• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

I'm a liberal Independent, open to voting for any party in 2016.

That info/article is pre-Sandy. He is no longer the darling among extremists. He was not invited to the conservative bash recently, where tea partiers ruled the day.

Christie is fairly moderate. There are several reasons I would consider voting for him, but those don't matter if he doesn't run or isn't nominated.


Most probably he will run and will get nominated with relative ease. Pre-Sandy or post-Sandy - that doesn't matter a bit. In a very blue state, Christie is doing about as much as can be done along the lines of fiscal conservatism and structural reform. That's what matters for tea partiers (not the opportunistic loudmouths made by the joint efforts of MSNBC and FOX into "tea party leaders", but actual people working precincts). There will be some fireworks regarding the differences between Christie and hard libertarians on "national security issues", but they will only strengthen both sides: Chris will confirm in the public mind that he is a pragmatic, no-nonsense executive type, and Rand, Justin and Co. will add to their reputation as guardians of liberty.
 
Last edited:
Hillary is not moderate. Don't let her fool you as Obama did in 2008.

Jon Huntsman is the best candidate. Was in 2012, will be so again in 2016.

But the Perrys and Bachmanns will ne'er give him the spotlight he deserves.

2016 is going to be Cruz vs. Christie, and Cruz will probably win out via the arcane primary process by crowing to the "hardcore" conservatives.

And we'll have 4 more years of Progressive regressivism. Yippee.

I had forgotten about Huntsman. (Maybe that's his problem?) But I liked him then and like him now. Not sure he has the charisma and natural leadership qualities a President needs to have. But maybe he does. If he runs, I'll pay attention.

I'm in Texas and was dismayed that Perry threw his hat in the ring. He would so make a terrible President. Did you know he used to be a Democrat? He goes with whatever party will elect him. So he's become tea partier, now that that's who supports him. The tea party is big in Texas. He would become moderate, if the TP dropped their support and he needed support from moderates. He doesn't have much in the way of principles and conviction. And would not work with Dems to govern.

If Cruz gets the nomination, the Republicans can kiss that election goodbye. But I don't think he'll win the primary. My guess is that the GOP will get behind someone they think can win. Besides, Cruz is too new to national politics. Jeb Bush would be an interesting choice. He would get the hispanic vote.
 
fine. i'll leave it be. but only two people argue politics and use the word evil to describe those they disagree with: the extreme right and the extreme left. oh...and you specklebang

Oh, now I see why you're annoyed with me. You know what? I totally agree with you and acknowledge that I absolutely should not have used that term:3oops:. I really do say something silly once in awhile.
 
Your post is one reason I don't want to vote for extremists. They're so sure of themselves, negative, and arrogant. FYI...I'm a Reagan and Ross Perot voter. I almost always vote Republican for judgeships. I voted for Obama twice, Clinton the second time. Trouble with Republicans nowadays is that Reagan and other normal Republicans are no longer considered true Republicans by the extremists.

I would consider voting for Jeb Bush.

Well, you are out of luck. Jeb Bush won't run.
 
He won the second time by a landslide in electoral votes. It was white voters who made him Presnidet....and they apparently (myself included) weren't sorry, esp considering the competition (Romney).


1. our definitions differ on the term "landslide"
2.if by saying white peole made him president you must mean they made him president by STAYING HOME and not voting in the last election you would be correct. balance that with record highs in black voters and there goes the election.
3. yes the competiton was weak, just like Bush's second election over a weak John Kerry. so what does that prove exactly?
 
Well, you are out of luck. Jeb Bush won't run.

He is not my favorite candidate, but not the worst either, by far. I have a simple solution for his predicament: Change the last name from "Bush" to "Arbusto" :)
 
again your comprehension failures are your own issues.
but please continue more failed strawmen and deflections, maybe your next one will work

sigh...

I've tried to make sense of your posts since you first responded to me with round-a-bout stuff. When I tried to pin you down on your views, you've gone the "strawman" route...and you are continuing them.

So it goes.
 
I'm not sure what race or sex has to do with anything? Barack Obama has never had to deal with average people everyday problems and issues, and neither has Hilary Clinton. And they're both wealthy, just like them old white guys.

