Political Thread: Non-obscene version

[Lord_Crow]

Jeb Bush is already perfectly popular with Hispanics. They are very familiar with him, his wife, and family... and it is no secret Bush is the only candidate Hillary fears in the slightest. That's why the GOP Primary needs to be a litmus test of radical conservatism fused with misguided libertarian ideas that somehow include telling people who to marry, when to have children, and what a woman's proper place in the home is.

 

[KyFaninNC]

Guess Shilery will have to break out her email server again. Can't imagine having to see those weird azzed pants suit for 4 years,and that fake smile.

 

[DSmith21]

Sen. Marco Rubio just confirmed that he is running. He is a credible alternative to Bush and is not a zealot like some of the others.

 

[Deeeefense]

Here's a little known fact. In the entire history of the United States only 3 presidents have moved directly from the Senate to the Whitehouse. They are Warren G. Harding, John F. Kennedy, and Barack Obama.

In the end, the Republicans will likely pick a governor or former governor. Maybe someone who hasn't announced yet.

 

[DSmith21]

Hillary's only elected experience is as a Senator. So I don't see a problem with a one senator running against another former senator. That being said I do think some executive branch service is a plus for a candidate.

 

[warrior-cat]

Hillary has already started with taking care of the middle class. Same old rallying cry all the while the middle class is dwindling. I guess if you say it enough people will continue to believe you even though the facts say other wise.

 

[Deeeefense]

Originally posted by warrior-cat:
Hillary has already started with taking care of the middle class. Same old rallying cry all the while the middle class is dwindling. I guess if you say it enough people will continue to believe you even though the facts say other wise.

All these candidates are just sprewing out meaningless statements like "I'm going to help the middle class". Until they get around to doing the unthinkable - laying out specifics, it's just fodder for the media talking heads.

 

[Lord_Crow]

The Democrats will campaign on helping the middle class then if they win it will be all about minorities and gays with the middle class ignored.

The Republicans will campaign on helping blue collar middle class and "small business" but if they win it will be all about more tax breaks for the rich, lower capital gains, and more hefty pork and sweetheart deals for big business while the middle class is ignored.

Under Bill Clinton, The Big Dog, the middle class fleetingly rallied for the only real improvement they have seen since Ronald Reagan took office. Nothing since. We once had the largest and healthiest middle class the world has ever known but once Reagan took office all the wealth in this country has been funneled upwards and horded in an unsustainable path that is driving us directly into becoming another Mexico where you have an elite ultra-rich ruling class, virtually no middle class, and a vast impoverished wasteland of poor scraping by with whatever scraps fall off the rich man's table.

That's your real "trickle down economics" that we have created. Bread crumbs off the rich man's table and as more and more jobs are created with little to no benefits with hardly a living wage so as to squeeze out every last dime for the investors at the top, then as the screws tighten what is left of the middle class will be driven down. It in inexorable Like squeezing a toothpaste tube in the middle and yet expecting the tube to stay evenly filled. It cannot happen as we are structured. By design we are being driven apart. Scrapped for pieces. The stupid idiotic middle class made to believe the poor are stealing all their money. The rich made to believe their own government is stealing them blind. The poor made to believe the system is rigged against them by a big white boogeyman. Each pitted against the other. Paralyzed into dumb apathetic acceptance. Meanwhile the globalist fascists that care nothing for US sovereignty feast off the ignorance and pad their bank accounts in a global banquet held in check by our own house of lies that is our foreign policy.



This post was edited on 4/13 6:17 PM by Lord_Crow

 

[AlbanyWildCat]

This really couldn't be playing out any better than Hillary could want...

 

[WayneDougan]

The middle class has been harmed by outsourcing of manufacturing. Reagan was for it. Bush 1 was for it. Lord's boy Clinton signed NAFTA, and Clinton's boy Robert Reich thought that American becoming a service economy was the greatest thing there could be. Bush II was for outsourcing, and Obama just doesn't care. So before you start bitching about presidents and the middle class, get your facts straight.

 

[JHB4UK]

Originally posted by AlbanyWildCat:
This really couldn't be playing out any better than Hillary could want...

Yeah, going into a fast food restaurant in Ohio and not being comfortable enough to take off giant sunglasses and say a word to any of the commoners present. Stick too far up her ass to shake one hand in an important swing state.

Perfect rollout!!!1!1!

