2016 Election
Quote: kewljAnd I don't think Carson is the guy either. he has little organization behind him. Carson is VERY similar to the pizza guy....not a serious candidate.
Not sure Obama had much organization or backing, back when he started. And if he did, not sure what the source was.
I have to disagree that Carson comes off like the Godfather Pizza guy.
Quote: rxwineNot sure Obama had much organization or backing, back when he started. And if he did, not sure what the source was.
I don't think you are remembering things correctly, rxwine. Obama became a candidate VERY early, in February 2007, a full year before Iowa caucus and New Hampshire primary. Much earlier than ANYONE became a candidate this cycle.
He had a huge ground game, which is why he won Iowa and almost every caucus state very big. It takes huge organization to do well in caucus states.
If you don't remember who the source of his early backing was, I'll refresh your memory. Oprah and Warren Buffet were two of his biggest supporters. Buffet actually had a official title of advisor for the campaign. :/
Quote: kewljI don't think you are remembering things correctly, rxwine. Obama became a candidate VERY early, in February 2007, a full year before Iowa caucus and New Hampshire primary. Much earlier than ANYONE became a candidate this cycle.
He had a huge ground game, which is why he won Iowa and almost every caucus state very big. It takes huge organization to do well in caucus states.
If you don't remember who the source of his early backing was, I'll refresh your memory. Oprah and Warren Buffet were two of his biggest supporters. Buffet actually had a official title of advisor for the campaign. :/
Yeah, truthfully, I don't.
Although I was certain his organization grew with his increasing popularity. But the congressional black congress was supporting Hillary. Bill Clinton was more fresh and influential to the base at that time. I really don't remember Obama having a strong organization at first.
Quote: EvenBobAre you even paying attention? Even the usual
Dem cheeleaders are shaking their heads, saying
Hillary is underwater on popularity and it will
only get worse. Has anybody ever been elected
when the likable rating was under 50% like hers
is?
I don't think any Dem cheerleaders are saying "it will only get worse."
If Hillary is the nominee people will get behind her. We are so far away from the election, literally anything could happen! Joe Biden could swoop in and be the nominee. Who knows?
Obama's popularity was underwater prior to the start of the 2012 election. And it went up as the election approached and people had to choose between him and Mr. 47%.
We are in that phase where everyone is sleeping around, looking for their dream candidate. Once we get closer to the election, more and more voters will start to toe the party line and everyone's numbers will go up.
Quote: doughboy11Here's another poll for the Trump deniers to ignore. He leads Hillary by 5 in iowa
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/ia/iowa_trump_vs_clinton-5597.html
He's down by just 1 in New Hampshire
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/nh/new_hampshire_trump_vs_clinton-5596.html
When Trump wins next year it will be so sweet rubbing the Trump deniers faces in it...................................
Is that you, JohnCena?
Quote: kewljSure [Bush] has a lot of money.
Jeb's campaign war che$t is already big enough that if he was truly motivated, he could drag the primary out for many months-- May, June, July, etc. The flaw in this theory is that Jeb doesn't seem to be enjoying himself, he's not having fun. He appears tired, annoyed, and stressed out. On the campaign trail, he looks like a man stuck behind a lawn mower on Saturday morning. (Meanwhile, Trump is the neighbor next door lying on a hammock with a few Bud Lights.)
Quote: kewljI've always thought Rubio has all the tools. Young, good-looking very personable , well spoken guy.
I have a family member who's a hardcore conservative-- loves Hugh Hewitt, Rush, etc.; hates all liberal politicians. Anyway, I asked my relative what he thinks of Rubio, and he said he'll never forgive Rubio for being too soft on illegal immigrants.
Quote: kewlj
What seems much more definitive to me is that Jeb Bush's campaign has suffered a fatal blow. Some of that because of Trumps constant attacks, some of that many unforced errors and lack of enthusiasm on Jebs part, some just some policy positions that conflict with the republican electorate (we knew this coming in). Some because of his last name.
Jeb never really had huge popularity. He was just the guy the establishment was going to give push to. The rank-and-file were never behind him.
Meanwhile, do you want to look at this for 4 years???????
Quote: AZDuffmanIf Trump gets the nod I would vote for him with no hesitation...
Liberals were amused in August when Trump said that he thinks Judge Maryanne Barry would make a "phenomenal" Supreme Court Justice. Barry wrote a noteworthy decision in favor of giving constitutional protection to partial-birth abortion.
Barry is also Trump's sister, so it would be unprecedented for a President to nominate his own sibling to the Supreme Court. But as we all know, everything about Trump's political career is unprecedented.
