US Presidential Contenders

[Buster's Uncle]

Schooling von is, obviously, not going to happen overnight

Heh. Thats funny I'm thinking the same thing about most of the people here.

If I am reading the context behind this post correctly, than Vonboch is calling most of us undereducated   .

He's calling us hopelessly naïve - I should think he's educated enough to know educated when he sees it.

[vonbach]

He's calling us hopelessly naïve - I should think he's educated enough to know educated when he sees it.

Correct. As far as education goes have you heard the term garbage in garbage out?
Its a reference to computers but it works with people too. Our universities are so
hopelessly PC and openly marxist that they are worthless.

As far as [Sleezebag] goes I don't like him. If he shuts the borders down and throws the illegals back over the border
its a start. Buts its not even about him winning. Its about making all these pathetic whining cuckservatives
traitors look like just what they are to the Republican base.

[Buster's Uncle]

cuckservatives

Time to stop using this term.

[Rusty Edge]

Dr. BEN CARSON

He seems to have impressed a lot of people at the debate, me included. His website is nice to look at, but kind of shallow on issues. Before I address that, let me say that he has a rather impressive resume and life story. How many people have movies made about them while they are still alive?  Or hold 67 honorary doctorate degrees?

https://www.bencarson.com/meet-ben/

As for the issues, he cites 10 topics-

*Protecting Innocent Life
*Balanced Budget Amendment
*Education
*Keep Gitmo Open
*Health Care
*Keep Faith in Our Society
*Russia and Lessons Learned
*Protect the Second Amendment
*Stand by Israel, Our Bulwark Middle East Ally
*The American People Deserve a Better Tax Code

Keep Gitmo Open ( the details )
"We must keep our detention facility at Gitmo open.
Radical terrorists captured in countries all over the world must be detained safely while awaiting trial by military commission. Gitmo is, by far, the single best facility for this dangerous job.

Keeping Gitmo open is a critical element in our never-ending efforts to keep the American people safe from another cataclysmic terrorist attack"


Granted, any Republican who doesn't kiss the rings of Israel and the NRA is going to get a target on their back when they poll in double digits. Just once I would like to hear a man of faith running for office say something like Israel is under the protection of The Lord God Almighty, and it is beyond America's ability to add to that. [/END TANGENT]

[Rusty Edge]

*Gov. Rick Perry stopped paying his office people in some states, according to NBC nightly news.
Hopefully he'll face facts and endorse somebody soon, rather than wither until he passes away quietly in the night.

* I'm still waiting for the post-debate  FOX poll as regards the wager.

* Interestingly, among Iowans who watched the debate, [Sleezebag] has fallen to even with Walker. Walker is strong there because he's a next door neighbor. If that were a national poll, I'd say [Sleezebag] lost his lead, therefore he lost big.

* [Sleezebag] and his misogynistic comments play right into the Democratic propaganda meme "The War on Women". The lack of condemnation on the part of Republicans, and the polls that say more Republicans agree with [Sleezebag] about it all being "political correctness" than disagree with his remarks, don't bode well for Republican White House aspirations. Maybe they haven't noticed, but voting age women outnumber voting age men, and that whole "rape pregnancies are a gift from God" reasoning didn't work last time.  I guess they would rather flip off the women than sit in the White House. Is that what you call standing on principal, or is it more cutting off your nose to spite your face?

* Today I was contemplating personal background with regard to political qualification, particularly marriage. I was thinking that marriage was a pretty good test of conflict resolution skills. Compromise, consensus building, taking turns ( it's called quid pro quo in politics ), etc. It's also a test of character- honesty, keeping promises, fairness, team work, diligence, etc.  I contemplated a few politicians and then I considered [Sleezebag], who has been twice divorced. That says to me that in his case, two people have essentially said that once they got to know the guy, they wouldn't stay married to him for a billion dollars.

What does that say about his character and conflict resolution skills?

