There is nobody left on either side for whom I have any respect or in whom I am able to place any trust or confidence. There's nobody worth a damn left.

(02-03-2016 12:27 AM)CrabCake Wrote:  What about the potential run of Michael Bloomberg?

From today's New Yorker Today email:



Caption: “Mr. Bloomberg released a statement saying that if the voters are forced to decide between a grumpy scold and an egomaniacal billionaire, they might as well vote for him, being both.”

(02-10-2016 03:29 PM)JSA Wrote:  It looks like Fiorina's out.

Whew. Hope she doesn't surface as a VEEP candidate.

(02-10-2016 03:41 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  There is nobody left on either side for whom I have any respect or in whom I am able to place any trust or confidence. There's nobody worth a damn left.

Yikes - that seems a bit harsh, don't ya think?

So far the way Kasich, Sanders, Rubio, Jeb!, and Carsons have conducted their campaigns have at least been pretty respectful, and I feel like I can respect them and their opinions. What have they done that makes you lose respect for them?

I can understand the idea that you can't trust them to act in a way that best represents your ideals, but the entire field isn't made up of Hillary's, Cruzes, or Trumps.

GoodOwl, it's bad form to copy-paste articles without giving any attribution.

(02-10-2016 04:38 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-10-2016 03:41 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  There is nobody left on either side for whom I have any respect or in whom I am able to place any trust or confidence. There's nobody worth a damn left.

Yikes - that seems a bit harsh, don't ya think?
So far the way Kasich, Sanders, Rubio, Jeb!, and Carsons have conducted their campaigns have at least been pretty respectful, and I feel like I can respect them and their opinions. What have they done that makes you lose respect for them?
I can understand the idea that you can't trust them to act in a way that best represents your ideals, but the entire field isn't made up of Hillary's, Cruzes, or Trumps.

Sanders surely has to know that his numbers cannot possibly work, but he's out there demagoguing the issues anyway. He's lying through his teeth, and he has to know it. What will he do when we try it his way and it craters? I think that deserves distrust and disrespect.

And I do agree with what I think you are saying, that Hillary and Trump are sleaze bags. I don't really think of Cruz as a sleaze bag, more as just an a-hole who would find it impossible to work with congress--even a republican congress--and that could be a disaster.

AS for the rest, it's more that I don't respect them as candidates or as possible presidents than I don't respect them as individuals. Dr. Carson is probably both the nicest and most intelligent person in the field, but in no way is he ready to be president. Jeb is the Bush brother that we should have elected in 2000, but we didn't. I don't respect the ability of any of them to live up to the job.

Well, stay tuned as later today we could have a candidate re-enter the race:

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/pres...bid-report




And, when it is all said and done, we could see a Bloomberg vs. Romney on the ballot in November:

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/pr...ey-in-2016

I could see myself voting for Webb, depending on the options. If Hillary craters, I would certainly vote for Webb against Bernie in the Texas democrat primary. Would be sort of weird to punt all the local elections (democrats don't even field candidates for most spots here in the most republican county in the US), but stopping Bernie is far more important to me than who my sheriff is.

(02-11-2016 12:09 PM)CrabCake Wrote:  Well, stay tuned as later today we could have a candidate re-enter the race:

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/pres...bid-report

If Webb runs as an independent, I think he'll draw negligible votes that are roughly evenly distributed between the parties.

I think Kasich is the most tolerable and well qualified of the Republican candidates, but I'll be shocked if he's in the race after Super Tuesday. He's running low on cash and is polling very low in South Carolina and the southern states that make up ; I think the Bush camp's statement that Kasich is a "one-state guy" may turn out to be true...for whatever bizarre reason, the Republican party is moving away from candidates that have practical experience in reaching across the aisle / those that have been responsible for running a state to demagogues like Trump or people that are universally hated like Cruz. Frankly, I hope Bloomberg runs anyways so that I don't have to hold my nose and vote for Hillary in the general election to avoid our country being run by Trump or Cruz.

(02-11-2016 12:14 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I could see myself voting for Webb...