Quote: reno
Barry is also Trump's sister, so it would be unprecedented for a President to nominate his own sibling to the Supreme Court. But as we all know, everything about Trump's political career is unprecedented.
JFK put Bobby up as AG, so not as big a deal as you are making out.
Quote: renoLiberals were amused in August when Trump said that he thinks Judge Maryanne Barry would make a "phenomenal" Supreme Court Justice. Barry wrote a noteworthy decision in favor of giving constitutional protection to partial-birth abortion.
Barry is also Trump's sister, so it would be unprecedented for a President to nominate his own sibling to the Supreme Court. But as we all know, everything about Trump's political career is unprecedented.
She is 78 years old, 9 years older than Donald, meaning she would be turning 80 just after he took office. I doubt even the republicans would support such a move, even if a spot opened up early in his presidency.
BUT, should Donald become president, I certainly could see him giving positions to some of his children that they are not qualified for. :/ That seems to be his way.
BTW, Trump would be 70 if he was elected, making him the oldest person elected to a first term (Reagan was older in his second term).
Quote: AZDuffman
Meanwhile, do you want to look at this for 4 years???????
It sounds unfair, but people really do think
that way. Hillary most of the time is an old
frump in a pantsuit. It's why she goes down
in the polls the more we see of her. She
makes people shudder, apparently. She
just makes my skin crawl, I haven't got to
shuddering yet. I always think, poor Bill,
he has to see her in person a few times a year
and pretend to like her.
Quote: EvenBob
It sounds unfair, but people really do think
that way. Hillary most of the time is an old
frump in a pantsuit. It's why she goes down
in the polls the more we see of her. She
makes people shudder, apparently. She
just makes my skin crawl, I haven't got to
shuddering yet. I always think, poor Bill,
he has to see her in person a few times a year
and pretend to like her.
Back in AR, when Bill was first governor, Hillary basically cost him re-election. She wore glasses, didn't dye her hair, did not act at all feminine, and looked totally dumpy.
Note she still has a miserable scowl on her face.
Maybe in your fantasies. But not too much in anyone else's.Quote: EvenBobShe was a doll when she married Bill in 1975.
Quote: SanchoPanzaMaybe in your fantasies. But not too much in anyone else's.
He was either being sarcastic or else he needs to adjust his resolution settings under "Control Panel"
If you don't like Hillary and her politics that is fine. There is plenty of things to be critical of concerning her performance. Why do you have to stoop to calling her names and posting the most unflattering pictures you can find. That is just so sad. It really is third grade behavior.
I am a political junkie. I enjoy political discussions even with those that don't see things as I do. I enjoy respectful discussion. That allows me to grow, as at times I have altered my positions based on discussions with others and things that I have learned. But that is not what occurs on this site. On this site it is a bunch of very partisan people on both sides that dig in their heels. There are only a very few one or two objective people that can make discussion interesting. It's just not enjoyable to visit this site, and discuss politics anymore.
And lately you guys led by Evenbob, and your very immature, very ungentlemanly behavior is just disgusting. You should be ashamed of yourself. Your mother would be ashamed of you. Grow the fuck up!
The absence of the other type is noted.Quote: kewljposting the most unflattering pictures you can find.
Quote: kewlj
And lately you guys led by Evenbob, and your very immature, very ungentlemanly behavior is just disgusting.
If you think appearace isn't a real part
of politics, you are naive. And from
every book written by people who
have been in Hillary's orbit in the last
30 years, she is a disgusting person.
She's rude in the extreme, treats
subordinates like slaves, hates the
military, screams almost constantly,
tears people down to their faces
in front of their coworkers, forces
people who see her in a hallway to
not make eye contact with her or
bother her in any way, and treats
her husband like he's the hired help
in front of close friends.
All around she's a real charmer.
The Reps have a large number of candidates seeking POTUS, at least half of which would probably be decent presidents. The Dems have a couple candidates. What happened here? Do the people in the know predict that it is just the Reps turn to win? There are some decent respectable people in the Dem party that would also 'probably' be at least decent presidents as well. Why have they not stepped forward? Was everyone just sure Hillary would be the candidate that couldn't be beat? Where the hell did that come from? Does anyone believe, I mean anyone, that she was appointed Secretary of State based on her foreign affairs acumen? Anyone?
Maybe the political elite take us all for fools, and maybe they are correct.
I am disappointed in the process so far.
I worry for my children.
Gotta say, while I don't really want to harp on her appearance, I do wonder why she still bothers with the peroxide.
it's so true. This is the Dem ticket.
