Iowa Caucus
-
Moderate republicans losing doesn't mean conservative republicans will win. We lose with Johnny Manziel at QB, but that doesn't mean we should start Steve there just because he's not Manziel.
It also doesn't mean conservatives will lose like the establishment GOP says every 4 years.
Steve would go down in flames as QB (sorry WS) but I could see Westside Steve doing very well performing at halftime firing up the fans. Just a matter of properly using your talent.
I think I could do well enough in the primary. I'm enough of an ass hole but unlike Trump I'd have an arsenal of canned responses.It also doesn't mean conservatives will lose like the establishment GOP says every 4 years.
Steve would go down in flames as QB (sorry WS) but I could see Westside Steve doing very well performing at halftime firing up the fans. Just a matter of properly using your talent.
It really doesn't take much to make the public think you might know what you're talking about but all the Donald does is he we'll take care of it, we'll fix it.
He's got the money to hire any military strategists economist medical people that will help him put together a handful of great sounding blurbs and sound bites.
WSS
-
I think that's his point - that Cruz is the bible thumping conservative in this case that shouldn't win the nomination, because a more moderate candidate is needed in november; and that more moderate candidate was McCain and Romney, who both solidly lost, so why try the same thing again? Why not go with Cruz?
At least, I think that's the logic. I'm not sure I agree with it, but that's the logic.
Not logic so much as the argument that is used every 4 years in republican circles that only moderates can win in the general election yet when the republicans throw up moderates like Bob Dole, John McCain and Mitt Romney they lose too....so why is the argument that only moderate republicans can win such a valid argument when the actual elections show different? Why did the most conservative republican Reagan win 2 landslide elections?
I think the same argument is probably used against Trump too....that he is not electable.
Can Cruz or Trump beat Clinton? Sure they both can. The democrats could not be running a weaker candidate than her.
Not logic so much as the argument that is used every 4 years in republican circles that only moderates can win in the general election yet when the republicans throw up moderates like Bob Dole, John McCain and Mitt Romney they lose too....so why is the argument that only moderate republicans can win such a valid argument when the actual elections show different? Why did the most conservative republican Reagan win 2 landslide elections?
I think the same argument is probably used against Trump too....that he is not electable.
Can Cruz or Trump beat Clinton? Sure they both can. The democrats could not be running a weaker candidate than her.
I don't think a more conservative candidate would work out well for Republicans.
Instead of doubling down on old social policies maybe they need to update some of their beliefs?
Ja.brill Peppers - Cleveland Brown OldBrownsFan, on 02 Jun 2017 - 5:09PM said: "No you are not the work of the devil but you are deceived by the devil." Who's got it better than us? Nooooobody! -
Reporter: Donald, you keep saying you'll make this country great again, how exactly do you plan to do that?
Trump: You know that's a great question, I get that kind of question all the time, just the other day I was speaking to someone who asked me exactly this question and I'll tell you the same as I told him, there are serious problems with this country, we're letting too many people in, china is laughing at us, and Obama, Obama, he is so weak. If it were me, China would know who they're dealing with. I would stand up to China. I'm great at making deals and if I'm president, China will be paying us to sell their stuff here!
Crowd: wooooo!!!!
Rinse and repeat for every question trump faces.
-
Not logic so much as the argument that is used every 4 years in republican circles that only moderates can win in the general election yet when the republicans throw up moderates like Bob Dole, John McCain and Mitt Romney they lose too....so why is the argument that only moderate republicans can win such a valid argument when the actual elections show different? Why did the most conservative republican Reagan win 2 landslide elections?
I think the same argument is probably used against Trump too....that he is not electable.
Can Cruz or Trump beat Clinton? Sure they both can. The democrats could not be running a weaker candidate than her.
I don't think a more conservative candidate would work out well for Republicans.
Instead of doubling down on old social policies maybe they need to update some of their beliefs?
I don't think a more conservative candidate would work out well for Republicans.
Instead of doubling down on old social policies maybe they need to update some of their beliefs?
That has been the argument for many years. If only the republicans would become more like the democrats. Then we could re-name the republican party to the democrat lite party.
-
I don't think a more conservative candidate would work out well for Republicans.
Instead of doubling down on old social policies maybe they need to update some of their beliefs?
That has been the argument for many years. If only the republicans would become more like the democrats. Then we could re-name the republican party to the democrat lite party.
That has been the argument for many years. If only the republicans would become more like the democrats. Then we could re-name the republican party to the democrat lite party.
If only the republicans could let go of the 50s values they're hanging on to, they could be a modern party.
-
I don't think a more conservative candidate would work out well for Republicans.
Instead of doubling down on old social policies maybe they need to update some of their beliefs?
That has been the argument for many years. If only the republicans would become more like the democrats. Then we could re-name the republican party to the democrat lite party.