I see you don't know much about Obama's life. I recommend the two books he's written, if you want to know about him. He grew up without a father, raised for a short while by a single mother. Single mother died, so he was raised in Kansas by his white grandparents. He went to public school, was the only black kid around, went to the grocery store, played basketball with the neighborhood kids (not tennis at the Country Club). He was brilliant, but only got better at school grades in high school, I believe, which is how he got into college, then Harvard Law School. After law school, he could've gone the route that most graduates of Harvard do, which is to get a job with a prestigious firm and make tons of money. But he went to work in Chicago as a community organizer, putting off his law plans.

Obama lived an ordinary, maybe even a heartbreaking, life for much of his life. But he kept a good attitude, worked hard, made friends easily, and was a standout at college (one of his professors said...he has notes from that time, and he made a note about the kid Barry Obama...he was a standout).

He met a woman while he was clerking and poor. They fell in love, got married, and the rest, as they say, is history in the truest sense.

Hillary's father was wealthy, but not mega wealthy. She is also brilliant and educated in her own right, getting into Yale on her own accomplishments (not a call from her father, as was the case for GW Bush). She did blue collar work after graduating college (working in a salmon plan, washing dishes, etc.). She was a Republican in those days. She met and lived with Bill Clinton, a Democrat, for some years before they married. She became a Democrat. I have no doubt that she has done her share of grocery shopping and regular middle class tasks. And as I said, she has done blue collar work and experienced first hand what it means to work in unsanitary conditions for low wages. A little different from Romney, wouldn't you say?
 
sigh...

I've tried to make sense of your posts since you first responded to me with round-a-bout stuff. When I tried to pin you down on your views, you've gone the "strawman" route...and you are continuing them.

So it goes.
you in fact posted strawman you can try and post lies about that but that fact wont change
you can keep trying to sell this story but no one will buy it, i can keep pointing out your deflecitons all night, you let me know when you are ready to get back on topic

so it goes
 
you in fact posted strawman you can try and post lies about that but that fact wont change
you can keep trying to sell this story but no one will buy it, i can keep pointing out your deflecitons all night, you let me know when you are ready to get back on topic

so it goes

If you want to be on topic, stop responding to me. Seems simple enough.
 
The Constitution defines the fed's role concerning rights. Anything not listed in the Constitution is the realm of the states. You are free to include any other rights into the Constitution through the amendment process.

The Constitution is not only amended, but is interpreted as to meaning by the U.S. Supreme Court. All rights for all people are not literally stated within the four corners of the Constitution (women and minorities were not considered equal at the time the Constitution was written, for example).

The US S Ct is the great decider of most things because people differ on their interpretations of the literal words that were written.

In addition to the Constitution, the nation and states have many other laws. Ours is a country where the law is king. The laws cannot revise constitutional rights...and that is decided by the US S.Ct.
 
If you want to be on topic, stop responding to me. Seems simple enough.

nah im going to continue to point out every straw-man, deflection and failed post you make towards me and im fine with that. If thats unagreeable with you simply try to post something relevant to the actual topic or was actually said.

so either dont quote me again, post another failed deflection and and have me point that failed out or post something relevant and on topic. The solution is simple.
 
Quote Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
If you are liberal...doesn't matter if you are independent or not...you are going to vote for whomever the Democrats toss out there. Don't try to fool anyone...especially yourself.

In any case, you are asking your question a year and a half too soon. Wait till at least early to middle 2015.
Bit ironic coming from you isn't it?

Quote Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
Romney has an "R" after his name.
Quote Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
I don't really care who is running for President as long as there is an "R" after his name.
Quote Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
I have a very good reason for voting for Romney because he has an "R" after his name.

Now I see why Mycroft had trouble with someone deciding who to vote for. Because he just votes for anyone who belongs to one particular party (or is it that he votes against the other party?).

I don't vote by party, although I take that into account, since each of the two major parties has a written party platform. But I go by leadership qualities, character, stance on issues, ability to empathize with ALL citizens (poor and wealthy alike), ability to govern (this requires a recognition of the value of government), and other things.
 
I see you don't know much about Obama's life.

I don't want to sound cynical, but all this (on both sides) sounds like an effort to find somebody we can relate to, admire, and eventually - trust to make vital decisions for us. There may be rare exceptions, but in general this is a fool's quest.

