Democrats secret and not secret agents...
I've been depicting Fiorini as the perfect Democrat secret sleeper agent. That Is still more true than not. But it's only my opinion - well - not only. Now we find the second agent depicted by Mona Charon's column on Dec 9th. That's today!!!
She lays out her case in no nonsense straight forward terms. Question inow is how many of his approval number came from the left to begin with. Who? Trump the life long Democrat turned RINO. Who else as an opponent would bandaid the left back together?
http://townhall.com Mona Charon
The dictionary defines "bogeyman" as "an imaginary evil spirit, referred to typically to frighten children." Hello, Donald Trump. It's not clear whether he set out intentionally to elect Hillary Clinton, but there is little question that he could not be fulfilling the role of Republican bogeyman to greater effect.
As Commentary's Jonathan Tobin noted, during a week in which the disastrous fecklessness of President Obama and his party in the face of terrorism ought to have been Topic A, we are all talking about Trump instead. Brilliant. Tobin's point actually applies to the entire presidential contest. By rights, it should be about the Democrats' unraveling. From Obamacare to terrorism, from the economy to climate change, and from guns to free speech, progressive policies have proven deeply disappointing when not downright obtuse and dangerous. Clinton promises more of the same while trailing an oil slick of corruption in her wake. And yet swinging into the frame, week in and week out, the orange-maned billionaire bogeyman dominates the discussion.
Hell yes, Republicans are anti-Hispanic bigots, Trump (a lifelong Democrat) is supposed to confirm. Just look at the way he talked about Mexican "rapists" and vowed to build a wall that Mexico will fund.
Hell yes, Republicans want to fight a war on women. Did you hear what Trump said about Megyn Kelly and Carly Fiorina?
Hell yes, Republicans are anti-immigrant, anti-handicapped, anti-Jewish and anti-Muslim. Line 'em up and Trump will offend. Not cleverly, mind you, but crudely. Donald Trump is fond of saying that our political leaders are stupid, constantly outmaneuvered at the bargaining table by shrewder Chinese, Mexicans, and Japanese. No one can accuse him of stupidity: provided his goal is to elect Hillary Clinton.
This week, while we were still burying our dead from San Bernardino, every Republican -- rather than explaining why President Obama's refusal to fight the war on terror has led to this moment -- instead had to condemn Donald Trump's mindless proposal to keep every single Muslim out of the United States until further notice. Again, he's the perfect bogeyman.
It's not just that what he says demands condemnation. It's that it seems to give credence to the Democrats' narrative.
Personally when I listen to or read about Trump I'm reminded of the climb to power int he 20's and 30's of the last century by an ex German Army Corporal who also had a hair problem..on his lip.
She lays out her case in no nonsense straight forward terms. Question inow is how many of his approval number came from the left to begin with. Who? Trump the life long Democrat turned RINO. Who else as an opponent would bandaid the left back together?
http://townhall.com Mona Charon
The dictionary defines "bogeyman" as "an imaginary evil spirit, referred to typically to frighten children." Hello, Donald Trump. It's not clear whether he set out intentionally to elect Hillary Clinton, but there is little question that he could not be fulfilling the role of Republican bogeyman to greater effect.
As Commentary's Jonathan Tobin noted, during a week in which the disastrous fecklessness of President Obama and his party in the face of terrorism ought to have been Topic A, we are all talking about Trump instead. Brilliant. Tobin's point actually applies to the entire presidential contest. By rights, it should be about the Democrats' unraveling. From Obamacare to terrorism, from the economy to climate change, and from guns to free speech, progressive policies have proven deeply disappointing when not downright obtuse and dangerous. Clinton promises more of the same while trailing an oil slick of corruption in her wake. And yet swinging into the frame, week in and week out, the orange-maned billionaire bogeyman dominates the discussion.
