Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
I am an angry conservative, and I can see there is a similar outrage being manifested on the other side as well. Voters of both political ilk are showing real disdain for their respective establishment leaders. Frankly, I will not vote for any candidate, but rather most certainly against either Clinton or Cruz...NO C's for me. And there just might be a way to keep both the awful C's out.
If the republicans disregard the clear choice candidate per the primaries they will definitely lose in November. Voters like me, and especially those who actually ballyhoo Trump for president wIll refuse to vote for anybody but Trump. We will either not vote, perhaps childishly cut off our nose and vote for the Dem, or (this is my preference) support a Third party run by the Trumpster. Remember, I am no Trumpite, but I am sick of the worn out joke of a party, the Gop. As a note- I would discourage anyone from being loyal to any party in lieu of being true to your own dogma.
So the conventional wisdom is that no 3rd party candidate can win, but we are already sailing a political ark in a sea like no other. Trump is 50% ahead of Cruz, his mouth is a boiling cauldron of vile, putrid muck, and the steamy ejects always land and sear his opponents. The closer the opponent is to the Republican establishment the more he is seared. Jeb-gone! Rubio tripped on his own tongue trying to avoid the scalding ejections. He's out! The armored suit Cruz built by calling Mitch "the ditch" McConnell a liar on the senate floor protects him, but does not allow him to advance. And John Kasich is a little gnat that merely survives by being to small to hit.
But Trump can't win with Only the support of disgruntled conservatives, so look around the corner and down the street. There you will find another group who has had it with what their party is shoving down their throats. The Bernie folks hate Clinton the way Trumpsters hate the Republicans. Short of an indictment, these guys will have to vote for Clinton, not vote, or ( my preference) support a third party canidate.
If Trump would wage a third party candidacy and ask Bernie to VP the ticket they could win, and in the process redraw the political lines. They can manufacture a platform to draw all people who hate the establishment.
Will somebody get these two guys in a room?
Donald has already become a third party candidate, even if he does not go third party.
Your post confirms this.
Enjoy Hillary as President. Trump is in love with her anyway.
I am an angry conservative, and I can see there is a similar outrage being manifested on the other side as well. Voters of both political ilk are showing real disdain for their respective establishment leaders. Frankly, I will not vote for any candidate, but rather most certainly against either Clinton or Cruz...NO C's for me. And there just might be a way to keep both the awful C's out.
If the republicans disregard the clear choice candidate per the primaries they will definitely lose in November. Voters like me, and especially those who actually ballyhoo Trump for president wIll refuse to vote for anybody but Trump. We will either not vote, perhaps childishly cut off our nose and vote for the Dem, or (this is my preference) support a Third party run by the Trumpster. Remember, I am no Trumpite, but I am sick of the worn out joke of a party, the Gop. As a note- I would discourage anyone from being loyal to any party in lieu of being true to your own dogma.
So the conventional wisdom is that no 3rd party candidate can win, but we are already sailing a political ark in a sea like no other. Trump is 50% ahead of Cruz, his mouth is a boiling cauldron of vile, putrid muck, and the steamy ejects always land and sear his opponents. The closer the opponent is to the Republican establishment the more he is seared. Jeb-gone! Rubio tripped on his own tongue trying to avoid the scalding ejections. He's out! The armored suit Cruz built by calling Mitch "the ditch" McConnell a liar on the senate floor protects him, but does not allow him to advance. And John Kasich is a little gnat that merely survives by being to small to hit.
But Trump can't win with Only the support of disgruntled conservatives, so look around the corner and down the street. There you will find another group who has had it with what their party is shoving down their throats. The Bernie folks hate Clinton the way Trumpsters hate the Republicans. Short of an indictment, these guys will have to vote for Clinton, not vote, or ( my preference) support a third party canidate.
If Trump would wage a third party candidacy and ask Bernie to VP the ticket they could win, and in the process redraw the political lines. They can manufacture a platform to draw all people who hate the establishment.
Will somebody get these two guys in a room?
Donald has already become a third party candidate, even if he does not go third party.
Your post confirms this.
Enjoy Hillary as President. Trump is in love with her anyway.
I am an angry conservative, and I can see there is a similar outrage being manifested on the other side as well. Voters of both political ilk are showing real disdain for their respective establishment leaders. Frankly, I will not vote for any candidate, but rather most certainly against either Clinton or Cruz...NO C's for me. And there just might be a way to keep both the awful C's out.
If the republicans disregard the clear choice candidate per the primaries they will definitely lose in November. Voters like me, and especially those who actually ballyhoo Trump for president wIll refuse to vote for anybody but Trump. We will either not vote, perhaps childishly cut off our nose and vote for the Dem, or (this is my preference) support a Third party run by the Trumpster. Remember, I am no Trumpite, but I am sick of the worn out joke of a party, the Gop. As a note- I would discourage anyone from being loyal to any party in lieu of being true to your own dogma.
So the conventional wisdom is that no 3rd party candidate can win, but we are already sailing a political ark in a sea like no other. Trump is 50% ahead of Cruz, his mouth is a boiling cauldron of vile, putrid muck, and the steamy ejects always land and sear his opponents. The closer the opponent is to the Republican establishment the more he is seared. Jeb-gone! Rubio tripped on his own tongue trying to avoid the scalding ejections. He's out! The armored suit Cruz built by calling Mitch "the ditch" McConnell a liar on the senate floor protects him, but does not allow him to advance. And John Kasich is a little gnat that merely survives by being to small to hit.
But Trump can't win with Only the support of disgruntled conservatives, so look around the corner and down the street. There you will find another group who has had it with what their party is shoving down their throats. The Bernie folks hate Clinton the way Trumpsters hate the Republicans. Short of an indictment, these guys will have to vote for Clinton, not vote, or ( my preference) support a third party canidate.
If Trump would wage a third party candidacy and ask Bernie to VP the ticket they could win, and in the process redraw the political lines. They can manufacture a platform to draw all people who hate the establishment.
Will somebody get these two guys in a room?
Donald has already become a third party candidate, even if he does not go third party.
Your post confirms this.
Enjoy Hillary as President. Trump is in love with her anyway.
I get your point that Trump is already a 3rd party canidate considering how he is treated by the established right, not exactly a warm embrace for the current delegate leader.
We will either not vote, perhaps childishly cut off our nose and vote for the Dem
I am an angry conservative, and I can see there is a similar outrage being manifested on the other side as well. Voters of both political ilk are showing real disdain for their respective establishment leaders. Frankly, I will not vote for any candidate, but rather most certainly against either Clinton or Cruz...NO C's for me. And there just might be a way to keep both the awful C's out.
If the republicans disregard the clear choice candidate per the primaries they will definitely lose in November. Voters like me, and especially those who actually ballyhoo Trump for president wIll refuse to vote for anybody but Trump. We will either not vote, perhaps childishly cut off our nose and vote for the Dem, or (this is my preference) support a Third party run by the Trumpster. Remember, I am no Trumpite, but I am sick of the worn out joke of a party, the Gop. As a note- I would discourage anyone from being loyal to any party in lieu of being true to your own dogma.
So the conventional wisdom is that no 3rd party candidate can win, but we are already sailing a political ark in a sea like no other. Trump is 50% ahead of Cruz, his mouth is a boiling cauldron of vile, putrid muck, and the steamy ejects always land and sear his opponents. The closer the opponent is to the Republican establishment the more he is seared. Jeb-gone! Rubio tripped on his own tongue trying to avoid the scalding ejections. He's out! The armored suit Cruz built by calling Mitch "the ditch" McConnell a liar on the senate floor protects him, but does not allow him to advance. And John Kasich is a little gnat that merely survives by being to small to hit.
But Trump can't win with Only the support of disgruntled conservatives, so look around the corner and down the street. There you will find another group who has had it with what their party is shoving down their throats. The Bernie folks hate Clinton the way Trumpsters hate the Republicans. Short of an indictment, these guys will have to vote for Clinton, not vote, or ( my preference) support a third party canidate.
If Trump would wage a third party candidacy and ask Bernie to VP the ticket they could win, and in the process redraw the political lines. They can manufacture a platform to draw all people who hate the establishment.
Will somebody get these two guys in a room?
I agree that neither is a conservative nor understand the economy. But I would offer that is true with every canidate left. My hope is we can alter the status quo by replacing the tired established leaders and open new debates.
Really? You would offer that Cruz and Kasich don't understand the economy? And you base that assertion on what evidence?
"Alter the status quo"? To what? How? How do you know that will be the result?
Smashing the system just to be smashing it is never a good thing. You have to have a plan for what happens next. What's yours?I agree that neither is a conservative nor understand the economy. But I would offer that is true with every canidate left. My hope is we can alter the status quo by replacing the tired established leaders and open new debates.
Really? You would offer that Cruz and Kasich don't understand the economy? And you base that assertion on what evidence?
"Alter the status quo"? To what? How? How do you know that will be the result?
