NEVERENDING ♾️ The NEVERENDING Political Discussion Thread

[imaplanner]

We will see how long this last. He's a moderate from the East Coast. Both of those are anathema to the base. Romney was similar and look what he had to do just to get the nomination.

My opinion he is not really much of a moderate. He seems to be considered a moderate simply because he doesn't hate muslims and he didn't punch Obama in the face during hurricane Sandy. Being seen as punishing democratic voters seems to actually be a positive among the base - who really do despise democrats with their entire beings. I listen to right wing talk because I view it as insight into the base of the party and it seems they really do despise democrats with all of their being. Plus, Christie, rand paul, marco rubio, rick santorum and mike huckabee all seem to be the likely candidates and that gives him a real shot.

 

[PennPlanner]

It's a two way street, dude. There's just as many on the left who seem to hate all Republican voters. Just pick up the NYTimes, watch MSNBC News or read journalists like Eugenie Robinson in the Washington Post. They're very unforgiving to all Republicans, whether politicians or regular voters.

Anyway, the Republican definition of a moderate is a Republican. The Democratic definition of a moderate is a Democrat. That says all you need to know.

My opinion he is not really much of a moderate. He seems to be considered a moderate simply because he doesn't hate muslims and he didn't punch Obama in the face during hurricane Sandy. Being seen as punishing democratic voters seems to actually be a positive among the base - who really do despise democrats with their entire beings. I listen to right wing talk because I view it as insight into the base of the party and it seems they really do despise democrats with all of their being. Plus, Christie, rand paul, marco rubio, rick santorum and mike huckabee all seem to be the likely candidates and that gives him a real shot.

 

[Duke Of Dystopia]

Not so fast. New poll shows it hasn't made much impact on his popularity.
http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/...e-cruising-through-bridge-scandal-so-far?lite


As far as the primaries, there seems to be some indication that the conservative base is liking him more as a result of this situation.



Most people are fucking idiots. And like in politics, alot of the developers that are not idiots are legitimate sociopaths. That's just the way it is duke. Look at the West Virginia chemical spill - the response from republicans and some democrats is that the regulations that did not require any inspections in 20 years actually should be loosened as a result. Seriously. And this works because as a population we are complete idiots.

Usually I am with you. I have said it many times: I don't know what it will take to wake people up.

I just have problems with false equivalency between the political parties (or anything really). It obfuscates the real issues at hand and lends cover to the worse party and idea.

I also don't understand why people shit in the place where they eat and sleep and then wonder why bad things happen. Its not the politicians or corps that are the problem, its people who sit and believe in false equivalence that refuse to attempt to hold them accountable that are the problem.

 

[michaelskis]

As far as the primaries, there seems to be some indication that the conservative base is liking him more as a result of this situation.

I don't like the guy and I will not be voting for him... I will write in a candidate if I need, but I will not vote for him because I think he is as shady as Tony Soprano. However, I understand why the conservative base is liking him more. Someone in his administration did something stupid and heads rolled. He had the balls to actually fire those who directly participated in the decision. (I do however think he knew about the situation as it happened.

This is something that the President has not had the balls to do. Just look at the number of scandals...
NSA
IRS
Benghazi
Fast and Furious
Healthcare.gov

In every situation, the President's only response was BO Didn't Know and that was it. At a minimum he should have sent those directly responsible for the scandals packing... in most cases they continue to be there or they are finishing out their contracts.

 

[Dan]

Should a president be a micromanager? A critical part of leadership is delegation.

 

[michaelskis]

Should a president be a micromanager? A critical part of leadership is delegation.

Micromananger, no. He is not telling them what color tie to wear, but he is not willing to address a serious problem. But there is a difference between micromanaging and letting the particular departments and divisions get away with all of this without recourse. It is just bad leadership to let actions (or lack of) of this magnitude go addressed.

I even though I don't agree with many of Obama's policies, I think it is unwillingness to take action and fire those who were directly responsible is the scariest part. In the book Good to Great, Jim Collins looks at what makes some companies good, and what made some companies great. One of the biggest points was not only having the right people on the bus, but having the right people in the right seats on the bus. Sometimes, it means moving people around, other times it means kicking them out the back door. Even though the Federal Government is not a company, it is still run by people.

 

[Suburb Repairman]

Should a president be a micromanager? A critical part of leadership is delegation.

No. S/He should be smart enough to identify cabinet heads and other advisors that can be trusted to skillfully implement, and that also have the ability to do the same with their respective appointees. If an appointee or cabinet head cannot be trusted to be delegated to, then they need to go. Leaders need to provide accountability, vision and a basic roadmap to get there working with his/her team.

And I say this as somebody that voted for Obama twice... Most textbooks will talk about relations between the legislature and executive branches in regard to his Presidency, along with the role of a an increasingly politicized judicial branch. However, I think his administration's tendency toward micromanagement is going to be written about quite negatively in heady political science texts as the fundamental issue behind many of the executive branch controversies he encountered. He had good policy ideas, but didn't have a good eye for implementation and didn't delegate effectively to people that have that knack. He didn't "begin with the end in mind" in terms of how ideas would/could be put into action. It is like having a cutting edge Comprhensive Plan without an implementation chapter.