[Trenacker]

The winners of last Thursday night’s debate were Kasich, Christie, and Rubio, in that order. All managed to look and sound as if they belonged on that stage. The one to benefit most was Kasich, who otherwise would never have escaped obscurity. The irony is that despite putting in a terrific performance that affirms the excellence of whatever consultants or advisers prepped them for the evening, none of that will matter because none of them have deep enough pockets. Christie and Kasich are incapable of attracting enough support from the Tea Party wing, nevermind Christie’s Bridgegate liability and Kasich’s tendency to harangue bundlers.

Some are calling Carson a winner for certain statements that he made, but, like Huckabee, he simply put in a respectable showing, all things considered. Carson’s favorable may have increased, but the number of people prepared to vote for him will remain very low overall. Huckabee won’t be able to outrun his own conservatism. Ted Cruz is as awkward as Bush, with none of the deep-pocketed support.

The clear losers of the debate were Donald [Sleezebag] and Rand Paul. Even if one believes that Fox News was gunning for [Sleezebag] – and I don’t think the questions posed to him were especially unfair – he still fumbled easy returns. Rather than a trap, the opening question of the night is better seen as a set-up. [Sleezebag] should have been coached by his advisers to state the obvious: nobody has any business endorsing a candidate sight-unseen, and if you expect him to back an unnamed candidate just because of their party label, well, that’s the problem right there! The winning reply to the question on bankruptcy law was less obvious, but I’ve heard it before: it should be the business of every American to know the law, and to act accordingly. In short, “I’m not rich because I break the law – I’m rich because I know the law.” Instead, he whined about his creditors, as if their greed is somehow less objectionable than theirs’.

The other big loser? Rand Paul. He managed to look like the  fringe candidate he is.

[Sleezebag]’s job was to look presidential. He needed to play the part of the adult in the room. Instead, he behaved like the narcissistic bully his critics already knew him to be. He left with a very minor bump, but ultimately isn’t going to be able to go the distance because of his very high negatives.

[Sleezebag]’s appeal is simple. His supporters ignore, or even defend, his offensive behavior because they feel an affinity toward him. The far right wing of the Republican Party is now so tired and resentful of being told that their social viewpoint – their Truth -- is “offensive” that they mistake Donald [Sleezebag] for a truth-teller because he is subject to the same condemnations. [Sleezebag] also appeals to all those who, in Peter Beinart’s words, mistake politics for emotional vindication. They’ve concluded that what the Obama administration lacks is heart. This is why they know that the Secretary of State, although supported by dozens of aides and thousands of staff, was fleeced by the Iranians. [Sleezebag] has correctly been labeled the first “post-issues” candidate. His supporters want to hear and feel truth; they no longer trust when they are “told” truth.
[Sleezebag]’s selection of “policy” proposals is laughable, and he’s the only candidate without a platform on his campaign webpage. Build a wall along the border with Mexico? Okay. Who’s going to pay for it? [Sleezebag]’s supporters cite his experience building resort properties. Great. He knows how to close a real estate deal. Can he tell us what he is going to do where the terrain is unsuitable for a wall, as if often is on the southern border? How much money can we expect to spend manning the wall at a time of financial austerity? The Border Patrol has doubled in size in recent years, and there are still too few of them by far. Is he going to lay mines? What happens when the first child is blown up? Does he really expect his policy to survive the media circus?

Seize Iraqi oil wells, but insist that it wouldn’t mean occupation? That’s a pipe dream. The nation proved unwilling to go the distance in Iraq. The Surge was a tourniquet: it was tactically impressive, but ultimately failed to bring about the desired strategic objective, which was political reconciliation between Iraqis of different sectarian allegiances. Now, [Sleezebag] is going to reverse course and take us back to war? Give me a break.

We, the People, also have a nasty habit of conflating material riches with fitness to govern even though many smart, wealthy people are temperamentally unsuited to statecraft (I’m thinking of you, Steve Jobs) and also many wealthy people who inherited either all of their fortune or enough of it to get them started (that’s Donald).

Let me also talk a bit about the Iran deal. It’s not a “good” deal in the general sense of that term. We do come to the table from a place of weakness. We lost credibility when we failed to enforce our own red line in Syria. We lost credibility when we demonstrated that we weren’t willing to stick it out in Iraq. We lost credibility when we declined to punish Iran for killing our soldiers in Iraq. And we’ve lost leverage simply because we are facing severe cut-backs at home just to keep ourselves from going broke. We’re not as powerful as we used to be.

