My take on the current crop of candidates (both parties)...

[Glen Contrarian]

Greetings, Glen Contrarian. :2wave:

I went on record early on that Trump was not serious about being POTUS. . .it would take too much time from his love of being a businessman. Not that being POTUS wouldn't look good on his resume on the other hand - which is why he has not dropped out yet, IMO. He's still testing the waters, and he enjoys the attention and the controversies he's created. Also we should not forget that most of the Founders were all wealthy men, and like them, he's used to giving orders, not taking them! It would be interesting to see him run the country as a CEO runs a business. We sure wouldn't have the waste we do now.

The reason he has been topping the polls is because people are disgusted with our leaders in both parties, and they agree with what he has been saying, and it's not only the Repubs that feel he could change the status quo - he's already doing it! It wouldn't surprise me if he made it known that he was donating his salary to charities if he won, and if you don't think that wouldn't sway some people, you would be mistaken.

Kasich is my choice since he is the Governor of my State, and the GOP needs both Ohio and Florida for their electoral votes, but if he should become the nominee, I would vote for him, since business as usual needs to change in DC.

Thing is, in every single presidential election I've ever watched, just about every candidate says, "Things need to change in Washington, and I'm going to make those changes as POTUS!" or words to that effect. Obama's a wonderful example. I supported Hillary in the 2008 election - I was a Washington state alternate delegate for her - and even though I personally liked Obama more than her, I supported her because I didn't think that Obama was really ready for what would be waiting for him. I thought that he needed to lose a bit of his naivete.

And I think you'll agree that I was right - he was quite naive. Don't get me wrong - I think that history will show that he was one of our top-ten presidents (hey - I am a progressive, remember ), but I said then that Obama's the future of the Democratic party, but Hillary needs to win first, to set the stage for Obama to follow through...and I believe that I was right.

But I digress. The point is, when someone becomes president, he or she is forced to learn that NO, things are not going to change in Washington. Ain't gonna happen...and I think the experience of all our "I'm gonna change Washington" candidates who found out the hard way that they ain't gonna change Washington bears out my contention. So the obvious answer - to me, at least - is not that we need an outsider who will change the way Washington works ('cause that ain't gonna happen - never has, never will), but that we DO need an insider who knows how to get things done...and that's why I support Hillary. While I like Sanders' platform more than hers, we need someone who knows how to get things done inside Washington. We need an insider...and Hillary's the most "inside-est" ( :doh ouch!) candidate I've ever seen.

 

[Frank Apisa]

Thing is, in every single presidential election I've ever watched, just about every candidate says, "Things need to change in Washington, and I'm going to make those changes as POTUS!" or words to that effect. Obama's a wonderful example. I supported Hillary in the 2008 election - I was a Washington state alternate delegate for her - and even though I personally liked Obama more than her, I supported her because I didn't think that Obama was really ready for what would be waiting for him. I thought that he needed to lose a bit of his naivete.

And I think you'll agree that I was right - he was quite naive. Don't get me wrong - I think that history will show that he was one of our top-ten presidents (hey - I am a progressive, remember ), but I said then that Obama's the future of the Democratic party, but Hillary needs to win first, to set the stage for Obama to follow through...and I believe that I was right.

But I digress. The point is, when someone becomes president, he or she is forced to learn that NO, things are not going to change in Washington. Ain't gonna happen...and I think the experience of all our "I'm gonna change Washington" candidates who found out the hard way that they ain't gonna change Washington bears out my contention. So the obvious answer - to me, at least - is not that we need an outsider who will change the way Washington works ('cause that ain't gonna happen - never has, never will), but that we DO need an insider who knows how to get things done...and that's why I support Hillary. While I like Sanders' platform more than hers, we need someone who knows how to get things done inside Washington. We need an insider...and Hillary's the most "inside-est" ( :doh ouch!) candidate I've ever seen.

If they gave a Pulitzer Prize for Internet Fora comments...I would nominate this one, Glen.

Thanks for it.

 

[Jack Hays]

Thing is, in every single presidential election I've ever watched, just about every candidate says, "Things need to change in Washington, and I'm going to make those changes as POTUS!" or words to that effect. Obama's a wonderful example. I supported Hillary in the 2008 election - I was a Washington state alternate delegate for her - and even though I personally liked Obama more than her, I supported her because I didn't think that Obama was really ready for what would be waiting for him. I thought that he needed to lose a bit of his naivete.