Leaders also need to be confident & decisive. I think Obama, if left to his own devices, would suffer from severe cases of paralysis by analysis regarding political implications of every decision.

 

[btrage]

No. S/He should be smart enough to identify cabinet heads and other advisors that can be trusted to skillfully implement, and that also have the ability to do the same with their respective appointees. If an appointee or cabinet head cannot be trusted to be delegated to, then they need to go. Leaders need to provide accountability, vision and a basic roadmap to get there working with his/her team.

And I say this as somebody that voted for Obama twice... Most textbooks will talk about relations between the legislature and executive branches in regard to his Presidency, along with the role of a an increasingly politicized judicial branch. However, I think his administration's tendency toward micromanagement is going to be written about quite negatively in heady political science texts as the fundamental issue behind many of the executive branch controversies he encountered. He had good policy ideas, but didn't have a good eye for implementation and didn't delegate effectively to people that have that knack. He didn't "begin with the end in mind" in terms of how ideas would/could be put into action. It is like having a cutting edge Comprhensive Plan without an implementation chapter.

Leaders also need to be confident & decisive. I think Obama, if left to his own devices, would suffer from severe cases of paralysis by analysis regarding political implications of every decision.

I think this is a very good analysis of Obama. I think one of the weak points of his administration is that he believed his victory in 2008 (and subsequent reelection in 2012) were mandates that his ideas were good enough to get implemented, without laying out a clear end game. I'm not taking any blame away from the Congressional GOP, but Obama is not very good at the art of the deal, especially using the public as part of the deal making process, as was Clinton.

 

[imaplanner]

It's a two way street, dude. There's just as many on the left who seem to hate all Republican voters. Just pick up the NYTimes, watch MSNBC News or read journalists like Eugenie Robinson in the Washington Post. They're very unforgiving to all Republicans, whether politicians or regular voters.

Anyway, the Republican definition of a moderate is a Republican. The Democratic definition of a moderate is a Democrat. That says all you need to know.

I was in full agreement until about 5 years ago. The vitriol and absolute blind rage and hatred among the conservative base is pretty unique. I read lots of things and listen to a wide variety of radio and media sources, and your equivalency is just no longer accurate.

It's probably as much a dynamic of what party controls the white house than anything else, but at the moment it simply is not equivalent. I would say IMO but I'm convinced it's obvious to any fair minded intellectual.

 

[michaelskis]

Hillary Clinton is another front runner for the democrat party. What are your thoughts on her?

 

[Hink]

Hillary Clinton is another front runner for the democrat party. What are your thoughts on her?

That is the easiest way for the Democrats to lose the election. Yet I bet she will be the nominee.

 

[michaelskis]

That is the easiest way for the Democrats to lose the election. Yet I bet she will be the nominee.

Why don't you think she is electable? Personally, I agree with you and think part of it has to do with the way that she handled Benghazi but I am curious to why you think this way?

 

[imaplanner]

Hillary Clinton is another front runner for the democrat party. What are your thoughts on her?

I don't see any real difference between Clinton and establishment republicans other than position on gays and abortion. I think Clinton is a perfect example of the fact that there is little difference between the two parties but that there is also an amazing amount of animosity from each party towards the other that has nothing to do with actual policy positions.

 

[Hink]

Why don't you think she is electable? Personally, I agree with you and think part of it has to do with the way that she handled Benghazi but I am curious to why you think this way?

Benghazi is a talking point to me. I don't think she is to blame for that. I will be annoyed when the R's bring it up over and over again while she is running though.

For me Hillary is just part of the problem with politics. She is not presidential to me. She is as partisan as you can get, and has used her political history to her gain when necessary. When someone like Hilary runs it is hard for me to find a way to want to vote for her.

2016 List
Democrats
- Hillary - Won't vote for her. Period.
- Biden - I don't think he has shown much ability to lead.
- Cuomo - Maybe?
- Kristin Gillibrand - At least she is interesting.
- Martin O'Malley - Not enough experience.

Republicans
- Jeb Bush - Won't vote for another Bush.
- Ted Cruz - He is crazy. Why would I vote to put him in any office?
- Mike Huckabee - Religious zealot.
- John Kasich - Killed local government in Ohio. Nope.
- Chris Christie - Closed a bridge, but does work with others sometimes...
- Rand Paul - See Ted Cruz.
- Marco Rubio - Less of a Ted Cruz, but nope.
- Paul Ryan - Interesting opportunity to moderate, could be a good choice.


So who are we supposed to pick? So many are out before they even run....

 

[WSU MUP Student]

So who are we supposed to pick? So many are out before they even run....

I'm hoping that Huntsman will run again in 2016 and actually put in an effort this time around. I don't know who I would like to see from the Democratic side of the aisle. There has been talk of Brian Schweitzer, the Democratic former governor of Montana, and from what I have heard from him in interviews over the past year or so, I could live with that as well.

