CSNbbs

Amazing:

2012:

My 1st Presidential vote.

he still looks like the reason that they had to burn the carpet in the oral office after The Clenis oozed out of town.

I've kinda been expecting Jr to get into politics since he sold the Mavs to Mark Cuban, but I've never seen any political comments from him.

It would be interesting if a third party candidate bought up 30 minute blocks on the major networks now. Gary Johnson doesn't have the money to do that though. Michael Bloomberg could probably do it, but I fear he'd just say "9/11!" a bunch of times during the broadcast. I can't think of anyone else (other than Trump, of course) that would consider doing a major run off of either major party.

(02-02-2016 01:10 AM)GrayBeard Wrote: [ -> ]My 1st Presidential vote.

Was the first candidate that I actually went to see speak in person. I bought the T shirt.

Too bad neither party has done much to implement the good ideas he had.

(02-02-2016 01:16 AM)EagleX Wrote: [ -> ]he still looks like the reason that they had to burn the carpet in the oral office after The Clenis oozed out of town.

Pretty much.

(02-02-2016 08:15 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]Too bad neither party has done much to implement the good ideas he had.

That's true as far as it goes. But let's be clear that -- at the level of donors, lobbyists, elected officials -- most Democrats are actually opposed to "the good ideas he had" and don't want to implement them. So from their standpoint, non-implementation is not a bug, it's a feature.

I join anyone in urging the GOP to be more responsive to the kind of issues that Perot sought to campaign on in the 1990s. Sailing into the headwind of united Democrat/Media opposition is not easy.

"Sand off a beach"

(02-02-2016 08:15 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]Too bad neither party has done much to implement the good ideas he had.

The Tea Party has been used for all kinds of interests, but the initial development was simply the Ross Perot voters getting concerned again.

(02-02-2016 11:48 AM)bullet Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-02-2016 08:15 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]Too bad neither party has done much to implement the good ideas he had.

The Tea Party has been used for all kinds of interests, but the initial development was simply the Ross Perot voters getting concerned again.

Yes. That was the TEA Party in which I participated.

(02-02-2016 09:36 AM)Native Georgian Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-02-2016 08:15 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]Too bad neither party has done much to implement the good ideas he had.

That's true as far as it goes. But let's be clear that -- at the level of donors, lobbyists, elected officials -- most Democrats are actually opposed to "the good ideas he had" and don't want to implement them. So from their standpoint, non-implementation is not a bug, it's a feature.
I join anyone in urging the GOP to be more responsive to the kind of issues that Perot sought to campaign on in the 1990s. Sailing into the headwind of united Democrat/Media opposition is not easy.

Yes.

What Perot did that worked is that he forced the media to pay attention to his issues. I really think the Power Point slides is the way to go. I think a big part of the problem is that the ideas are just too hard to communicate in words. You need pictures for the average American to understand. And once you get the pictures into the public consciousness, the media have to pay attention.

what Ross Perot did was teach us the unintended consequences of a third party presidential candidate. it's a lesson I hope we remember.

(02-03-2016 12:01 AM)EagleX Wrote: [ -> ]what Ross Perot did was teach us the unintended consequences of a third party presidential candidate. it's a lesson I hope we remember.

Apologies if I'm misinterpreting your point, but the idea that Ross Perot's candidacy enabled Clinton to defeat Bush in 1992 is unproven, at best.

The question of "What would Perot's voters do if Perot wasn't in the race?" was one of the great political campfire debates of the 1990s. I don't think any true consensus on that issue ever did emerge, but even if we assume that 100% of Perot's 1992 voters would have shown up at the polls anyway (even if Perot himself had not been on the ballot), those voters would've had to break for Bush over Clinton by about 65-35 in order for Bush to have won the national popular vote. I have never seen any evidence to suggest such an outcome would have been plausible.

(02-02-2016 01:16 AM)EagleX Wrote: [ -> ]he still looks like the reason that they had to burn the carpet in the oral office after The Clenis oozed out of town.

quite a bit of oozin' over the years from both sides.....

(02-02-2016 10:46 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-02-2016 11:48 AM)bullet Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-02-2016 08:15 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]Too bad neither party has done much to implement the good ideas he had.

The Tea Party has been used for all kinds of interests, but the initial development was simply the Ross Perot voters getting concerned again.

Yes. That was the TEA Party in which I participated.

any third party vote is a waste.....

(02-03-2016 12:11 AM)Native Georgian Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-03-2016 12:01 AM)EagleX Wrote: [ -> ]what Ross Perot did was teach us the unintended consequences of a third party presidential candidate. it's a lesson I hope we remember.