Smashing the system just to be smashing it is never a good thing. You have to have a plan for what happens next. What's yours?
I will try to address your pertinent comments and questions. First, you say that smashing the system is never a good thing. I didn't suggest smashing the system. I am tired of the current political leaders and ripping their power does not constitute smashing the system. Try to think with a bit of nuance rather than extreme radicalism. Secondly, I suggested NONE of the candidates really inderstand the economy, and I would ask you to provide evidence to the contrary. Thirdly, you asked how to alter the status quo. I'm sorry, I thought it was obvious that electing a Trump/Kasich ticket would clearly alter the status quo since most people would say Trump is not a true Republican and Bernie only caucuses with The Dems because there is no viable party farther left. Finally you wrote "you have to have a plan for what happens next". Really? Nobody knows what will happen next, but if you have some scenarios in mind I would be happy to discuss them.
My point is that Trump and Bernie represent a large fraction of voters who feel betrayed and disenfranchised by the current political leaders, and by electing them we could open new lines of communication and debate.
Okay, first of all, you're very much suggesting smashing the system. Delude yourself all you want, but that's what Trump's candidacy is all about. I'm not even going to touch the laughable notion of "nuance" in regards to Donald Trump.
Second of all, YOU made the statement. It is not MY job to prove or disprove YOUR statement. If you can't back it up, then issue a retraction. If you want to stand by it, then get on substantiating it, or you've de facto retracted it and admitted to being full of shit, anyway. Your choice. Believe me, this probably the gentlest you're going to be told on this board that "I said it, YOU prove me wrong" won't fly . . . no matter what the political proclivities of the poster you're talking to.
Third, I sincerely doubt Kasich has any interest in being in any way associated with Donald Trump.
Fourth, I didn't ask you to tell me what's "obvious" to you, nor did I ask for, "Just elect Donald, and it will make all my dreams come true! You'll see!" Specifics, hon. EXACTLY what do you intend to build in place of the system you rail against, and how? "Let's just elect someone who says he'll be different" is crap.
You don't have to know what will happen next, but you DO have to have a plan for what you intend to accomplish and how. Contingency provisions are also a good idea. The military will tell you that no battle plan ever survives contact with the enemy, but notice that they don't just invade willy-nilly.
MY point is "Let's just make it different! Let's elect these guys, and see what happens!" is imbecilic and childish.
Smashing the the system is your characterization of electing a non-typical canidate as a 3rd party canidate. If in your mind that is smashing the system then we will have to accept that we have a different view on what constitutes smashing the system.
No, smashing the system is my observation of what Trump and his followers themselves characterize what they're doing. Have you not been paying attention all this time?
With regard to Kasich and Cruz understanding the economy- Economics is a highly complex system, most major universities offer PHDs in Economics because it is so complex. It is a soft science with relatively few natural laws compared to a hard science. Neither Cruz nor Kasich have any significant education in economics. If either were elected president they would rely on a bevy of real economist for advice and information, cause an effect etc.
Thanks for the backpedaling, temporizing, and word-parsing. Now that you're done inadequately trying to CYA and walk back your attacks, let me point out that you did not say, "Cruz and Kasich don't have degrees in economics, they'll hire economists to work for them". You said, "Neither understand the economy". Repeatedly. You then followed up with, "None of the candidates understand the economy." There is a difference. No one has ever suggested that either Cruz or Kasich has a degree in economics, or that it is their field of expertise, or that they intend to rely only on their own knowledge and expertise in that area. Donald Trump, on the other hand, HAS suggested that being rich makes him an economic expert, and that he WILL rely primarily on his own "good brain" and self-advice.
Nevertheless, one does not have to be an economist to have a general grounding in and understanding of basic economics and how it does and should intersect with the government. I can't speak for Kasich, because I find him utterly uninteresting, but I can tell you that Ted Cruz DOES have that understanding. He also has the necessary understanding and wisdom to choose economic advisers who are not talking out their ivory-tower, never-worked-in-the-real-world, I-have-a-great-theory asses.
When did I suggest that Kasish would want to have anything to do with Trump? I suggested that Bernie run as Trumps VP, however if I inadvertently used Kasish instead of Bernie, it was a mistake on my part, and I apologize.
You did, in fact, say Trump/Kasich. But I sincerely doubt that Bernie Sanders wants anything to do with Trump, either.
In your previous post you used quotation marks as if they were my words.
I never posted "let's just make it different, lets elect these guys and see what happens". If you want to have an honest and mature debate/discussion I will engage, so please have the decency not to suggest your words are mine and I will do the same.
Quotation marks do not just signify direct quotes. They also serve to indicate paraphrases and irony. If you want to have an honest and mature debate/discussion, you're going to have to learn not to project your limited grammatical skills, laced with butthurt, onto me.
Really? You would offer that Cruz and Kasich don't understand the economy? And you base that assertion on what evidence?
"Alter the status quo"? To what? How? How do you know that will be the result?
Smashing the system just to be smashing it is never a good thing. You have to have a plan for what happens next. What's yours?Really? You would offer that Cruz and Kasich don't understand the economy? And you base that assertion on what evidence?
"Alter the status quo"? To what? How? How do you know that will be the result?
Smashing the system just to be smashing it is never a good thing. You have to have a plan for what happens next. What's yours?
I will try to address your pertinent comments and questions. First, you say that smashing the system is never a good thing. I didn't suggest smashing the system. I am tired of the current political leaders and ripping their power does not constitute smashing the system. Try to think with a bit of nuance rather than extreme radicalism. Secondly, I suggested NONE of the candidates really inderstand the economy, and I would ask you to provide evidence to the contrary. Thirdly, you asked how to alter the status quo. I'm sorry, I thought it was obvious that electing a Trump/Kasich ticket would clearly alter the status quo since most people would say Trump is not a true Republican and Bernie only caucuses with The Dems because there is no viable party farther left. Finally you wrote "you have to have a plan for what happens next". Really? Nobody knows what will happen next, but if you have some scenarios in mind I would be happy to discuss them.
My point is that Trump and Bernie represent a large fraction of voters who feel betrayed and disenfranchised by the current political leaders, and by electing them we could open new lines of communication and debate.
Okay, first of all, you're very much suggesting smashing the system. Delude yourself all you want, but that's what Trump's candidacy is all about. I'm not even going to touch the laughable notion of "nuance" in regards to Donald Trump.
Second of all, YOU made the statement. It is not MY job to prove or disprove YOUR statement. If you can't back it up, then issue a retraction. If you want to stand by it, then get on substantiating it, or you've de facto retracted it and admitted to being full of shit, anyway. Your choice. Believe me, this probably the gentlest you're going to be told on this board that "I said it, YOU prove me wrong" won't fly . . . no matter what the political proclivities of the poster you're talking to.
Third, I sincerely doubt Kasich has any interest in being in any way associated with Donald Trump.
Fourth, I didn't ask you to tell me what's "obvious" to you, nor did I ask for, "Just elect Donald, and it will make all my dreams come true! You'll see!" Specifics, hon. EXACTLY what do you intend to build in place of the system you rail against, and how? "Let's just elect someone who says he'll be different" is crap.
You don't have to know what will happen next, but you DO have to have a plan for what you intend to accomplish and how. Contingency provisions are also a good idea. The military will tell you that no battle plan ever survives contact with the enemy, but notice that they don't just invade willy-nilly.
MY point is "Let's just make it different! Let's elect these guys, and see what happens!" is imbecilic and childish.
Smashing the the system is your characterization of electing a non-typical canidate as a 3rd party canidate. If in your mind that is smashing the system then we will have to accept that we have a different view on what constitutes smashing the system.
No, smashing the system is my observation of what Trump and his followers themselves characterize what they're doing. Have you not been paying attention all this time?
With regard to Kasich and Cruz understanding the economy- Economics is a highly complex system, most major universities offer PHDs in Economics because it is so complex. It is a soft science with relatively few natural laws compared to a hard science. Neither Cruz nor Kasich have any significant education in economics. If either were elected president they would rely on a bevy of real economist for advice and information, cause an effect etc.
Thanks for the backpedaling, temporizing, and word-parsing. Now that you're done inadequately trying to CYA and walk back your attacks, let me point out that you did not say, "Cruz and Kasich don't have degrees in economics, they'll hire economists to work for them". You said, "Neither understand the economy". Repeatedly. You then followed up with, "None of the candidates understand the economy." There is a difference. No one has ever suggested that either Cruz or Kasich has a degree in economics, or that it is their field of expertise, or that they intend to rely only on their own knowledge and expertise in that area. Donald Trump, on the other hand, HAS suggested that being rich makes him an economic expert, and that he WILL rely primarily on his own "good brain" and self-advice.
Nevertheless, one does not have to be an economist to have a general grounding in and understanding of basic economics and how it does and should intersect with the government. I can't speak for Kasich, because I find him utterly uninteresting, but I can tell you that Ted Cruz DOES have that understanding. He also has the necessary understanding and wisdom to choose economic advisers who are not talking out their ivory-tower, never-worked-in-the-real-world, I-have-a-great-theory asses.
