Democrats: Sanders unelectable

[Professor Peabody]

Democrats: Sanders unelectable

By Mike Lillis - 09/19/15 05:06 PM EDT

The surging popularity of Sen. Bernie Sanders has done little to alleviate the chief concern that Democrats have about his presidential bid: Namely, that he's simply unelectable on a national stage.

The Vermont Independent has quickly closed the gap on front-runner Hillary Clinton in national polls, while overtaking the former State secretary in the early voting states of Iowa and New Hampshire. Supporters say his rising momentum and populist message will carry him to the White House.

But Sanders, a self-described democratic socialist, has spent a career operating largely from the left-most fringes of the Democratic Party with which he caucuses, stirring worry that he simply couldn't compete against a Republican perceived as a more establishment figure.

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/254280-democrats-sanders-is-unelectable

Sanders just seems to resonate with the kook left, their largest voter base so far, besides the poor and shiftless looking for hand outs. It's just not fair that someone works hard to accumulate enough wealth to be comfortable, while someone else sits on the couch playing Madden Football on X-Box all day and doesn't make anything but callouses on their thumbs from the controller.

Sanders makes Ted Kennedy look like a right winger. By all means run him for President, I'm voting for him in the Primary. Should he get the nomination Mondale.....I mean Sanders will fare about the same as Mondale did in 1984 in the National Election in 2016.

[maineman]

most folks didn't give the junior senator from Illinois a snowball's chance in hell of beating Hillary for the nomination eight years ago, let alone beating the Annapolis grad/war hero in the general.

[Safety]

most folks didn't give the junior senator from Illinois a snowball's chance in hell of beating Hillary for the nomination eight years ago, let alone beating the Annapolis grad/war hero in the general.

Why you keep bringing up the past, you know that's not fair....

[Professor Peabody]

most folks didn't give the junior senator from Illinois a snowball's chance in hell of beating Hillary for the nomination eight years ago, let alone beating the Annapolis grad/war hero in the general.

The difference is the opposition has to have an electable candidate, McCain wasn't it.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/ab/ElectoralCollege1984.svg/524px-ElectoralCollege1984.svg.png

[Common]

I agree, I think hillary has far better chance of being elected than sanders. Republicans and Democrats alike get all caught and fuzzy brained during primaries and believe their politicians popularity translates into a national win. "NOT" all the dynamics change in the General, for one thing "independents" get in the mix and they elect POTUS.

[Mark III]

Sanders just seems to resonate with the kook left, their largest voter base so far, besides the poor and shiftless looking for hand outs. It's just not fair that someone works hard to accumulate enough wealth to be comfortable, while someone else sits on the couch playing Madden Football on X-Box all day and doesn't make anything but callouses on their thumbs from the controller.

Sanders makes Ted Kennedy look like a right winger. By all means run him for President, I'm voting for him in the Primary. Should he get the nomination Mondale.....I mean Sanders will fare about the same as Mondale did in 1984 in the National Election in 2016.

The moronic commentary in the original post notwithstanding, Sanders probably is unelectable in 2016. There has to be some groundwork laid to build up to wide acceptance of these sorts of economic principles. People in the US have been brainwashed all their lives to worship wealth and bow down before the oligarchs that throw them their crumbs. It will take time to turn the USA Titanic around and get it out of the iceberg field of income inequality.

[Professor Peabody]

The moronic commentary in the original post notwithstanding, Sanders probably is unelectable in 2016. There has to be some groundwork laid to build up to wide acceptance of these sorts of economic principles. People in the US have been brainwashed all their lives to worship wealth and bow down before the oligarchs that throw them their crumbs. It will take time to turn the USA Titanic around and get it out of the iceberg field of income inequality.

By all means run him in the General in 2016.....Mondale...I mean Sanders will get his day.

[Professor Peabody]

I agree, I think hillary has far better chance of being elected than sanders. Republicans and Democrats alike get all caught and fuzzy brained during primaries and believe their politicians popularity translates into a national win. "NOT" all the dynamics change in the General, for one thing "independents" get in the mix and they elect POTUS.

That's not saying much considering how fast her campaign is sinking in the polls.

[Common Sense]

You're not ready for Sanders.

[Safety]

You're not ready for Sanders.

He's not ready for visiting hours.

[Cigar]

Sanders is the Adult answer to The GOP :wink:

[Ethereal]

Sanders just seems to resonate with the kook left, their largest voter base so far, besides the poor and shiftless looking for hand outs. It's just not fair that someone works hard to accumulate enough wealth to be comfortable, while someone else sits on the couch playing Madden Football on X-Box all day and doesn't make anything but callouses on their thumbs from the controller.

Sanders makes Ted Kennedy look like a right winger. By all means run him for President, I'm voting for him in the Primary. Should he get the nomination Mondale.....I mean Sanders will fare about the same as Mondale did in 1984 in the National Election in 2016.

I'll take his big government of handouts to the poor and sick over the Republican big government of mass incarceration, imperialism, and police militarization.

And it's not like Sanders policies are that "radical" relative to what mainstream candidates in either party are typically offering or promoting, especially when you factor in virtually every other western government where Sanders would be a standard centrist.

That's not to say I approve of his desire to increase taxes and regulations, because I consider them forms of extortion and coercion, but the Republican party is not trying to abolish taxes or regulations. Granted, they are more amenable to reducing them, but not in any fundamental way that would have a lasting impact on American society.

I haven't decided if I'll vote for anyone, let alone Sanders, but if I were going to vote, I would probably lean towards him simply because his brand of statism seems more compassionate and practical than the Republican one, whose number one agenda at present seems to be the desire to round up and eject millions of immigrants, to say nothing of the intrusive, odious "E-verify" mandate.

[maineman]

The difference is the opposition has to have an electable candidate, McCain wasn't it.




and your clown car is just overflowing with 'em? :rofl:

[Professor Peabody]

I'll take his big government of handouts to the poor and sick over the Republican big government of mass incarceration, imperialism, and police militarization.

And it's not like Sanders policies are that "radical" relative to what mainstream candidates in either party are typically offering or promoting, especially when you factor in virtually every other western government where Sanders would be a standard centrist.

That's not to say I approve of his desire to increase taxes and regulations, because I consider them forms of extortion and coercion, but the Republican party is not trying to abolish taxes or regulations. Granted, they are more amenable to reducing them, but not in any fundamental way that would have a lasting impact on American society.

I haven't decided if I'll vote for anyone, let alone Sanders, but if I were going to vote, I would probably lean towards him simply because his brand of statism seems more compassionate and practical than the Republican one, whose number one agenda at present seems to be the desire to round up and eject millions of immigrants, to say nothing of the intrusive, odious "E-verify" mandate.

Mondale Jr's going nowhere. Do you have a 401(k)?

[Ethereal]

most folks didn't give the junior senator from Illinois a snowball's chance in hell of beating Hillary for the nomination eight years ago, let alone beating the Annapolis grad/war hero in the general.

If Sanders pulls out the upset, hopefully he won't turn into such a spineless wimp once he shows up in DC. Obama got steamrolled by the military-industrial complex into committing numerous war crimes and crimes against America. I think he is starting to stiffen up a little now that his Presidency is drawing to a close. That is why I think he is making deals with Cuba and Iran recently, because he resents being their puppet. Of course, there are some who surmise, and wisely so, that Obama's deals are just sophisticated pretexts for future interventions in those countries, so it remains to be seen if Obama has ANY worthwhile foreign policy accomplishments to speak of.

[Professor Peabody]

and your clown car is just overflowing with 'em? :rofl:

Considering the way the Democrats got their asses waxed in 2010 and 2014 we're laughing at you, not with you.

[maineman]

Considering the way the Democrats got their asses waxed in 2010 and 2014 we're laughing at you, not with you.
so when the topic is presidential elections, you just tap dance away and talk about mid-terms and think that no one will fucking notice???? LOLOLOLOLOLOL

[Professor Peabody]

so when the topic is presidential elections, you just tap dance away and talk about mid-terms and think that no one will $#@!ing notice???? LOLOLOLOLOLOL

Sanders ain't Obama who skated because he was the first "Black" President.

[maineman]

Sanders ain't Obama who skated because he was the first "Black" President.

what does that have to do with your tap-dancing about 2010 and 2014? what the fuck was THAT all about?

[domer76]

Sanders ain't Obama who skated because he was the first "Black" President.

One of the reasons he "skated" were the idiots you ran against him

[domer76]

removed

[Green Arrow]

Everyone is a political expert during elections.

Unfortunately for people like the OP, their expert analysis is ignorant of political realities. That's the problem with experts like Peabody, their analysis is based entirely on their own partisan ideology. Everyone from the opposition is unelectable in their minds...unless that person shares their views.

Political reality tells us otherwise.

[The Xl]

I'll take his big government of handouts to the poor and sick over the Republican big government of mass incarceration, imperialism, and police militarization.