 

[imaplanner]

I'm hoping that Huntsman will run again in 2016 and actually put in an effort this time around. I don't know who I would like to see from the Democratic side of the aisle. There has been talk of Brian Schweitzer, the Democratic former governor of Montana, and from what I have heard from him in interviews over the past year or so, I could live with that as well.

I'm in agreement with Hink's assessment, except he forgot to put in a blurb about Santorum who seems to be going to run again. He makes me think of the book A Handmaids Tale.

I also really like Huntsman and would vote for him. I consider that a real shame that he can not get any traction in his party.

 

[ColoGI]

I also really like Huntsman and would vote for him. I consider that a real shame that he can not get any traction in his party.

That's because he's not crazy. Everyone else is crazy and a second-rate campaign manager could crush any and all of them save for Huntsman. But he won't get out of the primaries because all that's left to vote in the primaries is what hasn't left the party.

 

[mgk920]

2016 List

Republicans

- Paul Ryan - Interesting opportunity to moderate, could be a good choice.

Howabout the other big name from Wisconsin that is being bounced around - Scott Walker?

Like him or hate him, he is the first state governor in USA history to survive a recall attempt, winning the recall election with a larger margin than what he was first elected by and has been remarkably effective at what he set out to do.

Mike

 

[Masswich]

Hillary Clinton is another front runner for the democrat party. What are your thoughts on her?

For some reason I can't get excited about her. Not sure why. I think she was a great Secretary of State. Not sure who I like in 2016 on either side.

 

[imaplanner]

Howabout the other big name from Wisconsin that is being bounced around - Scott Walker?

Like him or hate him, he is the first state governor in USA history to survive a recall attempt, winning the recall election with a larger margin than what he was first elected by and has been remarkably effective at what he set out to do.

Mike

I always forget about that guy for some reason but he could certainly be a solid candidate for prez. He isn't crazy, and he is super conservative and gets serious reform done. But my understanding is after all he has done to decrease environmental and labor regulations and corporate taxes the state is still one of the worst in job creation over the last four years. 49th to 45th I think? That could be an issue? I know I would never vote for him as he is too conservative on both social and economic policy for me, but I have a somewhat favorable opinion of him as being someone of principles and honesty. I would certainly like the GOP more, or at least respect them as a political party more, if there were more people like him in positions of power.

 

[ColoGI]

Howabout the other big name from Wisconsin that is being bounced around - Scott Walker?

Like him or hate him, he is the first state governor in USA history to survive a recall attempt, winning the recall election with a larger margin than what he was first elected by and has been remarkably effective at what he set out to do.

Mike

If you are implying that he set out to trash the state economy, reduce freedom and turn the state over to corporations (and presided over a legislature that just introduced a bill to withdraw a 40-hour work week) then no one in their right mind is even going to think about even considering this guy. There's no howzaboudit at all. Non-starter. Not going to play nationally, as even a second-rate campaign manager will tear that apart. Won't make it out of the primaries.

 

[Whose Yur Planner]

If you are implying that he set out to trash the state economy, reduce freedom and turn the state over to corporations (and presided over a legislature that just introduced a bill to withdraw a 40-hour work week) then no one in their right mind is even going to think about even considering this guy. There's no howzaboudit at all. Non-starter. Not going to play nationally, as even a second-rate campaign manager will tear that apart. Won't make it out of the primaries.

But, by golly, he makes a great governor of Wisconsin. In the vein, how about Mike Pence in Indiana?

 

[Duke Of Dystopia]

I think this is a very good analysis of Obama. I think one of the weak points of his administration is that he believed his victory in 2008 (and subsequent reelection in 2012) were mandates that his ideas were good enough to get implemented, without laying out a clear end game. I'm not taking any blame away from the Congressional GOP, but Obama is not very good at the art of the deal, especially using the public as part of the deal making process, as was Clinton.

I can agree on the lack of being crappy at the "art of the deal".

Obama lacks a killer instinct, and that makes his political foes lack respect. He is also way to eager to please. Willing to pull the chair out from under his own side before negotiations even start.

Day 2 should have included turning the little turds in the GOP over to an independent prosecutor to face war crimes trials. Ultimately, a few of them should have been given immunity to lead to Bush himself. That would have been a start that says be careful and upright with opposition. He let the military industrial complex turn him to the dark side.

One can go on and on. Every leader has issues. That the american populace will pick a leader and then hamstring that leader at the first opportunity is always curious to me.

If you are implying that he set out to trash the state economy, reduce freedom and turn the state over to corporations (and presided over a legislature that just introduced a bill to withdraw a 40-hour work week) then no one in their right mind is even going to think about even considering this guy. There's no howzaboudit at all. Non-starter. Not going to play nationally, as even a second-rate campaign manager will tear that apart. Won't make it out of the primaries.

That is EXACTLY what he has done.

You should get wind of his mining agenda. Worthy of any West Virginia politician in a coal companies pocket of any stripe with their head so far up the screw the environment agenda you can imagine.

Hi discussion of protest options when he thought he was speaking to one of the Koch brothers speaks for itself.

Don't really know what has happened to the people of my state. Truly headed to Wississipi if he gets another term. I can't imagine that he can trick a whole nation into electing someone who was kicked out of college for cheating.

