This weekend was hard on this Republican

[dondub]

But, but, but, everyone said Bush stole the Florida election in the dead of night.

 Hardly anyone, if truth be told. And all done in broad daylight. A majority of Americans, especially repos and those that talk continually about voter fraud, are the least likely.

gregpalast.com is a good place to find the "political fact".

[Value Buy]

Jan 26, 2015 15:49:20 GMT -5 dondub said:

But, but, but, everyone said Bush stole the Florida election in the dead of night.

 Hardly anyone, if truth be told. And all done in broad daylight. A majority of Americans, especially repos and those that talk continually about voter fraud, are the least likely.

gregpalast.com is a good place to find the "political fact".

Were you on the boards here for that election?

I have to disagree with you.

[dondub]

This board has been here since Nov. 2000?

[Deleted]

After Benghazi, I don't think Hillary is electable. I could be wrong... but I don't think so.

[zibazinski]

I'm afraid you are wrong. That woman is going to be the next president.

[billisonboard]

Jan 26, 2015 19:28:43 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

After Benghazi, I don't think Hillary is electable. I could be wrong... but I don't think so.

Benghazi gazi gazi gazi gazi gazi gazi
Benghazi gazi gazi gazi gazi gazi gazi
I am not convinced that Benghazi is an issue outside the echo chamber.

[Virgil Showlion]

Jan 26, 2015 19:28:43 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

After Benghazi, I don't think Hillary is electable. I could be wrong... but I don't think so.

I hate to keep doing this, but I did promise to in August of 2013.

Hold that mule, boys! It's 2016 and I'm comin' ba-aaaaaaaaaack!

[Deleted]

Well... Oprah got "that black man" into office...

Maybe if she supports Hillary, she can "get that woman" into office.

[Deleted]

Jan 26, 2015 20:08:55 GMT -5 Sum Dum Gai said:

Benghazi... you're funny. Most Amercans can't find it on a map, don't give a crap, and by the time the election rolls around won't even remember what happened over there. You might as well say she's unelectable because of green tea prices in Malaysia.

If that wishful thinking helps you sleep at night after seeing the current crop of Republican duds, then whatever, cling to it I suppose.

It's not "wishful thinking". "Wishful thinking" would be thinking that the average American voter actually cares enough to vote for the best person for the job. THAT would be "wishful thinking".

Romney would actually be a good candidate, and a good President... too bad he's likely unelectable too (probably several reasons, but a big one is, he's Mormon, and "religion voters" {mostly Christian} would never vote for a Mormon, so, by default, whomever he's running against gets their vote, automatically).

[Virgil Showlion]

Whoever takes over the 2016 US presidency is going to wind up like a fly on the windshield of a bullet train.

That "whoever" is almost certainly going to be Ms. Clinton. Given the quality of her character, I can only think of a handful of politicians who deserve it more.

[dondub]

"Wishful thinking" is that Benghazi will have an impact on Hillary's chances.

I think the well informed are quite sure that after 7 Repo investigations there is no there there. But the fruitcakes continue apace, as Boehner has already announced investigation #8.

You'd think these dogs would get tired of chasing the car before it runs them over.

[Deleted]

Jan 26, 2015 20:25:48 GMT -5 Sum Dum Gai said:

I do vote based on who I think will do the best job. After the disaster of the overspending, rights trampling, warmongering asshat the Republican party talked me into in 2000, it's going to be awhile before I fall for their bullshit again.

The Dems aren't much better on spending, but at least they don't come after my civil rights, try to dictate what I do in my bedroom, and they weren't singing bomb Iran while still stuck in a self created clusterfuck in Iraq and ignoring Afghanistan. I used to be proud to tell people I was a registered Republican,now the party is a friggin punchline, and it's slightly embarrassing to admit I used to vote for them. Whatever beat up clown claws his way through the primary in 2016 is more than likely going to get their ass handed to them pretty convincingly by Hillary. She's not my first choice, by a long shot, but I'll be voting for her over anyone I saw this weekend.