That has been the argument for many years. If only the republicans would become more like the democrats. Then we could re-name the republican party to the democrat lite party.
Well if they wish to be obsolete then they can continue the stance of not at least being pragmatic about social issues. They would likely get more voters if they appealed to working class wallets and economics. Dems wouldn't have the "oh no the war on (insert group here)" issue and would have to actually talk money which likely puts them at a disadvantage.
-
That has been the argument for many years. If only the republicans would become more like the democrats. Then we could re-name the republican party to the democrat lite party.
If only the republicans could let go of the 50s values they're hanging on to, they could be a modern party.
If only the republicans could let go of the 50s values they're hanging on to, they could be a modern party.
If that's the goal.
I suppose the Catholic Church would be more popular in the Middle East if they accepted Sharia law.
Not to worry Chris, many things the world has believed in over the years will slowly be changing.
I guess if your pursuit is change for the sake of change, you are in luck.
1984 or Brave New World, pick your poison.
Hey there might even be some traditions that fellow your age might not like to see destroyed. Who knows.
WSS
www.westsidesteve.com www.myspace.com/westsidestevemusic www.cdbaby.com/artist/westsidestevesimmons -
Reporter: Donald, you keep saying you'll make this country great again, how exactly do you plan to do that?
Trump: You know that's a great question, I get that kind of question all the time, just the other day I was speaking to someone who asked me exactly this question and I'll tell you the same as I told him, there are serious problems with this country, we're letting too many people in, china is laughing at us, and Obama, Obama, he is so weak. If it were me, China would know who they're dealing with. I would stand up to China. I'm great at making deals and if I'm president, China will be paying us to sell their stuff here!
Crowd: wooooo!!!!
Rinse and repeat for every question trump faces.
Reporter: Donald, you keep saying you'll make this country great again, how exactly do you plan to do that?
Trump: You know that's a great question, I get that kind of question all the time, just the other day I was speaking to someone who asked me exactly this question and I'll tell you the same as I told him, there are serious problems with this country, we're letting too many people in, china is laughing at us, and Obama, Obama, he is so weak. If it were me, China would know who they're dealing with. I would stand up to China. I'm great at making deals and if I'm president, China will be paying us to sell their stuff here!
Crowd: wooooo!!!!
Rinse and repeat for every question trump faces.
But it did work for Obama with the slogans of hope and change. His lofty speeches about bringing the country together only to be the biggest divider for president we have had. His talk about working across the isle with the republicans when he has tried to force his polices on us with illegal executive actions. Trump is making promises now and they are empty until they are delivered on. Obama has a bunch of those empty promises that will not be happening in his 2 terms, not even close.
-
If only the republicans could let go of the 50s values they're hanging on to, they could be a modern party.
If that's the goal.
I suppose the Catholic Church would be more popular in the Middle East if they accepted Sharia law.
Not to worry Chris, many things the world has believed in over the years will slowly be changing.
I guess if your pursuit is change for the sake of change, you are in luck.
1984 or Brave New World, pick your poison.
Hey there might even be some traditions that fellow your age might not like to see destroyed. Who knows.
WSS
If that's the goal.
I suppose the Catholic Church would be more popular in the Middle East if they accepted Sharia law.
Political parties aren't religions (as much as the republican party seems to be trying to be)
Not to worry Chris, many things the world has believed in over the years will slowly be changing.
Things that used to be believed that have been proven false will no longer be believed. How amazing.
I guess if your pursuit is change for the sake of change, you are in luck.
Who said change for the sake of change? Nothing is perfect. Nothing could not stand to be improved in some manner. We don't live in a global (multiplanetary?) utopia, so yeah, things need to be improved.
1984 or Brave New World, pick your poison.
I have that Iron Maiden album. Pretty sweet.
Hey there might even be some traditions that fellow your age might not like to see destroyed. Who knows.
Like the browns losing?
WSS
-
Reporter: Donald, you keep saying you'll make this country great again, how exactly do you plan to do that?
Trump: You know that's a great question, I get that kind of question all the time, just the other day I was speaking to someone who asked me exactly this question and I'll tell you the same as I told him, there are serious problems with this country, we're letting too many people in, china is laughing at us, and Obama, Obama, he is so weak. If it were me, China would know who they're dealing with. I would stand up to China. I'm great at making deals and if I'm president, China will be paying us to sell their stuff here!
Crowd: wooooo!!!!
Rinse and repeat for every question trump faces.
But it did work for Obama with the slogans of hope and change. His lofty speeches about bringing the country together only to be the biggest divider for president we have had. His talk about working across the isle with the republicans when he has tried to force his polices on us with illegal executive actions. Trump is making promises now and they are empty until they are delivered on. Obama has a bunch of those empty promises that will not be happening in his 2 terms, not even close.