A great choice! Here's what Webb said a few years ago:

Quote:...that free exchange generally does more harm than good (because empiricaly that's the case, and the converse is empirically false); that danger is best deterred by strength (ditto); that people respond to actual incentives (ditto); and that power cannot be relied on to be virtuous (ditto).

See http://csnbbs.com/thread-409917-post-501...pid5018698

(02-11-2016 04:46 PM)westsidewolf1989 Wrote:  for whatever bizarre reason, the Republican party is moving away from candidates that have practical experience in reaching across the aisle / those that have been responsible for running a state to demagogues

So are the democrats.

Didn't want to put this in the SC thread, but the Republican front runner has implied there may be something to the conspiracy theories that Obama had Scalia murdered. Good grief.

I think a lot of Bernie's and Trump's appeal is many people just saying "Screw it. At least these two are authentic about who they are and don't try to hide it."

Watched the GOP debate online last night. And watched most of the Dims debate as well (it was just too hard to sit and listen to two full hours of their fantasy bs nonsense.)

It is amazing how different both the questions from the moderators are and the comportment of the two panels of contenders. I'll say that the Dims have been able to keep a more collegial tone so for as compared to the Reps, mostly due to only two viable candidates, of which only two are left, along with mostly softball, friendly questions from biased moderators. They don't seem to go after Hiliary for her numerous duplicities, or her transparent insincerities in wanting to do or say anything to become the first woman president at any cost. They don't require Sanders to explain more fully exactly how he will be a commander in chief against enemies that hate us, or how he intends to pay for anything he has proposed (he cannot, and I find myslef ironically agreeing with Hilliary that his plans are ridiculous and unworkable).

I'll say one thing for Sanders, he knows who he is and where the meat of his outreach in his arguments are. He may be crazy, but he knows how to appeal to fellow unrealistic crazy voters on the left, and he's kicking butt in making that work for him.

Hilliary is so calculated, she is a plastic mannequin. I know she will be a formidable opponent to any of the Republicans. The only thing she wants is to be President. She has no other real vision or agenda, and is willing to ruin millions of lives to feed her power-mad hunger. It's pretty revolting to watch. Her foreign policy answers reflect her gross naivety, and how she would also foolishly play right into our enemies' hands as they lie to her and she trusts them to "keep" each new "agreement" that they make with her. Maybe because she's such a liar herself, she believes agreements don't really mean anything anyway, so she doesn't care. That would at least explain it.

On the GOP side, it was the most embarrassing thing to watch these six bicker and especially Trump and Cruz act like schoolchildren attacking each other on nothing. The moderators on their debates are hell-bent on attacking and making gotcha media moments, rather than shooting for a thoughtful discussion of positions on the issues. They certainly are biased against the Republicans in general, with the exception of Kasich, who's a Dimocrat, and seldom toss the Reps the softballs they do in the Dim debate love fests.

Trump is too thin-skinned and would do well to just shut up and listen without interrupting almost every single time, and look more Presidential. His biggest problem is I can't imagine him with his finger on the button. I can't imagine him not getting us into a bigger foreign policy mess. And his record as any kind of conservative is highly suspect.

Trump is like Bernie in that he just keeps saying 'We'll win;' he gives almost no specifics, and he thinks he will just hire people to tell him what to do. Maybe he's right, and he will hire the best and brightest, but I just think he's too hot-headed to handle the multiple crises that are sure to come his way. It's hard to be confident in him for four years. Maybe one, but not for four.

Cruz comes across like a slimy evangelical too much for me to believe he'll beat Hilliary in a general. I have no doubt he's a conservative, and that he could handle the job and mostly get it right. I do not like his tax plan, and I do not trust or like him personally, but he could do the job.

Rubio has his moments, but he just can't get over the hump of inexperience with me, and I vacillate between thinking he'd give Hilliary the most problems in the general, to seeing how she'd take him apart piece by piece. I like his personal vision for the country and what it is supposed to be. Other than Carson, he is the strongest in this area.

It's not a fair fight-- all Hilliary has to do is enough damage to her opponent to gain a few extra votes. The Republicans have the tougher job to try to gain back a block of voters they lost to win the general election. They have to be more on-target, tested and capable. I'm just not seeing that.