And it's not like Sanders policies are that "radical" relative to what mainstream candidates in either party are typically offering or promoting, especially when you factor in virtually every other western government where Sanders would be a standard centrist.

That's not to say I approve of his desire to increase taxes and regulations, because I consider them forms of extortion and coercion, but the Republican party is not trying to abolish taxes or regulations. Granted, they are more amenable to reducing them, but not in any fundamental way that would have a lasting impact on American society.

I haven't decided if I'll vote for anyone, let alone Sanders, but if I were going to vote, I would probably lean towards him simply because his brand of statism seems more compassionate and practical than the Republican one, whose number one agenda at present seems to be the desire to round up and eject millions of immigrants, to say nothing of the intrusive, odious "E-verify" mandate.

Post of the year.

[Redrose]

most folks didn't give the junior senator from Illinois a snowball's chance in hell of beating Hillary for the nomination eight years ago, let alone beating the Annapolis grad/war hero in the general.


There were other reasons besides liberal policy that got Obama elected, his race played an important factor and he had charisma.

Sanders is a pair of brown shoes in a room full of tuxedos.

[Common]

Everyone is a political expert during elections.

Unfortunately for people like the OP, their expert analysis is ignorant of political realities. That's the problem with experts like Peabody, their analysis is based entirely on their own partisan ideology. Everyone from the opposition is unelectable in their minds...unless that person shares their views.

Political reality tells us otherwise.


True its human nature to think your uneducated opinion is more accurate than others because you believe it. The reality is we mostly know squat and none of us "know" whos winning the primaries and the general.

Scott Walker was in the lead he crashed quick all the way to the bottom

[maineman]

There were other reasons besides liberal policy that got Obama got elected, his race played an important factor and he had charisma.

Sanders is a pair of brown shoes in a room full of tuxedos.

and you don't think that America might very well be yearning for something other than yet another tuxedo?

[Subdermal]

I'll take his big government of handouts to the poor and sick over the Republican big government of mass incarceration, imperialism, and police militarization.

And it's not like Sanders policies are that "radical" relative to what mainstream candidates in either party are typically offering or promoting, especially when you factor in virtually every other western government where Sanders would be a standard centrist.

That's not to say I approve of his desire to increase taxes and regulations, because I consider them forms of extortion and coercion, but the Republican party is not trying to abolish taxes or regulations. Granted, they are more amenable to reducing them, but not in any fundamental way that would have a lasting impact on American society.

I haven't decided if I'll vote for anyone, let alone Sanders, but if I were going to vote, I would probably lean towards him simply because his brand of statism seems more compassionate and practical than the Republican one, whose number one agenda at present seems to be the desire to round up and eject millions of immigrants, to say nothing of the intrusive, odious "E-verify" mandate.


Post of the year.

It's nice you're slobbering allll over that post, but let me throw some ice water on it.

First: it is totally illegitimate to claim that a justifiable reason to vote for Sanders is that he supports "big Government handouts to the poor and sick" and then claim it superior by comparing it to false claim regarding an entire POLITICAL PARTY. Does Ethereal honestly claim that the GOP is the only reason that "mass incarceration, imperialism and police militarization" is taking place?

Hardly. These have all been ramped up massively under {a} Obama and {b} in States run by Democrats.

Sanders is running as a Democrat. It's fine to claim that he's going to reverse those things, but then do the honest thing and actually compare him to a specific GOP candidate who claims that he's going to try to reverse those things as well: like Ted Cruz (as merely one example).

Throughout, Ethereal compares voting for one candidate's position with the entire alleged platform of an opposing party. That is a false dichotomy: this isn't a vote for one guy vs. an entire opposing party, regardless what you think of that party. The candidates of that opposition party do not hold homogenous views.

That approach could not be more disingenuous, and I could not disagree with the notion to vote for a moonbat Socialist like Bernie Sanders more.

You vote for someone who wants to return us to being a far more Constitutionally grounded country, because in that effort, you maximize your opportunity for freedom.

It is why I support Ted Cruz.

[Subdermal]

There were other reasons besides liberal policy that got Obama got elected, his race played an important factor and he had charisma.

Sanders is a pair of brown shoes in a room full of tuxedos.

I disagree with the metaphor. Sanders is a pair of dirty jackboots in a room full of tuxedos, if that.

Socialism exists only as a transition to more dangerous -isms. Socialism does not work on a macro-economic level; very few things - things enumerated as the responsibility of FedGov in the Constitution - should be Socialistic.

[Redrose]

and you don't think that America might very well be yearning for something other than yet another tuxedo?


No. Too many have no clue what they are yearning for. All of us on these forums are political junkies, we know more than the average person. Far too many people cast their vote without the slightest idea what they voted for.

[Captain Obvious]

I think Sanders is unelectable also.

And I was the first (naturally) to suggest that Biden is on deck in the event Hillary finally crashes and burns, which is really only a matter of time IMO.

So here's my prediction. The GOP is going to nominate a monkey, no question there. They're incapable of nominating a true conservative, it has to be an establishment moderate. The DNC pulls the fire alarm, Biden is deployed.

Biden is the next POTUS.

Write it down, that's my prediction.

[Peter1469]

Do you think that the democrat base will make it to the polls to vote Biden?

[Captain Obvious]

Do you think that the democrat base will make it to the polls to vote Biden?

Yeah, why wouldn't they?

The Bernie crush is very novel but I don't see liberals saying "Biden... meh, I'm voting Jeb".

[OGIS]

Sanders just seems to resonate with the kook left, their largest voter base so far, besides the poor and shiftless looking for hand outs. It's just not fair that someone works hard to accumulate enough wealth to be comfortable, while someone else sits on the couch playing Madden Football on X-Box all day and doesn't make anything but callouses on their thumbs from the controller.

Sanders makes Ted Kennedy look like a right winger. By all means run him for President, I'm voting for him in the Primary. Should he get the nomination Mondale.....I mean Sanders will fare about the same as Mondale did in 1984 in the National Election in 2016.

Depends. It would be fun seeing Sanders get the Dem nomination and Donald Trump get the Republican one. Who would you vote for then?

I would be torn.

[OGIS]

The difference is the opposition has to have an electable candidate, McCain wasn't it.

And what makes you think any of the current crop of Republicans is?

[Truth Detector]

Sanders just seems to resonate with the kook left, their largest voter base so far, besides the poor and shiftless looking for hand outs. It's just not fair that someone works hard to accumulate enough wealth to be comfortable, while someone else sits on the couch playing Madden Football on X-Box all day and doesn't make anything but callouses on their thumbs from the controller.

Sanders makes Ted Kennedy look like a right winger. By all means run him for President, I'm voting for him in the Primary. Should he get the nomination Mondale.....I mean Sanders will fare about the same as Mondale did in 1984 in the National Election in 2016.


most folks didn't give the junior senator from Illinois a snowball's chance in hell of beating Hillary for the nomination eight years ago, let alone beating the Annapolis grad/war hero in the general.

I think both of you are not giving the low information voters on the left enough credit. I actually think they could nominate a Commie like Sanders.

Next year they may finally acquiesce to the God haters and remove it from their platform.

[Truth Detector]

The moronic commentary in the original post notwithstanding, Sanders probably is unelectable in 2016. There has to be some groundwork laid to build up to wide acceptance of these sorts of economic principles. People in the US have been brainwashed all their lives to worship wealth and bow down before the oligarchs that throw them their crumbs. It will take time to turn the USA Titanic around and get it out of the iceberg field of income inequality.

Man; you've got those Marxist talking points down pat!! So who do you want to see as Potus?

[Truth Detector]

Sanders is the Adult answer to The GOP :wink:

http://img3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20130815124007/transformers-legends/images/c/c4/Triple-facepalm.jpg

[OGIS]

I'll take his big government of handouts to the poor and sick over the Republican big government of mass incarceration, imperialism, and police militarization.

You forgot to mention the big government handouts to the wealthy. Just the Chase Bank ripoff/handout alone is enough to make one sick to the stomach. And that is only the tip of the iceberg.


And it's not like Sanders policies are that "radical" relative to what mainstream candidates in either party are typically offering or promoting, especially when you factor in virtually every other western government where Sanders would be a standard centrist.

The Middle Class has recently not been getting the socialism they have been paying for. A Sanders presidency promises to reverse that.


That's not to say I approve of his desire to increase taxes and regulations, because I consider them forms of extortion and coercion, but the Republican party is not trying to abolish taxes or regulations. Granted, they are more amenable to reducing them, but not in any fundamental way that would have a lasting impact on American society.

Well said.


I haven't decided if I'll vote for anyone, let alone Sanders, but if I were going to vote, I would probably lean towards him simply because his brand of statism seems more compassionate and practical than the Republican one, whose number one agenda at present seems to be the desire to round up and eject millions of immigrants, to say nothing of the intrusive, odious "E-verify" mandate.

