New Hampshire

[KSB2424 3,174]

Trump and Sanders are the 2 guys promising to burn the current system to the ground and it's very appealing to...well, to EVERYONE really... b/c Washington and our political leaders are a joke that need to be taken to the woodshed.

 

The best way to win in politics right now is to boldly and sincerely hold up your middle finger and shout, "Fvck Politics".

 

I agree with your assessment, but think all the people thinking this way are misguided and are doing this based on a fallacy. I mean, fock, if GFIAFP was running he could say he was anti-establishment. That doesn't mean he's remotely close to being electable.

 

A good reason MOST people are fed up with Washington is not because they think Obama wasn't liberal enough, or because GWB wasn't to far right. Most people are fed up with the bickering, the polarization, the in-fighting, the gridlock of no real positive change.

 

What they don't get is that with a Trump or Cruz or even a Sanders you are going to get MORE of that. Can you imagine a Donald Trump trying to get his immigration policies through the Senate? Holy stare down. Can you imagine Ted Cruz getting pretty much anything of his through the Senate? Holy gov't stand off. Can you imagine Sanders trying to implement his tax policies to get through Congress? It'd be a freaking royal rumble.

 

Have these people who feel this way really, actually thought this through? Some of the best presidents of recent memory worked across the aisle and brought people TOGETHER. Obviously they had their core beliefs and stood ground from time to time but they were able to compromise and use common sense. Reagan won over Blue Dog Dems. Clinton worked with Newt and others. Bush Sr was generally respected by the left.

 

That's the REAL CHANGE we need. More compromise and less polarization. I get the angst, but its misguided and ill thought out. It's based on emotion and not a brain.

[IGotWorms 4,063]

Trump and Sanders are the 2 guys promising to burn the current system to the ground and it's very appealing to...well, to EVERYONE really... b/c Washington and our political leaders are a joke that need to be taken to the woodshed.

 

The best way to win in politics right now is to boldly and sincerely hold up your middle finger and shout, "Fvck Politics".

I hate it when people equate the two.

 

Bernie has been who he is and has held the beliefs he has for 30-40 years. Probably longer even but that's how long he's been publicly saying this stuff in politics.

 

Trump is a reality TV star who accurately assessed the current temperature and marketed himself accordingly.

[Vikings4ever 569]

So Huffington Post went nuts last night.

 

http://imgur.com/gallery/RJM7y

[hoytdwow 202]

Here's what Trump said last night:

 

We’re gonna take care of jobs, we’re gonna take care of all the things I said. Our border. Healthcare is going to be great. We are going to make our country so strong. We are going to start winning again. We don’t win anymore. We don’t win on trade. We don’t win with the military. We can’t beat ISIS. We don’t win with anything. We are going to start winning again and we are going to win so much and you are going to be so happy. We are going to make America so great again, maybe greater than ever before.

 

 

 

[edjr 6,988]

So Huffington Post went nuts last night.

 

http://imgur.com/gallery/RJM7y

 

That's what is officially called "On Tilt"

[MDC 8,011]

Here's what Trump said last night:

 

 

 

 

Have you gone to Trump's website? His "On the Issues" page is a series of YouTube videos of Trump looking right into the camera and saying exactly this sort of thing.

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,433]

Have you gone to Trump's website? His "On the Issues" page is a series of YouTube videos of Trump looking right into the camera and saying exactly this sort of thing.

 

If he were smart, he would brand his entire platform that is based on words that appeal to the masses, but aren't really based on real actions.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Maybe call it something like, "Hope and Change".

[KSB2424 3,174]

Here's what Trump said last night:

 

 

 

 

 

I'm a registered republican and it's outright laughable. It's a focking joke, I'm disgusted he's even got this far. It's a referendum on the collective intelligence of America.

[edjr 6,988]

 

I'm a registered republican it's outright laughable. It's focking joke, I'm disgusted with 34% of America

 

 

34% of people that vote in the R primary

[KSB2424 3,174]

 

 

34% of people that vote in the R primary

 

I edited after you posted. Dammit.

[Hardcore troubadour 15,993]

 

I'm a registered republican and it's outright laughable. It's focking joke, I'm disgusted he's even got this far. It's a referendum on the collective intelligence of America.

