LoneLaugher
Diamond Member
Is that right? Interesting take.
I'm going to suggest that you consider intellect when deciding between a pair of candidates. Basically, provided that neither is a sociopath, you want the smarter of the two to be the one elected.
Generally speaking, when America chooses the most intelligent person who is willing to do the job and who can survive our fucked up campaign process, we end up with decent results.
If the two candidates were to be Hillary Clinton and Scott Walker....and you chose Walker.....you'd be choosing the one with less intelligence. End of story.
By that logic, Jimmy Carter should have been the best president of my lifetime. The guy was a fucking nuclear physicist! Instead he's remembered as being kind of a pathetic failure.
I want the one who can achieve results and provide leadership.
If I were to go by leadership, Walker's tenure of Wisconsin has been a success. He took on the bloated bureaucracy and corrupt unions and won despite everything they threw at him.
Hillary- Well, you have he record at the State Department.... Well, uh, yeah.
The Democrats have in Hillary what the Republicans had with Romney in 2012. The candidate you really didn't want in 2008, you're not terribly enthusiastic about, but it's her turn. This is really stupid when the Republicans do it.
Ahhhh. Carter. Remembered as a pathetic failure. Reagan is remembered as being a huge success.
I'd vote for Carter over Reagan today without hesitation.
And....the Romney/Clinton comparison is pretty weak. They both lost primaries. To say that liberals are as opposed to Clinton as cons were to Romney is disingenous. Look at how many people joined the race against him. Clinton enjoys high approval ratings from liberals.
Finally....you might want to spend a few hours reading what those Wisconsinites who don't support Walker have to say about his record.