Quote: TwoFeathersATLIn the midst of all the turmoil the question that I keep asking myself is this.
The Reps have a large number of candidates seeking POTUS, at least half of which would probably be decent presidents. The Dems have a couple candidates. What happened here? Do the people in the know predict that it is just the Reps turn to win? There are some decent respectable people in the Dem party that would also 'probably' be at least decent presidents as well. Why have they not stepped forward? Was everyone just sure Hillary would be the candidate that couldn't be beat? Where the hell did that come from? Does anyone believe, I mean anyone, that she was appointed Secretary of State based on her foreign affairs acumen? Anyone?
Maybe the political elite take us all for fools, and maybe they are correct.
I am disappointed in the process so far.
I worry for my children.
I don't totally believe there is a group calling the shots and making winners. But I do believe a few things.
I do believe McCain was given push to throw the election. Horrible candidate, horrible campaign. At the debates he looked about as competent as Steve Lombardi did when he was in the ring. The GOP kind of believe they were going to lose so why even try? I believe this happens often in POTUS elections.
While the Democrat bench is thin, I do believe every decent Democrat was told "Hey, Bo, if you ever want to do anything in politics on our side again, you had better leave the field clear for Hillary. Capish?" Does anyone think that there are not a few Democrat governors who see her as weak as EB, myself, and a few others here have pointed out? Nobody has even tried to run against her.
You are right to worry for your children.
The election will be won and loss based on very narrow sections of demographics. Hispanics, Blacks, women, the young. Getting out the vote in your demographic is key to winning and losing states. There are a small percentage of swing voters as well who will make their decision based on the true quality of the candidate.
And in my opinion, Hillary is qualified for leadership - her time in the Senate and State gives her that, political views aside. Her looks and how she carries herself is important. Charisma is very important in the presidential race. And the truth is that Hilary is not trustworthy and not particularly "presidential". Most people these day do not trust politicians, especially long-term ones because it is well publicized and known that government is corrupt on both sides of the aisle.
The illusion that politicians are looking after the public interest is gone. Corporations have bought out congress and the senate a long time ago, producing policies that for the most part benefits them and leaves the average consumer (who doesn't own large swaths of stock) in the middle ground watching their middle class shrink away.
This leaves voters to vote for the best of two evils. The question for voters will be "who do you not trust the least?" I think that is why Trump is garnering interest. He's not a politician. Unfortunately his views are both alienating to two key demographics: woman and immigrants, both of which are required to win.
Quote: boymimboUnfortunately his views are both alienating to two key demographics: woman and immigrants, both of which are required to win.
Most of us look at the demographics and conclude the same as you boyminbo. But The hardcore, right-of-center republicans see it differently. They believe they just need a higher turnout of white men to win. They believe turnout of white men was down in 2008 and 2012, because conservative white men stayed home rather than vote for a moderate republican like McCain or Romney and if they put up a more conservative candidate (farther right), they will get those votes.
But the truth is they would need a white men turnout equal to when Ronald Reagan won to overcome the now larger Latino and Woman Votes. In other words they would need to equal the best turnout they have ever had among white men, a turnout achieved in a landslide victory, to now eek out the slimmest of majority.
That is not a sustainable position or path going forward. It's just a state of denial. And it is so weird because after the 2012 defeat the republican brain trust came together and issued what is called 'The Autopsy report' which said they needed to be more inclusive to Latinos, Women and Gays and when the time came to act on that they refuse to do it.
Quote: kewljMost of us look at the demographics and conclude the same as you boyminbo. But The hardcore, right-of-center republicans see it differently. They believe they just need a higher turnout of white men to win. They believe turnout of white men was down in 2008 and 2012, because conservative white men stayed home rather than vote for a moderate republican like McCain or Romney and if they put up a more conservative candidate (farther right), they will get those votes.
Actually, this is totally incorrect. Liberals love to yell DEMOGRAPHICS, DEMOGRAPHICS, DEMOGRAPHICS, DEMOGRAPHICS, DEMOGRAPHICS, and think that is the end of it. It is not. Liberals assume hispanics and asians will block-vote same as blacks forever. This is doubtful.
And the liberal advice to the GOP is, "You had better get out there and be in favor of unlimited illegal immigration or you will lose forever!" Which is just advice to lose the country.
Quote:And it is so weird because after the 2012 defeat the republican brain trust came together and issued what is called 'The Autopsy report' which said they needed to be more inclusive to Latinos, Women and Gays and when the time came to act on that they refuse to do it.
How is the GOP not inclusive to latinos, women, or even gays? The GOP is not inclusive to liberals, but that is about all. Perhaps you did not notice but the GOP has women, hispanics, and blacks running for POTUS but the Dem side is a bunch of "lilly-white" candidates.