Hell yes, Republicans are anti-Hispanic bigots, Trump (a lifelong Democrat) is supposed to confirm. Just look at the way he talked about Mexican "rapists" and vowed to build a wall that Mexico will fund.
Hell yes, Republicans want to fight a war on women. Did you hear what Trump said about Megyn Kelly and Carly Fiorina?
Hell yes, Republicans are anti-immigrant, anti-handicapped, anti-Jewish and anti-Muslim. Line 'em up and Trump will offend. Not cleverly, mind you, but crudely. Donald Trump is fond of saying that our political leaders are stupid, constantly outmaneuvered at the bargaining table by shrewder Chinese, Mexicans, and Japanese. No one can accuse him of stupidity: provided his goal is to elect Hillary Clinton.
This week, while we were still burying our dead from San Bernardino, every Republican -- rather than explaining why President Obama's refusal to fight the war on terror has led to this moment -- instead had to condemn Donald Trump's mindless proposal to keep every single Muslim out of the United States until further notice. Again, he's the perfect bogeyman.
It's not just that what he says demands condemnation. It's that it seems to give credence to the Democrats' narrative.
Personally when I listen to or read about Trump I'm reminded of the climb to power int he 20's and 30's of the last century by an ex German Army Corporal who also had a hair problem..on his lip.
What's clear is that one of two things is true. Either a.) the overwhelming bulk of non-Democrat American voters is a pack of "Idiocracy"-caliber simpletons, or b.) the Republican rank-and-file voters have utterly lost control of the primary process of their own party. Neither of which is a particularly appealing scenario.
Like a lot of people here, I was a Day One Tea Partier - actually a lifelong Tea Partier, when you consider that the Tea Party is just a synonym for "core Republican." The two animating issues that gave rise to the Tea Party phenomenon were a.) backlash against the spectacle that was the Dodd / Frank mortgage corporatism and the Bush / Paulson / Bernanke bailout of same, and b.) the shocked realization that the Republican Party had become infiltrated with a veritable cancer - metastasizing and malignant - of RINOism. It's demand was simple: Eradicate both problems.
Trump is a perfect poster-boy for corporatism (he's openly boasted about it at every one of the debates thus far,) and for RINOism (see: his political record, up to the point where he decided to start calling himself a Republican.)
Yet here we are in December of 2015, and "the polls" tell us that this anti-Republican juggernaut is "the frontrunner."
True, even a single week is an eternity within a campaign, and nobody can predict what will happen between now and the convention - but we've got saturation-media promotion of Trump and a near-total Spike of Cruz, of Fiorina, of Paul, of Rubio - to say nothing of the "second-tier" candidates like Jindal.
I don't know whether to believe the polls - if they're accurate then the Tea Party influence on Republicanism is deceased, along with Republicanism itself - or whether to think this whole Trump circus is an elaborate "monkeywrenching" of the most promising Republican primary in thirty years.
The entire spectacle is profoundly disheartening. Trump would almost certainly be less catastrophic for the country as President than Clinton or Sanders - in the short term. But his unfocused hash of generally noxious beliefs, his shocking shallowness on foreign policy issues (have a look at Robert Tracinski's quote of the second debate transcript, in his article "Has the Real Republican Frontrunner Just Stood Up?") and his utter obliviousness to the Constitution mean that he would accomplish little or nothing of what must be accomplished (the rollback of entire swaths of big government,) and is precisely not what the country needs in a President at this point in history.
I can only hope that worthy candidates like Cruz and Fiorina can step up their game and blow through that monolithic media blackout, and that this imposter Trump will fade deservedly. Paul disqualifies himself every time he opens his mouth on national defense, so I'm thinking he's of far greater value in Congress (where voting wrong on one issue is vastly outweighed by voting right on dozens of others.) Rubio, like Fiorina, would be a longshot - and he's too much of a "nice guy" personality for the hard-nosed decisions the 2017 President will need to be making on a daily basis. Jindal is an also-ran with zero chance of getting anywhere.