When did I suggest that Kasish would want to have anything to do with Trump? I suggested that Bernie run as Trumps VP, however if I inadvertently used Kasish instead of Bernie, it was a mistake on my part, and I apologize.
You did, in fact, say Trump/Kasich. But I sincerely doubt that Bernie Sanders wants anything to do with Trump, either.
In your previous post you used quotation marks as if they were my words.
I never posted "let's just make it different, lets elect these guys and see what happens". If you want to have an honest and mature debate/discussion I will engage, so please have the decency not to suggest your words are mine and I will do the same.
Quotation marks do not just signify direct quotes. They also serve to indicate paraphrases and irony. If you want to have an honest and mature debate/discussion, you're going to have to learn not to project your limited grammatical skills, laced with butthurt, onto me.
So can I assume you are a Cruz supporter, and that your liberal use of quotation marks is generally intended as irony. Sorry, I missed that context.
My original post topic was a third party run by a Trump/Bernie ticket. I did in fact misstate in a later post Trump/Kasish. Sorry for that.
You maybe right that Bernster wouldn't want to have anything to do with Trump, but you never know when you dangle a VPship in front of him. It would give him a larger platform to spew his socialistic views, and all these guys are major egomaniacs. And when you consider that nobody really knows what the Trumpsters real political agenda is (maybe somebody does, I certainly don't), Bernie may think he can advance his agenda.
In regards to political leaders and there understanding of the economy in general- My view is that virtually all these candidates are less inclined to act in what they think is in the best interest of the country economically, but rather what is in their best interest politically. Sure, they all have some basic ideological platform Economically. Bernie and Hillary are clearly more socialistic and favor various degrees of wealth distribution and government control, Teddy is more free market based, restraint of government, and inclined to private sector. You can say they all have basic knowledge of economics and how it should or does intersect with government. My opinion is they don't have a very deep understanding of cause and effect with regard to economic policy. Donald Trump is the only canidate to never vote to increase the staggering federal debt which is over $19 trillion, but I also assume the debt will likely increase under Trump or any other canidate who wins.
I really would prefer to engage in a politically based discussion, and I am not here to try and make those with a different political view look silly or call them names. Am I in the wrong place?
In my opinion he is a mild vote of dissension. He is a member of the established republican leadership and has voted to raise the debt ceiling even though he has railed against it. I give him high marks for calling McConnell a liar.I am an angry conservative, and I can see there is a similar outrage being manifested on the other side as well. Voters of both political ilk are showing real disdain for their respective establishment leaders. Frankly, I will not vote for any candidate, but rather most certainly against either Clinton or Cruz...NO C's for me. And there just might be a way to keep both the awful C's out.
If the republicans disregard the clear choice candidate per the primaries they will definitely lose in November. Voters like me, and especially those who actually ballyhoo Trump for president wIll refuse to vote for anybody but Trump. We will either not vote, perhaps childishly cut off our nose and vote for the Dem, or (this is my preference) support a Third party run by the Trumpster. Remember, I am no Trumpite, but I am sick of the worn out joke of a party, the Gop. As a note- I would discourage anyone from being loyal to any party in lieu of being true to your own dogma.
So the conventional wisdom is that no 3rd party candidate can win, but we are already sailing a political ark in a sea like no other. Trump is 50% ahead of Cruz, his mouth is a boiling cauldron of vile, putrid muck, and the steamy ejects always land and sear his opponents. The closer the opponent is to the Republican establishment the more he is seared. Jeb-gone! Rubio tripped on his own tongue trying to avoid the scalding ejections. He's out! The armored suit Cruz built by calling Mitch "the ditch" McConnell a liar on the senate floor protects him, but does not allow him to advance. And John Kasich is a little gnat that merely survives by being to small to hit.
But Trump can't win with Only the support of disgruntled conservatives, so look around the corner and down the street. There you will find another group who has had it with what their party is shoving down their throats. The Bernie folks hate Clinton the way Trumpsters hate the Republicans. Short of an indictment, these guys will have to vote for Clinton, not vote, or ( my preference) support a third party canidate.
If Trump would wage a third party candidacy and ask Bernie to VP the ticket they could win, and in the process redraw the political lines. They can manufacture a platform to draw all people who hate the establishment.
Will somebody get these two guys in a room?
Angry voter says Cruz is establishment even though he is virtually the only voice of dissention.
Angry voter votes for Trump who probably gave Hillary campaign money for her Presidential race cuz that's what you need to do in order to do business in the US of A.
Hilarious.
I am an angry conservative, and I can see there is a similar outrage being manifested on the other side as well. Voters of both political ilk are showing real disdain for their respective establishment leaders. Frankly, I will not vote for any candidate, but rather most certainly against either Clinton or Cruz...NO C's for me. And there just might be a way to keep both the awful C's out.
If the republicans disregard the clear choice candidate per the primaries they will definitely lose in November. Voters like me, and especially those who actually ballyhoo Trump for president wIll refuse to vote for anybody but Trump. We will either not vote, perhaps childishly cut off our nose and vote for the Dem, or (this is my preference) support a Third party run by the Trumpster. Remember, I am no Trumpite, but I am sick of the worn out joke of a party, the Gop. As a note- I would discourage anyone from being loyal to any party in lieu of being true to your own dogma.
So the conventional wisdom is that no 3rd party candidate can win, but we are already sailing a political ark in a sea like no other. Trump is 50% ahead of Cruz, his mouth is a boiling cauldron of vile, putrid muck, and the steamy ejects always land and sear his opponents. The closer the opponent is to the Republican establishment the more he is seared. Jeb-gone! Rubio tripped on his own tongue trying to avoid the scalding ejections. He's out! The armored suit Cruz built by calling Mitch "the ditch" McConnell a liar on the senate floor protects him, but does not allow him to advance. And John Kasich is a little gnat that merely survives by being to small to hit.
But Trump can't win with Only the support of disgruntled conservatives, so look around the corner and down the street. There you will find another group who has had it with what their party is shoving down their throats. The Bernie folks hate Clinton the way Trumpsters hate the Republicans. Short of an indictment, these guys will have to vote for Clinton, not vote, or ( my preference) support a third party canidate.
If Trump would wage a third party candidacy and ask Bernie to VP the ticket they could win, and in the process redraw the political lines. They can manufacture a platform to draw all people who hate the establishment.
Will somebody get these two guys in a room?
Donald has already become a third party candidate, even if he does not go third party.
Your post confirms this.
Enjoy Hillary as President. Trump is in love with her anyway.
The Washington Post even ran an article revealing that Donald Trump decided to announce his candidacy after talking to Bill Clinton (although they have since deleted said article from their website). I have no doubt whatsoever that if Trump were to become President - God help us all - it wouldn't be long before we'd see the Clintons visiting the White House for cozy little chats and nights in the Lincoln Bedroom.
In my opinion he is a mild vote of dissension. He is a member of the established republican leadership and has voted to raise the debt ceiling even though he has railed against it. I give him high marks for calling McConnell a liar.I am an angry conservative, and I can see there is a similar outrage being manifested on the other side as well. Voters of both political ilk are showing real disdain for their respective establishment leaders. Frankly, I will not vote for any candidate, but rather most certainly against either Clinton or Cruz...NO C's for me. And there just might be a way to keep both the awful C's out.
If the republicans disregard the clear choice candidate per the primaries they will definitely lose in November. Voters like me, and especially those who actually ballyhoo Trump for president wIll refuse to vote for anybody but Trump. We will either not vote, perhaps childishly cut off our nose and vote for the Dem, or (this is my preference) support a Third party run by the Trumpster. Remember, I am no Trumpite, but I am sick of the worn out joke of a party, the Gop. As a note- I would discourage anyone from being loyal to any party in lieu of being true to your own dogma.
So the conventional wisdom is that no 3rd party candidate can win, but we are already sailing a political ark in a sea like no other. Trump is 50% ahead of Cruz, his mouth is a boiling cauldron of vile, putrid muck, and the steamy ejects always land and sear his opponents. The closer the opponent is to the Republican establishment the more he is seared. Jeb-gone! Rubio tripped on his own tongue trying to avoid the scalding ejections. He's out! The armored suit Cruz built by calling Mitch "the ditch" McConnell a liar on the senate floor protects him, but does not allow him to advance. And John Kasich is a little gnat that merely survives by being to small to hit.
But Trump can't win with Only the support of disgruntled conservatives, so look around the corner and down the street. There you will find another group who has had it with what their party is shoving down their throats. The Bernie folks hate Clinton the way Trumpsters hate the Republicans. Short of an indictment, these guys will have to vote for Clinton, not vote, or ( my preference) support a third party canidate.
If Trump would wage a third party candidacy and ask Bernie to VP the ticket they could win, and in the process redraw the political lines. They can manufacture a platform to draw all people who hate the establishment.
Will somebody get these two guys in a room?