Quote: AZDuffmanActually, this is totally incorrect. Liberals love to yell DEMOGRAPHICS, DEMOGRAPHICS, DEMOGRAPHICS, DEMOGRAPHICS, DEMOGRAPHICS, and think that is the end of it. It is not. Liberals assume hispanics and asians will block-vote same as blacks forever. This is doubtful.
And the liberal advice to the GOP is, "You had better get out there and be in favor of unlimited illegal immigration or you will lose forever!" Which is just advice to lose the country.
How is the GOP not inclusive to latinos, women, or even gays? The GOP is not inclusive to liberals, but that is about all. Perhaps you did not notice but the GOP has women, hispanics, and blacks running for POTUS but the Dem side is a bunch of "lilly-white" candidates.
I started to write it, but finished reading the other posts first.
AZD beat me to it, almost word for word.
I'm slow....
I would add, the GOP is inclusive to everyone once they reach a level of maturity that understands 'there aint no such thing as a free lunch'. Tanstaafl - Heinlein, before 1BB busts my chops..
Because of the stark bipolarness of American politics, the far right need to shut up and attempt to get the votes it needs to win a general election. Then let your representatives to their work of pulling the party further off to the right and execute the agenda it needs to make the far right happy.
The unfortunate thing about all of this is that corporations win, always. The middle class will continue to recede under any administration until campaign reform takes place and limits to corporate influence occur. This is long overdue. Politicians needs to stop sucking at the teats of its corporate influencers and rely on limited campaign dollars from private individuals. This will make candidates more honest and will draw out non-career politicians to go for office. Congress and Senate might actually listen to their constituents. We can start with Pharmaceuticals and Insurance companies first, the Monsantos and big farming next. We can go after big farms next and stop our reliance on corn and move back to sustainable farming. Then Oil. A pushback on corporate influence would go along way to curb voter apathy and restore some faith in government.
The libertarian argument will be to avoid any government at all, but of course, they pick and choose which government is good - "armed forces = Good, Social Security = Good, MediCare = Good, Roads and Sewers - Good, Fire and Police - Good" and which is bad: "ObamaCare = Bad, Teachers = Bad, any sort of public worker union = Bad, any sort of environmental cause = Bad".
Okay I've said too much. But I've been away for a while. Now, I'm the bleeder in an ocean of sharks. Have at it, fishies!!!
Quote: AZDuffman
How is the GOP not inclusive to latinos, women, or even gays? The GOP is not inclusive to liberals, but that is about all. Perhaps you did not notice but the GOP has women, hispanics, and blacks running for POTUS but the Dem side is a bunch of "lilly-white" candidates.
If you feel the GOP has been inclusive to Latinos, women and gays.....well I just don't know what to tell you, Duffman. You are looking through a different spectrum than I and I doubt anything I say will change that.
I will speak from the gay aspect, which as a gay man, I know a little something about. Probably half of the gay population, especially the older generation, which is the group more likely to vote, has conservative values on many issues. Many have their own businesses and want nothing more to raise a family with their partner.
Many of these people are a much closer fit to republican values, but now have been turned off forever because of the republican effort to deny marriage benefits. And for what? The notion that someone else's relationship in any way reflects or harms your own is ludicrous. No one is saying you or any republican needs to change religious beliefs. If you feel homosexuality is a sin, so be it. There is supposed to be separation of church and state. But the far rights insistence that religious views be incorporated into government, excludes the majority of people, who may share what should be government related conservative values.
I'll tell you, in my own case, this issue was front and center for most of my adult life, which is why I aligned myself with democrats. In June, I figured this issue was put to bed and I could now embrace issues lean more conservative and at least consider if not embrace republicans. In this very early part of the election cycle, I find myself interested in more republican candidates than democratic candidates. But, now in recent weeks it looks as if the republicans want to re-fight this fight that they have already lost and continue to be the exclusive private club that they have become. This may end up driving me right back to the democrats instead of looking for a candidate that better matches all my values.
I can't speak for Latinos, but I find it very unlikely that republican positions of wanting to break up their families, including children who are by law US citizens, the same as you and I, is going to make many of these folks feel welcome. And frankly, it appears to me, that most Latinos are hard working religious people of traditional values and a better fit for the republican party.
I mean, come on....inclusive? Who are you lying to, me or yourself?