But, by golly, he makes a great governor of Wisconsin. In the vein, how about Mike Pence in Indiana?

PLEASE SEND YOUR SECRET SANTA GIFT BACK!

 

[ColoGI]

In the vein, how about Mike Pence in Indiana?

At least he doesn't debase himself like the Akin trolls do when he does his thing. But that means he has no name recognition.

T
Truly headed to Wississipi if he gets another term. I can't imagine that he can trick a whole nation into electing someone who was kicked out of college for cheating.

Right. Any half-wit campaign manager will dismantle the Koch puppet, their deep pockets notwithstanding.

BTW, the field is so weak that a candidate is in the mix whose mother won't even endorse. I weep for our country if this is the best we can come up with.

 

[imaplanner]

..
. I can't imagine that he can trick a whole nation into electing someone who was kicked out of college for cheating.

Cmon Duke. That's just speculation isn't it? And even if it were true, I doubt it would be a game ending thing, nor do I think it should be. That kind of stuff doesn't help your (and mine as well) false equivalency charge.

 

[Duke Of Dystopia]

Cmon Duke. That's just speculation isn't it? And even if it were true, I doubt it would be a game ending thing, nor do I think it should be. That kind of stuff doesn't help your (and mine as well) false equivalency charge.

His college he was attending may have "asked him to leave" over allegations of cheating. Here is an article. He quit for personal reasons one semester from finishing? I smell fish. Disputed? Yes. His answers are weak and unsupported with a "gap in his resume" as quoted by time magazine. He is as shady as they come. If he runs for president, it will come to lite in full. You can hide this kind of stuff as a governor, but not the massive anal probe you get with a presidential run. He is so skeevy it is amazing... It is hard to truly get it across how bad it is here in WI with him at the helm. It had been a well run state, now it is at war with itself on a myriad of issues. Incredibly self centered and narcissistic people love governor Pig Eyes. He is not good if you want serviceable hard infrastructure, well educated K-College Graduates, and a decent environment in which to live. Depends on how you see it.

If he did cheat at school, it should be a game ending event. I reference the phone discussion with the fake Koch brother where he openly discussed plans to plant false violent protesters. The idea was turned down as noted in the phone conversation but it should be emphasized that it was an idea that was on the table. Equally despicable as closing traffic lanes in Fort Lee, NJ for some type of political retribution. Do you really think that kind of behavior is acceptable? In reference to false equivalency, where do we see these kinds of events from Democrats since 2000? I am sure the way back machine can dig some things up. Especially during the civil rights era. But recently? This is where the false equivalency comes to the surface. Referencing Congressional holds, filibusters, polarization. Its not equivalently two sided.

http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/article/2013/dec/18/scott-walker-early-years/

 

[michaelskis]

Recently the Wall Street Journal did an article regarding the democrats who are likely to run for president. They include the following:

• Hillary Clinton
• Joe Biden
• Martin O’Malley
• Andrew Cuomo
• Deval Patrick
• Mark Warner
• Cory Booker
• Amy Klobuchar

Also on other lists are:

• Elizabeth Warren
• John Hickenlooper
• Brian Schweitzer
• Rahm Emanuel

I am guessing the majority people in here voted for Obama, I would be interested to hear your thoughts on these candidates. Personally, I don't know enough about most of these candidates to even comment on them.

 

[Whose Yur Planner]

Recently the Wall Street Journal did an article regarding the democrats who are likely to run for president. They include the following:

• Hillary Clinton
• Joe Biden
• Martin O’Malley
• Andrew Cuomo
• Deval Patrick
• Mark Warner
• Cory Booker
• Amy Klobuchar

I am guessing the majority people in here voted for Obama, I would be interested to hear your thoughts on these candidates. Personally, I don't know enough about most of these candidates to even comment on them.

Mskis, you wouldn't vote for any them anyway.

 

[michaelskis]

Mskis, you wouldn't vote for any them anyway.

I don't know. I can tell you that I don't like the majority of the republican candidates either, I also notice most of the focus is on the republican candidates when I know many of the people will not vote for any of them.

I am trying to educate myself about all the candidates. *I will not vote for Hillary Clinton or Rahm Emanuel no matter what. As I said before, if I have to write in "none of the above", I will.

 

[Hink]

I don't know. I can tell you that I don't like the majority of the republican candidates either, I also notice most of the focus is on the republican candidates when I know many of the people will not vote for any of them.

I am trying to educate myself about all the candidates. *I will not vote for Hillary Clinton or Rahm Emanuel no matter what. As I said before, if I have to write in "none of the above", I will.

At this point I would vote for any of them over say Ted Cruz. I think it will depend on if the Republican party can purge itself of the tea party and religious right in time for the next presidential cycle. If Ted Cruz and Mike Huckabee are the choice, a Democrat will win, it doesn't matter who on that list is chosen.

 

[mgk920]

I I can't imagine that he can trick a whole nation into electing someone who was kicked out of college for cheating.

That was proven to been a (misstatement) made by the opposition forces in the campaigns - he WITHDREW IN GOOD STANDING from Marquette during his senior year when he accepted a job offer.

