• Cyburbia is a friendly big tent, where we share our experiences and thoughts about urban planning practice, the built environment, planning adjacent topics, and anything else that comes to mind. No ads, no spam, and it's free. It's easy to join!

NEVERENDING ♾️ The NEVERENDING Political Discussion Thread

Yeah.....

Duke Of Dystopia said:
Rural areas are getting exactly what they want.

Rural areas get more graft from the public dole in the form of Ag subsidies than any other group in society. They are ALL on welfare in the sticks. Then go on to elect budgetary idiots that want to harm their sweet deal.

Here in WI, the rural areas elect Walker. Those same rural areas are scared senseless that Walker will severely cut state matching funds. They also voted in his cadre of support. The funny thing is:

THEY VOTED TO DO THIS TO THEMSELVES!
Click to expand...

Still a bummer dude:r:
By the way, EVERYONE watch the Stephen Colbert Colbert Report from last night, go online as SOON as it is available and you WILL see a great example of what the Duke has stated......ignore the economy, focus on handgun rights. The Arizona State Senator and his bill and the way Colbert frames the issue is CLASSIC.
 
Last edited:
Hink_Planner said:
I find this to be counter-productive...
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0211/49555.html
So you want to create jobs, by putting people out of jobs?
Click to expand...

That's the sole direction of the new Florida Governor...proposals to eliminate the statewide planning agency, reduce anything else land use planning related, and now this: http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/02/16/2069668/gov-scott-cancels-florida-high.html

Let the planner exodus begin...

PS. His actual letter to Secretary LaHood is http://www.flgov.com/2011/02/16/florida-governor-rick-scott-rejects-federal-high-speed-rail/.
 
H2O said:
That's the sole direction of the new Florida Governor...proposals to eliminate the statewide planning agency, reduce anything else land use planning related, and now this: http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/02/16/2069668/gov-scott-cancels-florida-high.html

Let the planner exodus begin...

PS. His actual letter to Secretary LaHood is http://www.flgov.com/2011/02/16/florida-governor-rick-scott-rejects-federal-high-speed-rail/.
Click to expand...

Let's just widen the interstate and burn more fuel.
 
Marine Corps Planner said:
Then you should agree to help pay for the unwanted child's needs. There's a lot of things my tax $$ go for that I wish they didn't.... but that's part of living in America. If you don't want an abortion... don't get one. there is a lot of people that I wish abortion was retroactive.
Click to expand...

Why should I agree to funding that child's needs? People need to get off their ass and get a job to pay for that child's needs. Actions have consequences...if someone screws up and has unprotected sex, then they need to pay for their mistake.

There are other things my taxpayer dollars go to that I don't agree with. But there's a big difference between social issues and economic/military issues. My point was that the Democrats are shoving their views on social issues, like abortion, down the American peoples' throats by making people who don't agree with them pay for it.

Also, how come out of the 15 posts you have, one-third of them are responses to political things I say? Don't you have any responses to any other political things people say? Because I think there are already plenty of people going after me.
 
illinoisplanner said:
....My point was that the Democrats are shoving their views on social issues, like abortion, down the American peoples' throats by making people who don't agree with them pay for it...
Click to expand...

If we (people with different viewpoints) have to pay for YOUR crap, you should have to pay for ours. Its bipartisan in nature. Fair and Balanced, you might say.
 
illinoisplanner said:
Why should I agree to funding that child's needs? People need to get off their ass and get a job to pay for that child's needs. Actions have consequences...if someone screws up and has unprotected sex, then they need to pay for their mistake.

There are other things my taxpayer dollars go to that I don't agree with. But there's a big difference between social issues and economic/military issues. My point was that the Democrats are shoving their views on social issues, like abortion, down the American peoples' throats by making people who don't agree with them pay for it.

Also, how come out of the 15 posts you have, one-third of them are responses to political things I say? Don't you have any responses to any other political things people say? Because I think there are already plenty of people going after me.
Click to expand...

Except tax dollars aren't really paying for abortions. Its a false talking point. Some insurance policies cover abortions. Some of your tax policies pay for peoples health insurance.

Plus- the only differnce I see between social and military imperialsitic issues is that the social issues are a heck of a lot less tax dollars.