And I think you'll agree that I was right - he was quite naive. Don't get me wrong - I think that history will show that he was one of our top-ten presidents (hey - I am a progressive, remember ), but I said then that Obama's the future of the Democratic party, but Hillary needs to win first, to set the stage for Obama to follow through...and I believe that I was right.

But I digress. The point is, when someone becomes president, he or she is forced to learn that NO, things are not going to change in Washington. Ain't gonna happen...and I think the experience of all our "I'm gonna change Washington" candidates who found out the hard way that they ain't gonna change Washington bears out my contention. So the obvious answer - to me, at least - is not that we need an outsider who will change the way Washington works ('cause that ain't gonna happen - never has, never will), but that we DO need an insider who knows how to get things done...and that's why I support Hillary. While I like Sanders' platform more than hers, we need someone who knows how to get things done inside Washington. We need an insider...and Hillary's the most "inside-est" ( :doh ouch!) candidate I've ever seen.

Ronald Reagan changed Washington. Our politics still runs in the track he laid down.

 

[Dittohead not!]

Ronald Reagan changed Washington. Our politics still runs in the track he laid down.

Yes, subsequent administrations have since doubled down on deficit spending.

 

[AlbqOwl]

Ronald Reagan changed Washington. Our politics still runs in the track he laid down.

I disagree. If we had stayed on the track Reagan laid down we would be a heck of a lot better off than we are now. The only one with Reaganesque qualities among the candidates running as GOP or Democrat now is Trump. Reagan's greatest gift to America was in his ability to make people believe that they could make things better and they did. And he promised to rebuild the military so that nobody would dare mess with us, most especially the U.S.S.R. who scared everybody at that time. He kept it simple. Trump is keeping it simple. He wants to make America great again, he wants to defend our borders, and he wants a military strong enough that nobody will mess with us.

 

[Dittohead not!]

I disagree. If we had stayed on the track Reagan laid down we would be a heck of a lot better off than we are now. The only one with Reaganesque qualities among the candidates running as GOP or Democrat now is Trump. Reagan's greatest gift to America was in his ability to make people believe that they could make things better and they did. And he promised to rebuild the military so that nobody would dare mess with us, most especially the U.S.S.R. who scared everybody at that time. He kept it simple. Trump is keeping it simple. He wants to make America great again, he wants to defend our borders, and he wants a military strong enough that nobody will mess with us.

Was that a small earthquake, or was it Reagan turning over in his grave?

 

[Jack Hays]

I disagree. If we had stayed on the track Reagan laid down we would be a heck of a lot better off than we are now. The only one with Reaganesque qualities among the candidates running as GOP or Democrat now is Trump. Reagan's greatest gift to America was in his ability to make people believe that they could make things better and they did. And he promised to rebuild the military so that nobody would dare mess with us, most especially the U.S.S.R. who scared everybody at that time. He kept it simple. Trump is keeping it simple. He wants to make America great again, he wants to defend our borders, and he wants a military strong enough that nobody will mess with us.

Trump is the anti-Reagan.

 

[Jack Hays]

Yes, subsequent administrations have since doubled down on deficit spending.

There's nothing inherently wrong with deficit spending. It depends on what you get for it. RWR got Cold War victory and the foundation for a generation of prosperity.

 

[Dittohead not!]

There's nothing inherently wrong with deficit spending. It depends on what you get for it. RWR got Cold War victory and the foundation for a generation of prosperity.

It also depends on how much of a deficit there is. Could we have beaten the Soviets in the cold war without going into debt?

 

[Jack Hays]

It also depends on how much of a deficit there is. Could we have beaten the Soviets in the cold war without going into debt?

Not so quickly.

 

[Frank Apisa]

Ronald Reagan changed Washington. Our politics still runs in the track he laid down.

I agree with that. Unfortunately, that is exactly the situation that exists. I can only hope we finally get past it.

 

[Dittohead not!]

I think I may have been a bit harsh in the OP.

In the unlikely event that the Republican Party nominates Rand Paul, we just might end up better off after the election of '16 than before.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

Ronald Reagan changed Washington. Our politics still runs in the track he laid down.

Jack, you're making the mistake of confusing "getting things done" with "changing Washington". If you'll recall, Reagan and House Majority Leader Tip O'Neill (D) famously had what we would today call a "bromance", and that they would often meet behind closed doors in order to make deals to pass necessary legislation.