I thought GW Bush settled the argument about the collective intelligence of America? Move on, W proved that we are full of idiots. Trump is no worse.

[edjr 6,988]

 

I edited after you posted. Dammit.

 

I know you did, I refreshed the screen and poof. Luckily I remembered

[DankNuggs 305]

Kasich made himself the VP for whatever ticket the GOP puts out. They absoutely need him on a general election ticket

[edjr 6,988]

Kasich made himself the VP for whatever ticket the GOP puts out. They absoutely need him on a general election ticket

 

Sarah Palin have plans?

[Hardcore troubadour 15,993]

I think the GOP running mate will be a miltary person. None of the candidates have any military experience.

[Mungwater 601]

I think the GOP running mate will be a miltary person. None of the candidates have any military experience.

Problem is the military guys have been ran off (patrues and mcchrystal). Most generals stay away from that business.

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,433]

I think the GOP running mate will be a miltary person. None of the candidates have any military experience.

 

Someone like Cap'n Crunch, Sergeant Slaughter, Major Mudd, General Malaise or that type of person?

[KSB2424 3,174]

I think the GOP running mate will be a miltary person. None of the candidates have any military experience.

 

Define military experience.

 

If you mean served in the Military like a General (see Mungs post) then you are right.

 

If you more broadly mean nobody has ANY experience with National Defense then you are wrong.

 

John Kasichs tenure in the House included 18 years on the House Armed Services Committee

[drobeski 3,061]

So Huffington Post went nuts last night.

 

http://imgur.com/gallery/RJM7y

fake outrage fear mongerers

[Mungwater 601]

 

Define military experience.

 

If you mean served in the Military like a General (see Mungs post) then you are right.

 

If you more broadly mean nobody has ANY experience with National Defense then you are wrong.

 

I know I'm biased, but I honestly think they should amend it to where you have to do at least three years of active duty to qualify for president. Star ship troopers style

[hoytdwow 202]

I know I'm biased, but I honestly think they should amend it to where you have to do at least three years of active duty to qualify for president. Star ship troopers style

I think we all should.

[KSB2424 3,174]

I know I'm biased, but I honestly think they should amend it to where you have to do at least three years of active duty to qualify for president. Star ship troopers style

 

I understand it, don't agree with such a strict standard, but I get it. I think you'd automatically discount some truly qualified candidates which is why I couldn't get on board, but I get what you are saying.

 

My point above was not to infer that serving for 18 years on the Armed Services Commitee somehow equals actually serving. However that much experience with the comings and goings of Military, including spending et al. is a valuable notch in the belt.

 

Kasich has more experience in Military - National Defense than Trump/Rubio/Cruz/Jeb! all do combined.

[mmmmm...beer 822]

I know I'm biased, but I honestly think they should amend it to where you have to do at least three years of active duty to qualify for president. Star ship troopers style

+1, Just doing my part.

[KSB2424 3,174]

Just playing Devils Advocate.

 

A Woman too? Not that women cannot serve....... but just sayin'.

[drobeski 3,061]

I know I'm biased, but I honestly think they should amend it to where you have to do at least three years of active duty to qualify for president. Star ship troopers style

I wish some of them would run

[Mungwater 601]

Just playing Devils Advocate.

 

A Woman too? Not that women cannot serve....... but just sayin'.

They can serve just fine.

[Mungwater 601]

I wish some of them would run

The ones who would have been best got killed by the political system. Mc Chrystal would have been really good, but seeing Biden try to teach him about counterinsurgency and some aide and a rolling stone reporter killed him.

 

Can't blame him though, just stick to being a consultant for a news station and collect your checks

[KSB2424 3,174]

They can serve just fine.

 

I know they can, but when you put a strict stipulation that a President MUST serve in the military. That will auto-disqualify 99.9999999999% of women. Moreso than men.

 

It would never fly based on the gender pushback alone.

 

Again, just playing devils advocate.

[Mungwater 601]

 

I know they can, but when you put a strict stipulation that a President MUST serve in the military. That will auto-disqualify 99.9999999999% of women. Moreso than men.

 

It would never fly based on the gender pushback alone.

 

Again, just playing devils advocate.

Why 99% of women? They can serve in everything except infantry armor and subs. And armor and infantry are slowly letting them in.