Apologies if I'm misinterpreting your point, but the idea that Ross Perot's candidacy enabled Clinton to defeat Bush in 1992 is unproven, at best.

The question of "What would Perot's voters do if Perot wasn't in the race?" was one of the great political campfire debates of the 1990s. I don't think any true consensus on that issue ever did emerge, but even if we assume that 100% of Perot's 1992 voters would have shown up at the polls anyway (even if Perot himself had not been on the ballot), those voters would've had to break for Bush over Clinton by about 65-35 in order for Bush to have won the national popular vote. I have never seen any evidence to suggest such an outcome would have been plausible.

you don't seem to remember 1992 very well. And whenever someone claims to have not "seen any evidence" for something or other, it's usually because they either don't want to see it, or wouldn't know it if they did see it.

Here's the way I see third party votes. If neither of the two major parties reflects my views, then what do I accomplish by voting for the lesser of two evils?

I am a fiscal conservative, social liberal. While democrats are a little to the left of me on some social issues--if you have a ****, you belong in the boys' bathroom--I'm generally far more comfortable with them on issues like abortion and gay rights and the death penalty and drugs, but their stance on economic issues is a total show stopper for me. I'm not comfortable with republicans generally on social issues, but generally have preferred their fiscal conservatism. I've tended to favor republicans because the fiscal issues are more important to me personally. My chances of marrying another man are about the same as my chances of needing an abortion, so those aren't hot button issues for me, whereas the fiscal issues do matter to me. I'm close to retirement age, so a strong dollar is important to my savings, so deficits matter to me, for example.

I'll vote for a social conservative if that's what it takes to get a fiscal conservative. What I'm not willing to do is vote for a social conservative who turns out not to be a fiscal conservative. Somebody like GWB, for example. He told us during the 2000 campaign that he was going to reduce the size of the federal government and get us out of the nation-building business, which sounded perfect to me. The he went and grew the federal government faster than any prior president and got us into two massive nation-building efforts. I'm sorry, but I cannot support that in any way, shape, or form.

So what I'm left with at this point is that I'm okay (not thrilled, but okay) with democrats on social issues, but cannot support them on fiscal issues. I'm not okay with republicans on social issues, but as long as they were fiscally conservative, I would accept them as the lesser evil. Once they lose their fiscal conservatism, I have no use for them either.

Balance the budget, flatten and broaden taxes, keep regulations that ensure health and safety but get of those where the hassle factor outweighs any benefit, improve education results (not spend more on education) and infrastructure (not pork barrel bridges to nowhere), these things taken together stimulating real economic growth, reform welfare so that we provide for all but people who work live better than people who don't work, get us out of meddling in internal affairs of other countries and fighting wars that we don't intend to win. Who comes close to that? Neither democrats nor republicans. So why should I vote for either?

As far as Perot and 1992, I'm friends with the Bushes (enough that GHWB has recognized me in public) but I actually think Bill Clinton was a pretty good president. I'm also friends with the Pauls, who come a lot closer to my views than any other republicans out there right now. If Rand were the republican nominee, I would clearly vote republican, and I would probably end up doing something in Washington if he were elected. But he's not where the republican party is headed right now. I'd vote for any republican against Sanders or Warren, because I don't want to live in a socialist/communist country (and I put both of them in that category), but if it's Hillary versus Trump, then that kind of looks to me like two peas in the same pod.

(02-03-2016 12:34 AM)EagleX Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-03-2016 12:11 AM)Native Georgian Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-03-2016 12:01 AM)EagleX Wrote: [ -> ]what Ross Perot did was teach us the unintended consequences of a third party presidential candidate. it's a lesson I hope we remember.

Apologies if I'm misinterpreting your point, but the idea that Ross Perot's candidacy enabled Clinton to defeat Bush in 1992 is unproven, at best.

The question of "What would Perot's voters do if Perot wasn't in the race?" was one of the great political campfire debates of the 1990s. I don't think any true consensus on that issue ever did emerge, but even if we assume that 100% of Perot's 1992 voters would have shown up at the polls anyway (even if Perot himself had not been on the ballot), those voters would've had to break for Bush over Clinton by about 65-35 in order for Bush to have won the national popular vote. I have never seen any evidence to suggest such an outcome would have been plausible.

you don't seem to remember 1992 very well. And whenever someone claims to have not "seen any evidence" for something or other, it's usually because they either don't want to see it, or wouldn't know it if they did see it.

^^^^^