Plus- the post right above mine is completely nonsensical and irrelevant. Tax dollars also aren't p[aying for gay weddings or organic rice cakes.
 
illinoisplanner said:
Gee, I didn't know Congress was paying for free guns for all citizens and doling out money to all churches.
Click to expand...

Guns, perhaps no, but the tax advantages given to churches are functionally the same as "doling out money" to all churches. It's just funneling money via the tax code rather than through direct payments. Good or bad, it is what it is.

If you want to stick to the abortion issue, congress has certainly provided direct funding for abstinence-only sex education in the past ten years.
 
Last edited:
Hink_Planner said:
I find it interesting that Texas is going after a company for taxes...

http://www.statesman.com/blogs/cont..._state_seeks_audit.html?cxntlid=cmg_cntnt_rss

How interesting for a state that prides itself in having no personal or corporate income tax. I guess the internet isn't a person. Like corporations...:r:
Click to expand...

TexanOkie said:
The State is in the right here for expecting sales taxes. However, the State is also in the wrong for not releasing the audit that led to the assessment, and Amazon's lawsuit was aimed directly at that - so good for them.
Click to expand...

Suburb Repairman said:
You should see their proposed budget to cover the $27B shortfall. They may not raise taxes, but they are taking unfunded mandates and fees to a whole new level.

I agree with TxOk that Texas is in the right to go after the sales tax, but that Amazon is also right for pushing back for Texas not releasing the audit and direction that led to that conclusion.
Click to expand...

And the plot thickens (or at least the State won't go quietly...):

Texas State Comptroller Susan Combs disputes claim that Amazon wasn't told how assessment was calculated - from the Austin American-Statesman.
 
illinoisplanner said:
Gee, I didn't know Congress was paying for free guns for all citizens and doling out money to all churches.
Click to expand...

They dole out plenty to churches.

Tax exempt organizations are not supposed to engage in partisan political actions.

That means there are billions in unclaimed taxes that the citizens of the US are owed. Not enforcing or collecting does not mean they are actually exempt.

We the people should be getting 10% of all donations to houses of worship, as the rule on political advocacy is a joke. Their land should be taxed. Their furniture should be taxed. Hell, they should be treated like the corporations they are. So their fair share should be 35% and not 10%.
 
SB1201

- Change the wording of Shannon's Law to make it a crime to "knowingly" discharge a firearm within city limits. It's currently a crime for someone to discharge a firearm with "criminal negligence." Bill opponents said the change would mean people could be convicted of violating this law only if the prosecution could prove they knew that shooting the gun could result in someone's death or injury.

- Allow people to sue if they feel they were illegally stopped from carrying a firearm into a government facility or event. If a person wins the lawsuit and the government agency doesn't pay within 72 hours, the person has the right to seize as payment "any municipal vehicles used or operated for the benefit of any elected office holder" in the relevant government agency.
Click to expand...

Humans are so weird.
 
TerraSapient said:
Allow people to sue if they feel they were illegally stopped from carrying a firearm into a government facility or event. If a person wins the lawsuit and the government agency doesn't pay within 72 hours, the person has the right to seize as payment "any municipal vehicles used or operated for the benefit of any elected office holder" in the relevant government agency.
.
Click to expand...

The NRA has been busy, a very similar bill is on Iowa's docket
 
TerraSapient said:
Humans are so weird.
Click to expand...

As I have stated in previous posts, there should not be any regulations of any type concerning weapons in America. The voters and the Congress has not shown any real interest in it and it only serves as a talking point and a rallying cry. Again, there should not be any regulations concerning weapons in America-period.
 
illinoisplanner said:
There are other things my taxpayer dollars go to that I don't agree with. But there's a big difference between social issues and economic/military issues.
Click to expand...

What is the difference? Is the difference that you personally agree with money going to one, and you don't to the other? Because that is the only difference that I can see. Am I missing something?
 
Whose Yur Planner said:
As I have stated in previous posts, there should not be any regulations of any type concerning weapons in America. The voters and the Congress has not shown any real interest in it and it only serves as a talking point and a rallying cry. Again, there should not be any regulations concerning weapons in America-period.
Click to expand...

I look forward to puchasing a few ICBM's.
 
My state legislature has bills to ease the restrictions on carrying firearms. One bill sponsor wants to allow legialtors to carry firearms during the session.