But it did work for Obama with the slogans of hope and change. His lofty speeches about bringing the country together only to be the biggest divider for president we have had. His talk about working across the isle with the republicans when he has tried to force his polices on us with illegal executive actions. Trump is making promises now and they are empty until they are delivered on. Obama has a bunch of those empty promises that will not be happening in his 2 terms, not even close.
On Obama's promises:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/browse/
I think it would be unrealistic to expect any president to keep every promise, simply because it's so damn difficult to get things through, especially a 'revolutionary' president such as Obama. Let alone Bernie.
Illegal executive actions? What's illegal about them?
-
That has been the argument for many years. If only the republicans would become more like the democrats. Then we could re-name the republican party to the democrat lite party.
Well if they wish to be obsolete then they can continue the stance of not at least being pragmatic about social issues. They would likely get more voters if they appealed to working class wallets and economics. Dems wouldn't have the "oh no the war on (insert group here)" issue and would have to actually talk money which likely puts them at a disadvantage.
Well if they wish to be obsolete then they can continue the stance of not at least being pragmatic about social issues. They would likely get more voters if they appealed to working class wallets and economics. Dems wouldn't have the "oh no the war on (insert group here)" issue and would have to actually talk money which likely puts them at a disadvantage.
To me to be pragmatic about social issues is to avoid what Todd Aiken did but not to give up those values. Since Roe v Wade every presidential election has put a pro choice democrat against a pro life republican. A big part of the republican base are Christians who will not stay with the party if they flip on social issues like abortion. I became a republican on social issues at first and later came to agree with them on economic issues as well. The socialist policies the democrats are pursuing is just going to be shared misery. Let people prosper in this country and we all prosper.
-
Well if they wish to be obsolete then they can continue the stance of not at least being pragmatic about social issues. They would likely get more voters if they appealed to working class wallets and economics. Dems wouldn't have the "oh no the war on (insert group here)" issue and would have to actually talk money which likely puts them at a disadvantage.
To me to be pragmatic about social issues is to avoid what Todd Aiken did but not to give up those values. Since Roe v Wade every presidential election has put a pro choice democrat against a pro life republican. A big part of the republican base are Christians who will not stay with the party if they flip on social issues like abortion. I became a republican on social issues at first and later came to agree with them on economic issues as well. The socialist policies the democrats are pursuing is just going to be shared misery. Let people prosper in this country and we all prosper.
To me to be pragmatic about social issues is to avoid what Todd Aiken did but not to give up those values. Since Roe v Wade every presidential election has put a pro choice democrat against a pro life republican. A big part of the republican base are Christians who will not stay with the party if they flip on social issues like abortion. I became a republican on social issues at first and later came to agree with them on economic issues as well. The socialist policies the democrats are pursuing is just going to be shared misery. Let people prosper in this country and we all prosper.
I, and many others like me in and around my generation, would be democrat by default because of the social values. If the republicans gave up the futile battle against abortion, and gay marriage, and all that stuff that makes people like DieHard feel uncomfortable (sorry old chap
), and stop digging their heels in over climate change, there'd be a shit ton of new voters, probably including me. But if I'm going to vote for a bought and paid for candidate that has largely the same financial policy regardless of party, I'm going to vote for one that at least has 21st century views on things. -
But it did work for Obama with the slogans of hope and change. His lofty speeches about bringing the country together only to be the biggest divider for president we have had. His talk about working across the isle with the republicans when he has tried to force his polices on us with illegal executive actions. Trump is making promises now and they are empty until they are delivered on. Obama has a bunch of those empty promises that will not be happening in his 2 terms, not even close.
On Obama's promises:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/browse/
I think it would be unrealistic to expect any president to keep every promise, simply because it's so damn difficult to get things through, especially a 'revolutionary' president such as Obama. Let alone Bernie.
Illegal executive actions? What's illegal about them?
On Obama's promises:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/browse/
I think it would be unrealistic to expect any president to keep every promise, simply because it's so damn difficult to get things through, especially a 'revolutionary' president such as Obama. Let alone Bernie.
Illegal executive actions? What's illegal about them?
When the executive branch of our government tries to make law that is illegal. The legislative branch makes laws.Supreme Court Rules Unanimously Against Obama for 12th and 13th Time Since 2012Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/381296/supreme-court-rules-unanimously-against-obama-12th-and-13th-time-2012-john-fund
-
On Obama's promises:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/browse/
I think it would be unrealistic to expect any president to keep every promise, simply because it's so damn difficult to get things through, especially a 'revolutionary' president such as Obama. Let alone Bernie.
Illegal executive actions? What's illegal about them?