And don't forget the pathological desire to strip the poor (that both Dem and Rep policies have created) of their survival entitlements and require them to lift themselves up by those magical invisible bootstraps. I love the people who say that "those lazy unemployed should just go back to school and learn a new trade." With what money?

[OGIS]

removed

???

[OGIS]

I'll take his big government of handouts to the poor and sick over the Republican big government of mass incarceration, imperialism, and police militarization.

And it's not like Sanders policies are that "radical" relative to what mainstream candidates in either party are typically offering or promoting, especially when you factor in virtually every other western government where Sanders would be a standard centrist.

That's not to say I approve of his desire to increase taxes and regulations, because I consider them forms of extortion and coercion, but the Republican party is not trying to abolish taxes or regulations. Granted, they are more amenable to reducing them, but not in any fundamental way that would have a lasting impact on American society.

I haven't decided if I'll vote for anyone, let alone Sanders, but if I were going to vote, I would probably lean towards him simply because his brand of statism seems more compassionate and practical than the Republican one, whose number one agenda at present seems to be the desire to round up and eject millions of immigrants, to say nothing of the intrusive, odious "E-verify" mandate.


Post of the year.

Yup.

[OGIS]

There were other reasons besides liberal policy that got Obama elected, his race played an important factor and he had charisma.

Sanders is a pair of brown shoes in a room full of tuxedos.

And EVERYBODY I talk to is fed up to "here" with tuxedos. Everybody. And I get around a lot.

Which is why I can conceive that it actually might go down to Sanders and Trump.

[Truth Detector]

I'll take his big government of handouts to the poor and sick over the Republican big government of mass incarceration, imperialism, and police militarization.

This statement is stunning in its ignorance and lunacy.

But of course a economically and math challenged Marxist like you would find his job killing policies palatable.


And it's not like Sanders policies are that "radical" relative to what mainstream candidates in either party are typically offering or promoting, especially when you factor in virtually every other western government where Sanders would be a standard centrist.

One can only make such a clueless claim in a vacuum of reality and the facts.


That's not to say I approve of his desire to increase taxes and regulations, because I consider them forms of extortion and coercion,

Yet that is the centerpiece of his policies....which you proclaimed above to be standard fare for other Western societies; as if we should stupidly copy them.


but the Republican party is not trying to abolish taxes or regulations.

BULLSHIT; you're claims are quite full of it.


Granted, they are more amenable to reducing them, but not in any fundamental way that would have a lasting impact on American society.

And what tax laws do you believe would be fundamental to having a lasting impact; and what impact are you erupting about?


I haven't decided if I'll vote for anyone, let alone Sanders, but if I were going to vote, I would probably lean towards him simply because his brand of statism seems more compassionate and practical than the Republican one, whose number one agenda at present seems to be the desire to round up and eject millions of immigrants, to say nothing of the intrusive, odious "E-verify" mandate.

Translation; you'll vote for a Marxist based on the uneducated emotional pabulum you wallow in.

[OGIS]

True its human nature to think your uneducated opinion is more accurate than others because you believe it. The reality is we mostly know squat and none of us "know" whos winning the primaries and the general.

Scott Walker was in the lead he crashed quick all the way to the bottom

Something that should give the partisan "experts" pause.

[Truth Detector]

and your clown car is just overflowing with 'em? :rofl:

Parrotting leftist talking points again I see; you're quite adept at that.

But hat could be more clownish and ineot than the Democratic lineup? All white, one who is under investigation for violating Federal security laws, one an outright Marxist and the other two barely a footnote.

How many debates have the Democrat short bus had?

The biggest viewership in the history of CNN and Fox were the Repubkican debates.

How many do you think will tune into the Democratic short bus debates.....when and if they decide to even bother with one?

[Truth Detector]

if sanders pulls out the upset, hopefully he won't turn into such a spineless wimp once he shows up in dc. Obama got steamrolled by the military-industrial complex into committing numerous war crimes and crimes against america. I think he is starting to stiffen up a little now that his presidency is drawing to a close. That is why i think he is making deals with cuba and iran recently, because he resents being their puppet. Of course, there are some who surmise, and wisely so, that obama's deals are just sophisticated pretexts for future interventions in those countries, so it remains to be seen if obama has any worthwhile foreign policy accomplishments to speak of.

lmao!!!!!

[Truth Detector]

so when the topic is presidential elections, you just tap dance away and talk about mid-terms and think that no one will $#@!ing notice???? LOLOLOLOLOLOL

I'm amused by the leftist fantasy that winning a Presidential election equates to Democrats winning.

If you look at Presidential elections, the parties tend to take turns at messing things up.....but the real testament to Democratic decline is losing the Congress and having Republican legislatures and Governors in 2/3rds of the states.

Democrats ruled the Congress for more than three decades.....until BillyBob's Presidency. That's called losing.

[Truth Detector]

Sanders ain't Obama who skated because he was the first "Black" President.

.....who also got a Nobel Peace prize for doing NOTHING and has driven the deepest partisan wedge in this nation we have seen in our lifetimes.

So much for all that "hopey changey" bull crap eh?

[Truth Detector]

Everyone is a political expert during elections.

Unfortunately for people like the OP, their expert analysis is ignorant of political realities. That's the problem with experts like Peabody, their analysis is based entirely on their own partisan ideology. Everyone from the opposition is unelectable in their minds...unless that person shares their views.

Political reality tells us otherwise.

Really? So what is it telling you sage non-partisan guru?

[Truth Detector]

Post of the year.

Correction; it was the dumbest post of the year. But I imagine lefties like this will find a way to outdo their simplistic lunatic bloviating before it ends.

[OGIS]

I think Sanders is unelectable also.

And I was the first (naturally) to suggest that Biden is on deck in the event Hillary finally crashes and burns, which is really only a matter of time IMO.

So here's my prediction. The GOP is going to nominate a monkey, no question there. They're incapable of nominating a true conservative, it has to be an establishment moderate. The DNC pulls the fire alarm, Biden is deployed.

Biden is the next POTUS.

Write it down, that's my prediction.

You are probably right.

Dog help us.

[Truth Detector]

I disagree with the metaphor. Sanders is a pair of dirty jackboots in a room full of tuxedos, if that.

Socialism exists only as a transition to more dangerous -isms. Socialism does not work on a macro-economic level; very few things - things enumerated as the responsibility of FedGov in the Constitution - should be Socialistic.

BINGO!!!

http://www.reactiongifs.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/good-job.gif

[Truth Detector]

I think Sanders is unelectable also.

And I was the first (naturally) to suggest that Biden is on deck in the event Hillary finally crashes and burns, which is really only a matter of time IMO.

So here's my prediction. The GOP is going to nominate a monkey, no question there. They're incapable of nominating a true conservative, it has to be an establishment moderate. The DNC pulls the fire alarm, Biden is deployed.

Biden is the next POTUS.

Write it down, that's my prediction.

What would you know about true Conservatism?

But yes, that was a damned funny prediction; that the second dumbest man in AmeriKa, Joe O'Biden could get elected.

[OGIS]

You vote for someone who wants to return us to being a far more Constitutionally grounded country, because in that effort, you maximize your opportunity for freedom.

So what you are essentially saying is that, now that the 1%ers have used Big Government and crony capitalism for the last 8 decades to impoverish everyone else... whups! hold on there, it is NOW time to return to small government, which - being stripped of the redistributive powers it once had - will perpetuate the wealth division status quo.

Seems quite fair.

If that were to happen, I would suggest buying stock in companies that produce guillotines.

I understand that the French aristocracy under King Louis XVI were shocked and perplexed by what happened to them.

[OGIS]

I think both of you are not giving the low information voters on the left enough credit. I actually think they could nominate a Commie like Sanders.

Will you kill yourself if that happens?

[OGIS]

Man; you've got those Marxist talking points down pat!! So who do you want to see as Potus?

So distrust of the wealthy = Marxism? LOL!

[OGIS]

What would you know about true Conservatism?

But yes, that was a damned funny prediction; that the second dumbest man in AmeriKa, Joe O'Biden could get elected.

Why's that? According to you and the other mouth-breathers, Obama is the first dumbest, and HE got elected. So why not the second dumbest?

Logic: you don't has it.

[Captain Obvious]

Why's that? According to you and the other mouth-breathers, Obama is the first dumbest, and HE got elected. So why not the second dumbest?

Logic: you don't has it.

He's just trolling anything that moves.

My over/under on him being thrown off the forum is 3.5 days.

Only 1.5 days left.

[The Xl]

It's nice you're slobbering allll over that post, but let me throw some ice water on it.

First: it is totally illegitimate to claim that a justifiable reason to vote for Sanders is that he supports "big Government handouts to the poor and sick" and then claim it superior by comparing it to false claim regarding an entire POLITICAL PARTY. Does Ethereal honestly claim that the GOP is the only reason that "mass incarceration, imperialism and police militarization" is taking place?

