(12-22-2014 08:38 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(12-22-2014 07:57 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-22-2014 07:50 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  John Kerry. Yes.

Anybody who could pick Johnny the Ambulance Chaser as his running mate, no.

What is the reasoning for picking a VP candidate?

Whatever the reasoning, it gives you insight into his judgement.

(12-22-2014 06:59 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  Because our election system is flawed

I agree. We need to eliminate BIG money influences from the process and promote a multi party system. Term limits would also be a plus.

We already have term limits.

(12-22-2014 08:40 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-22-2014 08:38 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(12-22-2014 07:57 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-22-2014 07:50 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  John Kerry. Yes.

Anybody who could pick Johnny the Ambulance Chaser as his running mate, no.

What is the reasoning for picking a VP candidate?

Whatever the reasoning, it gives you insight into his judgement.

You only pick a VP to help you win.

(12-27-2014 01:04 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(12-22-2014 08:40 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-22-2014 08:38 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(12-22-2014 07:57 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-22-2014 07:50 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  John Kerry. Yes.

Anybody who could pick Johnny the Ambulance Chaser as his running mate, no.

What is the reasoning for picking a VP candidate?

Whatever the reasoning, it gives you insight into his judgement.

You only pick a VP to help you win.

Obama picked Biden because he knew that no matter what he did, nobody was going to impeach him and make Biden president.

(12-27-2014 01:06 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Obama picked Biden because he knew that no matter what he did, nobody was going to impeach him and make Biden president.

Truth with humor.

(12-22-2014 07:42 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-22-2014 06:59 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  Because our election system is flawed

Obviously.

Does anybody really think that over the last 15 years, the most competent people to lead the free world have been George W. Bush, Al Gore, John Kerry, Barack Obama, John McCain, and/or Mitt Romney? What have ANY of them ever done to indicate that to be the case?

So how do we get it unflawed?

The only presidents in my lifetime who were truly qualified pre-election were LBJ, Nixon and George HW Bush.

It's a catch-22, Most of us have little respect for those in DC especially those in congress. Most candidates seem to run on the "I am not a Washington insider" premise. However in order to be truly qualified, one should understand how DC works.

Since G HW Bush, we have elected 2 governors and on senator with less than one term in Congress. We dont elect those viewed as insiders anymore and we therefor lose the experience that comes with being an insider.

Regardless of your politics, Hillary may be the most "qualified" person running in 2016. She will have been in DC for almost 20 years. But she will be labeled an Washington insider and IMO will not win the presidency as a result.

(12-27-2014 01:33 PM)BobL Wrote:  Regardless of your politics, Hillary may be the most "qualified" person running in 2016. She will have been in DC for almost 20 years. But she will be labeled an Washington insider and IMO will not win the presidency as a result.

I guess the meaning of "qualified" has now changed. If Hillary doesn't win (and I'm betting she won't) it won't be because she is an insider. It's because that people may have come to realize that Hillary will be Obama 2.0 and her policies and/or judgment are just as bad as BO's, maybe worse. The priorities of the dems have seriously tarnished their brand, no matter how many times disengenous pols like Chuckie Schumer come out and say "we chose the wrong thing to focus on" as if they had planned on doing other things rather than using the Obama victory as their best last chance to 'fundamentally change' the United States into an unrecognizable mess. They knew what they were doing, they lied their asses off in order to get it done and now they want you to believe that it was all just a mistake in priorities.

Just preparing to shear the sheep.

Don't underestimate the economy. If it continues to improve, hillary is a lock.

(12-27-2014 02:08 PM)MileHighBronco Wrote:  

(12-27-2014 01:33 PM)BobL Wrote:  Regardless of your politics, Hillary may be the most "qualified" person running in 2016. She will have been in DC for almost 20 years. But she will be labeled an Washington insider and IMO will not win the presidency as a result.