Clearly, the GOP and especially the Christian/Tea Party right within the GOP is anti-gay. You and several other posters have been criticizing the gay marriage movement since I've been on here. The GOP policy on immigration is also strongly against immigrants at this current time. 1st generation immigrants (and there are a lot of them) will favor amnesty over any other program that will require a hurdle for them or their family members to gain citizenship. That alone will block most of these people (there are exceptions) from voting GOP. And women? Reproductive rights and wage parity are a big deal to them, and far-right reversing of decisions in states around right-to-life are important to some of these voters -- these voters themselves may be pro-lifers themselves but they have a strong belief that women should be able to make their own decisions around the fate of what's growing inside of them, just on principle alone.
All GOP candidates unfortunately have to play cards that appease both the center Republicans (those whose votes are required to win) and the far right (those who will vote GOP anyway). Democrats can then grab on to these bites of hard right rhetoric to sway those thinking about voting GOP away from that decision.
I think the ideal GOP candidate's play is to ignore the far right entirely. They will vote for him anyway over Hillary as you know that the GOP candidate's view have got to be to the right of Hillary. The closer the GOP stays in the center the better their chances will be to win. And then you let those righter leaning politicians in the Congress and Senate to push their agenda.
Quote: boymimboThis is the quandary with the right, and I am not saying they are wrong. The issue is that the values that the right-of-center republicans believe in is in the distinct minority. Whether that SHOULD be the case is a different discussion.
Sadly, right-of-center is always going to be the minority. It is easy to be on the left, all you have to do is keep saying "yes" and adding more handouts. If you are on the right you have to be the SOB who says. "we can't afford it!" or "NO!" to requests. Another way to put it is how they relate to kids. Liberal parents are far more likely to be the parents saying, "I want to be my kid's friend!" while conservative ones say, "no, my job is to be a PARENT, not a friend!"
Quote:Because of the stark bipolarness of American politics, the far right need to shut up and attempt to get the votes it needs to win a general election. Then let your representatives to their work of pulling the party further off to the right and execute the agenda it needs to make the far right happy.
But the right actually has been winning elections. Statehouses, governorships, and Congress. Up and down the line. Obama won re-election with fewer votes and a narrower margin than he won the first time, that is unheard of at POTUS level. And for liberals should be cause for alarm as it means they convinced net-nobody of their ideas/positions.
Quote:The unfortunate thing about all of this is that corporations win, always. The middle class will continue to recede under any administration until campaign reform takes place and limits to corporate influence occur. This is long overdue. Politicians needs to stop sucking at the teats of its corporate influencers and rely on limited campaign dollars from private individuals. This will make candidates more honest and will draw out non-career politicians to go for office. Congress and Senate might actually listen to their constituents.
I would rather a system of unlimited contributions as long as they were all declared. Requiring small contributions actually makes it harder for "the little guy" as so much time has to be consumed raising money from a larger number of people. I don't see it with "non-career politicians" getting into things. Politics is some sort of weird club for attention-whores who like to talk but not do.
Quote:Okay I've said too much. But I've been away for a while.
Welcome back, BTW. Hope you like the new paint job on the walls here.
Quote: kewljI'll tell you, in my own case, this issue was front and center for most of my adult life, which is why I aligned myself with democrats. In June, I figured this issue was put to bed and I could now embrace issues lean more conservative and at least consider if not embrace republicans. In this very early part of the election cycle, I find myself interested in more republican candidates than democratic candidates. But, now in recent weeks it looks as if the republicans want to re-fight this fight that they have already lost and continue to be the exclusive private club that they have become. This may end up driving me right back to the democrats instead of looking for a candidate that better matches all my values.
Bingo. The ship should have sailed on abortion a long time ago. And on gay marriage, that ship should also be sailing. I'm Christian myself. Homosexuality is a sin. We are all sinners however. I don't expect my church ever to perform a same-sex marriage based on religious freedom. I do expect the government however to give the same benefits to same-sex partners as to heterosexual ones.
That in a nutshell is a problem with the GOP. They are representing two different broad spectrums of society. There is the far right who want their government to take back values and rights from individuals that the GOP has to appease, and then there's a center right spectrum as well who KNOW that their economic and some social beliefs align well with GOP values but can't accept the far right. This creates a faction. The left does not have this problem.
Good reading each time ;-)
There of course is a segment of society who will vote along with the handouts. The Conservative government tried that up here (general election next month) by giving more money to families with children. That tactic did not garner them anymore votes here. Our economy is flailing because in the rich days in the early 2000s the government did nothing to invest the surpluses in infrastructure. Now with low commodity prices (especially oil) our dollar is sucking and the economy had a recession in the first half. And the Liberal (our center party) is also flailing because the candidate is not trustworthy. People are seeing through his words of "tax the rich - give the middle class more" as it is not genuine. Our left party (the NDPs) are doing well mostly because of a solid candidate in Mulcair but he won't win either because he can't be trusted with the pursestrings.