Hardly. These have all been ramped up massively under {a} Obama and {b} in States run by Democrats.

Sanders is running as a Democrat. It's fine to claim that he's going to reverse those things, but then do the honest thing and actually compare him to a specific GOP candidate who claims that he's going to try to reverse those things as well: like Ted Cruz (as merely one example).

Throughout, Ethereal compares voting for one candidate's position with the entire alleged platform of an opposing party. That is a false dichotomy: this isn't a vote for one guy vs. an entire opposing party, regardless what you think of that party. The candidates of that opposition party do not hold homogenous views.

That approach could not be more disingenuous, and I could not disagree with the notion to vote for a moonbat Socialist like Bernie Sanders more.

You vote for someone who wants to return us to being a far more Constitutionally grounded country, because in that effort, you maximize your opportunity for freedom.

It is why I support Ted Cruz.

Mass incarceration, imperialism, and police militarization is a staple of the GOP, although the left certainly engages in it as well. Bernie Sanders isn't an establishment Democrat, it's reasonable to believe what he's saying, Ted Cruz on the other hand, is an establishment shill, to use him as an example of an anti establishment candidate that will change things for the better is silly.

[Peter1469]

Yeah, why wouldn't they?

The Bernie crush is very novel but I don't see liberals saying "Biden... meh, I'm voting Jeb".

Agreed. But I see a lot of them not moving from the boob tube on election day if Biden (or Sanders) were the nominee.

[The Xl]

Correction; it was the dumbest post of the year. But I imagine lefties like this will find a way to outdo their simplistic lunatic bloviating before it ends.

What he's saying holds true, Sanders state of big government is somehow less intrusive than the ones the Republican party and their constituents champion.

[Ethereal]

It's nice you're slobbering allll over that post, but let me throw some ice water on it.

First: it is totally illegitimate to claim that a justifiable reason to vote for Sanders is that he supports "big Government handouts to the poor and sick" and then claim it superior by comparing it to false claim regarding an entire POLITICAL PARTY. Does Ethereal honestly claim that the GOP is the only reason that "mass incarceration, imperialism and police militarization" is taking place?

No, the Democrat party has also been instrumental in the perpetuation of this unjust system.


Hardly. These have all been ramped up massively under {a} Obama and {b} in States run by Democrats.

I agree, and I criticize them constantly for that.


Sanders is running as a Democrat.

And Ron Paul ran as a Republican, but they are both outsiders in certain respects, particularly with regard to their stances on imperialism, police militarization, and mass incarceration, which is why I would be more likely to support Sanders if I decided to vote, which I have not.


It's fine to claim that he's going to reverse those things, but then do the honest thing and actually compare him to a specific GOP candidate who claims that he's going to try to reverse those things as well: like Ted Cruz (as merely one example).

I watched the Republican debates and Ted Cruz appears to be very supportive of the US's foreign imperialism.


Throughout, Ethereal compares voting for one candidate's position with the entire alleged platform of an opposing party. That is a false dichotomy: this isn't a vote for one guy vs. an entire opposing party, regardless what you think of that party. The candidates of that opposition party do not hold homogenous views.

That approach could not be more disingenuous, and I could not disagree with the notion to vote for a moonbat Socialist like Bernie Sanders more.

You vote for someone who wants to return us to being a far more Constitutionally grounded country, because in that effort, you maximize your opportunity for freedom.

It is why I support Ted Cruz.

As far as I'm concerned, virtually every politician, Democrat or Republican, is a socialist, so I don't see much difference between voting for a socialist like Sanders and a socialist like Cruz. Now, Cruz may claim to be against socialism, but his policies are still socialistic insofar he is not running on abolishing SS, Medicare, Medicaid, income taxes, central banking, the FCC, etc. Granted, he is more amenable to moderating their size and influence, but he is not trying to abolish or alter them in any fundamental way, as far as I'm aware. So if I were to vote (which I don't think I will), I would probably lean towards Sanders simply because I believe him to be more moderate on issues where the President has the most impact, namely, foreign policy and the security state. And to be honest, Cruz comes off as a phony to me, so I have trouble trusting him and his intentions.

[Captain Obvious]

Agreed. But I see a lot of them not moving from the boob tube on election day if Biden (or Sanders) were the nominee.

ok - gotcha.

Like Republicans did with Mitt.

[Ethereal]

I disagree with the metaphor. Sanders is a pair of dirty jackboots in a room full of tuxedos, if that.

Socialism exists only as a transition to more dangerous -isms. Socialism does not work on a macro-economic level; very few things - things enumerated as the responsibility of FedGov in the Constitution - should be Socialistic.

We already have socialism, so if I had to choose, I would choose the form of socialism that is less militaristic and aggressive. And I'm certainly not going to support someone who is hostile to immigrants, illegal or otherwise.

[Ethereal]

This statement is stunning in its ignorance and lunacy.

But of course a economically and math challenged Marxist like you would find his job killing policies palatable.



One can only make such a clueless claim in a vacuum of reality and the facts.



Yet that is the centerpiece of his policies....which you proclaimed above to be standard fare for other Western societies; as if we should stupidly copy them.



BULL$#@!; you're claims are quite full of it.



And what tax laws do you believe would be fundamental to having a lasting impact; and what impact are you erupting about?



Translation; you'll vote for a Marxist based on the uneducated emotional pabulum you wallow in.

As usual, not a single, substantive rebuttal of anything I said. Go back and read Subdermal's post if you want to know how to respond with substance to something you disagree with.

[Ethereal]

lmao!!!!!

If you think it's wrong, then I must be on the right track.

[Truth Detector]

As far as I'm concerned, virtually every politician, Democrat or Republican, is a socialist, so I don't see much difference between voting for a socialist like Sanders and a socialist like Cruz. Now, Cruz may claim to be against socialism, but his policies are still socialistic insofar he is not running on abolishing SS, Medicare, Medicaid, income taxes, central banking, the FCC, etc. Granted, he is more amenable to moderating their size and influence, but he is not trying to abolish or alter them in any fundamental way, as far as I'm aware. So if I were to vote (which I don't think I will), I would probably lean towards Sanders simply because I believe him to be more moderate on issues where the President has the most impact, namely, foreign policy and the security state. And to be honest, Cruz comes off as a phony to me, so I have trouble trusting him and his intentions.

Translation: you're a Marxist and could care less what the facts or reality are.

Yep, in loopy leftist land where jobs will get more scarce, Komrade Sanders is a moderate. LMAO

[Ethereal]

What would you know about true Conservatism?

Much more than you, I'm sure.

[Ethereal]

So what you are essentially saying is that, now that the 1%ers have used Big Government and crony capitalism for the last 8 decades to impoverish everyone else... whups! hold on there, it is NOW time to return to small government, which - being stripped of the redistributive powers it once had - will perpetuate the wealth division status quo.

Seems quite fair.

If that were to happen, I would suggest buying stock in companies that produce guillotines.

I understand that the French aristocracy under King Louis XVI were shocked and perplexed by what happened to them.

Except I don't see anyone in the Republican party who is genuinely trying to return to the principles of limited, constitutional government. If they were, then I would support them, just like I supported Ron Paul. So my choices are, once again, between two visions of big, overbearing centralized government, which is why I will, once again, probably abstain from voting.

[Truth Detector]

ok - gotcha.

Like Republicans did with Mitt.

Mitt was the smartest most successful man to run in our lifetimes. Is there something specific you felt he was lacking with regards to the necessary experience to be Potus; or is this just the typical you parroting the idiot leftist talking points you've gullibly been fed??

Who did you vote for in the last two presidential elections?

[Mark III]

Translation: you're a Marxist and could care less what the facts or reality are.

Yep, in loopy leftist land where jobs will get more scarce, Komrade Sanders is a moderate. LMAO

Truth Detector - Join Date Sep 2015


Just what this place needs, another moron. When it rains it pours.

[Truth Detector]

We already have socialism, so if I had to choose, I would choose the form of socialism that is less militaristic and aggressive. And I'm certainly not going to support someone who is hostile to immigrants, illegal or otherwise.

Translation: you don't know what you're taking about to mask your ignorance and would choose a job killing moron like Sanders.

[Truth Detector]

As usual, not a single, substantive rebuttal of anything I said. Go back and read Subdermal's post if you want to know how to respond with substance to something you disagree with.

LMAO; as if your rhetorical bloviations were substantive. SERIOUSLY??? LMAO

[Truth Detector]

If you think it's wrong, then I must be on the right track.

Yeah; that's it!!! LMAO

[Ethereal]

Translation: you're a Marxist and could care less what the facts or reality are.

Yep, in loopy leftist land where jobs will get more scarce, Komrade Sanders is a moderate. LMAO

Coming from an apologist for Bush, one of the most aggressive big government losers in American history, this is quite amusing.