Angry voter says Cruz is establishment even though he is virtually the only voice of dissention.
Angry voter votes for Trump who probably gave Hillary campaign money for her Presidential race cuz that's what you need to do in order to do business in the US of A.
Hilarious.
Trump is the vote for those who are worn out by the lip service of the republicans and then cave in when it is time to stand their ground.
We know what is behind doors 1 and 2, Trump is the unopened door number 3.
I am an angry conservative, and I can see there is a similar outrage being manifested on the other side as well. Voters of both political ilk are showing real disdain for their respective establishment leaders. Frankly, I will not vote for any candidate, but rather most certainly against either Clinton or Cruz...NO C's for me. And there just might be a way to keep both the awful C's out.
If the republicans disregard the clear choice candidate per the primaries they will definitely lose in November. Voters like me, and especially those who actually ballyhoo Trump for president wIll refuse to vote for anybody but Trump. We will either not vote, perhaps childishly cut off our nose and vote for the Dem, or (this is my preference) support a Third party run by the Trumpster. Remember, I am no Trumpite, but I am sick of the worn out joke of a party, the Gop. As a note- I would discourage anyone from being loyal to any party in lieu of being true to your own dogma.
So the conventional wisdom is that no 3rd party candidate can win, but we are already sailing a political ark in a sea like no other. Trump is 50% ahead of Cruz, his mouth is a boiling cauldron of vile, putrid muck, and the steamy ejects always land and sear his opponents. The closer the opponent is to the Republican establishment the more he is seared. Jeb-gone! Rubio tripped on his own tongue trying to avoid the scalding ejections. He's out! The armored suit Cruz built by calling Mitch "the ditch" McConnell a liar on the senate floor protects him, but does not allow him to advance. And John Kasich is a little gnat that merely survives by being to small to hit.
But Trump can't win with Only the support of disgruntled conservatives, so look around the corner and down the street. There you will find another group who has had it with what their party is shoving down their throats. The Bernie folks hate Clinton the way Trumpsters hate the Republicans. Short of an indictment, these guys will have to vote for Clinton, not vote, or ( my preference) support a third party canidate.
If Trump would wage a third party candidacy and ask Bernie to VP the ticket they could win, and in the process redraw the political lines. They can manufacture a platform to draw all people who hate the establishment.
Will somebody get these two guys in a room?
Donald has already become a third party candidate, even if he does not go third party.
Your post confirms this.
Enjoy Hillary as President. Trump is in love with her anyway.
The Washington Post even ran an article revealing that Donald Trump decided to announce his candidacy after talking to Bill Clinton (although they have since deleted said article from their website). I have no doubt whatsoever that if Trump were to become President - God help us all - it wouldn't be long before we'd see the Clintons visiting the White House for cozy little chats and nights in the Lincoln Bedroom.
Would Bill and Hillary give campaign money to Trump when he runs again?
That would be funny.
I will try to address your pertinent comments and questions. First, you say that smashing the system is never a good thing. I didn't suggest smashing the system. I am tired of the current political leaders and ripping their power does not constitute smashing the system. Try to think with a bit of nuance rather than extreme radicalism. Secondly, I suggested NONE of the candidates really inderstand the economy, and I would ask you to provide evidence to the contrary. Thirdly, you asked how to alter the status quo. I'm sorry, I thought it was obvious that electing a Trump/Kasich ticket would clearly alter the status quo since most people would say Trump is not a true Republican and Bernie only caucuses with The Dems because there is no viable party farther left. Finally you wrote "you have to have a plan for what happens next". Really? Nobody knows what will happen next, but if you have some scenarios in mind I would be happy to discuss them.
My point is that Trump and Bernie represent a large fraction of voters who feel betrayed and disenfranchised by the current political leaders, and by electing them we could open new lines of communication and debate.
Okay, first of all, you're very much suggesting smashing the system. Delude yourself all you want, but that's what Trump's candidacy is all about. I'm not even going to touch the laughable notion of "nuance" in regards to Donald Trump.
Second of all, YOU made the statement. It is not MY job to prove or disprove YOUR statement. If you can't back it up, then issue a retraction. If you want to stand by it, then get on substantiating it, or you've de facto retracted it and admitted to being full of shit, anyway. Your choice. Believe me, this probably the gentlest you're going to be told on this board that "I said it, YOU prove me wrong" won't fly . . . no matter what the political proclivities of the poster you're talking to.
Third, I sincerely doubt Kasich has any interest in being in any way associated with Donald Trump.
Fourth, I didn't ask you to tell me what's "obvious" to you, nor did I ask for, "Just elect Donald, and it will make all my dreams come true! You'll see!" Specifics, hon. EXACTLY what do you intend to build in place of the system you rail against, and how? "Let's just elect someone who says he'll be different" is crap.
You don't have to know what will happen next, but you DO have to have a plan for what you intend to accomplish and how. Contingency provisions are also a good idea. The military will tell you that no battle plan ever survives contact with the enemy, but notice that they don't just invade willy-nilly.
MY point is "Let's just make it different! Let's elect these guys, and see what happens!" is imbecilic and childish.
Smashing the the system is your characterization of electing a non-typical canidate as a 3rd party canidate. If in your mind that is smashing the system then we will have to accept that we have a different view on what constitutes smashing the system.
No, smashing the system is my observation of what Trump and his followers themselves characterize what they're doing. Have you not been paying attention all this time?
With regard to Kasich and Cruz understanding the economy- Economics is a highly complex system, most major universities offer PHDs in Economics because it is so complex. It is a soft science with relatively few natural laws compared to a hard science. Neither Cruz nor Kasich have any significant education in economics. If either were elected president they would rely on a bevy of real economist for advice and information, cause an effect etc.
Thanks for the backpedaling, temporizing, and word-parsing. Now that you're done inadequately trying to CYA and walk back your attacks, let me point out that you did not say, "Cruz and Kasich don't have degrees in economics, they'll hire economists to work for them". You said, "Neither understand the economy". Repeatedly. You then followed up with, "None of the candidates understand the economy." There is a difference. No one has ever suggested that either Cruz or Kasich has a degree in economics, or that it is their field of expertise, or that they intend to rely only on their own knowledge and expertise in that area. Donald Trump, on the other hand, HAS suggested that being rich makes him an economic expert, and that he WILL rely primarily on his own "good brain" and self-advice.
Nevertheless, one does not have to be an economist to have a general grounding in and understanding of basic economics and how it does and should intersect with the government. I can't speak for Kasich, because I find him utterly uninteresting, but I can tell you that Ted Cruz DOES have that understanding. He also has the necessary understanding and wisdom to choose economic advisers who are not talking out their ivory-tower, never-worked-in-the-real-world, I-have-a-great-theory asses.
When did I suggest that Kasish would want to have anything to do with Trump? I suggested that Bernie run as Trumps VP, however if I inadvertently used Kasish instead of Bernie, it was a mistake on my part, and I apologize.
You did, in fact, say Trump/Kasich. But I sincerely doubt that Bernie Sanders wants anything to do with Trump, either.
In your previous post you used quotation marks as if they were my words.
I never posted "let's just make it different, lets elect these guys and see what happens". If you want to have an honest and mature debate/discussion I will engage, so please have the decency not to suggest your words are mine and I will do the same.
Quotation marks do not just signify direct quotes. They also serve to indicate paraphrases and irony. If you want to have an honest and mature debate/discussion, you're going to have to learn not to project your limited grammatical skills, laced with butthurt, onto me.
So can I assume you are a Cruz supporter, and that your liberal use of quotation marks is generally intended as irony. Sorry, I missed that context.
You may assume if you wish, or if you wish to be courteous, you could ask.
My original post topic was a third party run by a Trump/Bernie ticket. I did in fact misstate in a later post Trump/Kasish. Sorry for that.
It happens. I'm often posting with a seven-year-old running in and out of the room, screaming like a dervish, at which point I'm doing good to put together a coherent sentence.
You maybe right that Bernster wouldn't want to have anything to do with Trump, but you never know when you dangle a VPship in front of him. It would give him a larger platform to spew his socialistic views, and all these guys are major egomaniacs. And when you consider that nobody really knows what the Trumpsters real political agenda is (maybe somebody does, I certainly don't), Bernie may think he can advance his agenda.
Honestly, Bernie Sanders doesn't even vaguely strike me as someone who has EVER cared about his own personal power, prestige, and position. Whatever else he is, he comes off as a sincere and impassioned ideologue. I disagree vehemently with every single thing he says and believes, but he has given me no reason to think he's not genuine.
That being said, it's hard to imagine him having any reason or desire to align himself with a campaign that's so completely about Narcissus-on-Fifth-Avenue and his lifelong love affair with himself. If I can figure out that Donald Trump doesn't give the platform to anyone else, Bernie can figure it out, too. His agenda isn't difficult to suss out (although I think it's a stretch to call it a political agenda): he's a giant, overinflated ego on legs.