And, unlike with BHO, Walker has fully authorized the administrators at Marquette to discuss issues relating to the time that he was there.

Mike

 

[Suburb Repairman]

Recently the Wall Street Journal did an article regarding the democrats who are likely to run for president. They include the following:

• Hillary Clinton
• Joe Biden
• Martin O'Malley
• Andrew Cuomo
• Deval Patrick
• Mark Warner
• Cory Booker
• Amy Klobuchar

Also on other lists are:

• Elizabeth Warren
• John Hickenlooper
• Brian Schweitzer
• Rahm Emanuel

I am guessing the majority people in here voted for Obama, I would be interested to hear your thoughts on these candidates. Personally, I don't know enough about most of these candidates to even comment on them.

I'll play along even though I haven't really started thinking about who I would vote for. None of them are really knocking my socks off at this point. Who I vote for will also depend somewhat on what happens in the legislative branch. If the GOP somehow manages to make inroads in the Senate, then I will vote democratic almost regardless in order to maintain some power balance. Likewise if the TEA party is still essentially running the show by then. So let's talk about the list...

Hillary Clinton - I honestly like her and think she did a good job as SoS. I think she is a decent leader. But I think we need to get away from dynasties and while she might be from strong stock, I'm slightly concerned about her age. I'm also concerned about her cozy relationship with the financial industry. Inability or unwillingness to address reform in the financial industry and prosecute for illegal activity is going to be a key issue for me. I've seen "too big to prosecute" added to "too big to fail." It has to end.

Joe Biden - Don't know why, but I've never really liked the guy. Just something about him that rubs me wrong.

Martin O'Malley - I like his data-driven approach to things and his demonstrated ability as "manager-in-chief." He isn't especially polished though and doesn't seem to enjoy the political game. In that, he reminds me a bit of Huntsman. I don't think he would be elected, but he is a natural for a cabinet position.

Andrew Cuomo - I generally like the guy. He has had success in the past negotiating good solutions with stakeholders that typically opposed his efforts. I appreciate his efforts regarding LGBT issues and gun control/safety. I wasn't terribly impressed with his tax reform effort. I like a lot of the work he did at HUD, but... I think a number of his decisions played a role in the mortage collapse and that he his too closely tied to big banking like Goldman Sachs. That might be the breaker for me with him.

Deval Patrick - He's been on the progressive side of things socially, which I appreciate. Truthfully, I don't know a lot about him. One thing I always remember about politicians though is... wait for it... ties to big banking and lenders. In his case, it is Ameriquest & Citigroup. You can put me in the skeptical camp on him.

Mark Warner - I generally like his ability to work across the aisle. He seems like a pragmatic guy, which I value. Perhaps a little Clinton-esque. Unfortunately, that hasn't always played out with meaningful reforms. He wrote some of the better provisions found in Dodd-Frank, but that act by & large really hasn't done a lot to prevent meltdowns and is still far too favorable to the financial industry. But at least with him I feel like he means well and isn't actually corrupted. I'm not sure what he really has in principles though... I feel like at times he is a centrist for the sake of being a centrist, regardless of the issue. But he is generally a consensus builder, and has had that persona both in and out of politics. It is a tool that could help rebuild those relationships, of course assuming they can be salvaged and the GOP actually wants to play. If the GOP loses in 2016, I think they'll have no choice but to play along. He might be a seasoned version of O'Malley.

Cory Booker - I feel like he is an even more naive & inexperienced version of Obama. I have trouble pointing to significant accomplishments. He had some success with the crime rate and got some downtown investment going in Newark, but that hardly qualifies him for the White House. I would be very interested to hear kjel's take on him.

Amy Klobuchar - I know very little about her other than she seems a bit inconsistent when it comes to protecting civil liberties in reference to FISA. She is big on trails & recreation, but that doesn't necessarily qualify her for the big job. Hasn't really done much of significance on the judiciary committee, particularly in the realm of antitrust.

Elizabeth Warren - I love her consumer advocacy and understanding of how things are stacked against the public and particularly the poor & middle class. She also understands and actually attempts to go after the real issues involved in the financial collapse. Good principles, but I would like to see her at least attempt across-the-aisle efforts a bit more. I think she could emerge as the leading challenger to Clinton. Her issue will be fundraising... with her emphasis on accountability in the banking industry, she has likely alienated a lot of donors with the kind of pockets to challenge a Koch-funded GOP true believer.

John Hickenlooper - Another effective manager as governor, but not sure he has really done enough to indicate potential for success in the White House. I like him, but think he is more likely for an eventual cabinet position dealing with domestic policy. Secretary of Agriculture or Interior seem like natural fits.

Brian Schweitzer - running for the Dem nomination as the anti-Obama is a campaign that will be DOA. He's a very odd-duck as far as policy positions go.

Rahm Emanuel - No. Just no. I was not sad to see him leave the Obama administration.


On the GOP side... if Huntsman runs, he is very likely to get my vote.

 

[MD Planner]

O'Malley will run, but only if Hillary doesn't. He is close with her and won't test that boundary. Personally I don't think she runs anyway. She is unelectable in my opinion.