But everyone knows that Republicans like yourself are not really opposed to intrusive, big government policies that have little or no basis in the constitution. You are only opposed to it when Democrats are doing it.

[Truth Detector]

Much more than you, I'm sure.

Really; go for it! Let's start with what we believe will fix this once great nation and salvage it from the destructive progressive liberalism that currently is infesting our politics and dividing this nation.

I'll let you start because you farcically believe your intelligence super exceeds those of us on the right.

[Ethereal]

Mitt was the smartest most successful man to run in our lifetimes.

And you accuse me of being a Marxist... :rofl:

[Ethereal]

Translation: you don't know what you're taking about to mask your ignorance and would choose a job killing moron like Sanders.

I would rather him kill some jobs than kill millions of innocent people overseas, like your hero Bush did.

[Ethereal]

LMAO; as if your rhetorical bloviations were substantive. SERIOUSLY??? LMAO

Oh, look, you said "LMAO" twice in one post. Just like a teenage girl. How appropriate.

[Truth Detector]

Truth Detector - Join Date Sep 2015

Just what this place needs, another moron. When it rains it pours.

Just what the forum needs, another whiney leftist hypocrite breaking forum rules, trolling and baiting while spouting puerile schoolyard insults.

http://i.imgur.com/aVZgT.gif

[Chris]

General warning to stop discussing each other and start discussing the topic. Truth Detector, Mark III, that goes especially for you two.

[Ethereal]

Yeah; that's it!!! LMAO

The more opposed you are to something, the more likely it is to be the correct view.

[Ethereal]

Really; go for it! Let's start with what we believe will fix this once great nation and salvage it from the destructive progressive liberalism that currently is infesting our politics and dividing this nation.

I'll let you start because you farcically believe your intelligence super exceeds those of us on the right.

Obeying the constitution would be a good start, but I don't see any Republicans candidates who want to do that. And it shouldn't come as a surprise, since the Republican party were the original progressives.

[Truth Detector]

Coming from an apologist for Bush,

Another stupid infantile claim; but predictable leftist prattle from a lefty like you. How am I an apologist?


one of the most aggressive big government losers in American history, this is quite amusing.

Another incredibly stupid and remarkably ignorant claim; but then, you're quite full of that irrational leftist Bush hate aren't you?


But everyone knows that Republicans like yourself are not really opposed to intrusive, big government policies that have little or no basis in the constitution. You are only opposed to it when Democrats are doing it.

More ignorant prattle from a presumptuous low information liberal who parrots predictable left wing blather.

What would a Marxost know, or even care about the Constitution? Now THAT is amusing and comedic.

[Truth Detector]

The more opposed you are to something, the more likely it is to be the correct view.

Fascinatingly laughable, but you do laughable well.

[maineman]

Parrotting leftist talking points again I see; you're quite adept at that.

But hat could be more clownish and ineot than the Democratic lineup? All white, one who is under investigation for violating Federal security laws, one an outright Marxist and the other two barely a footnote.

How many debates have the Democrat short bus had?

The biggest viewership in the history of CNN and Fox were the Repubkican debates.

How many do you think will tune into the Democratic short bus debates.....when and if they decide to even bother with one?

it's not a talking point... it's the truth. For my money, the ONLY candidate in the GOP clown car that I think has the resume, the maturity, the intellect, and, yes, the gravitas to be an effective president is John Kasich, and he is circling the bottom of the bowl getting ready to follow Scott (the great white hope) Walker down into the sewer. I felt similarly about Jon Huntsman in 2012 and was worried that Obama would have a tough time beating HIM. But, right on cue, the GOP pulled out their collective penis and stepped on it by nominating Mittens. You'll do the same this time.

Which democrat eventually beats the top clown is still undecided, to be sure. But any one of them can do it. Our debates will get high viewership and you will see some significant movement in poll numbers between the democratic candidates in the aftermath. I have three children ranging in age from 40 to 25 and they all report that their friends, acquaintances, and co-workers are much more involved and aware of the 2016 election than at any other time in their adult lives. In their demographic groups, the tried and true GOP social wedge issues such as gay marriage, abortion and pot are truly unimportant and broad majorities of those demographic groups are totally suppportive of gay marriage, a woman's right to choose, and the legalization of marijuana. The clowns will continue to throw red meat at the angry old white GOP base, but that will not be enough to put them in the white house. The longer the clown car stays crowded with clowns, the loonier they all will have to sound in order to be heard above the din of the others... and the more they will alienate the left, the middle and the youth.

The democrats, on the other hand, will debate from very near the middle with only Bernie tugging them slightly to the left. They'll ALL look more reasonable than any of the clowns.

And, when the dust settles and the democrats win yet again, it'll be the media's fault, or it'll be massive (alleged but oddly unproven) voter fraud that did it... there'll always be some excuse the GOP can throw up to explain their chronic underachievement in nationwide elections. Don't forget: in five of the last six presidential elections, more Americans have chosen the democratic candidate than the republican one. Five out of six times... for nearly a quarter of a century.

[Truth Detector]

Obeying the constitution would be a good start, but I don't see any Republicans candidates who want to do that. And it shouldn't come as a surprise, since the Republican party were the original progressives.

Obeying the Constitution? That's your solution to all that is wrong in Washington? Seriously??

Then you wander into your typical and predictable "Republicans are bad" rant? This is your idea of solutions and substance?

You've met my low expectations of you.

Let me give you the run down on what I believe is the solution and one we should all work towards without the partisan sniping because my views are NON-PARTISAN.

FIRST: abolish the current tax code and supplant it with the Fair consumption Tax.

SECOND: Congressional term limits. Two terms for the Senate, four for the House without the ability to start over by changing branch.

THIRD: abolish ALL subsidies PERIOD.

FORTH: abolish the Dept of Agriculture, Education, HHS, energy, HUD, Labor and Transportation.

Anything less is mere window dressing. This isn't a partisan agenda but if you think you can get these kinds of solutions with Democrats or a Marxist panderer like Sanders, you're dumber than a rock.

[Truth Detector]

it's not a talking point... it's the truth. For my money, the ONLY candidate in the GOP clown car that I think has the resume, the maturity, the intellect, and, yes, the gravitas to be an effective president is John Kasich, and he is circling the bottom of the bowl getting ready to follow Scott (the great white hope) Walker down into the sewer. I felt similarly about Jon Huntsman in 2012 and was worried that Obama would have a tough time beating HIM. But, right on cue, the GOP pulled out their collective penis and stepped on it by nominating Mittens. You'll do the same this time.

Which democrat eventually beats the top clown is still undecided, to be sure. But any one of them can do it. Our debates will get high viewership and you will see some significant movement in poll numbers between the democratic candidates in the aftermath. I have three children ranging in age from 40 to 25 and they all report that their friends, acquaintances, and co-workers are much more involved and aware of the 2016 election than at any other time in their adult lives. In their demographic groups, the tried and true GOP social wedge issues such as gay marriage, abortion and pot are truly unimportant and broad majorities of those demographic groups are totally suppportive of gay marriage, a woman's right to choose, and the legalization of marijuana. The clowns will continue to throw red meat at the angry old white GOP base, but that will not be enough to put them in the white house. The longer the clown car stays crowded with clowns, the loonier they all will have to sound in order to be heard above the din of the others... and the more they will alienate the left, the middle and the youth.

The democrats, on the other hand, will debate from very near the middle with only Bernie tugging them slightly to the left. They'll ALL look more reasonable than any of the clowns.

And, when the dust settles and the democrats win yet again, it'll be the media's fault, or it'll be massive (alleged but oddly unproven) voter fraud that did it... there'll always be some excuse the GOP can throw up to explain their chronic underachievement in nationwide elections. Don't forget: in five of the last six presidential elections, more Americans have chosen the democratic candidate than the republican one. Five out of six times... for nearly a quarter of a century.

Coming from a person who voted for Obama, your OPINIONS on Republican candidates are quite meaningless and comedic at best. Yes, you erupt with brain dead talking points when you describe the Republican lineup as a clown car.

Particularly when the Democratic lineup is such a joke. But you cling to that fear and paranoia regarding a government that might adhere to our constitutional principles and end the socialist partisan pandering to low information entitlement minded dullards. It's fun to watch.

[Green Arrow]

Sigh...I hate how "socialism" has been reduced to nothing but a meaningless buzzword.

[maineman]

Coming from a person who voted for Obama, your opinions on Republican candidates are manning less and comedic at best. Yes, you erupt with brain dead talking points when you describe the Republican lineup as a clown car.