If the situation ca. 12-10-15 is any indication of what will happen in Cleveland next July, then I will be throwing my vote on a write-in, and thereafter giving up on politics. If we've descended to the level where Donald Trump is the only option in opposition to the national socialism of a Clinton or Sanders, then there is no hope for this country. The situation reminds me of the dire assessment Peikoff did in "Ominous Parallels" in his discussion of American education: American kids' heads are being filled with pure poison, and "we are arguably at the point of no return" as a consequence. (He wrote this in 1982, before the rise of "PC," multiculturacism and "speech codes.")
Don't mistake my Fiorini Jindahl suggestion for supporting Republicans. At best they are all believers in government over people. The suggestion is meant as a method of revenge on my part after 24 years of protecting a myth only to find out the great unwashed voted it down the toilet in favor of that which we were sent out to kill. Only to return and have to ask where the F is my country?" i intend it as a political IED against those that betrayed us and the Constitution we swore to protect and defend. Democrats and Republicans alike. The fuse was lit by a Commander-In-Chief who labeled us as his government's greatest danger and in doing so became by the definition of my oath of office an enemy domestic. Time for a counter revolution and I sincerely hope the active military agrees. Signs and recent actions are they leaning that way. - without purposes of evasion. If for no other reason believe in supporting them as they are the only legal means of regaining what we have lost.
Yes. I wonder why Democrats haven't similarly latched onto Sanders.
There is only one logical consequence to that policy: support for some minor party (like the Libertarians,) which uniformly garners election returns in the single digit percentile, but frequently siphons enough votes away from (sometimes) worthy Republicans to hand elections goose-stepping Democrats. I will not go down that road, and submit that to do so is to actively abet the destruction of liberty.
If a large, established brand starts producing items of diminishing quality, the logical course of action is to improve the quality of those items, not throw one's support behind a lame garage start-up with a proven track record of failure and its own rash of quality problems. The analogy is not perfect - it is far easier to improve a product in the marketplace than it is to alter the intellectual composition of a political party - but I trust it's clear enough.
I do not and will not support Libertarianism, or any other minor party.
So why should I support a lame bunch of left wing wannabe's socialists who continuously demonstrate they are lapdogs of the left? I shouldn't and i don't.
Personally I'm in favor of the military upholding and honoring their oath of office which hardly constitutes a garage door startup and is, in fact, a legal move and a required move on their part.
We never took an oath to the country nor the people nor the government but to the Constitution. If there were 'sometimes worthy' actually worth anything they wouldn't be lackeys to Republicans-In-Name-Only and goose stepping along enabling the right wing of the lef t as they support the left wing of the left them you have helped destroy liberty. For sure you weren't worth fighting for. We expected you to watch our backs only to return and found our country sold down the drain ....thanks for nothing.
Vote for your 'sometimes worthy's? What for? Same reason I wouldn't vote for a Democrat. I'm no traitor to my oath freely given still uphold without purposes of evasion. Spare me the dog an pony show and the empty campaign rhetoric. If they are worthy let them start showing it through action not empty words.
My apologies for the unseemly rant. But where better? If it was a Republican or a Democrat group it wouldn't be allowed. Not in the approved script don't you know?
.
Republicans have controlled the House of Representatives and thus the purse strings since early 2011. Why is Obamacare still around and well-funded?
In Nevada, where I live, two of the last three Republican governors (to the delight of Democrats) have created the largest tax increases in the state’s history. Most of the money thus raised is destined to disappear into the sewer pits of “public education”.
I have voted Libertarian in every presidential election since 1972, and I see no reason to do otherwise in 2016 whether Trump is the Republican nominee or not.
I think it's funny how Republicans just assume that if it's a contest between them and Democrats, Republicans are more favorable to liberty. In my view, they're more open than Democrats in their believe that gov't should have an opinion and influence on people's personal lives.