MO'M (what we call Martin here in the state) could have broad appeal. He has that Clinton-like ability to make you feel like he is connected to you when he speaks. Plus he's handsome and has his own band. I know, I know, it shouldn't matter but remember how amazed the country was whenever Clinton would pick up a sax? He is always so even-keeled though. He just never seems to get excited though. Not that you want your leader to run around like a whacko but sometimes it's hard to tell what he's truly passionate about.

 

[Duke Of Dystopia]

That was proven to been a (misstatement) made by the opposition forces in the campaigns - he WITHDREW IN GOOD STANDING from Marquette during his senior year when he accepted a job offer.

And, unlike with BHO, Walker has fully authorized the administrators at Marquette to discuss issues relating to the time that he was there.

Mike

Don't fool yourself. Something goofy happened there, and it wasn't good. If you read the politifact article I posted. It says the same thing. Those kind of things that were swept under the rug in a state gov race won't stay hidden then.

Your still whining about the birth certificate thing? Lets see, who will be asking walker for his? He could be some kind of Mancanadian plant like Ted Cruz trying to bring down our government from within! DAMN CANADIANS! :lmao:

 

[michaelskis]

Don't fool yourself. Something goofy happened there, and it wasn't good. If you read the politifact article I posted. It says the same thing. Those kind of things that were swept under the rug in a state gov race won't stay hidden then.

Your still whining about the birth certificate thing? Lets see, who will be asking walker for his? He could be some kind of Mancanadian plant like Ted Cruz trying to bring down our government from within! DAMN CANADIANS! :lmao:

I just read it and it sounds like a lot of speculation without substance. It does sound like the democrat version of the birth certificate.

 

[Mastiff]

Stewart / Colbert

 

[WSU MUP Student]

On the Republican side, should he run I wonder if there will be as much outrage from the Tea Partiers about Cruz's birth as there was about Obama. It's an undisbuted fact that Cruz was born in Canada to an American mother and Cuban father. Even if Obama weren't born in Hawaii (I have seen no evidence to doubt that he was and trust the vetting done by the FEC), this is basically the same situation that they were up in arms about Obama with for so long. If many on the right seem to think Obama was ineligible for the office based on his birth, wouldn't Cruz be ineligible by the same criteria?

 

[Suburb Repairman]

If many on the right seem to think Obama was ineligible for the office based on his birth, wouldn't Cruz be ineligible by the same criteria?

This is a completely different situation. Cruz isn't a black socialist trying to ruin the Koch brothers' wet dreams. :trollface:

Even though Cruz was born in a country with substantially more socialized government programs and had citizenship for that country. Even though Cruz was born to a Cuban father that fought against the Batistas on behalf of Castro's Communist Revolution. Ignoring other pertinent facts (much like happened with the birther criticism of Obama), with good access to a foil hat you can make a much uglier family background case against Ted Cruz as some type of demented Manchurian Candidate than you ever could for Obama. But nobody will.

Yes, I know Rafael Cruz regretted his support for Castro and his younger sister's involvement in a counter-revolution. I don't think he is a secret commie plant that will strip off a false TEA party facade once elected. I'm just cherry-picking facts like what was done by the birthers to show how easy it is. Yet I doubt we'll hear anything negative from the GOP peanut gallery about Cruz's background & citizenship despite it being an incredibly easy target.

Speaking of Cruz... you've probably noticed a lot of my issues with candidates have to do with too-cozy relationships with the financial industry. Well, in the case of Cruz, he's married to it. That's right... Mrs. Cruz is a regional investment head for Goldman Sachs. Oh, and she worked for Condi Rice under the Bush II administration. So much for claiming grassroots, outsider street credibility. The guy couldn't be a bigger fake & fraud if he tried. Then again, the TEA party is nothing but a vast astroturfing operation so maybe it is fitting. I hate Cruz. I'm not one to be a "proud Texan," but I am genuinely embarrassed that he is from here and feel like my state owes the country an apology.

 

[ColoGI]

... this is basically the same situation that they were up in arms about Obama with for so long. If many on the right seem to think Obama was ineligible for the office based on his birth, wouldn't Cruz be ineligible by the same criteria?

Remember the age-old adage: IOKIYAR.

Nevertheless, I see that Rush is bagging on Christie. If you can't get the blessing from the Mouthpiece of the Noise Machine, you're toast.

Also, too, he did this unforgivable sin which doomed him long ago:

 

[Duke Of Dystopia]

AWWWWW! Chris Christie is blaming his (1st) political, and (2nd) now legal issues on MSNBC! I think I hear really tiny violins playing in the background. Cause, you know "Politics Ain't Beanbag". Not really denying that he was doing skeevy, underhanded, ethically challenged and illegal things. He is saying its a political hit job by members of a news organisation from an opposing party. Steve Cornaki you are so mean!

WAAAA! NOT FAIR! WAAAA I WANT MY MOMMY! LETS GO BACK TO PLAYING BEANBAG! I AM NOT A BULLY! REALLY... I AM NOT A BULLY! I WOULD NEVER WITHHOLD MONEY FROM A DEMOCRATIC MAYOR FOR HURRICANE SANDY AID!