 

[qwesley]

Originally posted by WayneDougan:

The middle class has been harmed by outsourcing of manufacturing. Reagan was for it. Bush 1 was for it. Lord's boy Clinton signed NAFTA, and Clinton's boy Robert Reich thought that American becoming a service economy was the greatest thing there could be. Bush II was for outsourcing, and Obama just doesn't care. So before you start bitching about presidents and the middle class, get your facts straight.

NAFTA, Glass-Steagall, new derivative rules, mortgage policies/programs, ignoring terrorist groups even after the WTC bombings in 1992.....easily the most overrated POTUS in modern history. All due to the tech explosion - cell phones, PCs, internet, e-commerce, fiber networks, DSL, etc - happening while he was in office and a fawning press. Big dawg my ass.

 

[Bill Derington]

You're right Qwesly, By signing NAFTA Clinton opened the windfall that is killing the middle class. Not saying republican presidents weren't for it, and have'nt expanded it. A Republican never gets it through Congress to begin with as the Democrats would've never voted for it, it took a Democrat President to get it through.

We are headed toward a Service based economy instead of manufacturing, and that'll be super rich, and really poor with little in between. We're just starting to see the beginning of this.

 

[warrior-cat]

Originally posted by Deeeefense:

Originally posted by warrior-cat:
Hillary has already started with taking care of the middle class. Same old rallying cry all the while the middle class is dwindling. I guess if you say it enough people will continue to believe you even though the facts say other wise.

All these candidates are just sprewing out meaningless statements like "I'm going to help the middle class". Until they get around to doing the unthinkable - laying out specifics, it's just fodder for the media talking heads.

My point. It is the same old rhetoric we have been hearing for years now. Hillary is very bad for this country. In as much as some would like to see a woman president, that is probably the worst reason ever for voting. I really don't know who I am going to vote for come the next election because I don't really see a good person in the field yet. No way do I want another Bush or Clinton. Enough of this garbage for me.

 

[Willy4UK]

Ol' H. Ross doesn't seem too crazy now, does he?

Anyone who votes for another Bush or Clinton needs to be executed on site. No, ifs, and or buts. Killed dead. I would support this and wish it was law.

Wonder how future generations look back and say about us.

"Boy, those stupid effing idiots couldn't find anyone else other than a Bush or a Clinton to run the country. Damn were they stupid. Does anyone know when the retarded gene was cured, because it was running rampant for nearly 3 decades."

 

[Chuckinden]

Originally posted by Bill Derington:

You're right Qwesly, By signing NAFTA Clinton opened the windfall that is killing the middle class. Not saying republican presidents weren't for it, and have'nt expanded it. A Republican never gets it through Congress to begin with as the Democrats would've never voted for it, it took a Democrat President to get it through.

We are headed toward a Service based economy instead of manufacturing, and that'll be super rich, and really poor with little in between. We're just starting to see the beginning of this.

Bob Dole was a huge supporter of NAFTA.

 

[warrior-cat]

Originally posted by Willy4UK:
Ol' H. Ross doesn't seem too crazy now, does he?

Anyone who votes for another Bush or Clinton needs to be executed on site. No, ifs, and or buts. Killed dead. I would support this and wish it was law.

Wonder how future generations look back and say about us.

"Boy, those stupid effing idiots couldn't find anyone else other than a Bush or a Clinton to run the country. Damn were they stupid. Does anyone know when the retarded gene was cured, because it was running rampant for nearly 3 decades."

Let's get a petition going to get it on a ballot quickly so it can be passed and implemented.

 

[wkycatfan]

Kentucky governor candidates. Conway, Comer, Bevin, Heiner, Scott. At the moment, I lean toward Heiner, but still unsure.

 

[JHB4UK]

I'm good with Comer or Heiner. Isnt it about time in Conway's career arch for him to burn off half his face and truly embrace becoming a supervillan?

 

[Mojocat]

Maybe I'm behind. Probably so. Just saw that Bob Schieffer has been replaced on Face the Nation by some dude name John Dickerson. Name I don't know, but apparently he was a regular on Air America with Stuart Smalley, writes for Slate, and called for open warfare on the Republicans. Not some youthful indiscretion back in the oughts, but like 2 years ago. CBS. Are they not even hiding it any more? Why would a Repub ever go on that show?