Also there is a bill that would allow the carrying of firearms in bars and banks. Oh yeah, sounds like a good idea to me. But I feel the bill doesn't go far enough. Let's really crank up the potential carnage and piggyback an amendment that requires bank customers to wear ski masks and carry their cash in sacks.

And of course if they know I'm packing, maybe that little old lady at the counter would quit jawing with the teller about their latest surgery and let me get my damn business done.

Maybe my Wells Fargo branch could bring back the shotgun guard of old. Give him an old West nickname - like Curly or Stumpy. Special employment consideration for those old codgers who can be folksy and crochety.
 
Hink_Planner said:
What is the difference? Is the difference that you personally agree with money going to one, and you don't to the other? Because that is the only difference that I can see. Am I missing something?
Click to expand...

The difference is one is something the federal government shouldn't be messing around with anyways (social issues), while the others (economic/military) are things that do require the federal government, which we should focus our debates on.
 
illinoisplanner said:
The difference is one is something the federal government shouldn't be messing around with anyways (social issues), while the others (economic/military) are things that do require the federal government, which we should focus our debates on.
Click to expand...

That sounds an awful lot like an opinion.

Most of the major "social" issues of the past 100 years have had major "economic" elements to them, and vice versa. Regardless, one of the major duties (the most important?) of any national government is to set and protect social norms, rights and laws, so I can't see how we can simply decide that these issues shouldn't be discussed.
 
CJC said:
That sounds an awful lot like an opinion.

Most of the major "social" issues of the past 100 years have had major "economic" elements to them, and vice versa. Regardless, one of the major duties (the most important?) of any national government is to set and protect social norms, rights and laws, so I can't see how we can simply decide that these issues shouldn't be discussed.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily an opinion. It's more according to our Constitution, which lays down the foundations for our federal government's responsibilities. As far as I can tell, it pretty much says for the federal government should stay out of religion and protects one's rights to worship as they please (1st Amendment); to stay out of gun control (2nd Amendment: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". Regarding abortion, it says nothing. Although, our founding fathers did care a lot about life and liberty. Whether that's in regards to unborn children or mothers, who knows? However, a lot more is said about the federal government providing national defense and regulating commerce.

But I know someone is going to come on here saying they disagree with the Constitution. If that's the case, then there's no point in me wasting my time.
 
illinoisplanner said:
Not necessarily an opinion. It's more according to our Constitution, which lays down the foundations for our federal government's responsibilities. As far as I can tell, it pretty much says for the federal government should stay out of religion and protects one's rights to worship as they please (1st Amendment); to stay out of gun control (2nd Amendment: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". Regarding abortion, it says nothing. Although, our founding fathers did care a lot about life and liberty. Whether that's in regards to unborn children or mothers, who knows? However, a lot more is said about the federal government providing national defense and regulating commerce.

But I know someone is going to come on here saying they disagree with the Constitution. If that's the case, then there's no point in me wasting my time.
Click to expand...

Part of government's role is interpreting the constitution according to changes in the times and related discussions in the public (discussions via the legislative and executive branches). In fact, that's the entire role of the third branch of our federal government.

On top of that, we've felt the need to amend the constitution 17 times, nearly all of which primarily involve "social" issues. In every case, discussion and legislation preceded the call for an amendment forcing all states to comply.

In many other cases, discussions, legislation, and court cases led to the supreme court eventually taking a case to render a decision based on their interpretation of the constitution, which is explicitly how the constitution says to tackle such issues - Miranda v. Arizona, Brown v. Board of Education, Roe v. Wade, etc, etc. This is how it works.

All of these past social issues have massively changed how our economic system works, and I expect current and future social issues to be similar in that regard.
 
illinoisplanner said:
The difference is one is something the federal government shouldn't be messing around with anyways (social issues), while the others (economic/military) are things that do require the federal government, which we should focus our debates on.
Click to expand...

So you agree that gay marriage shouldn't be in the courts? What about equal rights? Woman's suffrage? :r:

I think that is a weak straw man argument. Our government is involved in many different facets of our lives. The amount of topics that affect interstate commerce is great. Government does a lot more today than it did when the founding father's put our constitution together. To believe that this document shouldn't have been modified or updated is silly. We are a very much different country today than we were 250 years ago....and that is a good thing.
 