 

I don't understand the 99% remark

[KSB2424 3,174]

Why 99% of women? They can serve in everything except infantry armor and subs. And armor and infantry are slowly letting them in.

 

I don't understand the 99% remark

 

Maybe I'm under the false impression people normally start serving between the ages of 18 - 26 or so. How many 18-26 year old's actually think they may will run for President of the United States?

 

By the time you figure out you may actually be qualified enough to do that, you are normally middle aged. And how many women compared to men join the military as young adults? What are the percentages? Is it not overwhelmingly male?

 

See where I'm going? I love the intent of what you are saying, but unless there is some sort of mandatory military for all people like in other countries I don't see this ever gaining an ounce of traction.

[Mungwater 601]

 

Maybe I'm under the false impression people normally start serving between the ages of 18 - 26 or so. How many 18-26 year old's actually think they may will run for President of the United States?

 

By the time you figure out you may actually be qualified enough to do that, you are normally middle aged. And how many women compared to men join the military as young adults? What are the percentages? Is it not overwhelmingly male?

 

See where I'm going? I love the intent of what you are saying, but unless there is some sort of mandatory military for all people like in other countries I don't see this ever gaining an ounce of traction.

I get it, that makes sense. I mistaken you to say that girls couldn't serve.

[gocolts 300]

 

I agree with your assessment, but think all the people thinking this way are misguided and are doing this based on a fallacy. I mean, fock, if GFIAFP was running he could say he was anti-establishment. That doesn't mean he's remotely close to being electable.

 

A good reason MOST people are fed up with Washington is not because they think Obama wasn't liberal enough, or because GWB wasn't to far right. Most people are fed up with the bickering, the polarization, the in-fighting, the gridlock of no real positive change.

 

What they don't get is that with a Trump or Cruz or even a Sanders you are going to get MORE of that. Can you imagine a Donald Trump trying to get his immigration policies through the Senate? Holy stare down. Can you imagine Ted Cruz getting pretty much anything of his through the Senate? Holy gov't stand off. Can you imagine Sanders trying to implement his tax policies to get through Congress? It'd be a freaking royal rumble.

 

Have these people who feel this way really, actually thought this through? Some of the best presidents of recent memory worked across the aisle and brought people TOGETHER. Obviously they had their core beliefs and stood ground from time to time but they were able to compromise and use common sense. Reagan won over Blue Dog Dems. Clinton worked with Newt and others. Bush Sr was generally respected by the left.

 

That's the REAL CHANGE we need. More compromise and less polarization. I get the angst, but its misguided and ill thought out. It's based on emotion and not a brain.

Most folks are not dumb enough to keep falling for the same old shtt. You, on the other hand, seems to revel in it.

 

It is as if some TV pundit took over your account here.

 

It is as if you all you do is watch a few cable news shows and that is pretty much it. You do not seem to have a grasp on what most really are thinking or how they feel or why they are upset. Nothing wrong with watching those shows, but it is crystal clear that is your primary source of information. I has little to do with gridlock or working together and here is why. It was at one time, but not anymore.

 

The GOP are run by complete morons. They are incapable of making a good deal with the democrats. Look at the last 7 years. What have they stopped Obama on??? What have the GOP gained in any of these deals they have made with the democrats?? Hell, they took over both houses and still can not do shtt or stop anything Obama and the liberals want. How the fock is that even possible??? It seems like Harry is still running the show. All they are worried about is getting reelected.

 

They seem more worried about how the media portrays them than the folks who elected them. Hell, they fight members of their own party much harder than they do the democrats. It is beyond belief at this point.

 

Plus, nearly EVERYTHING you say negative about Trump or Cruz, was said about Reagan. Don't take my word for it. LOOK IT UP and see for yourself.

 

He is too conservative. He is unelectable. He wont be able to work with anyone. He is too polarizing. I could go on all night with these comparisons. Can't believe you are falling for all this. It is sad how you continue to buy this crap about they wont get anything done or be able to work with anyone. That is complete bullshtt.

 

It is okay that you do not like these guys. The problem starts when you say the same tired BS that has already been proven wrong.

 

I get it bro, you are a moderate. Nothing wrong with that either. But for Heaven's sake, at least try to understand why folks are so frustrated with the establishment status quo. Some of us have kids to think about. How in the focking hell are they going to pay all this money back???? We are dooming them with this out of control spending.

