Chagos
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2015
- Messages
- 35,211
- Reaction score
- 11,647
- Location
- in expatria
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Private
Well it doesn't seem to happen to the Democrats as they don't seem to expect anything of their candidates other than they are reasonable leftwing and have a D after their name. Character, track record, accomplishments, demonstrated ability to get things done etc. don't seem to matter much.
But until the people who vote GOP, regardless of how they self-identify, develop a backbone and are willing to demonstrate strength of character and conviction by standing up and speaking out for what they want and expect from those we entrust with leadership, I fear we will continue to 'settle' for a vanilla flavor that gives everybody just a little of what they say they want but can't or won't deliver on the campaign rhetoric. And that means holding our noses when we vote.
To the bolded. That's far too hyperbolic and too broadly critical to even respond to. To the rest, make the republicans and the democrats sit one out. Vote third party.
Cannot vote since a third option is missing.
I've had enough of both names and I don't cotton much to the concept of dynasties. It's not the United Kingdom of America, is it?
It certainly would.I think a lot of us would prefer different names to choose from. But if those are the names we do have to choose from and therefore one or the other will be President, wouldn't the honorable thing be to vote for the one who would be less damaging to the country ?
It certainly would.
Problem being that discernment is somewhat difficult still.
I can appreciate how it looks that way, but the statement was more objective than you give credit.You can look at the candidates that the Democrats nominate and elect President. People with little or no credentials and/or track record, people of questionable character, dubious background, etc. Obama was such a candidate but he was nominated and elected. And despite his miserable track record in his first term nevertheless was re-elected in 2012. And now Hillary with similar lack of any kind of admirable track record and definitely of dubious character is the presumed nominee and winner in 2016. All this points to the Democrats setting the bar very very low for their chosen leaders and the D after the name seems to be all that is really important.
The GOP has its own problems with fecklessness. It is just somewhat different from that of the Democrats.
Ok, thanks AlbqOwl. So that's just too partisan for me. There's good people and bad people in both parties, there's fair and decent people in both parties, there's scalawags in both parties, people of dubious character in both parties. There's a long list of Washington elites/politicians from both parties that have been convicted of crimes. The only thing that differs in the two parties is ideologies. Other than that, one is not superior to the other. What would actually be nice is for American voters to hold there own accountable. If we are concerned about what's good for America as paramount to what's good for our party (ideological) affiliation, we might get this right some day.
And criticize Obama all you wish, he didn't arrive in Washington of questionable character or dubious background.
If you see my post as partisan, there isn't much left to say. Because it absolutely is not.
And perhaps you can show what Barack and Michelle Obama, both claiming to come from humble backgrounds of limited means and saddled with oppressive student loans, did to allow them to bid $1.65 million for their Chicago home? How does an obscure and unknown community organizer vault to the board chairmanship at Annenburg? And even Factcheck.org can't remove the smell from the subsequent Rezko deal. The murky relationship with Bill Ayers. Barack Obama and William Ayers-Truth! The 20 year association with Rev. Wright of the Trinity UCC who Obama said was his mentor and father figure until that scandal broke and then it seems the President never heard a single sermon Wright ever preached as he never heard the anti-American, liberation theology regularly preached in that church. Perhaps you can point to a single noteworthy accomplishment Obama can point to in his entire adult life.
I think questionable character and dubious background is being pretty charitable as it does allow for some benefit of the doubt.
I would like all Americans to demand a whole lot more transparency and honesty and expect a whole lot more from those we entrust with leadership positions.
If you see my post as partisan, there isn't much left to say. Because it absolutely is not.
And perhaps you can show what Barack and Michelle Obama, both claiming to come from humble backgrounds of limited means and saddled with oppressive student loans, did to allow them to bid $1.65 million for their Chicago home? How does an obscure and unknown community organizer vault to the board chairmanship at Annenburg? And even Factcheck.org can't remove the smell from the subsequent Rezko deal. The murky relationship with Bill Ayers. Barack Obama and William Ayers-Truth! The 20 year association with Rev. Wright of the Trinity UCC who Obama said was his mentor and father figure until that scandal broke and then it seems the President never heard a single sermon Wright ever preached as he never heard the anti-American, liberation theology regularly preached in that church. Perhaps you can point to a single noteworthy accomplishment Obama can point to in his entire adult life.
I think questionable character and dubious background is being pretty charitable as it does allow for some benefit of the doubt.
I would like all Americans to demand a whole lot more transparency and honesty and expect a whole lot more from those we entrust with leadership positions.
It will be a competition between two dynasties in the United States. It will be very interesting, so, which one is your favorite?
What???!!! It's as partisan as the day is long. You broad brushed an entire party, presumably all liberal progressive voters as questionable and dubious of character only interested in sending the like to Washington. How am I suppose to deal with that. And presumably, in contrast, conservatives are only interested in voting in ethical and moral politicians that execute their duties in strict adherence to the constitution. That's terribly patronizing. Otherwise, perhaps you can point me to a clean politician, ANYWHERE!
It isn't patronizing at all. It is an honest observation of what a particular political party has done. More than once. And presumably intends to do again.
Bush is far more likely to win the nomination than the Cankled Hildabeast
both suck, she sucks worse
Is there some reason you feel necessary to talk about the physical appearance of female candidates and not male ones?
I'm still waiting for the footnote from GOP partisans of their blatant false-equivalency in wanting to remove the top DEM candidate along with a GOP candidate who's one of at least a half dozen with a shot at their nomination by using the broadest of strokes to eliminate two families.
Does this count for JEB's son and HRC's daughter also ?
I don't think there is anything about Jeb that makes me want to puke
and it pisses off many on the left!
So you don't find it interesting that people talk about the physical appearance of female politicians way, way more than they do about male politicians?
Hillary will make the campaign about gender, because that's all she's got.
It will be a competition between two dynasties in the United States. It will be very interesting, so, which one is your favorite?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?