Demand Freedom and Choice: A Clinton or a Bush in 2016

[Procrustes Stretched]

Demand Freedom and Choice: A Clinton or a Bush in 2016

Why not? Why should people who want Jeb Bush or Hillary Clinton in the running be denied the freedom to choose? Why do so many supposed freedom loving Americans rally against our most basic freedom of choice in an election?

Too bad Bill Clinton could not have run in 2000.

We all know the unintended consequences of term limits have made the cure worse than the dis-ease. Some of us have seen how shitty the popular will turns out to be. So why not?

 

[bendog]

If the reason they are the front runners is that they are the ones who everyone knows can raise the money to win, then it's bad. And, I think that is largely the case with Hillary. Superpacs will control spending in this election by about 80% or more. There's an aspect to Hill's aspirations of "she's been waiting," "she's been the loyal SoS........" But challenging her in a dem primary, and taking any money or momentum, as Ted did to Jimmy, will probably make anyone with a serious challenge a pariah.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Until we have campaign finance reform and penalties for negative advertising based on half truths and innuendo......the pool of persons willing to throw their hat into the ring will be limited to those who have nothing of value to lose.

That said.......the populace has done a fairly decent job (with two exceptions) of weeding out those who are complete idiots or crazed nuts.

Therefore, we won't see a Santorum or a Huckabee or a Pence or a Cain or a Cruz or a Carson or a Palin or a McCain or a Trump or a Perry or a Fiorina or a Walker......in the Oval Office.

If we give a pass to Reagan and W.....every POTUS in my lifetime has been more intelligent than the average American......and less crazy than any of the people I listed above.

Good job, America!

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

.every POTUS in my lifetime has been more intelligent than the average American......and less crazy than any of the people I listed above.

Annnnnnnnnd then came BHO.......

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Is there anybody actually suggesting that neither Hillary nor Jeb should be permitted to run, rather than just mocking the fact that these families seem to keep a stranglehold over political power in the United States?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

1) If the reason they are the front runners is that they are the ones who everyone knows can raise the money to win, then it's bad. And, I think that is largely the case with Hillary. Superpacs will control spending in this election by about 80% or more. There's an aspect to Hill's aspirations of "she's been waiting," "she's been the loyal SoS........"

2) But challenging her in a dem primary, and taking any money or momentum, as Ted did to Jimmy, will probably make anyone with a serious challenge a pariah.

1) No it is not inherently bad. Without Super PACs Hillary would still be the top Dem fundraiser and Jeb would still be the top GOP fundraiser. It is partly about the ability to win (why would anyone want to win?), partly about name recognition (why would we want to know of somebody?), the ability to raise the money NEEDED, and more.

We elect people we know on some level. Mr. smith couldn't get elected unOfficial National Dog Catcher and he shouldn't.

2) what in the world are you talking about? Can you be more clear?

 

[bendog]

.every POTUS in my lifetime has been more intelligent than the average American......and less crazy than any of the people I listed above.

Annnnnnnnnd then came BHO.......

Superpacs weren't even a glimmer in the big money donors' eyes.

 

[bendog]

1) If the reason they are the front runners is that they are the ones who everyone knows can raise the money to win, then it's bad. And, I think that is largely the case with Hillary. Superpacs will control spending in this election by about 80% or more. There's an aspect to Hill's aspirations of "she's been waiting," "she's been the loyal SoS........"

2) But challenging her in a dem primary, and taking any money or momentum, as Ted did to Jimmy, will probably make anyone with a serious challenge a pariah.

1) No it is not inherently bad. Without Super PACs Hillary would still be the top Dem fundraiser and Jeb would still be the top GOP fundraiser. It is partly about the ability to win (why would anyone want to win?), partly about name recognition (why would we want to know of somebody?), the ability to raise the money NEEDED, and more.

We elect people we know on some level. Mr. smith couldn't get elected unOfficial National Dog Catcher and he shouldn't.

2) what in the world are you talking about? Can you be more clear?

You should answer your own question by querying why ... in over 200 years, have we only had one multi-generational (or spousal) potus if it was all about name recognition and not campaign finance. Only one thing has changed, and it's the latter.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

1) Until we have campaign finance reform and penalties for negative advertising based on half truths and innuendo......the pool of persons willing to throw their hat into the ring will be limited to those who have nothing of value to lose.

That said.......the populace has done a fairly decent job (with two exceptions) of weeding out those who are complete idiots or crazed nuts.

Therefore, we won't see a Santorum or a Huckabee or a Pence or a Cain or a Cruz or a Carson or a Palin or a McCain or a Trump or a Perry or a Fiorina or a Walker......in the Oval Office.

If we give a pass to Reagan and W.....every POTUS in my lifetime has been more intelligent than the average American......and less crazy than any of the people I listed above.

Good job, America!

1) Dream on. What dream world do you live in? Did you ever beef up on the media and campaigns in American history going back to the earliest days?

You believe the mythological bullshit that in the end the American people always gets it right? News Flash: we don't!

