahead all combined when it comes to brains. The Donald has more balls than all combined. Neither stand a chance but wouldn't it be wonderful if we elected someone that cared about our country more than their political future and personal gain. It seems that the establishment candidates become even more establishment as the campaigns wear on. If I thought there was a candidate in either party that could break the stalemate I would be interested. Trump will eventually cross a line he cannot cross back. Carson will have trouble keeping up with the spending of the established candidates. But what if a number of candidates successfully used the Guliani strategy and won one large state each. If that happens than maybe conservatives get a candidate who has not been so bloodied by the primaries that he or she doesn't have to take the fall back positions forced on them by trying to appeal to all the factions on the right. Hillary is the establishment candidate for a reason. She has the resume and I don't think character issues have ever sunk a Clinton. But what if Warren won a primary in any of the larger states, Cuomo won New York, Sanders wins a couple of New England states and Webb wins Virginia. Then you have a convention where a coalition has a chance to bring a non-establishment candidate to the point where they can either get the nomination or have significant influence on the establishment nominee. Would that be enough to break the status quo or change the paradigm.
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on Jul 27, 2015 22:10:24 GMT -5
america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2015/7/most-americans-dont-vote-in-elections-heres-why.html"New U.S. Census data released on July 19 confirm what we already knew about American elections: Voter turnout in the United States is among the lowest in the developed world. Only 42 percent of Americans voted in the 2014 midterm elections, the lowest level of voter turnout since 1978. And midterm voters tend to be older, whiter and richer than the general population. The aggregate number is important but turnout among different groups is even more crucial. Politicians are more accountable and responsive to wealthy voters, not just because rich people vote in elections, but because they are also more likely to donate to campaigns or work on them to get their candidates elected. And the effects of the gap in voter turnout are far-reaching because, for many Americans, elections are one of the only ways in which they can participate in democracy." First, there is the right wing fantasy of millions of illegals trying to vote. Then there is the reality of millions of eligible voters staying at home. But as we all know, the Republicans gain when the fewest people vote, so of course they will tell every lie they can to suppress the vote.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 28, 2015 19:54:54 GMT -5
What Fantasy? The fact is Illegals do vote! Shall we began stolen IDs, Fake SS, Polls dont ask for ID! even in CA I insisted to show my 2 forms of ID Poll workers said no need to show ID its not required! Sorry you missed the Facts! you been mislead by liberal media bullshit!
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on Aug 1, 2015 15:31:05 GMT -5
www.washingtonpost.com/politics/what-kind-of-party-will-the-republican-nominee-lead-in-2016/2015/08/01/9f14a3ea-37d1-11e5-b673-1df005a0fb28_story.html?hpid=z1"The question that will be front and center at Thursday’s Republican presidential debate is who will lead the party in 2016. As important will be: What kind of party will the GOP nominee end up leading? For Republicans this is a moment for optimism, but it’s also a time for realism. On the positive side, they control Congress and enjoy political dominance in the states. Their 17-candidate presidential field, with exceptions, is better than four years ago, stocked with talent and plausible party standard bearers. And Hillary Rodham Clinton looks more vulnerable today than she did at the start of the year. But that is only part of the equation. The GOP nomination contest has become a circus, currently thanks to Donald Trump. Since last November’s midterm election victories, the party’s image has deteriorated, as has the percentage of Americans who call themselves Republicans. Presidential candidates struggle to reconcile the views of the many conservatives with those of the broader electorate, and the shape of the contest encourages narrowcasting to the base." Oh boy, Thursday the circus REALLY begins! How are Jeb! and Walker and Christie going to stick it to Trump without coming across as mean? Grab your popcorn and enjoy the festivities!
And is Hillzilla more vulnerable now than in January or is that wishful thinking? It's obvious the GOP is still scared sh*tless of her. And if the GOP field has "talent" it's not very obvious to me. And polls are showing the approval ratings of the GOP have dropped considerably. But it is still a long way to November 2016 and the billionaires have just begun to buy the massive tonnage of mud they will be throwing at you-know-who.
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on Aug 7, 2015 22:52:51 GMT -5
Well, it's becoming more obvious who "won" and who "lost" the debate in the spin from the right-wing media. It was pre-arranged, of course, that Trump would "lose" the debate no matter what he said. That was a given. But coming out of the debate there are some unexpected "winners", Fiorina and Carson, both of whom I have a lot more respect for then the other blowhard clowns. Either one would make a good VP for Jeb!. By the way, Jeb! did not seem to shine, but he doesn't have to. All he has to do is not look crazy. And what happened to Koch minion Walker? I heard nothing from him. He better pick up his game or the Kochs will dump him like some company they have bought and gutted. Big Pussy and Rand Paul were amusing, but I'm not sure either advanced themselves. Rick Perry? Who is that? Jindal made some hay with a comment calling unassimilated immigration an "invasion". Personally, assimilation is bullshit in my book. They tried it on Native Americans and fortunately it didn't work.
|
|