Have you ever considered anyone that was a non-Democrat and non-Republican? If yes, great. If no, then I don't believe you when you say that you "vote based on who I think will do the best job", you vote based on "the best of two bad choices, even though there are actually more than just two choices". 

[EVT1]

Jan 26, 2015 20:14:58 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Jan 26, 2015 20:08:55 GMT -5 Sum Dum Gai said:

Benghazi... you're funny. Most Amercans can't find it on a map, don't give a crap, and by the time the election rolls around won't even remember what happened over there. You might as well say she's unelectable because of green tea prices in Malaysia.

If that wishful thinking helps you sleep at night after seeing the current crop of Republican duds, then whatever, cling to it I suppose.

It's not "wishful thinking". "Wishful thinking" would be thinking that the average American voter actually cares enough to vote for the best person for the job. THAT would be "wishful thinking".

Romney would actually be a good candidate, and a good President... too bad he's likely unelectable too (probably several reasons, but a big one is, he's Mormon, and "religion voters" {mostly Christian} would never vote for a Mormon, so, by default, whomever he's running against gets their vote, automatically).

I think he would have done a hell of a lot better or maybe even won if he didn't tack to the right- other will say he lost because he didn't tack hard enough.

Sadly for the GOP he is still the best candidate on deck so far- though singing a different tune.

Speaking of the Mormon angle- there was a story about Jindal going to a prayer rally courting the Christian vote- but some of the folks in that mix are hardcore dominionists- and they are not interested in Mormons or even Catholics- which is weird because Jindal is Catholic. 

[tallguy]

But, but, but, everyone said Bush stole the Florida election in the dead of night.

Of course he cheated.  There's no doubt about that, is there?

1.  He's from NEW ENGLAND.

2.  He considers himself a PATRIOT.

Ergo, cheater.    

[tallguy]

Have you ever considered anyone that was a non-Democrat and non-Republican? If yes, great. If no, then I don't believe you when you say that you "vote based on who I think will do the best job", you vote based on "the best of two bad choices, even though there are actually more than just two choices". 
 

At this point in our history, however, it is more important to not have a Republican candidate elected.  They are so far-right at this point that it would be disastrous.  If the party was still dominated by Rockefeller Republicans I would not be as concerned.  Hell, I'd most likely vote for them.  But Sum Dum Gai is absolutely correct above:

After the disaster of the overspending, rights trampling, warmongering asshat the Republican party talked me into in 2000, it's going to be awhile before I fall for their bullshit again.

The Dems aren't much better on spending, but at least they don't come after my civil rights, try to dictate what I do in my bedroom, and they weren't singing bomb Iran while still stuck in a self created clusterfuck in Iraq and ignoring Afghanistan. I used to be proud to tell people I was a registered Republican,now the party is a friggin punchline, and it's slightly embarrassing to admit I used to vote for them.

  And they have gotten even nuttier since.  No, this country is too evenly divided to justify a symbolic statement in a vote.  We need to protect ourselves.  From far-right Republicans (or the American Taliban if you prefer.) 

[Deleted]

Jan 26, 2015 22:10:09 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

Jan 26, 2015 20:14:58 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

It's not "wishful thinking". "Wishful thinking" would be thinking that the average American voter actually cares enough to vote for the best person for the job. THAT would be "wishful thinking".

Romney would actually be a good candidate, and a good President... too bad he's likely unelectable too (probably several reasons, but a big one is, he's Mormon, and "religion voters" {mostly Christian} would never vote for a Mormon, so, by default, whomever he's running against gets their vote, automatically).

I think he would have done a hell of a lot better or maybe even won if he didn't tack to the right- other will say he lost because he didn't tack hard enough.

Sadly for the GOP he is still the best candidate on deck so far- though singing a different tune.

