2016

• rmolin73

  

  Donald Trump is calling for a Revolution! SMDH
• pmoney25

  

  gut;1314814 wrote:The answer is not complicated. Elect pragmatic people willing to make the tough decisions. If they don't, fire them. You'd be surprised at how effective holding people accountable can be.

  The problem is they just get replaced by equally bad people.
• isadore

  corporatism, racism has been rejected and its killing so many republicans.
• pmoney25

  

  isadore;1314832 wrote:corporatism, racism has been rejected and its killing so many republicans.

  Haha So Obama is not a corporatist?
• Cleveland Buck

  

  pmoney25;1314848 wrote:Haha So Obama is not a corporatist?

  Don't waste your time. He doesn't know what corporatism is.
• isadore

  gosh a ruddies how about rolling back deregulation, resisting attempts to cut corporate income tax, undoing the citizens united decision
  that would be a nice start.
• isadore

  gosh a ruddies now he has elizabeth warren to help him.
• gut

  pmoney25;1314821 wrote:The problem is they just get replaced by equally bad people.

  It's gotta be baby steps. You can't throw the whole kitchen sink at 'em until you start changing the culture of the electorate. Look at Elizabeth Warren and other crazies. Your ideal candidate is unelectable because they can't appeal to a broad enough base to get elected.
  
  A "counter-culture" candidate will rarely defeat a mainstream choice, much less an incumbent. You need candidates to gradually move the needle. Or you have to build a coalition within the party. The Tea Party proved it's possible. You can't defeat a Dem or Repub incumbent without support of the base.
  
  And I don't suspect such a candidate with broad appeal will really align that well with your values. There are very few districts a good Libertarian can win in the socialist nanny state. They probably have a better shot, actually, at building a base within the Dem party.
• said_aouita

  

  ptown_trojans_1;1312423 wrote:Yes it is.
  Ugh.

  This.
• said_aouita

  

  Thank goodness the world is going to end December 21st.
• tk421

  

  said_aouita;1314986 wrote:Thank goodness the world is going to end December 21st.

  I wish
• Manhattan Buckeye

  If we hit the US$20T debt threshold, I don't know who would want to run for POTUS.
• gut

  Manhattan Buckeye;1314990 wrote:If we hit the US$20T debt threshold, I don't know who would want to run for POTUS.

  The first leak in the dam will be defaulting on intragovt debt. So we should at least get a warning.
  
  There will be plenty of bloodletting, but ultimately it should be pretty muted (read: short-run gross overreaction, but it would be bad) as it's really nothing more than reneging on a promise to remove currency from circulation. I think the current total for that is something like $7-$8T. Probably won't actually default on that but restructure so the effect is basically the same (or just keep rolling it over into 30-yr's at like 1%).
• believer

  

  pmoney25;1314821 wrote:The problem is they just get replaced by equally bad people.

  Including your vaunted libertarians. It would definitely happen.
• Con_Alma

  isadore;1314832 wrote:corporatism, racism has been rejected and its killing so many republicans.

  This would never kill me personally. No matter who is elected, it wouldn't kill me. If who the President is impacts my life then I am too dependent on others.
• Devils Advocate

  

  November 2016 cannot get here fast enough.......
• believer

  

  Devils Advocate;1315000 wrote:November 2016 cannot get here fast enough.......

  Naw. I'm tossing in the towel to become a bonafide kool aid drinker. I eagerly await my redistribution check.
  
  Me likes European Utopian socialism.
• WebFire

  gut;1314814 wrote:The answer is not complicated. Elect pragmatic people willing to make the tough decisions. If they don't, fire them. You'd be surprised at how effective holding people accountable can be.

  You actually believe what you are typing? That is exactly what the non-partisans (or independents, 3rd parties) are trying to do. But the D and R won't have it. Instead we are given puppets that had the money behind them to get them on stage.
  
  You really think we can do what you suggested with our current system?
• mucalum49

  

  believer;1315008 wrote:Naw. I'm tossing in the towel to become a bonafide kool aid drinker. I eagerly await my redistribution check.
  