That assumes there is a vendor with an acceptable level of quality. In absence of which do without. I do not like Pepsi.. I like CocaCola. But when they dumped the original formula I dumped them. That left Royal Crown Cola or WalMart store brand. RC wasn't distributed where i lived so that left Walmart. Until I moved where WM wasn't sold that was my choice. Had none of it been available then Bubble Up or Upper 10 would have been next on my list.
That's the free market world.
As for political parties one does not improve them by voting for Pepsi. Actually Slice was the best ever made.....Pepsi killed them two strikes your out.
The logical course of action if the established brand becomes lame garbage and the possible replacements are lame garbage is don't vote for lame garbage.
On the other hand, if handled right, the Tea Party wing of the GOP could use him to wrest control away from the big-spending establishment faction of the party.
(There is no choice whatsoever that will be allowed to run by the party leadership.)
The rest are like caricatures of politicians that would have never been considered by any voter prior to 1988. Trump is worse than most. He is a complete and total embarrassment.
Anyone who votes for Trump is a fool.
Rand Paul has as much chance to get the nomination as my beagle. So, do we settle for someone who espouses at least partially, rationality. Who do you recommend? Cruz? Rubio?
Anyone who is selected by the statist party (R|D) is evil, corrupted, co-opted. It either wins, we lose, so don't consent. Check your premises. A=A.
If she was alive, Rand would be writing scathing editorials in the Objectivist against all these pretender puppets.
Cruz, Rubio and Paul have all cited Ayn Rand as an important influence on their economic thinking. I think she would likely support any one of them over Hillary or Bernie.
I can't be more definitive than:
Don't Vote For Evil.
The major parties are really just the Devil and Lucifer. Two names for the same thing. They have both been consistent at lying and looting.
I didn't say abstain. I said don't vote for evil.
We give them the power. They can't get it without our consent (yet.) Don't consent. Don't agree to play the rigged game. If that means abstain, then abstain. If that means vote for a non-statist candidate, then do that. Either of those decisions retain your integrity and maintain your principles of rational philosophy and ethics. Voting for evil, either evil, does not.
Principles matter. Ethics matter. Don't consent to evil.
My use of Monroe was not to equate her with a politician, but to illustrate that Rand could be surprising and one shouldn't be too sure about what she might say or do.
By their actions, the intent of both is to gain power for themselves by lying and stealing from the people. Evil, without doubt.
You guys are tough. I have to agree. But, I can't just stand by. Trying to make something good come out of an evil situation. I already know your reply, which is nothing good can come out of it. If whoever beats Hillary fulfills 1/4 of the promises made it will be an improvement. Unless Trump gets in.
If what you say comes to pass I'll spend my remaining years writing music.
Produce the music!!!!!!
Should your nickname be Halley7734?
Thumbs up for the music. Why not join the counter revolution and don't play with their rigged deck?
That's what you get for playing with somebody else's marked deck.
Twelve years late she was down 2x$10x52x 12 or $12,480 There was an average of four winners on the big prize a year or 48 winners. I came in 49th with $12, 480 plus interest minus taxes.
Not exactly I invested in something called penny stocks.That account was double the savings account. So no millionaire here...
Either one was better odds than Lottery or Politics. The difference. With Lottery the odds are a few million to one with an unknown conclusion. With politics the number one rigged game in the country the odds are exactly 50:50. Fifty a left wing socialist statist/corporatist will win and fifty a left wing socialist corporatist/statist will win and one hundred percent the player will lose.
All my funds left the country in 2007. The odds of them going back are zero.
You gotta play to win but you don't have to have to buck the odds of beating a stacked deck in a rigged game when other choices are available
Why are you limiting your choices to those which the left decided to give you two and that's it?
Why are you limiting your choices at all by listening only to the other side?
Why are you siding with the left?