Speaking of the Mormon angle- there was a story about Jindal going to a prayer rally courting the Christian vote- but some of the folks in that mix are hardcore dominionists- and they are not interested in Mormons or even Catholics- which is weird because Jindal is Catholic. 

Well... you know what they say... "Catholics aren't REAL Christians"

(not that I agree with that... but there are many that do believe it)

Plus, we already tried a Catholic President. Unfortunately he didn't last long.

[Deleted]

Jan 26, 2015 22:41:52 GMT -5 tallguy said:

Have you ever considered anyone that was a non-Democrat and non-Republican? If yes, great. If no, then I don't believe you when you say that you "vote based on who I think will do the best job", you vote based on "the best of two bad choices, even though there are actually more than just two choices". 
 

At this point in our history, however, it is more important to not have a Republican candidate elected.  They are so far-right at this point that it would be disastrous.  If the party was still dominated by Rockefeller Republicans I would not be as concerned.  Hell, I'd most likely vote for them.  But Sum Dum Gai is absolutely correct above:

After the disaster of the overspending, rights trampling, warmongering asshat the Republican party talked me into in 2000, it's going to be awhile before I fall for their bullshit again.

The Dems aren't much better on spending, but at least they don't come after my civil rights, try to dictate what I do in my bedroom, and they weren't singing bomb Iran while still stuck in a self created clusterfuck in Iraq and ignoring Afghanistan. I used to be proud to tell people I was a registered Republican,now the party is a friggin punchline, and it's slightly embarrassing to admit I used to vote for them.

  And they have gotten even nuttier since.  No, this country is too evenly divided to justify a symbolic statement in a vote.  We need to protect ourselves.  From far-right Republicans (or the American Taliban if you prefer.) 

I agree with the bolded, but I also add that it's also important to not have a Democrat candidate elected. We need a President that's neither Democrat NOR Republican (we also need a Congress that's majority something other than those two as well).

[tallguy]

If it were up to me, I would abolish both parties and start over.  Minimum of five new parties, narrowly focused so that people could know what they actually stood for and not just what they were willing to give lip service to.  It would also more likely result in more cooperation and the victory of good ideas rather than party preferences as we have now.

It's not up to me.    

[tallguy]

I agree with the bolded, but I also add that it's also important to not have a Democrat candidate elected. We need a President that's neither Democrat NOR Republican (we also need a Congress that's majority something other than those two as well).

If the Democrats were far-left I would agree, but they haven't been since Clinton.  And it would not take much to convince me that Obama is a moderate Republican.  He is certainly far more centrist than many people give him credit for.   Those who call him far-left, socialist, or communist are just bizarrely unaware.

[Virgil Showlion]

Tall, Dark, and Bill sharing a beer:

"You know what Obama's problem is? He's not far enough left."
"Darn straight. He needs to be more left."
"We haven't had any good left since Clinton got in. He wasn't left enough either."
"Hear hear!"
"What do you think about Hillary Clinton?"
"She'd be good if she were a little further to the left."
"I agree, but I think it would be best if she was a lot to the left."
"Yeah, like, to the left of left."
"Because right now, the Dem-"
"Or to the left of left... of left. I... wait. Who are we talking about again?"
"Right now, the Democrats are so far right, it's literally impossible to... not be left of them, right?"

(3 hours later)

"...and tha's what I kept telling my wife. I said... I said, 'Honey, I like your bird but he's jus'...  he's jus' not f... n far enough to the left.'"
"I hear you. I... hear you. My f... my grandkids so needs to be further to my left... their left. Wait? Is it my left or... or your left?"
"I dunno, man. But left. That's what the world needs is all the kids... all those kids... all goin' left."
"Yep."
"Yep."

...

"Well, I gotta go home. But sure is nice... it sure's nice for us three moderates t' get together and talk every once in a while."

[tallguy]

Well, there's another difference between us.  I cannot even conceive of how to write a silly, drunken, piece of crap like that.  You seem to have perfected it.  Apparently a much-practiced experience for you?