 

You are right about a lot of things, including how we need REAL change. We are not going to get real change by electing someone who is for the status quo. We need someone to get in there and do what they say they will do, or at least fight for it.

 

ETA: Hell, Reagan even had his own party trying to undermine him.

[KSB2424 3,174]

The Republican Party has shifted way further to the right since 1980. He'd be considered a Moderate today.

Reagan the environmentalist as governor he protected Californias wilderness from dams and highways and created an air resources board, as president he launched the Montreal Protocol to protect the ozone layer did not appear.

Nor did Reagan the retreater who withdrew from Lebanon after terrorists killed 248 US marines, leaving the country to civil war, or Reagan the negotiator who reached out to the evil empire, or the Reagan who signed Californias liberal abortion law, the Brady gun law, collective bargaining for local government workers and amnesty for almost 3 million undocumented people.

If the current Republican candidates want to truly embody his legacy, they must let go of the false caricature and acknowledge Reagans complexity as well as his moderation,

 

Donald Trump is the new Reagan you say? Well here is a Reagan quote from 1984.

In 1986, Reagan supported an immigration reform that gave amnesty to 3 million illegal aliens. During the 1984 election, Reagan said, I believe in the idea of amnesty for those who have put down roots and who have lived here even though sometime back they may have entered illegally.

 

Ted Cruz is the new Reagan you say?

In 1981, Reagan proposed a large tax cut. But when deficits became a problem, he supported tax increases and signed 11 of them into law. Among them was the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982, the largest peacetime tax increase in American history.

And somebody that worked with Reagan and knew him well puts it:

Former Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE): Reagan wouldn't identify with this party. There's a streak of intolerance in the Republican Party today that scares people. Intolerance is a very dangerous thing in a society because it always leads to a tragic ending. Ronald Reagan was never driven by ideology. He was a conservative but he was a practical conservative. He wanted limited government but he used government and he used it many times. And he would work with the other party.

I worked for Ronald Reagan and believe he was a great president. But he was not a radical who made extravagant claims or sought to destroy government, as most Republicans appear willing to do today. He believed in conservative governance and getting things done, and if bending on principle was necessary, then so be it. I think Republicans would be better off emulating the real Ronald Reagan and less demanding rigid adherence to unachievable principles.

 

The party has moved far right to the fringes, GoColts. Ronald Reagan would be a moderate, compassionate, "establishment" GOP politician who actually solved problems and worked across the the aisle if he were running today.

 

A Trump and a Cruz would be making fun of Ronald Reagan. As would the Rush Limbaughs.

That's the ugly truth of how far right the party has gone.

 

I'm not the one believing in fairy tales and myths. itsatip

[gocolts 300]

The Republican Party has shifted way further to the right since 1980. He'd be considered a Moderate today.

 

 

 

Donald Trump is the new Reagan you say? Well here is a Reagan quote from 1984.

 

 

Ted Cruz is the new Reagan you say?

 

 

And somebody that worked with Reagan and knew him well puts it:

 

 

The party has moved far right to the fringes, GoColts. Ronald Reagan would be a moderate, compassionate, "establishment" GOP politician who actually solved problems and worked across the the aisle if he were running today.

 

I'm not the one believing in fairy tales and myths. itsatip

Nope. Never claimed either one of them were the new Reagan. Hell, Trump does not really appear to be all that conservative at all when you look back on some of the stuff he has said and done over the years. You are missing my point.

 

What I have been saying is that all this bullshtt that folks keep claiming like "He is too conservative" or "He is unelectable" or "He can't work with the other side" was also said about Reagan as well. It is the same old tired crap recycled as new attacks, when they have all been used before. That is it. We do not know how good or bad they will be. In fact, I doubt either of them would be nearly as good as Reagan.

 

The fairy tale is believing that Trump or Cruz would, if elected, force the government to go into some kind of gridlock and nothing would get done for years. Just because they stand their ground now doesn't mean they will make it be their way or the highway. There is no freaking way in hell a POTUS is going to elected and not get anything done and the entire government would be in some gridlock for years. They will have to make deals, just like Reagan. At least if it were Trump or Cruz, we know they would fight for what they want and get some of it. The other guys would likely give away the store just to get one small thing.