Particularly when the Democratic lineup is such a joke. But you cling to that fear and paranoia regarding a government that might adhere to our constitutional principles and end the socialist partisan pandering to low information entitlement minded dullards. It's fun to watch.

how does my opinion start "manning" anything? I am not sure what you meant by that sentence.
Clown car is a very a propos term. People from the middle of the bell curve left use it widely. I watched both GOP debates. I laughed at both of them. I was literally watching a bunch of clowns. But you guys keep nominating them. McCain wasn't a total clown, but he picked a complete clown as his running mate. You'll pick a clown again, to be sure. A clown with three of four debates worth of idiotic sound bites that the DNC can just play unedited over and over again and ask America: is THIS clown really who you want to have his finger on the nuclear trigger????

Five out of six. nearly a quarter of a century.

hahahahahahaha

[Truth Detector]

Sigh...I hate how "socialism" has been reduced to nothing but a meaningless buzzword.

But you're okay with meaningless buzz words like "war on women", "war on gays" and "war on Hispanics?"

[Chris]

Obeying the Constitution? That's your solution to all that is wrong in Washington? Seriously??

Then you wander into your typical and predictable "Republicans are bad" rant? This is your idea of solutions and substance?

You've met my low expectations of you.

Let me give you the run down on what I believe is the solution and one we should all work towards without the partisan sniping because my views are NON-PARTISAN.

FIRST: abolish the current tax code and supplant it with the Fair consumption Tax.

SECOND: Congressional term limits. Two terms for the Senate, four for the House without the ability to start over by changing branch.

THIRD: abolish ALL subsidies PERIOD.

FORTH: abolish the Dept of Agriculture, Education, HHS, energy, HUD, Labor and Transportation.

Anything less is mere window dressing. This isn't a partisan agenda but if you think you can get these kinds of solutions with Democrats or a Marxist panderer like Sanders, you're dumber than a rock.



IOW, obey the Constitution.

[Green Arrow]

But you're okay with meaningless buzz words like "war on women", "war on gays" and "war on Hispanics?"

Nope, I think those are just as stupid as the "war on Christmas."

[OGIS]

....one an outright Marxist...

Curious. Have you actually READ anything by Karl Marx? Anything?

What about Lenin? Trotsky? What about Marcuse?

And have you compared anything that Sanders has said to what Marx said?

I'll wait.

[Truth Detector]

how does my opinion start "manning" anything? I am not sure what you meant by that sentence.
Clown car is a very a propos term. People from the middle of the bell curve left use it widely. I watched both GOP debates. I laughed at both of them. I was literally watching a bunch of clowns. But you guys keep nominating them. McCain wasn't a total clown, but he picked a complete clown as his running mate. You'll pick a clown again, to be sure. A clown with three of four debates worth of idiotic sound bites that the DNC can just play unedited over and over again and ask America: is THIS clown really who you want to have his finger on the nuclear trigger????

Five out of six. nearly a quarter of a century.

hahahahahahaha

Again, the ignorant and substantless prattle from a hyper partisan leftist like yourself regarding Republican candidates is really quite meaningless.

But I'm sure you think your five Lilly white candidates who have garnered very little attention or excitement from the media or otherwise led by a political hack who evaded transparency by having a private server for her work related e-mails risking Government classified information is anything BUT a joke.

It's about as debse as claiming Democrats are going to win the next Presidential election by sticking your head in the sand to avoid reality.

It's almost as dense as claiming Democrats are winning after the shellacking they took in 2010 and again in 2014 or by winning a Presidential election every other eight years resulting in the loss of their grip on Congress.

[Truth Detector]

IOW, obey the Constitution.

Another simplistic assertion; you're quite full of them.

In truth, these solutions are a way to end the corrupting influence of power by professional politicians the low information voters willingly put in power. It has nothing to do with abiding by the Constitution.

How are they not abiding by the Constitution right now? They are elected aren't they? They are passing laws through Constitutional processes aren't they?

What specifically are these politicians doing that is outside of the Constitution?

[maineman]

Again, the ignorant and substantless prattle from a hyper partisan leftist like yourself regarding Republican candidates is really quite meaningless.

But I'm sure you think your five Lilly white candidates who have garnered very little attention or excitement from the media or otherwise led by a political hack who evaded transparency by having a private server for her work related e-mails risking Government classified information is anything BUT a joke.

It's about as debse as claiming Democrats are going to win the next Presidential election by sticking your head in the sand to avoid reality.

It's almost as dense as claiming Democrats are winning after the shellacking they took in 2010 and again in 2014 or by winning a Presidential election every other eight years resulting in the loss of their grip on Congress.

there ya go again. comparing regional elections to national elections. Hey.... the GOP is obviously good at winning regional elections. They win state legislatures, and then they draw the lines for congressional districts and they win them. I have NEVER disputed the GOP's skills at that level.

FIVE OUT OF THE LAST SIX PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS!

More Americans voted for the democrat. A quarter of a century.

What will you do differently in 2016 to change that trend?

[Captain Obvious]

Mitt was the smartest most successful man to run in our lifetimes. Is there something specific you felt he was lacking with regards to the necessary experience to be Potus; or is this just the typical you parroting the idiot leftist talking points you've gullibly been fed??

Who did you vote for in the last two presidential elections?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NPuccvF_p3o

[Peter1469]

FIRST: abolish the current tax code and supplant it with the Fair consumption Tax.

SECOND: Congressional term limits. Two terms for the Senate, four for the House without the ability to start over by changing branch.

THIRD: abolish ALL subsidies PERIOD.

FORTH: abolish the Dept of Agriculture, Education, HHS, energy, HUD, Labor and Transportation.

Anything less is mere window dressing. This isn't a partisan agenda but if you think you can get these kinds of solutions with Democrats or a Marxist panderer like Sanders, you're dumber than a rock.

Regarding #2, I would be in favor of congressmen term limited from the House or the Senate to be able to run for the other house. It could create a group of people with good experience for the White House.

[OGIS]

LMAO; as if your rhetorical bloviations were substantive. SERIOUSLY??? LMAO

Do you even know how to make a post without resorting to ad hom?

[OGIS]

I would rather him kill some jobs than kill millions of innocent people overseas, like your hero Bush did.

The jobs are going away no matter what. Automation and robotics will have us at a permanent 35% national unemployment rate by 2025. And education - being linear - cannot keep up with exponential technology. Except for a small minority, retraining education is a will-o-the-whisp. THAT is the 900 lb gorilla in the room that everyone is ignoring.

[OGIS]

it's not a talking point... it's the truth. For my money, the ONLY candidate in the GOP clown car that I think has the resume, the maturity, the intellect, and, yes, the gravitas to be an effective president is John Kasich, and he is circling the bottom of the bowl getting ready to follow Scott (the great white hope) Walker down into the sewer. I felt similarly about Jon Huntsman in 2012 and was worried that Obama would have a tough time beating HIM. But, right on cue, the GOP pulled out their collective penis and stepped on it by nominating Mittens. You'll do the same this time.

Which democrat eventually beats the top clown is still undecided, to be sure. But any one of them can do it. Our debates will get high viewership and you will see some significant movement in poll numbers between the democratic candidates in the aftermath. I have three children ranging in age from 40 to 25 and they all report that their friends, acquaintances, and co-workers are much more involved and aware of the 2016 election than at any other time in their adult lives. In their demographic groups, the tried and true GOP social wedge issues such as gay marriage, abortion and pot are truly unimportant and broad majorities of those demographic groups are totally suppportive of gay marriage, a woman's right to choose, and the legalization of marijuana. The clowns will continue to throw red meat at the angry old white GOP base, but that will not be enough to put them in the white house. The longer the clown car stays crowded with clowns, the loonier they all will have to sound in order to be heard above the din of the others... and the more they will alienate the left, the middle and the youth.

The democrats, on the other hand, will debate from very near the middle with only Bernie tugging them slightly to the left. They'll ALL look more reasonable than any of the clowns.

And, when the dust settles and the democrats win yet again, it'll be the media's fault, or it'll be massive (alleged but oddly unproven) voter fraud that did it... there'll always be some excuse the GOP can throw up to explain their chronic underachievement in nationwide elections. Don't forget: in five of the last six presidential elections, more Americans have chosen the democratic candidate than the republican one. Five out of six times... for nearly a quarter of a century.


Excellent analysis.

[OGIS]

how does my opinion start "manning" anything? I am not sure what you meant by that sentence.
Clown car is a very a propos term. People from the middle of the bell curve left use it widely. I watched both GOP debates. I laughed at both of them. I was literally watching a bunch of clowns. But you guys keep nominating them. McCain wasn't a total clown, but he picked a complete clown as his running mate. You'll pick a clown again, to be sure. A clown with three of four debates worth of idiotic sound bites that the DNC can just play unedited over and over again and ask America: is THIS clown really who you want to have his finger on the nuclear trigger????