Hink_Planner said:
So you agree that gay marriage shouldn't be in the courts? What about equal rights? Woman's suffrage? :r:

I think that is a weak straw man argument. Our government is involved in many different facets of our lives. The amount of topics that affect interstate commerce is great. Government does a lot more today than it did when the founding father's put our constitution together. To believe that this document shouldn't have been modified or updated is silly. We are a very much different country today than we were 250 years ago....and that is a good thing.
Click to expand...

I never said I disagreed with any of the 27 amendments. If people want to change it, they need to amend it. And I'm fine with all of the amendments.
 
illinoisplanner said:
Why should I agree to funding that child's needs? People need to get off their ass and get a job to pay for that child's needs. Actions have consequences...if someone screws up and has unprotected sex, then they need to pay for their mistake.
Click to expand...

One should bear in mind that people contemplate abortion for a myriad of reasons. Consider my neighbors growing up. They did not have an abortion, but learned during their pregnancy that their child had Down Syndrome. Around the time they became pregnant, the father was also diagnosed with Hodgkins Lymphoma. So, one can see how this creates a challenging situation. This was in the late 1950's with far fewer money-making opportunities available to women. They also had limited financial support available from their parents. What to do?

They had the child, who ended up in an institution most of his life because that's what we did back then - no local support from schools or other groups to help with care and education and the prevailing view was that raising the child in the home would not meet his needs (sounds ridiculous today, but such were the times).

My point here is that your attitude seems to suggest that people having or contemplating abortions are just young careless people who don't feel compelled to take responsibility for their actions. That they are just using this as a form of birth control. The example I gave is certainly not in that camp and I would expect neither are many of the other people who contemplate such an intense procedure. Its not something people generally take lightly and to suggest that people contemplate this just because they don't feel like taking responsibility is a bit insulting to them.

As to the public money used for abortion issue, one should read the details of the Capps Amendment a bit more closely. It says very clearly that public money cannot be used for abortion under any public insurance program created by the Health Care Bill. Only "private funds from the policyholders' own premiums" may be used. But for them to be used, they would be collected by the government-run plan and then paid out to the provider. The argument of the National Right to Life Committee is that once this private premium money is paid to the government for this procedure, it automatically becomes "public funds" and that is the crux of their argument that public dollars are used for abortion. Rather silly if you ask me, and just plain not true...
 
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0311/51007.html

It’s a little-known fact that members of Congress and the president are not treated the same as millions of other federal employees — because we’re paid through mandatory spending, rather than annual appropriations. In the event of a government shutdown, we would be among the few to continue receiving paychecks.
Click to expand...

I find it amazing that this bill isn't already in place. The only job the congress has is to manage our government. If they can't do that, they surely shouldn't be paid. I would also like to see a HUGE pay cut for them. Why should they be getting raises and funding, when Federal, State, and Local Government employees are being demonized.
 
Hink_Planner said:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0311/51007.html



I find it amazing that this bill isn't already in place. The only job the congress has is to manage our government. If they can't do that, they surely shouldn't be paid. I would also like to see a HUGE pay cut for them. Why should they be getting raises and funding, when Federal, State, and Local Government employees are being demonized.
Click to expand...

I think you are assuming that congress is made up of Americans. No- they are made up of corporatist bloodsucking evil vampires. They may have been Americans at one point - I'm not sure.
 
So my frustration with the focus of the Republican party continues...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42005428/ns/politics-capitol_hill/

The law defines marriage as a compact between a man and a woman and prohibits same-sex couples from receiving marriage-based federal benefits like Social Security survivor benefits, health benefits and the right to file taxes jointly.
Click to expand...

Really is this something you need to be worrying about stopping right now? God forbid that same sex couples can share benefits or file taxes jointly. That is what is killing our economy...:not:

Focus on the things that matter.... come on focus....SQUIRREL.... ah hell....
 
Hink_Planner said:
So my frustration with the focus of the Republican party continues...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42005428/ns/politics-capitol_hill/



Really is this something you need to be worrying about stopping right now? God forbid that same sex couples can share benefits or file taxes jointly. That is what is killing our economy...:not:

Focus on the things that matter.... come on focus....SQUIRREL.... ah hell....
Click to expand...