What a louse! You were a bully 1 to many times, and it is going to cost you your freedom in the end and you DESERVE that!

So what if MSNBC did a hit piece on him. If they did their story properly, good for them! It's not like Faux News, the Wall Street Urinal, WaPo editorial dpt. etc. et all haven't been doing exactly the same thing for 20 years.

Politicians... If you are doing illegal things, and get caught, its not the fault of the news media of any stripe.

 

[imaplanner]

Posting this link mostly for mskis and any others who might contend that there is a difference in fiscal responsibility between the two parties. The only difference as I've been able to tell is the absolute hypocrisy of the republican party regarding spending and governing in general. A 1 trillion budget proposed by democrats is a big government socialist nightmare of spending, but then they pass a 1.1 trillion budget. Fiscal conservatives, or at least honest fiscal conservatives, would do better than to align themselves unconditionally with the republican party. Meanwhile, true fiscal conservatives like Gary Jonson and Jon Hunstman are relegated to non-status due to their social reasonableness and acknowledgment of scientific consensus. In other words, both parties suck butt. Stupid politics.

http://m.washingtonpost.com/opinion...80a07e-7f95-11e3-95c6-0a7aa80874bc_story.html

 

[rcgplanner]

Posting this link mostly for mskis and any others who might contend that there is a difference in fiscal responsibility between the two parties. The only difference as I've been able to tell is the absolute hypocrisy of the republican party regarding spending and governing in general. A 1 trillion budget proposed by democrats is a big government socialist nightmare of spending, but then they pass a 1.1 trillion budget. Fiscal conservatives, or at least honest fiscal conservatives, would do better than to align themselves unconditionally with the republican party. Meanwhile, true fiscal conservatives like Gary Jonson and Jon Hunstman are relegated to non-status due to their social reasonableness and acknowledgment of scientific consensus. In other words, both parties suck butt. Stupid politics.

http://m.washingtonpost.com/opinion...80a07e-7f95-11e3-95c6-0a7aa80874bc_story.html

A few WTF items in the new budget bill...

- It blocks the Navy from retiring seven cruisers and two amphibious ships. It gave the Pentagon $950 million more than it wanted for one class of attack submarines. :-@ But the measure denied the Pentagon $8 million it sought to study more base closures.

- It gives the oil and nuclear industries a bonanza: $154 million more than the Energy Department requested for nuclear energy, and $141 million more than requested for fossil-fuel development, despite enormous oil profits.

- And finally this gem, the new budget blocks funding for ACORN, you know that organization that hasn't existed since 2010!! :-{

I wish these so-called fiscal conservatives would be called out what they really are, a bunch of thugs who have no qualms about screwing over those who actually need help in favor of those who line their pockets. Yet both parties would rather continue to divert the public's attention by having arguments about social issues and the ACA, which is a near carbon copy of the Republican-created healthcare program in Mass., and a huge give away to private insurance companies. For the democrats, it is awfully hard to reach across the aisle when the other side would rather create their own universe of reality and not follow basic logic.

 

[michaelskis]

Posting this link mostly for mskis and any others who might contend that there is a difference in fiscal responsibility between the two parties. The only difference as I've been able to tell is the absolute hypocrisy of the republican party regarding spending and governing in general. A 1 trillion budget proposed by democrats is a big government socialist nightmare of spending, but then they pass a 1.1 trillion budget. Fiscal conservatives, or at least honest fiscal conservatives, would do better than to align themselves unconditionally with the republican party. Meanwhile, true fiscal conservatives like Gary Jonson and Jon Hunstman are relegated to non-status due to their social reasonableness and acknowledgment of scientific consensus. In other words, both parties suck butt. Stupid politics.

http://m.washingtonpost.com/opinion...80a07e-7f95-11e3-95c6-0a7aa80874bc_story.html

I agree... there is little difference between the two parties... and that is what angers me the most and one of the reasons that I say that they are all idiots. Until people actually stand up and demand that special interest groups and lobbyists are kept out of the picture, we are all screwed. We have politicians, we need statesman.

 

[kjel]

By now, I think we all realize that Gov. Chris Christie is going to make a run for President.

What are your thoughts on the guy? Do you think that there is more behind the bridge situation than he is letting on? Do you think he knew about it? What do you think of the way he handled the situation?

Gov. Krispy Kreme is a bully that hates poor and working class people, urban cities, and is a bully. I've said that long ago before he even got elected the first time. First term was the preview, now the show is really on. Bridgegate? Please tell me on what planet you live on if you don't think he had a clue-the George Washington Bridge is one of the busiest crossing in the world clocking in 250K crossings daily. At issue was two of three lanes entering I-95 from Park Ave (Fort Lee, NJ) which then pass immediately through the tolls to cross over the bridge. While Fort Lee might seem like a geographically small city, it's very, very dense as are the towns that are south of it that typically use this access point to the GWB. Any closure, accident, or construction leads to epic gridlock. I think he has handled the situation very poorly and is in damage control mode. He now has to answer about the slow trickle of Sandy relief funds being distributed and the breaking story of his administration's interaction with Hoboken and its mayor, Dawn Zimmer and the categorical lack of Sandy aid, supposedly due to her refusal to endorse Christie for a second term. There are so many issues with him, his administration, and his policies/practices that he would be a disaster on the national stage.