When the executive branch of our government tries to make law that is illegal. The legislative branch makes laws.Supreme Court Rules Unanimously Against Obama for 12th and 13th Time Since 2012Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/381296/supreme-court-rules-unanimously-against-obama-12th-and-13th-time-2012-john-fund
When the executive branch of our government tries to make law that is illegal. The legislative branch makes laws.Supreme Court Rules Unanimously Against Obama for 12th and 13th Time Since 2012Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/381296/supreme-court-rules-unanimously-against-obama-12th-and-13th-time-2012-john-fund
So is it executive actions themselves that are illegal?
-
When the executive branch of our government tries to make law that is illegal. The legislative branch makes laws.Supreme Court Rules Unanimously Against Obama for 12th and 13th Time Since 2012
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/381296/supreme-court-rules-unanimously-against-obama-12th-and-13th-time-2012-john-fund
So is it executive actions themselves that are illegal?
-
I know that if the Republicans gave up on the social issues, I would be firmly Republican. Fiscally, I am on board with them but I don't give a squirt of piss about social issues based on religious dogma.
-
To me to be pragmatic about social issues is to avoid what Todd Aiken did but not to give up those values. Since Roe v Wade every presidential election has put a pro choice democrat against a pro life republican. A big part of the republican base are Christians who will not stay with the party if they flip on social issues like abortion. I became a republican on social issues at first and later came to agree with them on economic issues as well. The socialist policies the democrats are pursuing is just going to be shared misery. Let people prosper in this country and we all prosper.
I, and many others like me in and around my generation, would be democrat by default because of the social values. If the republicans gave up the futile battle against abortion, and gay marriage, and all that stuff that makes people like DieHard feel uncomfortable (sorry old chap
), and stop digging their heels in over climate change, there'd be a shit ton of new voters, probably including me. But if I'm going to vote for a bought and paid for candidate that has largely the same financial policy regardless of party, I'm going to vote for one that at least has 21st century views on things.I, and many others like me in and around my generation, would be democrat by default because of the social values. If the republicans gave up the futile battle against abortion, and gay marriage, and all that stuff that makes people like DieHard feel uncomfortable (sorry old chap
), and stop digging their heels in over climate change, there'd be a shit ton of new voters, probably including me. But if I'm going to vote for a bought and paid for candidate that has largely the same financial policy regardless of party, I'm going to vote for one that at least has 21st century views on things.Well said
-
You'll have to bear with me, this whole monarchic system of rule isn't really something that exists here, so I'm not completely up to speed on it.
So Obama, or any other president, issues executive orders, and these can be challenged in the supreme court (which makes sense). So how many executive orders have been overturned in the supreme court? Apparently that 13 times defeated thing is bogus:
-
To be fair, outside of HRC I think they all lack detail. Likely because they don't know what's there. Trump has a tax plan, veterans plan, pay for the wall plan that are about as detailed as the next guys.
How are you going to avoid the projected deficit blow up from your stupid tax plan? (everyone, "Idk cut some stuff")
How are you going to rule the supreme court ruling on gay marriage unconstitutional when the bible isn't the constitution? (Cruz, "idk lol")
What are you going to do after you repeal obamacare and take health coverage away from millions? (everyone, "idk lol something obamacare killz jobs")
What are you going to do with isis? ("see if sand glows in the dark")
Sanders is also lax on a lot of detail. Policy positions are more important than excessive detail. It takes several months, several people to collaborate on a bill or any sort of plan to work out all the details - and many times it's all for nothing anyway.
---
And executives orders still have to be within the law - they can't be unconstitutional or anything like that. The supreme court could overrule them, and 2/3 of congress could shut them down too (to avoid a veto)
-
You'll have to bear with me, this whole monarchic system of rule isn't really something that exists here, so I'm not completely up to speed on it.
So Obama, or any other president, issues executive orders, and these can be challenged in the supreme court (which makes sense). So how many executive orders have been overturned in the supreme court? Apparently that 13 times defeated thing is bogus:
You'll have to bear with me, this whole monarchic system of rule isn't really something that exists here, so I'm not completely up to speed on it.
So Obama, or any other president, issues executive orders, and these can be challenged in the supreme court (which makes sense). So how many executive orders have been overturned in the supreme court? Apparently that 13 times defeated thing is bogus:
It is not bogus:
Supremes Smack Down Obama Administration 9-0 For 13th TIME SINCE 2012The nine members of the Supreme Court have now unanimously smacked down the position taken by the administration of President Barack Obama over a dozen times since January 2012.
The number of total and humiliating defeats rose to 13 this particularly unlucky week after three cases went against the executive branch by a tally of 9-0, notes John Fund, writing at National Review.
In one case, NLRB v. Noel Canning, the Court unanimously rebuked President Obama for his three unconstitutional attempts to declare the U.S. Senate in recess when, in fact, the Senate was not in recess.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login