I am sorry, but we are talking about people who have chosen to become politicians - people who lie and manipulate others for living. Functionally, if not clinically, all these obamas, clintons and romneys are sociopaths.

We should judge them by the content of their ideas and by the results of their actions. Their race, gender, biography, well-practiced sincerity of intonation, and so forth - all that should be interesting only to their friends, family and therapists.

(You may always hope that there's a real, nice enough person behind the mask - but you will never know).
 
I'll take a shot at it. While I do believe in helping the less fortunate, the maze of agencies and programs is irrational and frequently frauded. I would make it very difficult to qualify for the dole, as so many phony "disabled" people do. So, I suppose that I have a "conservative" perspective about that. Also, while I accept abortion as a woman's right, I'm dismayed that it is encouraged and financed by the government.

My "liberal" issues are those of equal rights for all.

You are under the misapprehension that all states have a dole. Many do not. Here in Texas, as well as in other states, adults w/o kids do not get money. There is no dole. They can get a bit of food stamps, sign up for Sec 8 housing (a federal program, and the person has to be employed). The Medicaid cap is very low...I think $5,000 or $6,000 income a year. Practically homeless.

Sure, there is fraud in social programs. There is fraud in banking, in law, in Congress, in business, in health care, in everything imaginable. It is extremely difficult to get Social Security disability. Most applications are denied the first time around and requires re-applying and going through an appeals process for even a chance (unless you are incapacitated totally in a nursing home or something). Sounds like you are reading and hearing about stories without knowing all the facts. I've known people who should've been granted disability status but were not.

As for making it difficult to get on the dole, as I said, there is no dole at all in many states. I am against making it hard to get food stamps. Going hungry is not an option in our country. I would rather have the govt give out a few food stamps to unworthy recipients than have thousands of hungry people go hungry.

I am perplexed as to why conservatives are so worried about poor people getting assistance, but they don't seem worried in the least and write articles and go on Fox News to harangue about the large tax subsidies given to Exxon and other corporations, the no-bid huge contracts given to Cheney's company during the Iraq War (many billions of dollars disappeared into that company, with not much to show for it), the laws that allow people like Romney to hide their assets offshore to avoid taxes, and the like. Now THERE'S some money that's costing the taxpayers, compared to the poor people getting a few food stamps.
 
I am perplexed as to why conservatives are so worried about poor people getting assistance, but they don't seem worried in the least [...] about the large tax subsidies given to [...] corporations.

Because they are conservatives, not libertarians?
 
I don't want to sound cynical, but all this (on both sides) sounds like an effort to find somebody we can relate to, admire, and eventually - trust to make vital decisions for us. There may be rare exceptions, but in general this is a fool's quest.

I am sorry, but we are talking about people who have chosen to become politicians - people who lie and manipulate others for living. Functionally, if not clinically, all these obamas, clintons and romneys are sociopaths.

We should judge them by the content of their ideas and by the results of their actions. Their race, gender, biography, well-practiced sincerity of intonation, and so forth - all that should be interesting only to their friends, family and therapists.

(You may always hope that there's a real, nice enough person behind the mask - but you will never know).

Well, yes. That's true. They're politicians who will say just about anything to get elected.

But the race, gender, background, education, of a person has everything to do with a person's perspective on things, and gender especially can tell you how a person might be likely to govern. Testosterone and estrogen do have an effect on a person. Even his or her brain. Shouldn't generalize, but everything about a person affects how that person approaches life, problems, relationships, and everything else.

You CAN tell some things about a person behind the mask. We know, for example, that Ford really was the nice man he appeared to be. Eisenhower really was the moderate, thinking man he appeared to be. Nixon really was the melancholy, paranoid man he appeared to be.

And of course, despite their manipulations and politicking, politicians really do let it be known what their agenda will be, what issues matter most to them.

We have to have leaders, in order to have some semblance of order, and to protect the country. So....a decision must be made on who to elect. If we didn't have leaders, we'd have millions of people arguing over where to put a street light, whether a street should be zoned commercial, whether we should go to war, etc. Every ship needs a captain.
 
nah im going to continue to point out every straw-man, deflection and failed post you make towards me and im fine with that. If thats unagreeable with you simply try to post something relevant to the actual topic or was actually said.

so either dont quote me again, post another failed deflection and and have me point that failed out or post something relevant and on topic. The solution is simple.

hmmm...