But that doesn’t mean that this deal isn’t preferable to a war of unspecified duration, without clear long-term objectives. I’m not morally or philosophically opposed to another war, but I do demand that somebody lay down a very clear plan, explaining what we ought to do if sabre rattling fails – which it had for the ten years prior to this deal. Do we bomb Iran’s nuclear infrastructure? Great. By some credible estimates, we could set them back years with a commitment of only 60 aircraft. But then what? Do we bomb on a regular schedule? What if Iran escalates by provoking Hezbollah into attacking Israel? What if they escalate by raising havoc in Syria or Iraq or Yemen? What if the Russians and Chinese sell them sophisticated air defense systems? What is the probability that once we bomb, we push moderates into committing fully to a bomb down the road? I want at least half-answers to those questions before I commit.

[Rusty Edge]

[Sleezebag]’s job was to look presidential. He needed to play the part of the adult in the room. Instead, he behaved like the narcissistic bully his critics already knew him to be. He left with a very minor bump, but ultimately isn’t going to be able to go the distance because of his very high negatives.

[Sleezebag]’s appeal is simple. His supporters ignore, or even defend, his offensive behavior because they feel an affinity toward him. The far right wing of the Republican Party is now so tired and resentful of being told that their social viewpoint – their Truth -- is “offensive” that they mistake Donald [Sleezebag] for a truth-teller because he is subject to the same condemnations. [Sleezebag] also appeals to all those who, in Peter Beinart’s words, mistake politics for emotional vindication. They’ve concluded that what the Obama administration lacks is heart. This is why they know that the Secretary of State, although supported by dozens of aides and thousands of staff, was fleeced by the Iranians. [Sleezebag] has correctly been labeled the first “post-issues” candidate. His supporters want to hear and feel truth; they no longer trust when they are “told” truth.

We, the People, also have a nasty habit of conflating material riches with fitness to govern even though many smart, wealthy people are temperamentally unsuited to statecraft (I’m thinking of you, Steve Jobs) and also many wealthy people who inherited either all of their fortune or enough of it to get them started (that’s Donald).

I thought that was rather perceptive and eloquent.

Oh, I heard today that [Sleezebag] will make Mexico pay for the wall, but he didn't say how.

[Trenacker]

Thanks! I appreciate the compliment very much!

[vonbach]

cuckservatives
Time to stop using this term.

Why its accurate. They look after every interest other than that of their base. Cuckoldry.

Build a wall along the border with Mexico? Okay. Who’s going to pay for it?

It would be cheaper than paying welfare to 30 million plus illegal immigrants. It wouldn't be that hard to build either. Make the Democrats pay for it they are the one trying to import a permanent Democratic voting bloc.

* [Sleezebag] and his misogynistic comments play right into the Democratic propaganda meme "The War on Women". The lack of condemnation on the part of Republicans, and the polls that say more Republicans agree with [Sleezebag] about it all being "political correctness" than disagree with his remarks, don't bode well for Republican White House aspirations.

Kowtowing to SJW bullies doesn't work. They're never satisfied and will never be satisfied with anything you do.
Caving in to bullies doesn't work it, just makes them bolder. [Sleezebag] is treating them the way they deserve.
You cant out leftist a leftist.

[Buster's Uncle]

This is political babytalk, von.  This is that failure of the Reagan revolution - simple answers for a complex world and insults substituting for discourse.  Contempt breeds contempt.

[BU Admin]

cuckservatives
Time to stop using this term.

Why its accurate. They look after every interest other than that of their base. Cuckoldry.

1.) Because it's just annoying.
2.) It looks, at least superficially, like you're trying to say something dirty, and I'm trying to run and clean place.
3.) It couldn't be less true.
4.) It was the Cheney administration that looked after every interest other than that of their base.
5.) for reasons 1 and 2, the owner says so.

[Buster's Uncle]

Following on the ideological part, Senator Lindsey Graham (R. SC) closeted/in denial homosexual and definitely no RINO, said, IIRC, the day after the 2012 elections:  "We didn't loose this because we weren't hard-ass enough."