In regards to political leaders and there understanding of the economy in general- My view is that virtually all these candidates are less inclined to act in what they think is in the best interest of the country economically, but rather what is in their best interest politically. Sure, they all have some basic ideological platform Economically. Bernie and Hillary are clearly more socialistic and favor various degrees of wealth distribution and government control, Teddy is more free market based, restraint of government, and inclined to private sector. You can say they all have basic knowledge of economics and how it should or does intersect with government. My opinion is they don't have a very deep understanding of cause and effect with regard to economic policy. Donald Trump is the only canidate to never vote to increase the staggering federal debt which is over $19 trillion, but I also assume the debt will likely increase under Trump or any other canidate who wins.
If I may ask, on what are you basing this blanket view of "all these candidates"? Is it something specific in their individual backgrounds and records, or is it general ennui and a love of sounded pseudo-sophisticated and jaded? I add the last because such things are so incredibly rampant, to the point of the ridiculous. Some people are just so enamored of yawning and saying, "All politicians are corrupt. These are not our best and brightest", regardless of who's actually being discussed, that they don't even waste time finding a reason to say it any more, but jump right to the shitting on them all generally part.
I really would prefer to engage in a politically based discussion, and I am not here to try and make those with a different political view look silly or call them names. Am I in the wrong place?
Honestly, it depends on who you talk to and how you talk to them.
This message board is like any other group of human beings, generally speaking: the idiots outnumber the intelligent on any given day, and membership in both sides changes frequently.
Most of the people here are more informed and politically involved than your average American, but that doesn't always mean they're thinking coherently about the information they have. And it's not a place for the faint-of-heart or the easily-offended, because very few people here, regardless of where they fall on the political spectrum, are much interested in being nice.
That being said, if you have a thick skin and are prepared to state your positions logically and with substantiation, and then to hold your ground and defend them vigorously, you can find people who will respond in kind.
In my opinion he is a mild vote of dissension. He is a member of the established republican leadership and has voted to raise the debt ceiling even though he has railed against it. I give him high marks for calling McConnell a liar.I am an angry conservative, and I can see there is a similar outrage being manifested on the other side as well. Voters of both political ilk are showing real disdain for their respective establishment leaders. Frankly, I will not vote for any candidate, but rather most certainly against either Clinton or Cruz...NO C's for me. And there just might be a way to keep both the awful C's out.
If the republicans disregard the clear choice candidate per the primaries they will definitely lose in November. Voters like me, and especially those who actually ballyhoo Trump for president wIll refuse to vote for anybody but Trump. We will either not vote, perhaps childishly cut off our nose and vote for the Dem, or (this is my preference) support a Third party run by the Trumpster. Remember, I am no Trumpite, but I am sick of the worn out joke of a party, the Gop. As a note- I would discourage anyone from being loyal to any party in lieu of being true to your own dogma.
So the conventional wisdom is that no 3rd party candidate can win, but we are already sailing a political ark in a sea like no other. Trump is 50% ahead of Cruz, his mouth is a boiling cauldron of vile, putrid muck, and the steamy ejects always land and sear his opponents. The closer the opponent is to the Republican establishment the more he is seared. Jeb-gone! Rubio tripped on his own tongue trying to avoid the scalding ejections. He's out! The armored suit Cruz built by calling Mitch "the ditch" McConnell a liar on the senate floor protects him, but does not allow him to advance. And John Kasich is a little gnat that merely survives by being to small to hit.
But Trump can't win with Only the support of disgruntled conservatives, so look around the corner and down the street. There you will find another group who has had it with what their party is shoving down their throats. The Bernie folks hate Clinton the way Trumpsters hate the Republicans. Short of an indictment, these guys will have to vote for Clinton, not vote, or ( my preference) support a third party canidate.
If Trump would wage a third party candidacy and ask Bernie to VP the ticket they could win, and in the process redraw the political lines. They can manufacture a platform to draw all people who hate the establishment.
Will somebody get these two guys in a room?
Angry voter says Cruz is establishment even though he is virtually the only voice of dissention.
Angry voter votes for Trump who probably gave Hillary campaign money for her Presidential race cuz that's what you need to do in order to do business in the US of A.
Hilarious.
Trump is the vote for those who are worn out by the lip service of the republicans and then cave in when it is time to stand their ground.
We know what is behind doors 1 and 2, Trump is the unopened door number 3.
Um, who told you Cruz voted to raise the debt ceiling?
And who told you that "Surprise!" is a good thing in a President?
In my opinion he is a mild vote of dissension. He is a member of the established republican leadership and has voted to raise the debt ceiling even though he has railed against it. I give him high marks for calling McConnell a liar.I am an angry conservative, and I can see there is a similar outrage being manifested on the other side as well. Voters of both political ilk are showing real disdain for their respective establishment leaders. Frankly, I will not vote for any candidate, but rather most certainly against either Clinton or Cruz...NO C's for me. And there just might be a way to keep both the awful C's out.
If the republicans disregard the clear choice candidate per the primaries they will definitely lose in November. Voters like me, and especially those who actually ballyhoo Trump for president wIll refuse to vote for anybody but Trump. We will either not vote, perhaps childishly cut off our nose and vote for the Dem, or (this is my preference) support a Third party run by the Trumpster. Remember, I am no Trumpite, but I am sick of the worn out joke of a party, the Gop. As a note- I would discourage anyone from being loyal to any party in lieu of being true to your own dogma.
So the conventional wisdom is that no 3rd party candidate can win, but we are already sailing a political ark in a sea like no other. Trump is 50% ahead of Cruz, his mouth is a boiling cauldron of vile, putrid muck, and the steamy ejects always land and sear his opponents. The closer the opponent is to the Republican establishment the more he is seared. Jeb-gone! Rubio tripped on his own tongue trying to avoid the scalding ejections. He's out! The armored suit Cruz built by calling Mitch "the ditch" McConnell a liar on the senate floor protects him, but does not allow him to advance. And John Kasich is a little gnat that merely survives by being to small to hit.
But Trump can't win with Only the support of disgruntled conservatives, so look around the corner and down the street. There you will find another group who has had it with what their party is shoving down their throats. The Bernie folks hate Clinton the way Trumpsters hate the Republicans. Short of an indictment, these guys will have to vote for Clinton, not vote, or ( my preference) support a third party canidate.
If Trump would wage a third party candidacy and ask Bernie to VP the ticket they could win, and in the process redraw the political lines. They can manufacture a platform to draw all people who hate the establishment.
Will somebody get these two guys in a room?
Angry voter says Cruz is establishment even though he is virtually the only voice of dissention.
Angry voter votes for Trump who probably gave Hillary campaign money for her Presidential race cuz that's what you need to do in order to do business in the US of A.
Hilarious.
Trump is the vote for those who are worn out by the lip service of the republicans and then cave in when it is time to stand their ground.
We know what is behind doors 1 and 2, Trump is the unopened door number 3.
Um, who told you Cruz voted to raise the debt ceiling?
And who told you that "Surprise!" is a good thing in a President?
Okay, first of all, you're very much suggesting smashing the system. Delude yourself all you want, but that's what Trump's candidacy is all about. I'm not even going to touch the laughable notion of "nuance" in regards to Donald Trump.
Second of all, YOU made the statement. It is not MY job to prove or disprove YOUR statement. If you can't back it up, then issue a retraction. If you want to stand by it, then get on substantiating it, or you've de facto retracted it and admitted to being full of shit, anyway. Your choice. Believe me, this probably the gentlest you're going to be told on this board that "I said it, YOU prove me wrong" won't fly . . . no matter what the political proclivities of the poster you're talking to.
Third, I sincerely doubt Kasich has any interest in being in any way associated with Donald Trump.
Fourth, I didn't ask you to tell me what's "obvious" to you, nor did I ask for, "Just elect Donald, and it will make all my dreams come true! You'll see!" Specifics, hon. EXACTLY what do you intend to build in place of the system you rail against, and how? "Let's just elect someone who says he'll be different" is crap.
You don't have to know what will happen next, but you DO have to have a plan for what you intend to accomplish and how. Contingency provisions are also a good idea. The military will tell you that no battle plan ever survives contact with the enemy, but notice that they don't just invade willy-nilly.
MY point is "Let's just make it different! Let's elect these guys, and see what happens!" is imbecilic and childish.
Smashing the the system is your characterization of electing a non-typical canidate as a 3rd party canidate. If in your mind that is smashing the system then we will have to accept that we have a different view on what constitutes smashing the system.
No, smashing the system is my observation of what Trump and his followers themselves characterize what they're doing. Have you not been paying attention all this time?
With regard to Kasich and Cruz understanding the economy- Economics is a highly complex system, most major universities offer PHDs in Economics because it is so complex. It is a soft science with relatively few natural laws compared to a hard science. Neither Cruz nor Kasich have any significant education in economics. If either were elected president they would rely on a bevy of real economist for advice and information, cause an effect etc.