Sounds very close to harassment to me.

I'd advise you to be very careful.
 
Now I see why Mycroft had trouble with someone deciding who to vote for. Because he just votes for anyone who belongs to one particular party (or is it that he votes against the other party?).

I don't vote by party, although I take that into account, since each of the two major parties has a written party platform. But I go by leadership qualities, character, stance on issues, ability to empathize with ALL citizens (poor and wealthy alike), ability to govern (this requires a recognition of the value of government), and other things.

I don't have trouble with you trying to decide who to vote for...but I am enough of a realist to be able to predict who you will vote for.

Now...as far as my voting record is concerned, what does that have to do with your thread?
 
You are under the misapprehension that all states have a dole. Many do not. Here in Texas, as well as in other states, adults w/o kids do not get money. There is no dole. They can get a bit of food stamps, sign up for Sec 8 housing (a federal program, and the person has to be employed). The Medicaid cap is very low...I think $5,000 or $6,000 income a year. Practically homeless.

Sure, there is fraud in social programs. There is fraud in banking, in law, in Congress, in business, in health care, in everything imaginable. It is extremely difficult to get Social Security disability. Most applications are denied the first time around and requires re-applying and going through an appeals process for even a chance (unless you are incapacitated totally in a nursing home or something). Sounds like you are reading and hearing about stories without knowing all the facts. I've known people who should've been granted disability status but were not.

As for making it difficult to get on the dole, as I said, there is no dole at all in many states. I am against making it hard to get food stamps. Going hungry is not an option in our country. I would rather have the govt give out a few food stamps to unworthy recipients than have thousands of hungry people go hungry.

I am perplexed as to why conservatives are so worried about poor people getting assistance, but they don't seem worried in the least and write articles and go on Fox News to harangue about the large tax subsidies given to Exxon and other corporations, the no-bid huge contracts given to Cheney's company during the Iraq War (many billions of dollars disappeared into that company, with not much to show for it), the laws that allow people like Romney to hide their assets offshore to avoid taxes, and the like. Now THERE'S some money that's costing the taxpayers, compared to the poor people getting a few food stamps.

Well, it sounds like you don't have enough dole in TX. I'm OK with dole - it just has to be totally on the up and up and the recipient must make all possible efforts to resolve their situation or bring proof positive of any permanent impairments. I don't think anyone should have to live in misery as long as they hold up their end of the deal. I think if the bureaucracy were diligent and precluded any malingering, I think people would be ready to embrace this, Liberal, Conservative etc.
 
hmmm...

Sounds very close to harassment to me.

I'd advise you to be very careful.

so you continuing to quote me is me harrasing you, now thats funny. Please report it so others can laugh too.
Now when ever you are ready to post on topic let me know otherwise the same will continue. so either dont quote me again, post another failed deflection and have me point it out or post something relevant and on topic. The solution is simple.
 
so you continuing to quote me is me harrasing you, now thats funny. Please report it so others can laugh too.
Now when ever you are ready to post on topic let me know otherwise the same will continue. so either dont quote me again, post another failed deflection and have me point it out or post something relevant and on topic. The solution is simple.

LOL!!

I'll continue to post when and how I want. Please don't stalk me.
 
LOL!!

I'll continue to post when and how I want. Please don't stalk me.

how is it stalking when its a reply to my post, I cant wait to here this failed answer?
and ill continue to reply how i want :shrug:
like i said your problem is yours to solve. You wont post on topic though because you have nothing and your post failed so now you are left with these failed deflections.

when ever you are ready to post on topic let me know otherwise the same will continue. so either don't quote me again, post another failed deflection and have me point it out or post something relevant and on topic. The solution is simple.
 
when ever you are ready to post on topic

You are one to talk. Please point out your on topic post in this thread. Have you responded to anything the OP posted?
 
You are one to talk. Please point out your on topic post in this thread. Have you responded to anything the OP posted?

Still nothing on topic huh?
ANd your question is easy simply read pages 2-4. ANd on page fourn thats where your arguments fail, you start posting made up strawmen and deflections and here we are, 6 pages later and you are still of topic and deflecting.

Let me know when you are ready.
 
Back
Top Bottom