Five out of six. nearly a quarter of a century.

hahahahahahaha

The problem for the Republicans is that they have had, for that quarter century, a "split personality" platform. On the one hand the say they support individual freedoms. But on the other hand they support Big Government intrusions against, for example, drug use. The Republican Party got weak when Goldwater got soundly trounced. Reagan tried to reinvigorate them, but in the process opened the door the the evangelicals (Dominionism and its fellow travelers) and the corporate fascists (who mostly disguise themselves as "free market" and "libertarian" types).

The Democrats have been, fairly consistently, proponents of Big Government and, yes, more "socialistic" redistribution measures (while also feeding at the corporate trough). But perception is all.

The American voter sees the fatal dichotomy in the Republicans and continues to reject them. I'm pretty sure this will again happen in 2016.

Hillary, though, suffers from much the same disease as the Republicans.

It is quite possible that the Republican Party will eventually go bye-bye, to be replaced by an actual Small Government libertarian party.

[Private Pickle]

The problem for the Republicans is that they have had, for that quarter century, a "split personality" platform. On the one hand the say they support individual freedoms. But on the other hand they support Big Government intrusions against, for example, drug use. The Republican Party got weak when Goldwater got soundly trounced. Reagan tried to reinvigorate them, but in the process opened the door the the evangelicals (Dominionism and its fellow travelers) and the corporate fascists (who mostly disguise themselves as "free market" and "libertarian" types).

The Democrats have been, fairly consistently, proponents of Big Government and, yes, more "socialistic" redistribution measures (while also feeding at the corporate trough). But perception is all.

The American voter sees the fatal dichotomy in the Republicans and continues to reject them. I'm pretty sure this will again happen in 2016.

Hillary, though, suffers from much the same disease as the Republicans.

It is quite possible that the Republican Party will eventually go bye-bye, to be replaced by an actual Small Government libertarian party.

The dichotemy within the GOP that you speak of is a conflict of morals vs. rights. They tend to put their moral value above that of the rights of the individual...such as drugs...

A good example is Ben Carson and his recent statement about a Muslim president. Combine that with his statements relating to Kim Davis and the requirement to make a concession.

[Chris]

Another simplistic assertion; you're quite full of them.

In truth, these solutions are a way to end the corrupting influence of power by professional politicians the low information voters willingly put in power. It has nothing to do with abiding by the Constitution.

How are they not abiding by the Constitution right now? They are elected aren't they? They are passing laws through Constitutional processes aren't they?

What specifically are these politicians doing that is outside of the Constitution?


It was a summary of your points. So your criticism applies to what you posted. So I'm sure you can answer your own questions.

[Truth Detector]

Do you even know how to make a post without resorting to ad hom?

Do you know how to make one that isn't whining or selective outrage?

[Professor Peabody]

what does that have to do with your tap-dancing about 2010 and 2014? what the $#@! was THAT all about?

I highly doubt your educated enough to understand.

[Professor Peabody]

One of the reasons he "skated" were the idiots you ran against him

I can't argue with that.

[Professor Peabody]

And what makes you think any of the current crop of Republicans is?

What a sad and sorry field Democrats have to choose from. You have "Mrs. Vast Right Wing Conspiracy", Bernie the Socialist and Biden the "History Major".

[Truth Detector]

The problem for the Republicans is that they have had, for that quarter century, a "split personality" platform. On the one hand the say they support individual freedoms. But on the other hand they support Big Government intrusions against, for example, drug use. The Republican Party got weak when Goldwater got soundly trounced. Reagan tried to reinvigorate them, but in the process opened the door the the evangelicals (Dominionism and its fellow travelers) and the corporate fascists (who mostly disguise themselves as "free market" and "libertarian" types).

The Democrats have been, fairly consistently, proponents of Big Government and, yes, more "socialistic" redistribution measures (while also feeding at the corporate trough). But perception is all.

The American voter sees the fatal dichotomy in the Republicans and continues to reject them. I'm pretty sure this will again happen in 2016.

Hillary, though, suffers from much the same disease as the Republicans.

It is quite possible that the Republican Party will eventually go bye-bye, to be replaced by an actual Small Government libertarian party.

Pegged it.
http://i375.photobucket.com/albums/oo194/TheCuteWoofer/Smilies/Weird/bsmeter.gif

[Truth Detector]

It was a summary of your points. So your criticism applies to what you posted. So I'm sure you can answer your own questions.

No it wasn't; keep trying.....I love the smell of desperation in the morning.

[Truth Detector]

Curious. Have you actually READ anything by Karl Marx? Anything?

What about Lenin? Trotsky? What about Marcuse?

And have you compared anything that Sanders has said to what Marx said?

I'll wait.

Have you? Please educate me on what Marxism is all about if not the corrupting influence of BIG Government run by men who arrogantly believe that only THEY know what is best for everyone else on the lie that it is for our own good and equality.

Equality is the arguement of idiots. Equal pay is the argument of idiots. Not comprehending the true nature of what it is to be human and recognizing that after all of Human history, our grand form of Democracy continues to outshine the rest under the theory of limited Government and maximum liberty.

Yeah, in idiot land, Bernie is nothing more than a moderate just trying to do the right thing for the poor.

[Truth Detector]

there ya go again. comparing regional elections to national elections. Hey.... the GOP is obviously good at winning regional elections. They win state legislatures, and then they draw the lines for congressional districts and they win them. I have NEVER disputed the GOP's skills at that level.

How can you; they are a fact.


FIVE OUT OF THE LAST SIX PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS!

That’s some damn funny buffoonery; I love how Liberals only want to go back to Clinton to declare they are winning. Do you have any idea how painfully stupid that looks? Probably not or your wouldn’t have erupted with it.

Since 1953, Republicans have controlled the Presidency for about nine terms; for Democrats for about six terms. In other words, 36 years of Republican Control over the White House versus 29 years.

So spare me the idiotic FIVE out of the last SIX.


More Americans voted for the democrat. A quarter of a century.

Yet, the Congress, which was dominated by Democrats since 1940 and for about 54 years has evaporated to the point where they have only controlled the Congress for only FOUR of the last TWENTY TWO years.

Yet dullards on the left still think they are winning?


What will you do differently in 2016 to change that trend?

I am amazed that you think Republicans need to do anything differently. The Democrat party is in disarray and losing elections by wide margins, they can only give their voters four lily white candidates, none of which are very energetic or charismatic and NO one is even given them the slightest look while the Republican Party dominates the headlines and provides media outlets with their largest viewing audiences in history.

The reason is simple; Democrats are done and they know it. All they can do is stand on the sidelines, watch with embarrassment as their President continues removing any doubt he is a moron and throw mud at anyone who disagrees with them because their message is stale, tired, old and based on a lie.

I would not have said this two months ago, but I feel confident watching the current trend to say this: there will NOT be a Democrat in the White House in 2017.

But you keep thinking your party is winning; that’s a HOOT!!

[Peter1469]

The jobs are going away no matter what. Automation and robotics will have us at a permanent 35% national unemployment rate by 2025. And education - being linear - cannot keep up with exponential technology. Except for a small minority, retraining education is a will-o-the-whisp. THAT is the 900 lb gorilla in the room that everyone is ignoring.

I doubt robots will displace so many people in that time frame. When I say displace, I mean people will find other sorts of jobs in the areas robots dominate.

[OGIS]

The dichotemy within the GOP that you speak of is a conflict of morals vs. rights. They tend to put their moral value above that of the rights of the individual...such as drugs...

A good example is Ben Carson and his recent statement about a Muslim president. Combine that with his statements relating to Kim Davis and the requirement to make a concession.

Good points.

[Private Pickle]

Good points.

It's a problem for them because the newer generations are being raised in more secular environments. I believe that trend has reversed itself since 9-11 or at least slowed down. That in part is the legitimization of Islam as a religion of peace by the U.S. Government while watching Islamists blow up shit and kill massive amounts of people on a daily basis. It becomes an "Us vs. Them" scenario.

Interesting to watch really...

[PolWatch]

If anyone wonders where Cruz would fall on financial issues....just ask his wife....the VP at Goldman Sachs.

[Truth Detector]

If anyone wonders where Cruz would fall on financial issues....just ask his wife....the VP at Goldman Sachs.

Is there a point here? Why not ask Cruz? He has never been obtuse or shy about expressing his views....unlike Hillary who can't be honest about an e-mail server.

[OGIS]

I doubt robots will displace so many people in that time frame. When I say displace, I mean people will find other sorts of jobs in the areas robots dominate.

Once again: education is linear; technology is exponential.

Now it has always been that way, but the GAP between the two is much, much wider now that it was 200, 100, or even 10 years ago.

This is new territory we are entering.

http://www.techtimes.com/articles/41932/20150324/robots-replace-half-jobs-20-years.htm

http://www.rawstory.com/2015/03/robots-could-replace-half-of-all-us-workers-by-2035/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GPaf9YGz6Es

[Peter1469]

Once again: education is linear; technology is exponential.

Now it has always been that way, but the GAP between the two is much, much wider now that it was 200, 100, or even 10 years ago.