The end result will be a minority government and another election in another year. Of course, elections here are no big deal.
Quote: TwoFeathersATLI think it was quadrupled, but I read the first three.
Good reading each time ;-)
I agree.
After I vote for Bernie to accelerate the fall of the US, I plan to court RonC and boymimbo to my cabinet after my successful coup. They are shoe ins for my Ministry of Common Sense.
Quote: boymimboEasy to be on the left? No. There are plenty of people on the left (such as myself) who are concerned about the fiscal future of the country, who understand that handouts cost money and need to be funded. I am happy to give money to welfare recipients, teachers, universities, socialized medicine, and those who are genuinely on the outs and happy to pay my share of taxes to do so, as long as it is not wasted.
Actually, this is exactly what I am talking about. "Happy to give.....as long as it is not wasted." Even if it isn't "wasted" and that term is very loose, the fact is that it is not the government's money to give. The money you "give" to socialized medicine was taken from someone who had to expend labor or/and capital to get it. As a liberal it is easy to say, "good cause!" but as a conservative it is harder to say, "sorry, we don't have the money for that." Perhaps this is why liberals give less to charitable groups and claim they do not mind higher taxes ("claim" because they usually want taxes on someone else) while conservatives want slim government for social services but give more to a cause they believe in.
Quote:There of course is a segment of society who will vote along with the handouts.
In the USA we call this "the 47%" but if you do you get called some kind of meanie...........
Quote: boymimboThe illusion that politicians are looking after the public interest is gone. Corporations have bought out congress and the senate a long time ago, producing policies that for the most part benefits them and leaves the average consumer (who doesn't own large swaths of stock) in the middle ground watching their middle class shrink away.
The US currently issues 65,000 H1B visas to highly skilled foreign workers.
Instead of hiring them for unfilled positions, corportations such as Microsoft and Disney are firing long time workers and replacing them with cheaper foreign H1 B workers.
Disney
Cruz introduced legislation to increase the number of H1 B visas from 65,000 to 325,000.
Cruz
Rubio wants to increase it to 190,000
Rubio
Quote: doughboy11Here's another poll for the Trump deniers to ignore. He leads Hillary by 5 in iowa
He's down by just 1 in New Hampshire
The only polls I consider are the ones right after the two conventions - if a candidate can't get a significant bounce in the days after that party's convention ends, then it's going to be hard for that candidate to win.
Well, that and the only "poll" that matters - the 51 taken in the voting booths (and the mail ballots) on election day.
Speaking of Iowa polls...how is "uncommitted" doing in the Iowa Democrats poll? I was watching the CNN series about the 1970s, and noticed that "uncommitted" won (if you define it by percentage of lowest-level votes) the Iowa Democratic Caucus that year.
Quote: ThatDonGuy
Speaking of Iowa polls...how is "uncommitted" doing in the Iowa Democrats poll? I was watching the CNN series about the 1970s, and noticed that "uncommitted" won (if you define it by percentage of lowest-level votes) the Iowa Democratic Caucus that year.
We had an election in 1970?
Quote: AZDuffmanPerhaps this is why liberals give less to charitable groups and claim they do not mind higher taxes ("claim" because they usually want taxes on someone else) while conservatives want slim government for social services but give more to a cause they believe in.
I like a consistent system. Inconsistency, or giving just when you feel like it, works about as well as getting a Turkey on Thanksgiving, when you actually needed to eat in January, or July. Makes people feel good who give that way, but that's about it.
Plus, while government doesn't necessarily do a good job of screening people who really need something, I am not so sure your local charity does a great job either. Yes, I'd rather have a system supported by everyone giving a little than random people giving whenever or whatever they want. Charity is like having an army fight on donations and about good in the long term. The army shows up when it's paid. The enemy shows up when they aren't.
I've never heard liberals proclaim that rich liberals should be excluded from higher taxes, when they say they everyone should pay more. Show me the liberal/progressive running on that claim in any year or time frame?
Quote: rxwinePlus, while government doesn't necessarily do a good job of screening people who really need something, I am not so sure your local charity does a great job either. Yes, I'd rather have a system supported by everyone giving a little than random people giving whenever or whatever they want. Charity is like having an army fight on donations and about good in the long term. The army shows up when it's paid. The enemy shows up when they aren't.
That is your take. I prefer being able to direct my funds. I don't want my money funding abortion or even more going to AIDS, which is already over funded. I don't want it going to bogus "job training" and midnight basketball. You may support any or all of these.