[Virgil Showlion]

Jan 27, 2015 0:34:29 GMT -5 tallguy said:

Well, there's another difference between us.  I cannot even conceive of how to write a silly, drunken, piece of crap like that.  You seem to have perfected it.  Apparently a much-practiced experience for you?

A simple matter of listening in on a message board conversation between three of the five most left-leaning posters on the board and extrapolating, my dear Watson.

Here's a question for you: Name one US politician who in your opinion would have benefited from being further politically right than they were in reality.

When you fail to come up with an answer, read the simulated bar conversation again and I promise you it will seem a lot funnier.

[tallguy]

If you think I am that left-leaning, that tells me far more about you than anything else.  There are a number of tests out there.  In every one I am pretty much dead-center between right and left (with a slight libertarian leaning.)  The only reason I may seem left is because the observer* is so far to the right.

* (that would be you.)

[EVT1]

Jan 26, 2015 22:42:38 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Jan 26, 2015 22:10:09 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

I think he would have done a hell of a lot better or maybe even won if he didn't tack to the right- other will say he lost because he didn't tack hard enough.

Sadly for the GOP he is still the best candidate on deck so far- though singing a different tune.

Speaking of the Mormon angle- there was a story about Jindal going to a prayer rally courting the Christian vote- but some of the folks in that mix are hardcore dominionists- and they are not interested in Mormons or even Catholics- which is weird because Jindal is Catholic. 

Well... you know what they say... "Catholics aren't REAL Christians"

(not that I agree with that... but there are many that do believe it)

Plus, we already tried a Catholic President. Unfortunately he didn't last long.

Ha fucking Ha an assassination is so funny.  And I am a Catholic-  you know what that means?  Spaghetti diners, pancake breakfasts, pig roasts and beer.  

But for real- I ran across this via cable news.

Top lady in the NAR movement claims to be able to raise the dead and influence current events- and calls herself a prophet.

Isn't there a 'false prophet clause'

[tallguy]

The other part that makes Virgil's question meaningless as stated is this:

Benefitted how?  That they would have won elections because they went further right?  Or that they would have become a better elected official and made the country better by having moved to the right?

My guess is that he is talking about social issues such as abortion and same-sex marriage.  If that is the case, then there is NOBODY who would have benefitted THE COUNTRY by being further right.  Those are the types of issues where individual liberty and equal protection are paramount.  To infringe on another's individual liberty is the one truly anti-American thing you can do.  I may not agree with someone's choice, but it is not my right to decide their life for them.  It IS society's right to ensure that nobody else's freedoms are infringed in the exercise of one's own. 

You know about individual liberty, don't you?  It's that thing that conservatives claim to believe in, but really are only willing to grant to those who are and believe just like them.  And personal responsibility doesn't really seem to be a priority for either side.

Funny how the things conservatives so steadfastly claim are in fact quintessential liberal core values.            

Religion is a wonderful way to govern one's own life and behavior.  It is a horrible way to set policy in a pluralistic society.  Anyone who doesn't understand that should not be in a position to set policy in a pluralistic society.  My religious beliefs do not govern my political beliefs.  Were it otherwise, I would be doing a disservice not only to the American public but to America's ideals.     

[tallguy]

On the other hand, I am decidedly on the traditionally conservative side with regard to spending (particularly deficits), immigration, death penalty, welfare, and other issues.  I am happy to expound on any of them, but to try to pigeonhole me as far left-leaning is ridiculous.  

[Deleted]

Jan 27, 2015 2:10:47 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

Jan 26, 2015 22:42:38 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Well... you know what they say... "Catholics aren't REAL Christians"

(not that I agree with that... but there are many that do believe it)

Plus, we already tried a Catholic President. Unfortunately he didn't last long.

Ha fucking Ha an assassination is so funny.  And I am a Catholic-  you know what that means?  Spaghetti diners, pancake breakfasts, pig roasts and beer.  