-Perhaps you think Mr. Warhawk-and-Limit-Free-Speech isn't "hard-ass enough", von...

[Rusty Edge]

* [Sleezebag] and his misogynistic comments play right into the Democratic propaganda meme "The War on Women". The lack of condemnation on the part of Republicans, and the polls that say more Republicans agree with [Sleezebag] about it all being "political correctness" than disagree with his remarks, don't bode well for Republican White House aspirations.

Kowtowing to SJW bullies doesn't work. They're never satisfied and will never be satisfied with anything you do.
Caving in to bullies doesn't work it, just makes them bolder. [Sleezebag] is treating them the way they deserve.

You cant out leftist a leftist.

You can't please everyone, and some will never be satisfied, that's true.

Politics is about choices in the face of realities- such as demographics. Sometimes the choice is between standing on a principal and being left out in the cold (As a Libertarian I can respect and relate to that.) vs. bending/compromising/accommodating/horse trading to get elected and to get something done. A choice between whining and doing something about it.

As long as the Republicans embrace the "Cultural Conservatives" and their rhetoric, they will be trapped on the end of Pennsylvania Ave. that doesn't appoint Supreme Court Justices. That's also true.

I think treating others the way I wish to be treated is a better starting point than treating them the way I think they deserve to be treated. You know. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you"- Jesus "As I would not be a slave, neither would I be a slaveholder."- Abraham Lincoln.
“You can make more friends in two months by becoming interested in other people than you can in two years by trying to get other people interested in you.” -Dale Carnegie

Sometimes a term becomes an insult, so a new term takes it's place. A lot of times, it's much the same as a peer who tells you that they no longer wish to be known by their old nickname. After all, who would want to offend a stranger for no reason? You don't want them to do it to you. It's called tact.  Dismissing a predictable reaction offhand with the term "political correctness," rather than first seeking to understand the indignity or offering an apology doesn't win friends or influence people.

Me, I don't want the government to tell me who I can or can't marry, so I don't want it doing that to anybody else. I don't even want the camel to get it's nose in the tent.

Me, I don't want some celibate bachelor in a pipsqueak country dictating what kind of birth control I'm allowed to use. So, I often pray for God to guide the Pope, because so many people are counting on him to know what he is talking about.

Really, I don't think women want a bunch of old men dictating to them what kind of birth control they can or can't use, because it's a personal matter in which these fellows have no personal stake or experience.  Do you?

[Trenacker]

It would be cheaper than paying welfare to 30 million plus illegal immigrants. It wouldn't be that hard to build either. Make the Democrats pay for it they are the one trying to import a permanent Democratic voting bloc.

Illegal immigrants do not receive welfare to the extent you imply -- even when we think of welfare in very broad terms. In Texas, for example, illegal immigrants contribute more in labor value than they consume in services.

Yes, the wall would be incredibly hard to build. It would be hard enough to build only a network of sensors, let alone police them. Our southern border spans not only flat desert but mountains and watercourses that aren't susceptible to linear construction.

"Import a permanent Democratic voting bloc?" Leaving aside the fact that illegal immigrants can't vote (and no, voter fraud isn't a major aspect of elections in the U.S. today), by denigrating others as blind stooges of another political party, you're sending a very simple, straightforward, self-defeating message: "Choose the other guy. Me, I'm not interested in learning about you beyond caricature."

Kowtowing to SJW bullies doesn't work. They're never satisfied and will never be satisfied with anything you do.
Caving in to bullies doesn't work it, just makes them bolder. [Sleezebag] is treating them the way they deserve.
You cant out leftist a leftist.

It isn't "Social Justice Warfare" to ask [Sleezebag] to explain his ugly comments and penchant for bullying anymore than it is "Social Justice Warfare" to ask Hillary to turn over her private e-mail server.

[Sleezebag] wasn't being bullied. He was being challenged for statements that he'd made. [Sleezebag] is simply playing to a crowd that is already primed to see conspiracy in every corner. Alienation from power tends to breed unrealistic perceptions of that same power.

[Buster's Uncle]

SO vote for the billionaire!