Thanks for the backpedaling, temporizing, and word-parsing. Now that you're done inadequately trying to CYA and walk back your attacks, let me point out that you did not say, "Cruz and Kasich don't have degrees in economics, they'll hire economists to work for them". You said, "Neither understand the economy". Repeatedly. You then followed up with, "None of the candidates understand the economy." There is a difference. No one has ever suggested that either Cruz or Kasich has a degree in economics, or that it is their field of expertise, or that they intend to rely only on their own knowledge and expertise in that area. Donald Trump, on the other hand, HAS suggested that being rich makes him an economic expert, and that he WILL rely primarily on his own "good brain" and self-advice.
Nevertheless, one does not have to be an economist to have a general grounding in and understanding of basic economics and how it does and should intersect with the government. I can't speak for Kasich, because I find him utterly uninteresting, but I can tell you that Ted Cruz DOES have that understanding. He also has the necessary understanding and wisdom to choose economic advisers who are not talking out their ivory-tower, never-worked-in-the-real-world, I-have-a-great-theory asses.
When did I suggest that Kasish would want to have anything to do with Trump? I suggested that Bernie run as Trumps VP, however if I inadvertently used Kasish instead of Bernie, it was a mistake on my part, and I apologize.
You did, in fact, say Trump/Kasich. But I sincerely doubt that Bernie Sanders wants anything to do with Trump, either.
In your previous post you used quotation marks as if they were my words.
I never posted "let's just make it different, lets elect these guys and see what happens". If you want to have an honest and mature debate/discussion I will engage, so please have the decency not to suggest your words are mine and I will do the same.
Quotation marks do not just signify direct quotes. They also serve to indicate paraphrases and irony. If you want to have an honest and mature debate/discussion, you're going to have to learn not to project your limited grammatical skills, laced with butthurt, onto me.
So can I assume you are a Cruz supporter, and that your liberal use of quotation marks is generally intended as irony. Sorry, I missed that context.
You may assume if you wish, or if you wish to be courteous, you could ask.
My original post topic was a third party run by a Trump/Bernie ticket. I did in fact misstate in a later post Trump/Kasish. Sorry for that.
It happens. I'm often posting with a seven-year-old running in and out of the room, screaming like a dervish, at which point I'm doing good to put together a coherent sentence.
You maybe right that Bernster wouldn't want to have anything to do with Trump, but you never know when you dangle a VPship in front of him. It would give him a larger platform to spew his socialistic views, and all these guys are major egomaniacs. And when you consider that nobody really knows what the Trumpsters real political agenda is (maybe somebody does, I certainly don't), Bernie may think he can advance his agenda.
Honestly, Bernie Sanders doesn't even vaguely strike me as someone who has EVER cared about his own personal power, prestige, and position. Whatever else he is, he comes off as a sincere and impassioned ideologue. I disagree vehemently with every single thing he says and believes, but he has given me no reason to think he's not genuine.
That being said, it's hard to imagine him having any reason or desire to align himself with a campaign that's so completely about Narcissus-on-Fifth-Avenue and his lifelong love affair with himself. If I can figure out that Donald Trump doesn't give the platform to anyone else, Bernie can figure it out, too. His agenda isn't difficult to suss out (although I think it's a stretch to call it a political agenda): he's a giant, overinflated ego on legs.
In regards to political leaders and there understanding of the economy in general- My view is that virtually all these candidates are less inclined to act in what they think is in the best interest of the country economically, but rather what is in their best interest politically. Sure, they all have some basic ideological platform Economically. Bernie and Hillary are clearly more socialistic and favor various degrees of wealth distribution and government control, Teddy is more free market based, restraint of government, and inclined to private sector. You can say they all have basic knowledge of economics and how it should or does intersect with government. My opinion is they don't have a very deep understanding of cause and effect with regard to economic policy. Donald Trump is the only canidate to never vote to increase the staggering federal debt which is over $19 trillion, but I also assume the debt will likely increase under Trump or any other canidate who wins.
If I may ask, on what are you basing this blanket view of "all these candidates"? Is it something specific in their individual backgrounds and records, or is it general ennui and a love of sounded pseudo-sophisticated and jaded? I add the last because such things are so incredibly rampant, to the point of the ridiculous. Some people are just so enamored of yawning and saying, "All politicians are corrupt. These are not our best and brightest", regardless of who's actually being discussed, that they don't even waste time finding a reason to say it any more, but jump right to the shitting on them all generally part.
I really would prefer to engage in a politically based discussion, and I am not here to try and make those with a different political view look silly or call them names. Am I in the wrong place?
Honestly, it depends on who you talk to and how you talk to them.
This message board is like any other group of human beings, generally speaking: the idiots outnumber the intelligent on any given day, and membership in both sides changes frequently.
Most of the people here are more informed and politically involved than your average American, but that doesn't always mean they're thinking coherently about the information they have. And it's not a place for the faint-of-heart or the easily-offended, because very few people here, regardless of where they fall on the political spectrum, are much interested in being nice.
That being said, if you have a thick skin and are prepared to state your positions logically and with substantiation, and then to hold your ground and defend them vigorously, you can find people who will respond in kind.
I couldn't agree more that Bernie is easily the most sincere canidate, and I too reject his views. But I think there are 3 things that you must do to some degree to be successful in politics, I like to call them the evil trinity of politics. 1- you must be willing to ask people for money (Billionaire Trump is the rare exception proving the rule), 2- you must compromise your values. Getting things done requires compromise since this is not a dictatorship. 3- you must be willing to lie/deceive/cheat. A corollary is the more successful you are at these 3 things the higher you will rise in politics.
So yes, I am one who holds politicians in low regard. They are necessary to run the government, but I think we give them way too much unchecked power. I would prefer the state governments to handle most of what the federal government does, and in this way we would have multiple small experiments in health care, education, etc., rather than one large system with all our eggs in one basket, different systems that can learn from each other.
Who is your canidate of choice?
In my opinion he is a mild vote of dissension. He is a member of the established republican leadership and has voted to raise the debt ceiling even though he has railed against it. I give him high marks for calling McConnell a liar.I am an angry conservative, and I can see there is a similar outrage being manifested on the other side as well. Voters of both political ilk are showing real disdain for their respective establishment leaders. Frankly, I will not vote for any candidate, but rather most certainly against either Clinton or Cruz...NO C's for me. And there just might be a way to keep both the awful C's out.
If the republicans disregard the clear choice candidate per the primaries they will definitely lose in November. Voters like me, and especially those who actually ballyhoo Trump for president wIll refuse to vote for anybody but Trump. We will either not vote, perhaps childishly cut off our nose and vote for the Dem, or (this is my preference) support a Third party run by the Trumpster. Remember, I am no Trumpite, but I am sick of the worn out joke of a party, the Gop. As a note- I would discourage anyone from being loyal to any party in lieu of being true to your own dogma.
So the conventional wisdom is that no 3rd party candidate can win, but we are already sailing a political ark in a sea like no other. Trump is 50% ahead of Cruz, his mouth is a boiling cauldron of vile, putrid muck, and the steamy ejects always land and sear his opponents. The closer the opponent is to the Republican establishment the more he is seared. Jeb-gone! Rubio tripped on his own tongue trying to avoid the scalding ejections. He's out! The armored suit Cruz built by calling Mitch "the ditch" McConnell a liar on the senate floor protects him, but does not allow him to advance. And John Kasich is a little gnat that merely survives by being to small to hit.
But Trump can't win with Only the support of disgruntled conservatives, so look around the corner and down the street. There you will find another group who has had it with what their party is shoving down their throats. The Bernie folks hate Clinton the way Trumpsters hate the Republicans. Short of an indictment, these guys will have to vote for Clinton, not vote, or ( my preference) support a third party canidate.
If Trump would wage a third party candidacy and ask Bernie to VP the ticket they could win, and in the process redraw the political lines. They can manufacture a platform to draw all people who hate the establishment.
Will somebody get these two guys in a room?
Angry voter says Cruz is establishment even though he is virtually the only voice of dissention.
Angry voter votes for Trump who probably gave Hillary campaign money for her Presidential race cuz that's what you need to do in order to do business in the US of A.
Hilarious.
Trump is the vote for those who are worn out by the lip service of the republicans and then cave in when it is time to stand their ground.
We know what is behind doors 1 and 2, Trump is the unopened door number 3.
Um, who told you Cruz voted to raise the debt ceiling?
And who told you that "Surprise!" is a good thing in a President?In my opinion he is a mild vote of dissension. He is a member of the established republican leadership and has voted to raise the debt ceiling even though he has railed against it. I give him high marks for calling McConnell a liar.I am an angry conservative, and I can see there is a similar outrage being manifested on the other side as well. Voters of both political ilk are showing real disdain for their respective establishment leaders. Frankly, I will not vote for any candidate, but rather most certainly against either Clinton or Cruz...NO C's for me. And there just might be a way to keep both the awful C's out.