But for real- I ran across this via cable news.

Top lady in the NAR movement claims to be able to raise the dead and influence current events- and calls herself a prophet.

Isn't there a 'false prophet clause'

You must have missed my "unfortunately" about Kennedy's Presidency duration.

Also worthy of note, I also said "not that I agree with that... but there are many that do believe it"

[marvholly]

I agree Bush & Romney were smart to stay away from the IA meeting. I also figure they appeal to the same voters and will kill each other off in the fairly early primaries as will a Bush/Rubio matchup. Not left w/much for the Republicans. I am afraid we will be left w/NO choice but a Palin/worse type nutso & Democratic president. NOTE: I liked Bill but am not a big Hilary fan and Warren needs MUCH more experience. I believe that is part of Obama’s problem – too much, too soon.

[Virgil Showlion]

Jan 27, 2015 2:08:01 GMT -5 tallguy said:

If you think I am that left-leaning, that tells me far more about you than anything else.  There are a number of tests out there.  In every one I am pretty much dead-center between right and left (with a slight libertarian leaning.)  The only reason I may seem left is because the observer* is so far to the right.

* (that would be you.)

The last time I took one of those "score yourself" Internet political tests, it placed me at -0.4 on a -5 to 5 scale. That's pretty much dead center.

Why? I imagine because it considered my preference for socialized healthcare, my general aversion to war, my lack of faith in free market capitalism, etc. to be liberal rather than conservative traits, thus balancing out my conservative social views.

Suffice it to say that I lack faith in the accuracy of online tests. I agree with you that I'm more right than center. And if you define "center", there is no political left.

My personal measure is as follows: Over the set of all political debate on NMSNM that can reasonably be construed as a right/left dichotomy, compute the fraction of times that poster X favours the leftist side of the argument more than slightly.

I'd score myself at about a 0.2, which takes into account my general opposition to war, surveillance, torture, unregulated markets and industries, etc.  As for you, possibly because your main motivation for posting is to criticize Paul's contributions, I can't rightly think of a single issue where you've come down on the conservative side of the argument. That puts you at a solid 1.0. If I've missed something, point it out. Show me where in the history of our board you've fallen on the right (politically) side of a right/left debate.

You and Dark getting together and agreeing that X, Y, Z politicians all need to be more to the left is like Elmer Fudd and Yosemite Sam agreeing that wabbits need to be less wascally. As in: the stars would have to be seriously out of alignment for the pair of you to reach any other conclusion. What struck me as particularly humorous about your exchange is that you didn't see fit to articulate how politicians ought to be further to the left. They apparently just need to be "more left".

In what regard? Who cares. Just pick one at random. Shift it to the left and it's all good.

The stars are apparently still in alignment.

[Virgil Showlion]

Jan 27, 2015 2:10:44 GMT -5 Sum Dum Gai said:

Here's a question for you: Name one US politician who in your opinion would have benefited from being further politically right than they were in reality.

Define right. Old school right, which was predominately about fiscal issues, small federal government, and states rights? A dose of that might have helped Mitt. Or modern right which is all about social issues, marriage, procreation, tax cuts that make no fiscal sense and blaming every problem on the poor? Because that's what cost Mitt the election. Pandering to the religious right and telling America you're going to impose their values on all of us is a losing strategy outside the primaries. Too many centrists that don't want a religious zealot telling us how to live our lives vote in elections. Until the Republican party stops courting those votes they'll continue to lose everywhere except gerrymandered congressional districts.

Republicans used to win on fiscal issues and restraint. I could vote for a guy that thinks abortion is murder, or gay marriage is an abomination, as long as he also thinks the president has far more pressing concerns and it's not the federal governments job to impose social values on the citizenry.

Hence you're saying that although it's ultimately a President's economic, military, environmental, etc. policies that matter most, you're going to vote more or less exclusively based on candidates' social policies?