FFS, Republican party why are you wasting your time on this!? I thought this would be the "Jobs Party", so far in their tenure I have seen nothing from them that would help to create jobs. This is just like 2004 all over again, the damn GOP is so concerned about moral and social issues. Newsflash, with unemployment still high and the economy still struggling, the American public doesn't give a frack about these damn social issues! :-@
 
This makes me happy...

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1322.xml?ReleaseID=1570

At least I know that my State isn't as lost as our governor...

*Forty six percent disapproved Kasich’s handling of the job, while 30 percent approved.

*Fifty three percent said Kasich’s proposed budget is unfair to them; 36 percent said it’s fair.

*Half those surveyed were asked about legislation that limited “collective bargaining” and 48 percent were opposed, compared to 41 percent in support.

*The other half were asked about a bill to limit “collective bargaining rights” and 54 percent were opposed, while 35 percent were in support.
Click to expand...

I think we all agree something has to be done about the deficit, but this makes me the most happy...

By a 55-37 percent spread, they said Kasich should not have promised to fill a projected $8 billion budget deficit by only cutting spending and not raising taxes. By a 64-23 percent spread, they said he wouldn’t keep his no-tax pledge, even though his budget plan has no tax hikes.

Still, when asked whether to balance the budget with cuts alone or by coupling them with tax hikes, voters by a 65-27 percent spread backed not raising taxes at all.
Click to expand...

It shows that people make no sense. I feel that this government bashing is going to stop once people realize how off base they are about government pay, retirement, and services provided. At least in my state, many are now VERY aware of it. And our governor is going to pay the price for his goal of privatizing our state.

Our DOD is gone now, privatized as JobsOhio, and he is now looking to privatize Prisons. Hey Indiana, how are your toll roads doing? Geez....:r::not::-{
 
mgk920 said:
Is it just me, or is Hillary Clinton sounding a LOT more 'Presidential' nowadays than BHO?

^o)

Mike
Click to expand...


I dunno. Conservative hero Pat Buchanon thinks she is too emotional


TerraSapient said:
(My apologies if this has already been discussed.)

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...-openly-gay-gop-presidential-candidate/72906/
Click to expand...


Fred who? Never heard of him. I do find openly gay republicans to be a strange breed. Opposition to gays seems to be one of the primary platform issues of the GOP and there was a full on revolt at CPAC when GOProud was invited. I just don't see any future where an openly gay republican will ever be a sucessful national level politician.
 
TerraSapient said:
(My apologies if this has already been discussed.)

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...-openly-gay-gop-presidential-candidate/72906/
Click to expand...

imaplanner said:
Fred who? Never heard of him. I do find openly gay republicans to be a strange breed. Opposition to gays seems to be one of the primary platform issues of the GOP and there was a full on revolt at CPAC when GOProud was invited. I just don't see any future where an openly gay republican will ever be a sucessful national level politician.
Click to expand...

I'm actually surprised it's been this long before anyone tried. The Log Cabin Republicans actually hold a significant amount of influence in the GOP. GOProud is just a smaller offshoot of farther-right-wingers.
 
Whose Yur Planner said:
It appears that Michelle Bachmann is considering running for president. Guess it's time to stock up on the popcorn, this could be fun.
Click to expand...
Between her, Palin, Barber, et al, it seems like the GOP is just trying to get all the crazy out of the way in 2012 in hopes of having a viable, more moderate candidate for 2016. Either that, or the GOP base is now so out there that they will nominate a far right condidate that will cause the party to collapse under the weight of so much high density derp.
 
Whose Yur Planner said:
It appears that Michelle Bachmann is considering running for president. Guess it's time to stock up on the popcorn, this could be fun.
Click to expand...

I've said this before and I'll say it again. I might vote for her. She's crazy, ditzy, possibly dangerous and highly entertaining. All presidents seem to suck pretty bad, at least let's get some entertainment out of it.

But seriously here is what I think: it seems to me that when a democrat is president, the GOP swings hardcore the right and the president swings hardcore to the right. When a republican is president the country swings more to the center. I don't know exactly why this is- although I suspect its because democratic politicians lack any amount of backbone. I would prefer to have a country dominated by more center ideology than a country dominated by right wing ideology - which is where we are now with a spinless democrat in office.
 
biscuit said:
Between her, Palin, Barber, et al, it seems like the GOP is just trying to get all the crazy out of the way in 2012 in hopes of having a viable, more moderate candidate for 2016. Either that, or the GOP base is now so out there that they will nominate a far right condidate that will cause the party to collapse under the weight of so much high density derp.
Click to expand...