I would rather fiscal democracy where the government does little and we all help where we want. Kind of like crowd funding. Make your case to raise cash. Oh, and I really do not want funds going to pay grant writers to get more funds!
Quote:I've never heard liberals proclaim that rich liberals should be excluded from higher taxes, when they say they everyone should pay more. Show me the liberal/progressive running on that claim in any year or time frame?
What I am saying is so many liberals say they are for higher taxes but on the wealthy or on the rich, etc. But since you brought it up, liberals from all over said they did not "need" the Bush tax cuts, yet not a one ever gave a nickel of it back. At the least they did not make it public that they did.
Quote: AZDuffmanWhat I am saying is so many liberals say they are for higher taxes but on the wealthy or on the rich, etc. But since you brought it up, liberals from all over said they did not "need" the Bush tax cuts, yet not a one ever gave a nickel of it back. At the least they did not make it public that they did.
Okay, but it's just as likely some people who vote against government programs on principle, also ended up using one instead of going without.
Quote: rxwineOkay, but it's just as likely some people who vote against government programs on principle, also ended up using one instead of going without.
Not the question.
Obama, Hillary, Moore, and how many others bragged how rich they were and said, "I didn't need the tax cut."
Now, any person can make a "Gift to the Treasury" at any time. Some do for various reasons. I would have respect for those who said they were so well off they did not need the cut had they sent it back. None did, and I even heard he idea put forth that they "had to take it."
I wish I was a talk show host sometimes...........
Quote: AZDuffmanNot the question.
Obama, Hillary, Moore, and how many others bragged how rich they were and said, "I didn't need the tax cut."
Now, any person can make a "Gift to the Treasury" at any time. Some do for various reasons. I would have respect for those who said they were so well off they did not need the cut had they sent it back. None did, and I even heard he idea put forth that they "had to take it."
I wish I was a talk show host sometimes...........
If you're saying conservatives would change their minds because of this respect, it would mean something.
I still say, some redstate people are taking government money freely too while mouthing the words they are against it.
Quote: rxwineIf you're saying conservatives would change their minds because of this respect, it would mean something.
I still say, some redstate people are taking government money freely too while mouthing the words they are against it.
We are not talking about "some red state people" of average means and some general program. We are talking both party leaders and leading liberal mouthpieces.
Quote: AZDuffmanWe are not talking about "some red state people" of average means and some general program. We are talking both party leaders and leading liberal mouthpieces.
Yeah, but it's a red herring. You wouldn't change your mind even if they did. No more than I'm going to change my mind just because maybe an honest man believes certain deities exists.
Quote: rxwineYeah, but it's a red herring. You wouldn't change your mind even if they did. No more than I'm going to change my mind just because maybe an honest man believes certain deities exists.
Correct, not changing my mind. I have drifted a bit more libertarian the last few years (e.g.: decriminalize dope), but never will I drift liberal. However, someone needs to point them out.
Quote: rxwineIf you're saying conservatives would change their minds because of this respect, it would mean something.
I still say, some redstate people are taking government money freely too while mouthing the words they are against it.
Most people who are on government assistance can be lumped into two groups. 1) those have been dealt great misfortune in their life due to a handicap, defect, accident, health concerns, that make them unhireable due to no fault of their own and everyone across the board from Libs to the staunchest conservative are for helping those that cannot help themselves. But then there is group 2, which consists of people who are fully capable of doing so, but choose not to for whatever reason or excuse. You, me and everyone here has met someone in their life who has been on unemployment and magically found a job the week the benefits expire. Those are the people that offend me to the core to help. The ones that have the ability to live and support themselves that won't
Quote: AZDuffmanActually, this is totally incorrect. Liberals love to yell DEMOGRAPHICS, DEMOGRAPHICS, DEMOGRAPHICS, DEMOGRAPHICS, DEMOGRAPHICS, and think that is the end of it. It is not. Liberals assume hispanics and asians will block-vote same as blacks forever. This is doubtful.
It wasn't incorrect at all. I don't think Democrats and Liberals are synonymous like you seem to, either. But I do notice that people who identify with Latino, Black, Asian, Gay, or Women concerns, whether they're part of that demographic or not, can look to the Democrats to look at their concerns and attempt to address them, and Republicans (mostly) to insult, condescend, or actively work to continuing or exacerbating those concerns.
Quote: AZDuffmanAnd the liberal advice to the GOP is, "You had better get out there and be in favor of unlimited illegal immigration or you will lose forever!" Which is just advice to lose the country..