 

 

The myth is thinking our government would just shut down if one of these guys were to be elected and that they would refuse to do anything ever. Hell, if nothing else, they will worry about their Legacy and work with everyone to get what they could done. They made they same claim about Reagan and he proved them wrong as you so eloquently pointed out.

[KSB2424 3,174]

You're all over the place.

 

Bottom line: Trump and Cruz both have very very intolerant and extreme views on certain big ticket issues.

 

So either a. They would create a bunch of fighting and gridlock in DC or b. They aren't as 'tough' as they say they are pandering for votes and are complete frauds.

 

Neither appeals to me.

 

I want the guy who brings people together, not further divide. A person who is conservative at the core, but smart and compassionate enough to know when to work across the aisle.

 

But hey, that's just me.

[mmmmm...beer 822]

intolerant

Talk about an extremely over used and abused word in the last several years. Fock this political correctness crybaby bullsh!t. Unless your "tolerant" of whatthefuckever in the entire world your some angry hater. What a load of hot slimy sh!t we've all been fed.

 

Hey... sorry.. some stuff in the world is wrong, evil, or just plain focking dumb.

 

We're not losing our world power status for anything more than what this has done to us. The pussification of a once and still mighty nation, in decline cause we don't wanna "hurt your feelings".

[KSB2424 3,174]

Talk about an extremely over used and abused word in the last several years. Fock this political correctness crybaby bullsh!t. Unless your "tolerant" of whatthefuckever in the entire world your some angry hater. What a load of hot slimy sh!t we've all been fed.

 

Hey... sorry.. some stuff in the world is wrong, evil, or just plain focking dumb.

 

We're not losing our world power status for anything more than what this has done to us. The pussification of a once and still mighty nation, in decline cause we don't wanna "hurt your feelings".

 

I'm one of the least PC persons you'll find.

 

That doesn't mean a political leader can just do and say anything they want (without backlash) and actually put up ideas to implement (like a religious test) that is blatantly against the constitution.

 

Sometimes the word is actually appropriate.

[drobeski 3,061]

Talk about an extremely over used and abused word in the last several years. Fock this political correctness crybaby bullsh!t. Unless your "tolerant" of whatthefuckever in the entire world your some angry hater. What a load of hot slimy sh!t we've all been fed.

 

Hey... sorry.. some stuff in the world is wrong, evil, or just plain focking dumb.

 

We're not losing our world power status for anything more than what this has done to us. The pussification of a once and still mighty nation, in decline cause we don't wanna "hurt your feelings".

nailed it

[titans&bucs&bearsohmy! 2,745]

Talk about an extremely over used and abused word in the last several years. Fock this political correctness crybaby bullsh!t. Unless your "tolerant" of whatthefuckever in the entire world your some angry hater. What a load of hot slimy sh!t we've all been fed.

 

Hey... sorry.. some stuff in the world is wrong, evil, or just plain focking dumb.

 

We're not losing our world power status for anything more than what this has done to us. The pussification of a once and still mighty nation, in decline cause we don't wanna "hurt your feelings".

We are not losing our world power status. We can still d!ckslap any other military in the world. No one else is even close.

 

What has happened is that a couple of other nations (China namely, but Russia not far behind) are beginning to narrow the gap.

 

This is inevitable. We became the top dog because everyone else was decimated by WWII. Did we expect they'd stay down forever?

 

I wish we would worry less about our might, and more about our right. As in doing right by our own people.

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,433]

We are not losing our world power status. We can still d!ckslap any other military in the world. No one else is even close.

 

What has happened is that a couple of other nations (China namely, but Russia not far behind) are beginning to narrow the gap.

 

This is inevitable. We became the top dog because everyone else was decimated by WWII. Did we expect they'd stay down forever?

 

I wish we would worry less about our might, and more about our right. As in doing right by our own people.

 

I was thinking of our military leadership not being about whether we can kick any country's ass who wanted to start something, but instead that we cannot use our military to impose our will or really protect our people. The game has changed with all of these terror groups. We are not battling China or Russia or some other country who might be starting things. We are dealing with groups that are not affiliated with any particular country and we do not have the means to easily deal with those situations anymore and that is a big concern for our country.