The president who came into office speaking in lofty terms about bipartisanship and cooperation can only cement his legacy if he destroys the GOP. If he wants to transform American politics, he must go for the throat. …



Obama's only remaining option is to pulverize. Whether he succeeds in passing legislation or not, given his ambitions, his goal should be to delegitimize his opponents. Through a series of clarifying fights over controversial issues, he can force Republicans to either side with their coalition's most extreme elements or cause a rift in the party that will leave it, at least temporarily, in disarray. …


The president already appears to be headed down this path. He has admitted he's not going to spend much time improving his schmoozing skills; he's going to get outside of Washington to ratchet up public pressure on Republicans. He is transforming his successful political operation into a governing operation. It will have his legacy and agenda in mind-and it won't be affiliated with the Democratic National Committee, so it will be able to accept essentially unlimited donations. The president tried to use his political arm this way after the 2008 election, but he was constrained by re-election and his early promises of bipartisanship. No more. Those days are done.

 

[wkycatfan]

Originally posted by JHB4UK:
I'm good with Comer or Heiner. Isnt it about time in Conway's career arch for him to burn off half his face and truly embrace becoming a supervillan?

I just hope Conway doesn't run any more aqua buddha type ads against whoever his republican opponent is.... DWS.

This post was edited on 4/14 2:51 PM by wkycatfan

 

[bigblueinsanity]

Originally posted by Willy4UK:
Ol' H. Ross doesn't seem too crazy now, does he?

Anyone who votes for another Bush or Clinton needs to be executed on site. No, ifs, and or buts. Killed dead. I would support this and wish it was law.

Wonder how future generations look back and say about us.

"Boy, those stupid effing idiots couldn't find anyone else other than a Bush or a Clinton to run the country. Damn were they stupid. Does anyone know when the retarded gene was cured, because it was running rampant for nearly 3 decades."

Perot was one of the best presidential candidates since Reagan.

 

[Willy4UK]

Originally posted by warrior-cat:

Originally posted by Willy4UK:
Ol' H. Ross doesn't seem too crazy now, does he?

Anyone who votes for another Bush or Clinton needs to be executed on site. No, ifs, and or buts. Killed dead. I would support this and wish it was law.

Wonder how future generations look back and say about us.

"Boy, those stupid effing idiots couldn't find anyone else other than a Bush or a Clinton to run the country. Damn were they stupid. Does anyone know when the retarded gene was cured, because it was running rampant for nearly 3 decades."

Let's get a petition going to get it on a ballot quickly so it can be passed and implemented.

Looks like we are the first two signers.

 

[Willy4UK]

Originally posted by bigblueinsanity:

Perot was one of the best presidential candidates since Reagan.

Yeah, just think if NAFTA hadn't got signed.

Perot would have pulled out that NAFTA doc and pissed it on it for 2 solid hours and with a cowboy hat on too.
This post was edited on 4/14 2:55 PM by Willy4UK

 

[qwesley]

Originally posted by Mojocat:
Maybe I'm behind. Probably so. Just saw that Bob Schieffer has been replaced on Face the Nation by some dude name John Dickerson. Name I don't know, but apparently he was a regular on Air America with Stuart Smalley, writes for Slate, and called for open warfare on the Republicans. Not some youthful indiscretion back in the oughts, but like 2 years ago. CBS. Are they not even hiding it any more? Why would a Repub ever go on that show?

The president who came into office speaking in lofty terms about bipartisanship and cooperation can only cement his legacy if he destroys the GOP. If he wants to transform American politics, he must go for the throat. …



Obama's only remaining option is to pulverize. Whether he succeeds in passing legislation or not, given his ambitions, his goal should be to delegitimize his opponents. Through a series of clarifying fights over controversial issues, he can force Republicans to either side with their coalition's most extreme elements or cause a rift in the party that will leave it, at least temporarily, in disarray. …


The president already appears to be headed down this path. He has admitted he's not going to spend much time improving his schmoozing skills; he's going to get outside of Washington to ratchet up public pressure on Republicans. He is transforming his successful political operation into a governing operation. It will have his legacy and agenda in mind-and it won't be affiliated with the Democratic National Committee, so it will be able to accept essentially unlimited donations. The president tried to use his political arm this way after the 2008 election, but he was constrained by re-election and his early promises of bipartisanship. No more. Those days are done.

Good grief. May have the new Daily Show guy beat.

 

[Deeeefense]

Originally posted by Willy4UK:

Originally posted by bigblueinsanity:

Perot was one of the best presidential candidates since Reagan.

Yeah, just think if NAFTA hadn't got signed.