If the republicans disregard the clear choice candidate per the primaries they will definitely lose in November. Voters like me, and especially those who actually ballyhoo Trump for president wIll refuse to vote for anybody but Trump. We will either not vote, perhaps childishly cut off our nose and vote for the Dem, or (this is my preference) support a Third party run by the Trumpster. Remember, I am no Trumpite, but I am sick of the worn out joke of a party, the Gop. As a note- I would discourage anyone from being loyal to any party in lieu of being true to your own dogma.
So the conventional wisdom is that no 3rd party candidate can win, but we are already sailing a political ark in a sea like no other. Trump is 50% ahead of Cruz, his mouth is a boiling cauldron of vile, putrid muck, and the steamy ejects always land and sear his opponents. The closer the opponent is to the Republican establishment the more he is seared. Jeb-gone! Rubio tripped on his own tongue trying to avoid the scalding ejections. He's out! The armored suit Cruz built by calling Mitch "the ditch" McConnell a liar on the senate floor protects him, but does not allow him to advance. And John Kasich is a little gnat that merely survives by being to small to hit.
But Trump can't win with Only the support of disgruntled conservatives, so look around the corner and down the street. There you will find another group who has had it with what their party is shoving down their throats. The Bernie folks hate Clinton the way Trumpsters hate the Republicans. Short of an indictment, these guys will have to vote for Clinton, not vote, or ( my preference) support a third party canidate.
If Trump would wage a third party candidacy and ask Bernie to VP the ticket they could win, and in the process redraw the political lines. They can manufacture a platform to draw all people who hate the establishment.
Will somebody get these two guys in a room?
Angry voter says Cruz is establishment even though he is virtually the only voice of dissention.
Angry voter votes for Trump who probably gave Hillary campaign money for her Presidential race cuz that's what you need to do in order to do business in the US of A.
Hilarious.
Trump is the vote for those who are worn out by the lip service of the republicans and then cave in when it is time to stand their ground.
We know what is behind doors 1 and 2, Trump is the unopened door number 3.
Um, who told you Cruz voted to raise the debt ceiling?
And who told you that "Surprise!" is a good thing in a President?
Cruz, Rubio Vote To Increase Debt By $400 Billion- Paul, Sanders Vote No
Smashing the the system is your characterization of electing a non-typical canidate as a 3rd party canidate. If in your mind that is smashing the system then we will have to accept that we have a different view on what constitutes smashing the system.
No, smashing the system is my observation of what Trump and his followers themselves characterize what they're doing. Have you not been paying attention all this time?
With regard to Kasich and Cruz understanding the economy- Economics is a highly complex system, most major universities offer PHDs in Economics because it is so complex. It is a soft science with relatively few natural laws compared to a hard science. Neither Cruz nor Kasich have any significant education in economics. If either were elected president they would rely on a bevy of real economist for advice and information, cause an effect etc.
Thanks for the backpedaling, temporizing, and word-parsing. Now that you're done inadequately trying to CYA and walk back your attacks, let me point out that you did not say, "Cruz and Kasich don't have degrees in economics, they'll hire economists to work for them". You said, "Neither understand the economy". Repeatedly. You then followed up with, "None of the candidates understand the economy." There is a difference. No one has ever suggested that either Cruz or Kasich has a degree in economics, or that it is their field of expertise, or that they intend to rely only on their own knowledge and expertise in that area. Donald Trump, on the other hand, HAS suggested that being rich makes him an economic expert, and that he WILL rely primarily on his own "good brain" and self-advice.
Nevertheless, one does not have to be an economist to have a general grounding in and understanding of basic economics and how it does and should intersect with the government. I can't speak for Kasich, because I find him utterly uninteresting, but I can tell you that Ted Cruz DOES have that understanding. He also has the necessary understanding and wisdom to choose economic advisers who are not talking out their ivory-tower, never-worked-in-the-real-world, I-have-a-great-theory asses.
When did I suggest that Kasish would want to have anything to do with Trump? I suggested that Bernie run as Trumps VP, however if I inadvertently used Kasish instead of Bernie, it was a mistake on my part, and I apologize.
You did, in fact, say Trump/Kasich. But I sincerely doubt that Bernie Sanders wants anything to do with Trump, either.
In your previous post you used quotation marks as if they were my words.
I never posted "let's just make it different, lets elect these guys and see what happens". If you want to have an honest and mature debate/discussion I will engage, so please have the decency not to suggest your words are mine and I will do the same.
Quotation marks do not just signify direct quotes. They also serve to indicate paraphrases and irony. If you want to have an honest and mature debate/discussion, you're going to have to learn not to project your limited grammatical skills, laced with butthurt, onto me.
So can I assume you are a Cruz supporter, and that your liberal use of quotation marks is generally intended as irony. Sorry, I missed that context.
You may assume if you wish, or if you wish to be courteous, you could ask.
My original post topic was a third party run by a Trump/Bernie ticket. I did in fact misstate in a later post Trump/Kasish. Sorry for that.
It happens. I'm often posting with a seven-year-old running in and out of the room, screaming like a dervish, at which point I'm doing good to put together a coherent sentence.
You maybe right that Bernster wouldn't want to have anything to do with Trump, but you never know when you dangle a VPship in front of him. It would give him a larger platform to spew his socialistic views, and all these guys are major egomaniacs. And when you consider that nobody really knows what the Trumpsters real political agenda is (maybe somebody does, I certainly don't), Bernie may think he can advance his agenda.
Honestly, Bernie Sanders doesn't even vaguely strike me as someone who has EVER cared about his own personal power, prestige, and position. Whatever else he is, he comes off as a sincere and impassioned ideologue. I disagree vehemently with every single thing he says and believes, but he has given me no reason to think he's not genuine.
That being said, it's hard to imagine him having any reason or desire to align himself with a campaign that's so completely about Narcissus-on-Fifth-Avenue and his lifelong love affair with himself. If I can figure out that Donald Trump doesn't give the platform to anyone else, Bernie can figure it out, too. His agenda isn't difficult to suss out (although I think it's a stretch to call it a political agenda): he's a giant, overinflated ego on legs.
In regards to political leaders and there understanding of the economy in general- My view is that virtually all these candidates are less inclined to act in what they think is in the best interest of the country economically, but rather what is in their best interest politically. Sure, they all have some basic ideological platform Economically. Bernie and Hillary are clearly more socialistic and favor various degrees of wealth distribution and government control, Teddy is more free market based, restraint of government, and inclined to private sector. You can say they all have basic knowledge of economics and how it should or does intersect with government. My opinion is they don't have a very deep understanding of cause and effect with regard to economic policy. Donald Trump is the only canidate to never vote to increase the staggering federal debt which is over $19 trillion, but I also assume the debt will likely increase under Trump or any other canidate who wins.
If I may ask, on what are you basing this blanket view of "all these candidates"? Is it something specific in their individual backgrounds and records, or is it general ennui and a love of sounded pseudo-sophisticated and jaded? I add the last because such things are so incredibly rampant, to the point of the ridiculous. Some people are just so enamored of yawning and saying, "All politicians are corrupt. These are not our best and brightest", regardless of who's actually being discussed, that they don't even waste time finding a reason to say it any more, but jump right to the shitting on them all generally part.
I really would prefer to engage in a politically based discussion, and I am not here to try and make those with a different political view look silly or call them names. Am I in the wrong place?
Honestly, it depends on who you talk to and how you talk to them.
This message board is like any other group of human beings, generally speaking: the idiots outnumber the intelligent on any given day, and membership in both sides changes frequently.
Most of the people here are more informed and politically involved than your average American, but that doesn't always mean they're thinking coherently about the information they have. And it's not a place for the faint-of-heart or the easily-offended, because very few people here, regardless of where they fall on the political spectrum, are much interested in being nice.
That being said, if you have a thick skin and are prepared to state your positions logically and with substantiation, and then to hold your ground and defend them vigorously, you can find people who will respond in kind.
I couldn't agree more that Bernie is easily the most sincere canidate, and I too reject his views. But I think there are 3 things that you must do to some degree to be successful in politics, I like to call them the evil trinity of politics. 1- you must be willing to ask people for money (Billionaire Trump is the rare exception proving the rule), 2- you must compromise your values. Getting things done requires compromise since this is not a dictatorship. 3- you must be willing to lie/deceive/cheat. A corollary is the more successful you are at these 3 things the higher you will rise in politics.
So yes, I am one who holds politicians in low regard. They are necessary to run the government, but I think we give them way too much unchecked power. I would prefer the state governments to handle most of what the federal government does, and in this way we would have multiple small experiments in health care, education, etc., rather than one large system with all our eggs in one basket, different systems that can learn from each other.
Who is your canidate of choice?
First, I would like to point out that Trump is taking less in donations (don't ever believe his bullshit about self-funding), not because he's a billionaire, but because the media has been willingly footing most of the bill. I cannot remember the last time, if ever, that the media has been this far up a candidate's ass without a microscope.
Second, I disagree that it's necessary to compromise one's values. True, most people DO end up doing so, but it's not necessary. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. I will agree that it's sometimes necessary to make compromises, to accept half-a-loaf now and then work toward getting the other half later, rather than demanding the whole loaf right away and getting jack shit. But that isn't the same thing.