Siding with the Left? You cannot be serious. My point was that if you are so Objectivistly orthodox that you dislike all the candidates, you'll have to abstain from voting and leave the decision to primarily low information voters. I'm of the 1/2 a loaf is better than none. If half the loaf is rotten and you have no other choice, then cut away the rotten part. You can work to change the thinking of elected officials, but you cannot change the thinking of a non existent person.
What part of that loaf is not rotten?
However since no other candidates are going to be allowed on the ballot it leaves you with choices. Vote left or vote left or a write in which under the winner take all rules accrues to the left or join the 35 to 50% who refuse to play the game. In effect not voting IS a vote of no confidence or a None of the Above vote.
Absent using some to destroy the others and I used the Carly/Bobby ticket as an example I have no choice but to not play the game.
Chane the thinking of an elected official when they are all rock solid Government Control People fanatics? Sure just like we've been doing for over half a century. Seen any change in thinking? Do they think? You know of course that socialism doesn't allow that. ...
So why are you supporting the left? Other than following the leftist mantra.
If you insist on measuring with the yardsticks and definitions of the left your premises and therefore your conclusions will always be contradictions. If you don't like mine do as I did and come up with your own and apply it...see if it works...
If you wish to vote for dirt you will soon lose the chance to ever vote again. I'm not so sure that point hasn't been reached but I am sure you are for sure going to deserve what you asked for.
In the light of day words have meanings and words without action are meaningless.
Never vote again? I vote every day through the ballot box provided by this forum. And my None of the above will carry more weight no matter who sits in that oval office.
(an axiom of statism)
Specifically the last part is Rand and Cruz came out in favor of a VAT tax which is about as left wing fascist as you can get and the number one of favorite of Pelosi. Diverting it through businesses only does nothing to make it value added and stinks of a really cheap political ploy for last ditch last gasp RINO candidates. Rand is a huge disappointment. He is NOT Libertarian he is just another run of the mill Republican and therefore at best is in the right wing of the LEFT. Why people even bother with such trash is beyond me.
I oppose any involuntary taking by government and favor user fees to fund any government functions that are supported by a free market.
However, if I must choose between a tax on consumption (VAT) or a tax on production (Income tax), I will choose the consumption tax as long as it is consistently applied (no favoritism) and not in addition to an income tax.
I haven't been wrong in my evaluation s yet.
Do I like the man? Impossible, but I admire how he's managed to rip control from the hands of a corrupt political and media cabal to gain his standing in the contest. I'm disappointed that my favorite, Rand Paul, hasn't been near as adept.
What I find interesting is that the media hasn't been able to find a single disgruntled employee to set up as the poster child to show how evil Trump is. They tried to get his two exes to criticize him, and that didn't work. His kids are hard-working, intelligent, and likable, obviously showing great respect for their father. He doesn't smoke, drink, or do drugs, and never has, unlike the "choom gang" member currently occupying the White House.
I have been amused at the furor over Trump's statements about halting Muslim immigration, as he was not saying anything different than Rand Paul, although in a blunter fashion. We have the example of a Europe that is collapsing from its own reckless immigration policies, and Trump is simply echoing what you can hear from most Americans on the street.
Comparing Trump with Hitler is foolish and irrational. I would be more inclined to compare him to Louisiana Governor Huey Long, "The Kingfish," who gave FDR such concern with his populist stance. Had Long not been assassinated in 1935, he might have been elected President in 1936.
The pundits keep predicting the collapse of the Trump phenomenon, and he keeps proving them wrong. Will we have a President Trump? Who knows, but the contest has become entertaining.
As far as Rand Paul, I think he's very adept and that is why I no longer support him. Had he simply stuck to his beliefs I would have still been a supporter. But he started playing politics and he lost me. I so wish he had stuck to his values but then again, maybe he did and that is why he is not going anywhere in this election.
This is very powerful to me. It's hard for politicians to criticize money in politics when they need to participate in it to get elected. Trump comes right out and says that he contributes to politicians and they do what he wants. He brings the problem out in the open in way everyone can understand.