Perot would have pulled out that NAFTA doc and pissed it on it for 2 solid hours and with a cowboy hat on too.
This post was edited on 4/14 2:55 PM by Willy4UK

I was one of the founding members of the Reform Party and would have been a delegate to the convention in 2000, before the Buchanan Brigade hijacked the party and the whole thing melted down.

The interesting thing about Perot was while he did not win, his popularity forced the two major candidates in 1992 (and 96 to some degree) to move towards a policy of fiscal responsibility. Thus we had the Clinton/Gingrich balanced budgets of the late 90s. In fact the House Republican Contract For America, which was a bullet list of fiscally responsible policies was basically a cut 'n past from Ross's book.

If the Tea Party was smart they would get rid of all the crazy talk, form a 3rd party like we did and focus solely on fiscal responsibility. They won't win but they can influence the tickets from top to bottom on the ballot and could even win some down ballot spots.

Perot was greatly mischaracterized by the media. He was not just a hard core businessman, he was a real humanitarian and the type of guy that would give you the shirt off his back. His goals were 100% humanitarian and patriotic, nothing about himself.




This post was edited on 4/14 3:19 PM by Deeeefense

 

[wkycatfan]

Originally posted by Deeeefense:
Perot was greatly mischaracterized by the media. He was not just a hard core businessman, he was a real humanitarian and the type of guy that would give you the shirt off his back. His goals were 100% humanitarian and patriotic, nothing about himself.

This sounds a lot like Romney IMO, who would have also been all about fiscal responsibility. Also gives away lots of his own money away for charitable causes.

This post was edited on 4/14 3:39 PM by wkycatfan

 

[Willy4UK]

Originally posted by Deeeefense:

I was one of the founding members of the Reform Party and would have been a delegate to the convention in 2000, before the Buchanan Brigade hijacked the party and the whole thing melted down.

The interesting thing about Perot was while he did not win, his popularity forced the two major candidates in 1992 (and 96 to some degree) to move towards a policy of fiscal responsibility. Thus we had the Clinton/Gingrich balanced budgets of the late 90s. In fact the House Republican Contract For America, which was a bullet list of fiscally responsible policies was basically a cut 'n past from Ross's book.

If the Tea Party was smart they would get rid of all the crazy talk, form a 3rd party like we did and focus solely on fiscal responsibility. They won't win but they can influence the tickets from top to bottom on the ballot and could even win some down ballot spots.

Perot was greatly mischaracterized by the media. He was not just a hard core businessman, he was a real humanitarian and the type of guy that would give you the shirt off his back. His goals were 100% humanitarian and patriotic, nothing about himself.





This post was edited on 4/14 3:19 PM by Deeeefense

Very interesting Deeee.

Yeah, wasn't he going to decline a salary too? Damn, that guy was prolly our best bet to a better future and both parties shit on him. Seems par for the course.

"Well, we can't find anything wrong with him sir. He truly is going to make things better"

"Just plant some cocaine laced panties from a 15 yr old girl, that'll lose his momentum"


and that's why we can't have anything nice here.

 

[qwesley]

The catfishing by deee never ends. So a guy that supposedly was part of founding a reform party to push fiscal responsibility was the same guy that worked two Obama campaigns and has never posted one word questioning spending under Obama? He is a piece of work.

 

[Willy4UK]

Originally posted by qwesley:
The catfishing by deee never ends. So a guy that supposedly was part of founding a reform party to push fiscal responsibility was the same guy that worked two Obama campaigns and has never posted one word questioning spending under Obama? He is a piece of work.

I'll admit, that part did make me think twice about it.

 

[TransyCat09]

Originally posted by wkycatfan:

who would have also been all about fiscal responsibility.

What would make you think that? Maybe his business life, but certainly not his political career

 

[AlbanyWildCat]

Originally posted by warrior-cat:
My point. It is the same old rhetoric we have been hearing for years now. Hillary is very bad for this country. In as much as some would like to see a woman president, that is probably the worst reason ever for voting. I really don't know who I am going to vote for come the next election because I don't really see a good person in the field yet. No way do I want another Bush or Clinton. Enough of this garbage for me.

+100

 

[Lord_Crow]

I still have my Perot bumper sticker in an old photo album. If you want to know how great of a man Perot was then just ask somebody that worked for him. Everything that John McCain pretends to be in supporting veterans, Ross actually was. The real deal.