I guess the meaning of "qualified" has now changed. If Hillary doesn't win (and I'm betting she won't) it won't be because she is an insider. It's because that people may have come to realize that Hillary will be Obama 2.0 and her policies and/or judgment are just as bad as BO's, maybe worse. The priorities of the dems have seriously tarnished their brand, no matter how many times disengenous pols like Chuckie Schumer come out and say "we chose the wrong thing to focus on" as if they had planned on doing other things rather than using the Obama victory as their best last chance to 'fundamentally change' the United States into an unrecognizable mess. They knew what they were doing, they lied their asses off in order to get it done and now they want you to believe that it was all just a mistake in priorities.

Just preparing to shear the sheep.

Well that is certainly a viewpoint share by many, though I disagree. Certainly there are things I am unhappy with about Obama's presidency but the positives far outweigh the negatives IMO. Keep in mind there were things that Bush did or tried to do that I supported 100%. That said I am far happier with the leadership past 6 years than I was with the previous 8 and like the direction we are headed(which really no one could say 8 years ago).

Meanwhile Obama's approval rating is the same as Reagan's at the same times in their presidencies. People like MHB need to stop watching Fox News and get other view points. Obama will be a net benefit to Hillary in 16.

I rarely ever watched Fox News. I can't now, anyway because Dish dropped them from their lineup.

I probably read far more than you anyways. I read your rants for entertainment value only. You ARE a hoot. Wrong most often, but generally entertaining.

So elaborate on Obama's failed policies. Let's hear from the well read MHB.

Take The name out of Obamacare and you add 15 points to its popularity. Too many sheeple regurgitating right wing talking points. What do you find so unsettling about the AHCA well read?

[quote='BobL' pid='11593051' dateline='1419710274']
Well that is certainly a viewpoint share by many, though I disagree. Certainly there are things I am unhappy with about Obama's presidency but the positives far outweigh the negatives IMO. Keep in mind there were things that Bush did or tried to do that I supported 100%. That said I am far happier with the leadership past 6 years than I was with the previous 8 and like the direction we are headed(which really no one could say 8 years ago)./quote]

WHICH positives? List them for me.

WHERE do you see us headed that you like so much?

(12-22-2014 07:42 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-22-2014 06:59 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  Because our election system is flawed

Obviously.

Does anybody really think that over the last 15 years, the most competent people to lead the free world have been George W. Bush, Al Gore, John Kerry, Barack Obama, John McCain, and/or Mitt Romney? What have ANY of them ever done to indicate that to be the case?

So how do we get it unflawed?

I know I'm in the minority but I would put Romney as the most qualified candidate in awhile. Success in the Private sector. Success in the Public sector. Pretty solid on the integrity scale. He unfortunately ran into an opposition campaign who did a great job labeling success as a BAD thing. He was the right candidate at the right time and lost. His statements during the campaign have proven correct but again, in the America of today, we don't want to look for the guy who was correct since they lost. Private sector a guy like that would be brought back in about 5 minutes.

(12-27-2014 03:30 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Take The name out of Obamacare and you add 15 points to its popularity. Too many sheeple regurgitating right wing talking points. What do you find so unsettling about the AHCA well read?

Disagree 100%. You take his name off of it and those who blindly follow him will stop supporting it and see at as the cluster it is. On more than 1 occasion I have heard people say they don't like that the ACA replaced Obamacare.

Not exactly your last bastion of liberal thought.
From Forbes:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/20...ost-curve/

(12-27-2014 02:59 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Meanwhile Obama's approval rating is the same as Reagan's at the same times in their presidencies. People like MHB need to stop watching Fox News and get other view points. Obama will be a net benefit to Hillary in 16.

Don't confuse them with facts.

(12-27-2014 04:08 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Not exactly your last bastion of liberal thought.
From Forbes:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/20...ost-curve/

Not all Unicorns and rainbows

From the article
Douglas Elmendorf, Director of the CBO, noted that while much of the savings are the result of a loss of wealth due to the recession. But, for the first time, Elmendorf was willing to say that a ‘significant part’ of the savings are the result of structural change in how healthcare is now being delivered.

It goes on to say that some of these structural changes were being implemented PRIOR to the ACA and that the cost savings due to it are along the lines of what HAMBONE discusses.