  Me likes European Utopian socialism.

  +1 and I'm loading up a U-Haul and heading out to Colorado this weekend!
• mucalum49

  

  Back to 2016. I honestly think those supporting Libertarian views won in this election. I Googled Dick Morris to see if he was still alive because honestly he went dark after Ohio. Rightfully so because he was way off. But found this quote from him from today.
  
  http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1112/83490.html
  
  If the GOP can realize in the quicky that this is the new America (having two Presidential elections as proof) and it is a far more progressive country than their party believes and recalibrate. Then come out in 2016 with a more moderate social stance and remain fiscally conservative I think they'd hit a lot more voters.
• Con_Alma

  mucalum49;1315104 wrote:Back to 2016. I honestly think those supporting Libertarian views won in this election. I Googled **** Morris to see if he was still alive because honestly he went dark after Ohio. Rightfully so because he was way off. But found this quote from him from today.
  
  http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1112/83490.html
  
  If the GOP can realize in the quicky that this is the new America (having two Presidential elections as proof) and it is a far more progressive country than their party believes and recalibrate. Then come out in 2016 with a more moderate social stance and remain fiscally conservative I think they'd hit a lot more voters.

  
  I hope the goal isn't to get voters but rather represent those who have conservative stances. If the majority want more liberal leaders so be it.
• mucalum49

  

  Con_Alma;1315107 wrote:I hope the goal isn't to get voters but rather represent those who have conservative stances. If the majority want more liberal leaders so be it.

  But pick your battle Con, fiscal conservatism which I truly believe the majority of America is in or social conservatism which I no longer believe the majority of America fits in. I'm not saying move left of center but show some effort in moving towards the middle like Gov. Romney did at the end. And there in lies the problem, he was labeled a flip-flopper by the Dems because of what it took to gain Republican votes in the primary. Then he moved back to the middle for the general election but the sound bytes of him appealing to the far right were already out there...
  
  If the GOP moves off its far right social views and realizes that this isn't the baby boomer America where everyone lives in the burbs, has 2.1 children and all sits around as a family at night for dinner then they'd be better off. Am I saying socially we're moving in the right direction, not entirely. But if we want any chance at maintaining a free market economy then the social issues that stigmatize the party with younger voters, single women and independents, have to change.
• Con_Alma

  mucalum49;1315115 wrote:But pick your battle Con, fiscal conservatism which I truly believe the majority of America is in or social conservatism which I no longer believe the majority of America fits in. I'm not saying move left of center but show some effort in moving towards the middle like Gov. Romney did at the end. ....

  I have absolutely no reason to "move to the middle". That is not whereby my views stand. I have no need to gain something which would be the only motivation to move. I certainly am not battling. Lol
  
  I take a different approach. The collective decide of which I am 1. If I am in the mnority so be it, the collective will get their way.
• mucalum49

  

  Con_Alma;1315119 wrote:I have absolutely no reason to "move to the middle". That is not whereby my views stand. I have no need to gain something which would be the only motivation to move. I certainly am not battling. Lol
  
  I take a different approach. The collective decide of which I am 1. If I am in the mnority so be it, the collective will get their way.

  More power to you then. I don't feel as strongly about the social issues as I do about the economy so our points of view are different. I'm not right or wrong, just think it'll be increasingly tougher to win the Presidency as a social conservative.
  
  And I'd rather not let the collective get their way if their way is less free market.
• Con_Alma

  mucalum49;1315123 wrote:More power to you then. I don't feel as strongly about the social issues as I do about the economy so our points of view are different. I'm not right or wrong, just think it'll be increasingly tougher to win the Presidency as a social conservative.
  
  And I'd rather not let the collective get their way if their way is less free market.

  I don't feel equally about all issues. I don't know how you garnered that from my posts. There's simply no reason to waiver on my view with regards to either a social or economic issuse. The goal isn't get everything I believe in applied to our country. The goal is to live in a collective society while standing true to my core convictions. That's what I would determine as a success.
  
  It's not my country. It's ours. Maybe that's the compromise I offer.