By 2016 who knows where our country will be in terms of ideology. I am going to guess we will be a three party system by then. The internet will allow 3rd party candidates market and get money and we will see numerous candidate who shouldn't run - The Rent.... is too damn high!

ps. Michelle Bachman makes Palin look smart. And I think we all know what I think about Palin. I would really hope that the R's will put Newt, Bachman, Palin, Trump, and Cain in a room and lock the door until after the election.

Come on reasonable republican. Boy there is a slogan that could win an election....Vote Scott Brown - A Reasonable Republican. :D 8-!
 
imaplanner said:
I've said this before and I'll say it again. I might vote for her. She's crazy, ditzy, possibly dangerous and highly entertaining. All presidents seem to suck pretty bad, at least let's get some entertainment out of it.

But seriously here is what I think: it seems to me that when a democrat is president, the GOP swings hardcore the right and the president swings hardcore to the right. When a republican is president the country swings more to the center. I don't know exactly why this is- although I suspect its because democratic politicians lack any amount of backbone. I would prefer to have a country dominated by more center ideology than a country dominated by right wing ideology - which is where we are now with a spinless democrat in office.
Click to expand...

Almost everyone, including me, says that we want someone that governs from the center. However, no one can say just exactly where this ideal center is located on the political spectrum. There is no viable left wing party. Republicans have mostly taken position in the hard authoritarian right. And today's mainline Democratic policies are to the right of Reagan. So there is no center from the left or right these days, just center from right and proto-fascism wrapped in populist package.
 
Whose Yur Planner said:
It appears that Michelle Bachmann is considering running for president. Guess it's time to stock up on the popcorn, this could be fun.
Click to expand...

She scares me...I think the more the American public sees/hears from her, the less they will like her, kinda like Mrs. Palin.

Hink_Planner said:
Come on reasonable republican. Boy there is a slogan that could win an election....Vote Scott Brown - A Reasonable Republican. :D 8-!
Click to expand...

A reasonable republican, I think we need several of those. The republican party is more interested in pushing their agenda than fixing the problems in this county. For example, the new republican majority in our state house has proposed a bill to basically block federal funding for high speed rail b/t Raleigh and Charlotte :not:

Its badly needed as there is no direct interstate connection between the two largest metro areas in NC.
 
biscuit said:
Almost everyone, including me, says that we want someone that governs from the center. However, no one can say just exactly where this ideal center is located on the political spectrum.
Click to expand...

Personally, I don't want someone who governs from the center, but I do want someone who is moderate overall in his/her views. There is a difference.

I would much rather vote for someone who compromises their ideas, than someone who is fundamentally and ideologically steadfast because that is "what is best for America". I think that when it happens it is going to be a Fiscal Conservative (who will gut spending - SS, Medicare/caid, Military, etc. the right way, not just the ceremonial way) and a social moderate (accepting of at least gay marriage, if not a women's right or welfare type issues).

I think that there is a good chance this person will be a woman. Not the Sarah Palin type by any means (as in gritty, but not smart), but a well educated (yep probably Yale or Harvard), State or National Legislator, who drops in at the right time in 2016. I think if Obama loses this election whoever is elected will only be a one term President.

That is if we aren't all living in bunkers after 2012....
 
It seems like the reasonable Republicans, and there are actually quite a few, have little to no interest in becoming President at all, let alone at this point in time.
 
TexanOkie said:
It seems like the reasonable Republicans, and there are actually quite a few, have little to no interest in becoming President at all, let alone at this point in time.
Click to expand...

Well, I would consider Hunstman to be a reasonable republican and he seems interested. One of the Mitt Romneys is reasonable. As previously mentioned, Scott Brown seems reasonable. Are there any others? Serious question.
 
imaplanner said:
Well, I would consider Hunstman to be a reasonable republican and he seems interested. One of the Mitt Romneys is reasonable. As previously mentioned, Scott Brown seems reasonable. Are there any others? Serious question.
Click to expand...

I think so. Of course, my definition doesn't really mean "centrist" so much as it does "this person is not the political equivalent of a side-show attraction."
 
Back
Top