And while is is usually improbable one of the crazies will win, it is not entirely impossible. Americans are no different than the twentieth century Italians and Germans. I used to think differently until I started reading up on things again. WTF was I thinking? I guess like you, myth made me feel all warm and safe inside

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Is there anybody actually suggesting that neither Hillary nor Jeb should be permitted to run, rather than just mocking the fact that these families seem to keep a stranglehold over political power in the United States?

yes

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

.every POTUS in my lifetime has been more intelligent than the average American......and less crazy than any of the people I listed above.

Annnnnnnnnd then came BHO.......

Superpacs weren't even a glimmer in the big money donors' eyes.

really? you believe that shit?

Well McConnell and others were promising just such a thing for a few decades. The super rich are anything if not patient

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

1) If the reason they are the front runners is that they are the ones who everyone knows can raise the money to win, then it's bad. And, I think that is largely the case with Hillary. Superpacs will control spending in this election by about 80% or more. There's an aspect to Hill's aspirations of "she's been waiting," "she's been the loyal SoS........"

2) But challenging her in a dem primary, and taking any money or momentum, as Ted did to Jimmy, will probably make anyone with a serious challenge a pariah.

1) No it is not inherently bad. Without Super PACs Hillary would still be the top Dem fundraiser and Jeb would still be the top GOP fundraiser. It is partly about the ability to win (why would anyone want to win?), partly about name recognition (why would we want to know of somebody?), the ability to raise the money NEEDED, and more.

We elect people we know on some level. Mr. smith couldn't get elected unOfficial National Dog Catcher and he shouldn't.

2) what in the world are you talking about? Can you be more clear?

You should answer your own question by querying why ... in over 200 years, have we only had one multi-generational (or spousal) potus if it was all about name recognition and not campaign finance. Only one thing has changed, and it's the latter.

Campaign finance has changed the ground rules, but candidates used to be selected by party bosses in smoke filled backrooms. Stop blaming every ill on the money/ Jesus, do you ever get tired of fishing for red herring and chasing after deflection?

 

[defcon4]

Why do so many supposed freedom loving Americans rally against our most basic freedom of choice in an election?

Your question is skewed. Nobody rallies for YOUR choice to vote for anybody you want to.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Why do so many supposed freedom loving Americans rally against our most basic freedom of choice in an election?

Your question is skewed. Nobody rallies for YOUR choice to vote for anybody you want to.

another one? Where did most of you people come from? Graduates of an ESL school for a foreign species?

 

[defcon4]

Why do so many supposed freedom loving Americans rally against our most basic freedom of choice in an election?

Your question is skewed. Nobody rallies for YOUR choice to vote for anybody you want to.

another one? Where did most of you people come from? Graduates of an ESL school for a foreign species?

That would be YOUR public school system in your case. They succeeded to keep you dumb. If you went to a private school then, you could ask for your money back.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Is there anybody actually suggesting that neither Hillary nor Jeb should be permitted to run, rather than just mocking the fact that these families seem to keep a stranglehold over political power in the United States?

yes

Who?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Is there anybody actually suggesting that neither Hillary nor Jeb should be permitted to run, rather than just mocking the fact that these families seem to keep a stranglehold over political power in the United States?

yes

Who?

The whole 'political dynasty' crowd. Of course it is only implied and hinted at, because people know it is legitimate and legal for both to run. Or maybe you are one of those who don't believe when I say Chicago Welfare moms I'm not hinting at black people on welfare?

 

[OKTexas]

1) If the reason they are the front runners is that they are the ones who everyone knows can raise the money to win, then it's bad. And, I think that is largely the case with Hillary. Superpacs will control spending in this election by about 80% or more. There's an aspect to Hill's aspirations of "she's been waiting," "she's been the loyal SoS........"

2) But challenging her in a dem primary, and taking any money or momentum, as Ted did to Jimmy, will probably make anyone with a serious challenge a pariah.

1) No it is not inherently bad. Without Super PACs Hillary would still be the top Dem fundraiser and Jeb would still be the top GOP fundraiser. It is partly about the ability to win (why would anyone want to win?), partly about name recognition (why would we want to know of somebody?), the ability to raise the money NEEDED, and more.

We elect people we know on some level. Mr. smith couldn't get elected unOfficial National Dog Catcher and he shouldn't.

2) what in the world are you talking about? Can you be more clear?

You should answer your own question by querying why ... in over 200 years, have we only had one multi-generational (or spousal) potus if it was all about name recognition and not campaign finance. Only one thing has changed, and it's the latter.

Actually we've had two, John Adams and John Q. Adams and the two Bushes.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Is there anybody actually suggesting that neither Hillary nor Jeb should be permitted to run, rather than just mocking the fact that these families seem to keep a stranglehold over political power in the United States?

yes

Who?

The whole 'political dynasty' crowd. Of course it is only implied and hinted at, because people know it is legitimate and legal for both to run. Or maybe you are one of those who don't believe when I say Chicago Welfare moms I'm not hinting at black people on welfare?

Oh, so this is your imagination running amok, and nobody actually believes that these buffoons should not be allowed to run.

 

[blackhawk]

Who is trying to deny people from choosing Jeb or Hillary? I personally don't want another Bush or Clinton Presidency that is my right and choice my not wanting that though does not prevent anyone else from supporting or voting for them.