Trump isn't going to "make America great" with his Pragmatist rationales and juvenile persona. It is clear that individual rights are "negotiable" in his mind. His supporters are blind to this and do not tolerate these ideas in other candidates.
For Hitler, the appeal was almost entirely to race, more like Louis Farrakhan. Hitler didn't think of Jews as a religion or social element, but as a poison racial element.
Trump's statements about Muslims aren't focused on race (Muslims come in all racial flavors), but on a concern followers of that religion have an undue percentage of violence-prone participants. Nothing in the Constitution demands that America has to accept all who want to come here, and Presidents in the past have restricted entry for a variety of reasons.
He's already done sexist and racist remarks openly as will as religious bigotry so I think a comparison to potential Seig Heiler type president is completely on target. There is no disconnect except from the Constitution and egotistical arrogance.
The last sentence is an authorized power IF there is invasion and now we have that along with suspending habeas corpus. Doesn't say invasion by a country. Like most he's using the new definition of Declaration of War.
By the way in another post I traced the socialist inept private market comment attributed to Gates and it was a false report with one media copying the other without checking...
I did not excuse him his business model ....
According to a recent poll (taken before San Bernardino) a surprising 63% of Hispanics oppose the U.S. accepting Syrian Muslim refugees. So do 55% of African-Americans. So do 54% of those ages 18-29. So do 66% of women. http://www.breitbart.com/big-governme...
In a Trump vs. Hillary matchup, if immigration is still the number one issue 11 months from now, a lot of traditionally Democratic voters will likely stay home on election day or cast their vote for Trump.
of the Rs to the "silent majority" who voted them into power
in congress over the past 8 years. . they will accept any
method to get retribution, short of armed rebellion.
They Are Pissed! -- j
.
Second move is as I put it before Fiorino Jindal ticket with a view of destroying the system from within over eight years. Or something similar. Trump doesn't fit that scenario either.
Third is an outsider to politics such as John Allison former CEO of Branch Banking & Trust.
Other than he should be in the Gulch or reading our doings occasionally (he fits that well and it should be recommendation enough knows AR and AS and objectivism inside and out) I have not further comment. Some of the older timer types should recognize the name.
Three ways to go besides choosing life with no honor....
The first one is iffy but possible
The second one is possible but iffy
The third one means building a whole new party. The None of the Above Party. Infinitely preferable and doable at the grass roots level.
The rest is just give up and die in place...speaking of which spending all this time talking about which leftist is the best choice is really weird. Let's see do we want "Lenin and Stalin or Adolf and Benito, or Trump and Krugman. Wow three choices!!!!
If they are acceptable to the statist party, then they are unacceptable.
One -Bring in one of our insiders who is one of their outsiders.
Two (added one) Form an ad hoc None Of The Above Party and boycott the current election non-system with a massive show of no shows and no confidence.
to win, and a "no confidence" vote isn't available here
like it is in other countries. . ergo, Hillary. -- j
.
Unless you are talking about using Carly as camels nose to get someone like Webb or Jindal in as VP nominee and think about eight years ....of course he is more qualified than the rest to try and solve the disaster of the economy - so is Webb. now if they could just get Allison as Sec Treas and Chief Financial adviser....
Of course only one of them is an outsider, one is a Republican though that wouldn't be hard to change and the third is in reality a Democrat. Ergo the Camel's Nose.
But I'm not aware of any others that come close to fitting the description...
in mind -- Our Insiders might be a short list starting with
Yaron Brook except that I read that he's Israeli ... so, who
else? . Harry Binswanger? . where's Galt when we need him? -- j
.
We really don't have any other known quantities or usable quantities. Outsider an individual of caliber would be George Allison taught at Wake Forest and is now with Cato Institute famous for teaching all his 30,000 employees. Objectivist principles and for refusing to voluntarily deal with toxic government in his banks loan portfolio. Resigned when the government pulled a forced takeover of an otherwise solvent institution as part of the cover up for their part in the 2008 crash.