His "giant sucking sound" on jobs heading out of this country was prophetic.

The poster that compared Romney to Perot should schedule an MRI immediately as there is likely a large brain tumor growing unchecked.

 

[starchief5]

Originally posted by bigblueinsanity:

Originally posted by Willy4UK:
Ol' H. Ross doesn't seem too crazy now, does he?

Anyone who votes for another Bush or Clinton needs to be executed on site. No, ifs, and or buts. Killed dead. I would support this and wish it was law.

Wonder how future generations look back and say about us.

"Boy, those stupid effing idiots couldn't find anyone else other than a Bush or a Clinton to run the country. Damn were they stupid. Does anyone know when the retarded gene was cured, because it was running rampant for nearly 3 decades."

Perot was one of the best presidential candidates since Reagan.

I confess. I voted for the guy.

 

[WayneDougan]

Pat Buchanan, who worked for Reagan, said that the only person who advocated free trade more than himself was Ronald Reagan. Buchanan, like Reagan, didn't understand at the time that the reason for free trade wasn't comparative advantage, but pure labor arbitrage. Buchanan admits this now and sees the error of his ways. He is very protectionist today.

That's what bothers me about Clinton and the Bushes. Those dudes just don't get it. And like I said, I don't think Obama cares. Rand Paul - he's like Reagan and thinks we're in the colonial days with David Ricardo. I don't see a single candidate who understands what "free" trade is doing to the middle class.

What kills me is that it would be such an easy platform to run on. Walk up there and say "I'm here to focus on the economy, and I strongly believe that our trade and immigration policies hurt the middle class and here's why." I think that would resonate, but maybe I just don't get our electorate.

 

[wildcatman26]

If hillary Clinton does win it, give her time she will have affair with Monica Lewinsky
To get back at bill.

 

[wkycatfan]

Originally posted by TransyCat09:

Originally posted by wkycatfan:

who would have also been all about fiscal responsibility.

What would make you think that? Maybe his business life, but certainly not his political career

Perception I suppose. Since we are talking about a politician here, I guess we don't know for sure. Certainly in the business world, budgeting and profitability were important to him. He would obviously have to work with Congress, but I perceive that budgeting and deficit reduction would have been priorities for him as POTUS. Certainly more so than with Obama.

This post was edited on 4/15 8:52 AM by wkycatfan

 

[CATS1945]

Congress first asked Hillary Clinton about personal email use in 2012, letter shows





Hillary Clinton ignored questions from congressional investigators in December 2012 about her use of a personal e-mail account while secretary of state.

The latest revelation comes days after Clinton announced her candidacy for the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination. The announcement followed weeks of questions for Clinton about her use of a personal e-mail account housed on a sever set up in her New York home to conduct all official business as America's top diplomat.











Fox News has obtained a copy of a letter dated Dec. 13, 2012 that was sent from then-House Oversight Committee chair Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., to Cabinet secretaries, including Clinton, inquiring about their e-mail habits. The committee was conducting an investigation into the Obama administration handled the use of personal e-mail by its officials.



The letter contained eight questions related to officials' use of personal e-mail accounts. The very first question asked by Issa was "Have you or any senior agency official ever used a personal email account to conduct official business? If so, please identify the account used." Subsequent questions asked about whether "alias e-mail" accounts and text messages were used to conduct official business.


The fourth question asked for written documentation of agency archiving and record-keeping procedures as they related to the use of non-official e-mail accounts, while the fifth question asked, "Does the agency require employees to certify on a periodic basis or at the end of their employment with the agency they have turned over any communications involving official business that they have sent or received using nonofficial accounts?"




Clinton's last day as Secretary of State was Feb. 1, 2013, seven weeks after the date of Issa's letter, which requested a response by Jan. 7, 2013 at the latest. The New York Times reports that Issa's committee did not receive any response from the State Department until March 27, and even that amounted to a recounting of the department's e-mail policy. The Times reported that the State Department's letter said that employees using personal accounts "should make it clear that his or her personal e-mail is not being used for official business."

 

[P19978]

Even if Cankles wins, I'm not sure why we should care.

Sure, she's completely dishonest, misguided, and a complete narcissist... but after all, she can't be any worse than Obama.


In fact , anyone will be an improvement so its all good lol.

 

[qwesley]

Via Politico:
Harry Reid on the 2016 GOP field for president: "I think they're all losers" http://politi.co/1E22jJJ