I say again, neither the Liberals nor anybody else is saying that! You're (as the self-designated rightist) the only one who twists this problem into a claim that anybody is supporting illegal immigration. Gets really old.
Quote: AZDuffmanHow is the GOP not inclusive to latinos, women, or even gays? The GOP is not inclusive to liberals, but that is about all. Perhaps you did not notice but the GOP has women, hispanics, and blacks running for POTUS but the Dem side is a bunch of "lilly-white" candidates.
You be sure and embrace those outliers and tokens (which represent maybe, at most, 15% of their demographics, since you're so hung up on the word) while your party continues its work to keep them "in their place".
I can't think of any more illustrative example of how "your demographic" does things than funding Viagra in nearly all US health coverage while defunding and restricting female birth control and screaming about costs in Obamacare. Hypocrites. It's all about you getting yours, and the rest of us are supposed to take a back seat, clean up after you, and say thanks. Bleah.
Quote: boymimboCome on.
Clearly, the GOP and especially the Christian/Tea Party right within the GOP is anti-gay. You and several other posters have been criticizing the gay marriage movement since I've been on here. The GOP policy on immigration is also strongly against immigrants at this current time. 1st generation immigrants (and there are a lot of them) will favor amnesty over any other program that will require a hurdle for them or their family members to gain citizenship. That alone will block most of these people (there are exceptions) from voting GOP. And women? Reproductive rights and wage parity are a big deal to them, and far-right reversing of decisions in states around right-to-life are important to some of these voters -- these voters themselves may be pro-lifers themselves but they have a strong belief that women should be able to make their own decisions around the fate of what's growing inside of them, just on principle alone.
All GOP candidates unfortunately have to play cards that appease both the center Republicans (those whose votes are required to win) and the far right (those who will vote GOP anyway). Democrats can then grab on to these bites of hard right rhetoric to sway those thinking about voting GOP away from that decision.
I think the ideal GOP candidate's play is to ignore the far right entirely. They will vote for him anyway over Hillary as you know that the GOP candidate's view have got to be to the right of Hillary. The closer the GOP stays in the center the better their chances will be to win. And then you let those righter leaning politicians in the Congress and Senate to push their agenda.
well said. Definitely the wise course. However, in this election, all bets seem to be off, and the adults are standing back and letting the kids run the asylum for now.
Quote: beachbumbabsIt wasn't incorrect at all. I don't think Democrats and Liberals are synonymous like you seem to, either. But I do notice that people who identify with Latino, Black, Asian, Gay, or Women concerns, whether they're part of that demographic or not, can look to the Democrats to look at their concerns and attempt to address them, and Republicans (mostly) to insult, condescend, or actively work to continuing or exacerbating those concerns.
Effectively the Democrat Party is the liberal party. It has lurched further and further left since 1964. You are right, though, in that Democrats pander to special interest groups like blacks, gays, etc. The GOP is more about everyone having the same rights and no "special" rights for minority groups as said special rights tend to Balkanize the population. BTW: I have not seen the GOP insult, condescend, or do anything you seem to charge. The leader of your party (Democrat) did claim that people like me "cling to their guns and religion." If that is not condescending I do not know what is.
Quote:I say again, neither the Liberals nor anybody else is saying that! You're (as the self-designated rightist) the only one who twists this problem into a claim that anybody is supporting illegal immigration. Gets really old.
Uh, yes they effectively are. Who tries to stop enforcement of illegal immigration? Who sets up the "sanctuary cities?" Who tries to get them drivers licenses, welfare, and a host of other benefits? Meanwhile, when the GOP tries to enforce immigration law they are told, "YOU ARE GOING TO LOSE THE LATINO VOTE!"
Actions speak, Democrats love illegal immigration as shown by their actions.
Quote:I can't think of any more illustrative example of how "your demographic" does things than funding Viagra in nearly all US health coverage while defunding and restricting female birth control and screaming about costs in Obamacare. Hypocrites. It's all about you getting yours, and the rest of us are supposed to take a back seat, clean up after you, and say thanks. Bleah.
We'll forget that Viagra and birth control are two different things for the moment. I'd be happy to take Viagra off the approved list if that would satisfy feminists, both are elective. Nobody is saying "take a back seat." (Well, Obama said for the GOP to sit in back, but I digress.) The GOP just says, "we are all equal, if you want what someone else has you need to go out and hustle for it like they did!"
Let me state it again. The GOP field has a self-made woman, a black, and a hispanic all trying for the nod. The Democrats have a woman who's claim to qualification is who she was married to, and one potentially two "old white guys." Tell me again who is "inclusive?"