Insider to some extent and capable of acting as a rally point...possibly but not viable on their own so only VP material are Jindal and Webb. Binswanger in principle but in realistic terms his open immigration stance at this point in time...no go.
early on, I thought that Jindal might be a great pres,
but the list got so long and he entered so late that I
lost hope. . and there are people here in the gulch who
think that Carly is a bad choice. . but maybe she has
changed? -- j
.
of the Rs -- whom the "silent majority" voted into power
in congress during the past 2 elections -- and that majority's
desire to see change at any cost. . They Are Pissed! -- j
.
Which reminds me that the British meaning of 'pissed' is intoxicated.
Maybe they are just pissed.
All that effort only to find out their erstwhile heroes were their stead fast enemies.
the only difference between Democrats and Republicans is how you spell socialist.
To the point of the post though, the Republican Party could also benefit from having a loose cannon in the race at this point to make the rest of the Parties candidates look less radical.
The script is being followed nicely I wonder if they have have tony or oscar category for the best fool the public fools performance?
To cement that if you vote for anyone else the winner takes all rule sucks up your vote and changes it to favor the other candidate. So in the end voting for the 'lesser' of evils only leaves you as a supporter of evil.
Rand again. In any question there are three possible answers. Right, Wrong, Compromise. Which make one right answer and two wrong answers.
In our system you are given the choice of Wrong and Compromise. If you play the game you lose. If you don't play the game and in doing so vote 'none of the above you win. Personally.
Trump, however, is a far more likely sleeper-Dem candidate. He waves off his donations to Democrats in the past as "business necessity" and he talks a provocative game, but I won't vote for him. He may rail on about border security and immigration (both of which his base stance - minus the bluster - I can get behind to a degree) and he talks tough about the Second Amendment, but I don't trust him to deal with the rampant cronyism in Government. His stance on Eminent Domain is enough to cause me to back away.
Jeb Bush and Chris Christie are just RINO's after the mold of most recent Republicans: Boehner, McConnell, Bush I and Bush II, and more. I can't wait til they drop out. I'd lump in Kasich here too.
I like Bobby Jindal. He led his state (Louisiana) through the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. He's been working to make his state more business-friendly while holding down government expenditures. I just think that he's going to have to wait a few more years to get name recognition.
I think the voters were initially enamored with Ben Carson because he was a non-Establishment player and he was black, but I think several of his recent media gaffes have hurt his stock and the polls are showing it. I think he'd make a great Surgeon General or Secretary of Health and Human Services (because I think he'd put himself out of a job), but I'm not convinced of his Executive credentials.
I'd vote for Rand Paul, but I don't think his campaign has the legs. I'd LOVE to see him as Secretary of the Treasury though!
I'd vote for Ted Cruz. I think he's the only one who has the political savvy to go head-to-head with Trump. I think he'd make a great Attorney General, too. Or Supreme Court Justice.
I just can't decide what to think about Rubio. His earlier stance on immigration and support for the Democrat's immigration bill pretty much poisoned the well for me, I think.
I'll never vote for Mike Huckabee. He's the reason we have Obama in the first place. In 2008, it was a four-way contest between McCain and Guiliani (RINO side of party) and Huckabee and Romney (evangelical side). When Guiliani bowed out, it only helped McCain. Huckabee only had support in two states, but insisted on staying in because of his hate of Romney as a Mormon, when all the polls showed that Romney would win head-to-head against Obama while McCain would lose. When Huckabee finally bowed out, it was only after several more states had been decided by the slimmest of margins in favor of McCain. The damage was done and McCain would go on to lose to Obama in the General Election as everyone knew he would.
