News US Republican candidates 2016 discussion

Actually, after thinking about it and doing some digging. If you have celiac disease you can't be recruited into the military and is reason for medical discharge if already serving. Therefore there is no reason for there to be Gluten Free MRE's.... Doesn't make Ted any less of a douchebag though :P
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mischief
ledboots said:
The election takes on even more significance with the looming Supreme Court nomination. I feel the current Congress will stall the nomination, blocking anyone Obama puts up.

I think that is a tactical error, though, because likely his nominee would be to the right of what Sanders or Clinton will choose.
Click to expand...

Actually, ¢linton is farther to the economic right than Obama is. She started as a Republican, and still promotes Republican ideals. She is largely responsible for steering the Democratic party off-course, which is why she was rejected in 2008, and why she will likely be rejected again, this time around. She is essentially a Republican wearing a Democrat's clothing. This is why the primaries and caucuses are so important, and why playing party-politics is so foolish.

Mischief said:
I think I'm being realistic. Now, if the Democrats win the White House, the Senate and the House next year, I'll revisit this and say you were right. Unfortunately, I highly doubt it. This country has never before been so weirdly polarized, not even during the Vietnam War.
Click to expand...

I don't see that as realistic, but rather as overly simplistic. The nation has been far more polarized in the past than it is today; for example, in 1860, when Lincoln was first elected, which led to Civil War. Or the 1920s, leading up to the stock market crash and the Great Depression. Politics- and polarization (or is that polarity?)- is cyclical. We are as polarized today as it's possible to be in the current political environment, which means, it's time for the pendulum to swing back in the other direction.
 
Naturebound said:
I had 90% Sanders and 50% Clinton, but for some reason I am suspicious of this site and think it purposely favors Sanders. I don't have any concrete facts to back this up, just a suspicion.
Click to expand...
I think they chose items that they figured most people would agree with Bernie on instead of some of his less favorable ideas.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Naturebound1
Capstan said:
Actually, ¢linton is farther to the economic right than Obama is. She started as a Republican, and still promotes Republican ideals.
Click to expand...

Wowser, you have a long and unforgiving memory, considering that, by the time she was a junior in college, she was actively supporting Eugene McCarthy's presidential candidacy because of her anti-Vietnam war view. I guess you have to be born into a Democratic family in order to meet your litmus test.
 
Capstan said:
I don't see that as realistic, but rather as overly simplistic. The nation has been far more polarized in the past than it is today; for example, in 1860, when Lincoln was first elected, which led to Civil War. Or the 1920s, leading up to the stock market crash and the Great Depression. Politics- and polarization (or is that polarity?)- is cyclical. We are as polarized today as it's possible to be in the current political environment, which means, it's time for the pendulum to swing back in the other direction.
Click to expand...

What I was referring to is one party's absolute refusal to consider any legislation proposed by the other party. Although the nation was polarized on the issue of slavery, that didn't carry over into other areas of governance, and quite a lot of legislation was enacted in the early 1860's. Same thing during the early part of the last century.
 
Mischief said:
Wowser, you have a long and unforgiving memory, considering that, by the time she was a junior in college, she was actively supporting Eugene McCarthy's presidential candidacy because of her anti-Vietnam war view. I guess you have to be born into a Democratic family in order to meet your litmus test.
Click to expand...

No, I wasn't talking about foreign policy, where, incidentally, she avows the Iranians to be her enemies, and discounts the possibility of ever having normal relations with Iran (she's really rather hawkish,) but I was saying, economically, she's more right-wing than Obama is. She's pretty much in line with Reaganomics, which has profited her well. So from an economic standpoint, the odds of her appointing a progressive to the Supreme bench, beyond what Obama would do, are not great. She is socially somewhat more liberal than Obama, but far less so, than Sen. Sanders. Economically, of the three, she is the most right-wing, and I see no sign of her changing her point of view.
 
Mischief said:
What I was referring to is one party's absolute refusal to consider any legislation proposed by the other party. Although the nation was polarized on the issue of slavery, that didn't carry over into other areas of governance, and quite a lot of legislation was enacted in the early 1860's. Same thing during the early part of the last century.
Click to expand...

You'll get no argument from me that control of the Congress needs to change hands, but I don't subscribe to the theory that such change is impossible, and as I mentioned before, the vast majority of congressional seats are up for re-election this year, as well as the presidency.
 
Mischief said:
What I was referring to is one party's absolute refusal to consider any legislation proposed by the other party. Although the nation was polarized on the issue of slavery, that didn't carry over into other areas of governance, and quite a lot of legislation was enacted in the early 1860's. Same thing during the early part of the last century.
Click to expand...
Completely agree. There are a bunch of children pouting in Congress.

And re: Bush owning a handgun, well he isn't anti gun, so that's not a surprise from a Floridian/Texan republican.

Some of these, like Dianne Feinstein and Sarah Brady, more surprising (and elitist imo)
7 Liberal Hypocrites Who Call For Gun Control While Being Protected By Guns
 
ledboots said:
Some of these, like Dianne Feinstein and Sarah Brady, more surprising (and elitist imo)
7 Liberal Hypocrites Who Call For Gun Control While Being Protected By Guns
Click to expand...
I don't know what sort of gun control these women are promoting, but I really don't think there is any hypocrisy in supporting gun control while being protected by armed body guards or police, or even while owning guns themselves. Gun control doesn't have to mean banning private ownership of guns. And even if someone supports banning private gun ownership, there is no hypocrisy in simultaneously supporting government gun ownership, especially at a time when legal and illegal guns are flooding the country.
 
Indian Summer said:
I don't know what sort of gun control these women are promoting, but I really don't think there is any hypocrisy in supporting gun control while being protected by armed body guards or police, or even while owning guns themselves. Gun control doesn't have to mean banning private ownership of guns. And even if someone supports banning private gun ownership, there is no hypocrisy in simultaneously supporting government gun ownership, especially at a time when legal and illegal guns are flooding the country.
Click to expand...

I agree. I don't see the hypocrisy either. Gun control simply means guns are regulated to keep them out of the wrong hands, such as violent criminals.
 
Felons can't do a lot of things because they're in prison. But once they get out of prison and become citizens again, they should have the rights of a citizen.

That being said, folks in prison should maintain certain rights, such as the right to vote.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Amy SF
Spang said:
That being said, folks in prison should maintain certain rights, such as the right to vote.
Click to expand...


I sort of agree, but then they would have more right to vote than a homeless person....A homeless person who was made homeless by a criminal, in some cases.
 
Top Bottom