I don't like the guy and I will not be voting for him... I will write in a candidate if I need, but I will not vote for him because I think he is as shady as Tony Soprano. However, I understand why the conservative base is liking him more. Someone in his administration did something stupid and heads rolled. He had the balls to actually fire those who directly participated in the decision. (I do however think he knew about the situation as it happened.

This is something that the President has not had the balls to do. Just look at the number of scandals...
NSA
IRS
Benghazi
Fast and Furious
Healthcare.gov

In every situation, the President's only response was BO Didn't Know and that was it. At a minimum he should have sent those directly responsible for the scandals packing... in most cases they continue to be there or they are finishing out their contracts.

Heads rolled because Gov. Christie was embarrassed and when you don't have control of your minions, you eliminate them.

Why don't you think she is electable? Personally, I agree with you and think part of it has to do with the way that she handled Benghazi but I am curious to why you think this way?

I think her time has passed. I would be surprised if she made a run.

 

[Maister]

I think her time has passed. I would be surprised if she made a run.

Agreed. She had her shot in '08 and lost the nomination to a 'nobody'.

 

[Whose Yur Planner]

Agreed. She had her shot in '08 and lost the nomination to a 'nobody'.

I agree as well. Add to this her age and the baggage from being a Clinton and it's an uphill battle. As much as I like President Bill, he is a millstone around her neck and she's swimming against the tide in a shark filled ocean. The D's will find someone else.

 

[Duke Of Dystopia]

Sorry Miester, Kjel, and Whose Yur Planner, but Hillary is running and she will get the nomination. For better or worse, it is going to happen. You may be right about it being an uphill battle, not progressive enough, or age. She is the heavyweight in the room and others that could be starting their run are waiting on the sidelines until she declares. If she weren't running, she would have made that plainly clear by now.

Her organisation will not ignore the caucus states this time. She will get Obama's help with both it's voter lists and and election help. Obama will give her the keys to the technological capabilities he has built. In was the unspoken deal to wrangle her help at the start of his presidency. Biden's a great guy and good politician. He is not presidential material. No other democrat of note has said they will run against her. Women are gearing up to finally get theirs.

As far as Benghazi, it will not harm her in 2016. Maybe if the GOP had actually waited until she ran, it would have been effective. 4 years of whining about it will only serve to turn people off when they here it. All the facts are in, and they don't leave a flaming bag of dog poop on her doorstep. Remember, in factual comparison, Ronald Reagan is directly responsible for the killing of 299 American and French servicemen in Beirut in 1983. It didn't stop R. Reagan from being reelected. Benghazi has entered the realm of conspiracy theory. These theories don't stand up to any factual review. Ergo, Benghazi will be wart on her march to the nomination and election as the next US President.

The American body politic is familiar with Hillary. She has few people who have an "undecided" in poling when she is discussed. She has been widely been given credit for being a successful senator and a very successful Secretary of State. So when you see poling that shows a Hillary run for president puts Texas in play for the Democrats, you know she is way more powerful than any other possible democratic candidate. Only Chris Christe stood a chance and that is now unlikely to be a possibility. The GOP extremism mitigates the lack of undecideds in this situation. Really, Rick Santorum, Rand Paul (Ky.), Marco Rubio (Fla.) and Ted Cruz (Texas), Allen West, Texas Gov. Rick Perry, former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, Ron Paul, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, and Herman Cain? In any of these cases the candidates are either way to liberal for the current members of the GOP (Pawlenty, Rubio, Huntsman), to crazy or stupid for the American public (Allen West, Herman Cain, Rick Perry) , or to extreme if serious (Rick Santorum, Rand Paul, Ron Paul, New Gingrich, Walker). Ted Cruz is qualified due to birth location issues and therefore not eligible to be president.

Would I like someone more progressive? Definitely yes. Democrats don't do that. Besides, Senator Warren is probably more effective in the senate on the Banking committee than she would be as president. Mayor O'mally has said he won't run if Hillary does. Not a lot of back benchers left to challenge Hillary. If she learned a not to take anything for granted in 08, nobody will unseat her on this go around. The only question left is which nutbag will the GOP attempt to put in her way as a speedbump.

She has as solid of prospects of any person to ever run for president:
1) Expect 80% or more of the black vote
2) Expect 66% or more of the Hispanic vote
3) Expect 60% or more of the Female vote (Which is the largest actual voting block at present)

The only question left is what kinds of majorities will Hillary have in the House and Senate.

 

[michaelskis]

Ah Hell No. One report is saying it will be Hillary v Cristie in the end. If that is the case I am writing in Chuck Norris.

 

[Hink]

Think we can get a Change.org petition to have Huntsman run in 2016?

Kickstarter campaign?

 

[WSU MUP Student]

Think we can get a Change.org petition to have Huntsman run in 2016?

Kickstarter campaign?

Kickstarter? I don't think he needs our money. His family wealth makes Romney look like a pauper.