I didn't say Fiorini was - I said could be....if she's not a socialist statist corporatist she's a socialist corporatist statist and besides she is a self confessed Democrat. Hardly puts her in any other category than an acceptable RINO and as such like the others she is part of the Government party....controlled by whom? Not the the lapdogs approved for 'also ran' status. her only value to the left is a counter to Hillary which helps Wasserman retain control of the DNC. Her only value to the Republicans is to be the token woman on the approved list of candidate wannabes.
they all by being Republicans or Democrats are in the 'government over people' side. nice for the socialists they have their own private slate and get to choose to acceptable candidates.
What's that got to do with the Constitution or the Citizens?
Nothing.
Until such a time, however, I'm going to see the political arena for what it is and vote accordingly. I'm not going to vote for spoilers because as I demonstrated with Huckabee, that's what allows the extremist Progressives to win. I don't buy the line that there can be paradigm shifts in politics where the populace suddenly all realize they've been duped and will see the error of their ways in one turning point in history. I believe that people must be educated bit-by-bit. They must be persuaded to act in their own logical interest rather than getting distracted by hucksters shilling free toys in exchange for control over their lives (SQUIRREL).
The Constitution is the standard, but getting back to it isn't going to happen in a day.
Yes. I really wonder what goes on behind the scenes, whether maybe he just personally wants Hillary as president for his own reasons, or whether he made a secret deal with someone close to Clinton. It really seems suspicious to me. I actually want Hillary Clinton to be elected, assuming Rand Paul is not an option, and Trump seems too good to be true.
CG, your capacity to support contradictory positions still knows no bounds.
Bill already held that title for some people, but he was preceded by many others: Abe Lincoln, FDR, and LBJ are some excellent examples.
Heartily agree on CG's objectivism.
Please explain the objectivism that I missed.
The first time I remember hearing this politician-X-will-destroy-America rhetoric was just before the invasion of Iraq in 2003. It's never let up since then. Maybe was around before, but I just didn't hear it.
The really odd thing is it seems less to me than ever in my life like our problem is specific evil individuals. We elected someone promising change. The regular anti-Bush protests downtown stopped, but we didn't get that much change.
My model was that the new media would allow people to talk without gatekeepers, and that would decrease the power of stupid attack ads and the power of money in politics. It hasn't worked out that way.
"The law has become something subjectively defined based on whether you need to break it or enforce it."
Yes! It really feels like that. Wasn't it Nixon or someone in his administration who said if the POTUS does something, it's legal. (I'm not singling him out. Clinton/Bush/Obama/Clinton would probably say the same today.) It seems that we've gone farther down the path of increasing Executive branch power, and increasing sense of if the president wants it then it's legal.
At the other end of the spectrum, you have most average citizens breaking some law every day: going five over the speed limit, smoking weed, employing an undocumented nanny, co-mingling personal expenses with business expenses.
All that leads to the idea you say that the law is subjective, just another force out there like an unexpected illness that may pop up an hassle you if you're unlucky.
I don't see an obvious way out of this problem.
Edit: I should have said "if you're unlucky or out of favor with the powerful"
My rhetoric, yes...but the thought of either being President does make me, predictably, sick.
Edit: clarity
If you can't win then don't play. If that isn't good enough then vote for the most acceptable alternative that can win and screw the GD polls.
It isn't about being the problem it's about having to deal with no answers except elect a socialist fascist and calling it good and saying whine there are no other choices and rejecting everything offered while offering none of your own except an equal value evil.
Look in the mirror.... you will see the problem.
As for not being discussed without Comrade Trump you haven't been around long enough to make that evaluation. I haven't been around long enough to make that sort of evaluation but I suspect the discussion is measured in decades not years.
So besides sneering at objectivists why not lay out your philosophy and your plan? Surely it has to have more substance than vote Trump. you started with 1 gave you 1 you still have 1. Someone doesn't agree with my leniency
Or it could be she previously wanted to portray herself as a maverick who ignored conventional political wisdom, and now she realizes she only stands to gain from Trump so she helps him by appearing to take him seriously and mentioning him by name instead of "some of my opponents".