I would say that no president has of his own accord "changed" Washington; instead, the radical polarization we see now in Washington (which is at a level not seen since the Civil War) is due in large measure to an unintended consequence of Nixon's "Southern Strategy", which allowed the southern conservatives to eventually have an inordinately large influence on the GOP as a whole. The change in Washington hasn't been due to individuals so much as it has to changes in demographics and technology (particularly when it comes to the 24/7 news cycle).

 

[Jack Hays]

Jack, you're making the mistake of confusing "getting things done" with "changing Washington". If you'll recall, Reagan and House Majority Leader Tip O'Neill (D) famously had what we would today call a "bromance", and that they would often meet behind closed doors in order to make deals to pass necessary legislation.

I would say that no president has of his own accord "changed" Washington; instead, the radical polarization we see now in Washington (which is at a level not seen since the Civil War) is due in large measure to an unintended consequence of Nixon's "Southern Strategy", which allowed the southern conservatives to eventually have an inordinately large influence on the GOP as a whole. The change in Washington hasn't been due to individuals so much as it has to changes in demographics and technology (particularly when it comes to the 24/7 news cycle).

RWR ended the era of a prevailing liberal consensus in Washington, largely resting on the foundation of decades of (mostly) Democrat majorities in Congress, paired with an almost uniformly liberal national television and press corps. After RWR Congress was meaningfully contested, and alternative media and press grew to sufficient strength to be effective.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

RWR ended the era of a prevailing liberal consensus in Washington, largely resting on the foundation of decades of (mostly) Democrat majorities in Congress, paired with an almost uniformly liberal national television and press corps. After RWR Congress was meaningfully contested, and alternative media and press grew to sufficient strength to be effective.

Jack, Jack, Jack...



Just because you want to believe a thing doesn't make that thing true. When Reagan got elected in 1980, it was a landslide, right? Right. So...after that election, who controlled Congress? The Democrats.

In other words, the people were electing the person, not the party.

What's more, this was still the time of the Cold War (as you obviously remember better than I)...and America was hungry for someone to build our sense of nationalism back up after the debacle in Vietnam. Reagan did just that. In fact, the case can be made that with the exception of winning the Cold War (which achievement must not be underestimated), Obama's presidency has been every bit as Washington-game-changing (if not more so) than Reagan's. However, that does not even come close to explaining why the two major parties polarized to the incredible extent that they have done so, because you DO remember when there were strong conservative AND liberal elements in BOTH parties.

But something changed...and it was Nixon's Southern Strategy that took advantage of an opportunity that the passage of the Civil Rights Act presented.

 

[haymarket]

Rubio is at least not ready for the old folks home nor is he totally insane. He is inexperienced, but then, so was Obama. He might be a good pick, but is currently running behind.

It has been said many many many times by many many many people - including myself - that Rubio is the best shot the GOP has of winning this year. And there is little doubt that if we picked presidents by the method that we used to pick them before the primary mechanism became so dominant, he would be the man. But with the primary mechanism in place and the right wing of the party so strong and disproportional in that process, Rubio is simply NOT gaining any traction. Over the last month he has been basically spinning his wheels and standing still.

I strongly suspect that if Trump can win two of the first three - and that would be New Hampshire and South Carolina - and finish second in Iowa - its his for the taking and little is going to stop him.

And then we will see a repeat of 64 and Goldwater and the party can remake itself and start over................ which may be a very good thing.

 

[Dittohead not!]

It has been said many many many times by many many many people - including myself - that Rubio is the best shot the GOP has of winning this year. And there is little doubt that if we picked presidents by the method that we used to pick them before the primary mechanism became so dominant, he would be the man. But with the primary mechanism in place and the right wing of the party so strong and disproportional in that process, Rubio is simply NOT gaining any traction. Over the last month he has been basically spinning his wheels and standing still.

I strongly suspect that if Trump can win two of the first three - and that would be New Hampshire and South Carolina - and finish second in Iowa - its his for the taking and little is going to stop him.

And then we will see a repeat of 64 and Goldwater and the party can remake itself and start over................ which may be a very good thing.

So, that may be Trump's unintended legacy, the demise and rebirth of the Republican Party. I agree, that could be a very good thing.

 

[Vern]

Ronald Reagan changed Washington. Our politics still runs in the track he laid down.

You're right jack, we learned that if a republicans president does something so unfathomably wrong and or treasonous, the conservative base will collectively pretend he didn't. When Reagan ran up deficits, pounded the middle class with taxes, allow the S&L crisis some conservatves may have had some concerns about reagan. But when we find out that he made a deal with Iranians to keep Americans hostage, make another deal with the Iranians to fund terrorism, ignore the free election in Nicaraqua and fund terrorists and not only ignore saddam gassing a 100,000 kurds but actually try to blame Iran it was just too much for conservative to accept so magic presto, it just cant be true.