Third, I absolutely disagree that one has to lie/deceive/cheat to succeed in politics. But generally, one DOES have to be good at phrasing the truth in the right way to make an impact and accomplish one's goals. This is really not any different from the normal diplomacy most adults have to employ to continue holding jobs, having friends, maintaining relationships with relatives . . .
I will agree that we give away entirely too much power to the federal government. People bitch about the need to take money out of politics, but the truth is, the only way to really do that is to make politicians less valuable, ie. take away the power that they currently wield. Who would want to bribe them if they didn't have so much control?
I am, in fact, supporting Ted Cruz, in large part because I believe he's serious about wanting to re-institute the Constitutional checks and balances that are supposed to protect us. And I think he more than proved himself the Don Quixote we need to tilt at the windmill of federal overreach while he was in the Senate.
No, smashing the system is my observation of what Trump and his followers themselves characterize what they're doing. Have you not been paying attention all this time?
Thanks for the backpedaling, temporizing, and word-parsing. Now that you're done inadequately trying to CYA and walk back your attacks, let me point out that you did not say, "Cruz and Kasich don't have degrees in economics, they'll hire economists to work for them". You said, "Neither understand the economy". Repeatedly. You then followed up with, "None of the candidates understand the economy." There is a difference. No one has ever suggested that either Cruz or Kasich has a degree in economics, or that it is their field of expertise, or that they intend to rely only on their own knowledge and expertise in that area. Donald Trump, on the other hand, HAS suggested that being rich makes him an economic expert, and that he WILL rely primarily on his own "good brain" and self-advice.
Nevertheless, one does not have to be an economist to have a general grounding in and understanding of basic economics and how it does and should intersect with the government. I can't speak for Kasich, because I find him utterly uninteresting, but I can tell you that Ted Cruz DOES have that understanding. He also has the necessary understanding and wisdom to choose economic advisers who are not talking out their ivory-tower, never-worked-in-the-real-world, I-have-a-great-theory asses.
You did, in fact, say Trump/Kasich. But I sincerely doubt that Bernie Sanders wants anything to do with Trump, either.
Quotation marks do not just signify direct quotes. They also serve to indicate paraphrases and irony. If you want to have an honest and mature debate/discussion, you're going to have to learn not to project your limited grammatical skills, laced with butthurt, onto me.
So can I assume you are a Cruz supporter, and that your liberal use of quotation marks is generally intended as irony. Sorry, I missed that context.
You may assume if you wish, or if you wish to be courteous, you could ask.
My original post topic was a third party run by a Trump/Bernie ticket. I did in fact misstate in a later post Trump/Kasish. Sorry for that.
It happens. I'm often posting with a seven-year-old running in and out of the room, screaming like a dervish, at which point I'm doing good to put together a coherent sentence.
You maybe right that Bernster wouldn't want to have anything to do with Trump, but you never know when you dangle a VPship in front of him. It would give him a larger platform to spew his socialistic views, and all these guys are major egomaniacs. And when you consider that nobody really knows what the Trumpsters real political agenda is (maybe somebody does, I certainly don't), Bernie may think he can advance his agenda.
Honestly, Bernie Sanders doesn't even vaguely strike me as someone who has EVER cared about his own personal power, prestige, and position. Whatever else he is, he comes off as a sincere and impassioned ideologue. I disagree vehemently with every single thing he says and believes, but he has given me no reason to think he's not genuine.
That being said, it's hard to imagine him having any reason or desire to align himself with a campaign that's so completely about Narcissus-on-Fifth-Avenue and his lifelong love affair with himself. If I can figure out that Donald Trump doesn't give the platform to anyone else, Bernie can figure it out, too. His agenda isn't difficult to suss out (although I think it's a stretch to call it a political agenda): he's a giant, overinflated ego on legs.
In regards to political leaders and there understanding of the economy in general- My view is that virtually all these candidates are less inclined to act in what they think is in the best interest of the country economically, but rather what is in their best interest politically. Sure, they all have some basic ideological platform Economically. Bernie and Hillary are clearly more socialistic and favor various degrees of wealth distribution and government control, Teddy is more free market based, restraint of government, and inclined to private sector. You can say they all have basic knowledge of economics and how it should or does intersect with government. My opinion is they don't have a very deep understanding of cause and effect with regard to economic policy. Donald Trump is the only canidate to never vote to increase the staggering federal debt which is over $19 trillion, but I also assume the debt will likely increase under Trump or any other canidate who wins.
If I may ask, on what are you basing this blanket view of "all these candidates"? Is it something specific in their individual backgrounds and records, or is it general ennui and a love of sounded pseudo-sophisticated and jaded? I add the last because such things are so incredibly rampant, to the point of the ridiculous. Some people are just so enamored of yawning and saying, "All politicians are corrupt. These are not our best and brightest", regardless of who's actually being discussed, that they don't even waste time finding a reason to say it any more, but jump right to the shitting on them all generally part.
I really would prefer to engage in a politically based discussion, and I am not here to try and make those with a different political view look silly or call them names. Am I in the wrong place?
Honestly, it depends on who you talk to and how you talk to them.
This message board is like any other group of human beings, generally speaking: the idiots outnumber the intelligent on any given day, and membership in both sides changes frequently.
Most of the people here are more informed and politically involved than your average American, but that doesn't always mean they're thinking coherently about the information they have. And it's not a place for the faint-of-heart or the easily-offended, because very few people here, regardless of where they fall on the political spectrum, are much interested in being nice.
That being said, if you have a thick skin and are prepared to state your positions logically and with substantiation, and then to hold your ground and defend them vigorously, you can find people who will respond in kind.
I couldn't agree more that Bernie is easily the most sincere canidate, and I too reject his views. But I think there are 3 things that you must do to some degree to be successful in politics, I like to call them the evil trinity of politics. 1- you must be willing to ask people for money (Billionaire Trump is the rare exception proving the rule), 2- you must compromise your values. Getting things done requires compromise since this is not a dictatorship. 3- you must be willing to lie/deceive/cheat. A corollary is the more successful you are at these 3 things the higher you will rise in politics.
So yes, I am one who holds politicians in low regard. They are necessary to run the government, but I think we give them way too much unchecked power. I would prefer the state governments to handle most of what the federal government does, and in this way we would have multiple small experiments in health care, education, etc., rather than one large system with all our eggs in one basket, different systems that can learn from each other.
Who is your canidate of choice?
First, I would like to point out that Trump is taking less in donations (don't ever believe his bullshit about self-funding), not because he's a billionaire, but because the media has been willingly footing most of the bill. I cannot remember the last time, if ever, that the media has been this far up a candidate's ass without a microscope.
Second, I disagree that it's necessary to compromise one's values. True, most people DO end up doing so, but it's not necessary. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. I will agree that it's sometimes necessary to make compromises, to accept half-a-loaf now and then work toward getting the other half later, rather than demanding the whole loaf right away and getting jack shit. But that isn't the same thing.
Third, I absolutely disagree that one has to lie/deceive/cheat to succeed in politics. But generally, one DOES have to be good at phrasing the truth in the right way to make an impact and accomplish one's goals. This is really not any different from the normal diplomacy most adults have to employ to continue holding jobs, having friends, maintaining relationships with relatives . . .
I will agree that we give away entirely too much power to the federal government. People bitch about the need to take money out of politics, but the truth is, the only way to really do that is to make politicians less valuable, ie. take away the power that they currently wield. Who would want to bribe them if they didn't have so much control?
I am, in fact, supporting Ted Cruz, in large part because I believe he's serious about wanting to re-institute the Constitutional checks and balances that are supposed to protect us. And I think he more than proved himself the Don Quixote we need to tilt at the windmill of federal overreach while he was in the Senate.
Great point on how media coverage is self funding for Trump. He is a master self promoter. Almost makes you wonder if he really could make Mexico pay for that wall. BTW-That's meant as sarcasm, so please don't think I am looking for that debate.
Maybe I am too jaded concerning politicians. I am admittedly creeped out by the whole political process. Is seems so disingenuous. I understand the need, but I don't have to like it. Some people have to clean sewers, but I wouldn't want that job either.
I see three vehicles of trade and barter in Washington - Power, money, and influence, and one begets the other. Go to Washington as a young, newly elected congressman with a few grains of power and influence, and if you play the game well you will get much richer. Make lots of money in business and buy yourself an election.....presto, instant influence. Stay in congress for 30 years like John Boehner and enjoy your power. The whole thing seems very unseemly to me.
This country was created and inspired by men who as political leaders made sacrifices. They didn't get rich by telling King George to get out. Instead they invited pain and agony. They were Statesmen, so allow me the fairy tale of looking for those types of leaders. Remember, you referenced Don Quixote.
I have actually had moments of supporting Cruz, but I am concerned about being made the fool again. FYI- I was all in on Carly until she was proven unviable.