This is new territory we are entering.

http://www.techtimes.com/articles/41932/20150324/robots-replace-half-jobs-20-years.htm

http://www.rawstory.com/2015/03/robots-could-replace-half-of-all-us-workers-by-2035/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GPaf9YGz6Es

I posted counter points as well.

[Professor Peabody]

If anyone wonders where Cruz would fall on financial issues....just ask his wife....the VP at Goldman Sachs.


Goldman Sachs Personnel in the Barack Obama White House Lael Brainard: Brainard is the United States Under Secretary of the Treasury for International Affairs in the administration of Obama.
Gregory Craig: Former White House Counsel, Recently hired by Goldman Sachs.
Thomas Donilon: Deputy National Security Adviser (despite having a career that is mostly involved with domestic politics). Donilon was a lawyer at O’Melveny and Myers and made almost $4 million representing meltdown clients including Penny Pritzker (of Chicago) and Goldman Sachs.
William C. Dudley: President and Chief Executive Officer of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, partner and managing director at Goldman Sachs and was the firm’s chief U.S. economist for a decade.
Douglas Elmendorf: Obama Director of the Congressional Budget Office in January 2009, replaced Furman as Director of the Hamilton Project (Note that the Hamilton Project was funded by Robert Rubin and Goldman Sachs).

Rahm Emanuel: Obama Chief of Staff, on the payroll of Goldman Sachs receiving $3,000 per month from the firm to “introduce us to people", in the words of one Goldman Sachs partner at the time.
Dianna Farrell: Obama Administration: Deputy Director, National Economic Council. Former Goldman Sachs Title: Financial Analyst.
Stephen Friedman: Obama Administration: Chairman, President’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board. Former Goldman Sachs Title: Board Member (Chairman 1990-94; Director 2005).
Michael Frohman: Robert Rubin’s Chief of Staff while Rubin served as Secretary of the Treasury and an Obama “head hunter” according to “Rubin Proteges Change Their Tune as They Join Obama’s Team” in the New York Times.
Anne Fudge: Appointed to Obama budget deficit reduction committee. Fudge has been the PR craftsman for some of America’s largest corporations. She sits, according to the Washington Post, as a Trustee of the Brookings Institution within which the Hamilton Project is embedded.
Jason Furman: Directed economic policy for the Obama Presidential Campaign, served as the second Director of the Hamilton Project after Peter Orszag’s departure for the Obama administration.
Mark Gallogly: Sits on the Hamilton Project’s advisory council. He is also, according to Wikipedia, currently a member of President Obama’s Economic Recovery Advisory Board.
Timothy Geithner: Secretary of the Treasury, former President of the New York Fed. a former managing director of Goldman Sachs.
Gary Gensler: Obama Administration: Commissioner of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. Former Goldman Sachs Title: Partner and Co-head of Finance.
Michael Greenstone: The 4th Director of the Hamilton Project. Just as attorney Craig went from advising Obama to defending Goldman Sachs against the SEC complaint, Greenstone has used the revolving door to go from an Obama economic adviser position to one of the Goldman Sachs outlets - in this case its think tank embedded in the Brookings Institution and funded by Goldman Sachs and Robert Rubin. All 3 previous Directors of the Hamilton Project work in the Obama administration.
Robert Hormats: Obama Administration: Undersecretary for Economic, Energy and Agricultural Affairs, State Department. Former Goldman Sachs Title: Vice Chairman, Goldman Sachs Group.
Neel Kashkari: Served under Treasury Secretary Paulson (a former Goldman Sachs CEO) and was kept on by Obama after his inauguration for a limited period to work on TARP oversight. Former Vice President of Goldman Sachs in San Francisco where he led Goldman’s Information Technology Security Investment Banking practice.
Karen Kornbluh: (Sometimes called "Obama’s brain") Obama Ambassador to the OECD. Was Deputy Chief of Staff to 'Mr. Goldman Sachs', Robert Rubin.
Jacob "Jack" Lew: The United States Deputy Secretary of State for Management and Resources. According to Wikipedia, Lew sits on the Brookings-Rubin funded Hamilton Project Advisory Board. He also served with Robert Rubin in Bill Clinton’s cabinet as Director of OMB.

http://www.whiteoutpress.com/articles/q42012/list-of-goldman-sachs-employees-in-the-white-house/


We know where Obama stands.

[gamewell45]

The difference is the opposition has to have an electable candidate, McCain wasn't it.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/ab/ElectoralCollege1984.svg/524px-ElectoralCollege1984.svg.png

It would appear that the Republican's at that time didn't agree with your viewpoint.

[maineman]

I highly doubt your educated enough to understand.

I'll match my CV against yours any time. Wanna put some money on it, douchebag?

[maineman]

Have you? Please educate me on what Marxism is all about if not the corrupting influence of BIG Government run by men who arrogantly believe that only THEY know what is best for everyone else on the lie that it is for our own good and equality.

Equality is the arguement of idiots. Equal pay is the argument of idiots. Not comprehending the true nature of what it is to be human and recognizing that after all of Human history, our grand form of Democracy continues to outshine the rest under the theory of limited Government and maximum liberty.

Yeah, in idiot land, Bernie is nothing more than a moderate just trying to do the right thing for the poor.

so... you haven't read anything by Marx.... why not just admit it instead of your usual tapdancing?

[maineman]

How can you; they are a fact.



That’s some damn funny buffoonery; I love how Liberals only want to go back to Clinton to declare they are winning. Do you have any idea how painfully stupid that looks? Probably not or your wouldn’t have erupted with it.

Since 1953, Republicans have controlled the Presidency for about nine terms; for Democrats for about six terms. In other words, 36 years of Republican Control over the White House versus 29 years.

So spare me the idiotic FIVE out of the last SIX.



Yet, the Congress, which was dominated by Democrats since 1940 and for about 54 years has evaporated to the point where they have only controlled the Congress for only FOUR of the last TWENTY TWO years.

Yet dullards on the left still think they are winning?



I am amazed that you think Republicans need to do anything differently. The Democrat party is in disarray and losing elections by wide margins, they can only give their voters four lily white candidates, none of which are very energetic or charismatic and NO one is even given them the slightest look while the Republican Party dominates the headlines and provides media outlets with their largest viewing audiences in history.

The reason is simple; Democrats are done and they know it. All they can do is stand on the sidelines, watch with embarrassment as their President continues removing any doubt he is a moron and throw mud at anyone who disagrees with them because their message is stale, tired, old and based on a lie.

I would not have said this two months ago, but I feel confident watching the current trend to say this: there will NOT be a Democrat in the White House in 2017.

But you keep thinking your party is winning; that’s a HOOT!!

the republicans have lost the voting public in five of the last six elections. That is a fact. If you think one in six is a good trend for your side, well, that is the only thing I think we can agree on. What do you intend to do to reverse that trend in 2016? Run another Mittens/McCain clone? I certainly hope so.

[OGIS]

We know where Obama stands.

Your point? Most of the libs here know this. And don't like it. So your post is sort of like a "me too"?

[Professor Peabody]

It would appear that the Republican's at that time didn't agree with your viewpoint.

I was comparing Sanders to Mondale, I wasn't very clear.

[OGIS]

If anyone wonders where Cruz would fall on financial issues....just ask his wife....the VP at Goldman Sachs.

Whoa. No conflict of interest there, nosireebob. Nope nope nope.

BTW, anyone remember that Biden's thankfully deceased crotchfruit, Beau Biden, worked for a major credit card processing firm? And the Biden was instrumental in getting the new bankruptcy law passed? You know, that "reform" that totally farked over every damned consumer in the country? One of those interesting coincidences, I am sure.

[Professor Peabody]

I'll match my CV against yours any time. Wanna put some money on it, douchebag?

Calm down Beau Brummel.

[Professor Peabody]

Your point? Most of the libs here know this. And don't like it. So your post is sort of like a "me too"?

Yea I know, it's just so entertaining to rub it in.

[maineman]

Calm down Beau Brummel.

you're obviously all hat and no cattle. :yawn:

[OGIS]

....

[OGIS]

Have you?

Yep. Lots.

Lots of differences to Sanders.

And no, I'm not gonna take the time to try and educate you, Truth Deflector, since you are, IMHO, uneducatable. You regurgitate talking points and excel at bush league, sandbox level name calling that a five year old would be ashamed to be associated with. You are a pathetic, emotionally-stunted attention wh0re who whips off "drive-by" posts with the accuracy of a trembling syphilitic Mexican gangbanger cross-eyed on an overdose of crack. Your posts are actually so ignorant and so grotesque that I would have pegged you as one of those paid false-flag trolls that Official DNC Wh0re Lil' Debbie Wasserman hires to try and make conservatives look stupider than they actually are. But those people all appear to be both smarter and cleverer than you.

So now you are on my ignore list. Good day, sir.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qc7jblpaPdM