Bush learned well, when you screw up, screw up really bad.

 

[Jack Hays]

Jack, Jack, Jack...

View attachment 67195451

Just because you want to believe a thing doesn't make that thing true. When Reagan got elected in 1980, it was a landslide, right? Right. So...after that election, who controlled Congress? The Democrats.

In other words, the people were electing the person, not the party.

What's more, this was still the time of the Cold War (as you obviously remember better than I)...and America was hungry for someone to build our sense of nationalism back up after the debacle in Vietnam. Reagan did just that. In fact, the case can be made that with the exception of winning the Cold War (which achievement must not be underestimated), Obama's presidency has been every bit as Washington-game-changing (if not more so) than Reagan's. However, that does not even come close to explaining why the two major parties polarized to the incredible extent that they have done so, because you DO remember when there were strong conservative AND liberal elements in BOTH parties.

But something changed...and it was Nixon's Southern Strategy that took advantage of an opportunity that the passage of the Civil Rights Act presented.

The southern strategy certainly assisted RWR's election, but it was RWR's presidency and the ensuing conservative resurgence that changed Washington.

 

[SDET]

... is that regardless of who is elected, we're likely to be worse off than we were with Obama.

And that's coming from someone who voted for Romney and still thinks he would have been the better candidate.

Am I just being pessimistic and gloomy, or is this a justified pessimism? What do you think?

You're being gloomy and pessimistic. If nothing else, Obama has "stress tested" the US economy with his incompetence. However, let's not push our luck by electing another socialist (either avowed [Sanders] or closet [Clinton]).

 

[Jack Hays]

You're right jack, we learned that if a republicans president does something so unfathomably wrong and or treasonous, the conservative base will collectively pretend he didn't. When Reagan ran up deficits, pounded the middle class with taxes, allow the S&L crisis some conservatves may have had some concerns about reagan. But when we find out that he made a deal with Iranians to keep Americans hostage, make another deal with the Iranians to fund terrorism, ignore the free election in Nicaraqua and fund terrorists and not only ignore saddam gassing a 100,000 kurds but actually try to blame Iran it was just too much for conservative to accept so magic presto, it just cant be true.

Bush learned well, when you screw up, screw up really bad.

Too many falsehoods to reply.

 

[SDET]

I disagree. If we had stayed on the track Reagan laid down we would be a heck of a lot better off than we are now. The only one with Reaganesque qualities among the candidates running as GOP or Democrat now is Trump. Reagan's greatest gift to America was in his ability to make people believe that they could make things better and they did. And he promised to rebuild the military so that nobody would dare mess with us, most especially the U.S.S.R. who scared everybody at that time. He kept it simple. Trump is keeping it simple. He wants to make America great again, he wants to defend our borders, and he wants a military strong enough that nobody will mess with us.

Trump is SAYING what a targeted audience wants to hear. There's no indication Trump isn't just talking through his hat or talking out of some other place.

 

[Lovebug]

Can't get much worse than now...except for a

Clinton
Trump
Huckabee
Cruz
Rubio
Carson
Bush
Fiorina
presidency.

That leaves

Bernie
Paul
Kasich
Christie.
I have some confidence in these four. While Rubio struck me as sincere, I have since changed my mind.

 

[AlbqOwl]

Trump is SAYING what a targeted audience wants to hear. There's no indication Trump isn't just talking through his hat or talking out of some other place.

Of course he is. And that targeted audience is made up of all the people who are sick and tired of the political correctness crap that is destroying common sense as well as our liberties in this country. It is made up of people who are sick and tired of politicians who promise to fix this and do that and defend whatever if we elect them and then seem to ignore what they promise once they get elected where they concentrate mostly on building their power, prestige, influence, and personal wealth and throw us enough bones in hopes we will be placated or not notice that they don't give a damn about the country or the people in it. And they don't care what long range damage is done to the country/people in the process.

He speaks what a huge number of people think it is high time somebody was honest enough to speak. Can he deliver? We don't know. But he has a track record of real material accomplishment and getting things done. And he says what needs to be said and screw political correctness and he has a vision of how it ought to be. And that alone makes him a viable candidate.

 

[Vern]

Too many falsehoods to reply.

no jack, that's just the excuse you use to cut and run.