Jeb! had his best debate performance, but I can't see another Bush winning, and especially against Hilliary, there's just no way to have confidence he could beat her, scum though she is. His name and family would be too much baggage, and he's not the crafty debater and liar as she is. Plus, I don't think he's in touch with the working class "Reagan Democrats" he'd absolutely need to swing the general election his way. I don't see right now where he could actually beat Hilliary, so he's still a non-starter.

Kasich should be running for the Dims nomination. I don't know what he's doing on that stage. It'd be funny if it wasn't so important. If he somehow won the nomination just because he's kind of a Republican Jimmy Carter, Hilliary would win the general in a landslide because so many Rep voters would sit out another election.

Carson, I actually like much (not all) of what his written plans on his website are. I have been to all their websites now, and Carson's is miles ahead as far as depth, especially on domestic issues and agendas. I'm still not convinced Carson could remotely handle the foreign policy or stand up to our enemies. Then again, if he hires good advisers, I think he can make generally good decisions. I can't imagine him actually being the President because he personally comes across as the weakest by far of either side, and that is a shame, because he clearly has thought through all the domestic issues at least and knows the right thing to do for the most part. He's just not got the balls you need in someone to be a strong President, which is what we really need right now.

Still, I may end up voting for Carson in the primary as he has the best handle on the actual issues and the best solutions by far. I love his Health Empowerment Accounts. All the reps should adopt that approach. I am not as on board with Carson's tax approach, but perhaps he could work some more on it when he gets there.

So then I took a look at Johnson's Libertarian site last night, and found that I agree with much of what he has there. I have no illusions he can win, and I despise the drug pushing he promotes in the name of freedom, as I see drugs are a prison and a curse on our children, so enabling people to destroy themselves and their children and families is a very hard thing to swallow from a potential leader of America. Of course, since the term "family" barely exists in our society anyway, what's the difference? The law basically does not support them already, so what's one more kook who's at least a bit more honest about it?

I'll vote in the primary, but I still don't know who for. Part of me says "screw it, let Trump take a shot, it can't be much worse that what we have now, and at least he knows business." I worry about his temperament and lack of self-control, especially as commander in chief dealing with other world leaders. Trump would be by far the hardest candidate for any enemy to manipulate, as Hilliary is a pawn and a child when it comes to foreign affairs. And maybe the threat Trump would get mad and bomb the hell out of them would be a good thing after the weakness of the last eight years. It would sure make our enemies be more careful and far less bold.

I wish someone on the stage had said to him: "Donald--control yourself." Cruz tried, but came across as sniveling in how he stated it. He's so full of ego it is hard to watch at times, though again, he could do the job. Cruz is just as unlikable when it comes to that, because he appears so power hungry at times. Trump just has no self control. And the image of him standing on that stage with all his kids a few weeks ago, knowing not one of them has the same mother, well, that's pretty revolting for a President. Even Obummer has one public spouse (his private issues notwithstanding) he puts up a good facade. Maybe because his own experience of a broken family taught him that any facade of a family is miles better than a split one. Score one for Obissmal.

Too bad we can't have Scalia as President. He would have been best of all.

(02-17-2016 12:49 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  I think a lot of Bernie's and Trump's appeal is many people just saying "Screw it. At least these two are authentic about who they are and don't try to hide it."

Watched the GOP debate online last night. And watched most of the Dims debate as well (it was just too hard to sit and listen to two full hours of their fantasy bs nonsense.)

It is amazing how different both the questions from the moderators are and the comportment of the two panels of contenders. I'll say that the Dims have been able to keep a more collegial tone so for as compared to the Reps, mostly due to only two viable candidates, of which only two are left, along with mostly softball, friendly questions from biased moderators. They don't seem to go after Hiliary for her numerous duplicities, or her transparent insincerities in wanting to do or say anything to become the first woman president at any cost. They don't require Sanders to explain more fully exactly how he will be a commander in chief against enemies that hate us, or how he intends to pay for anything he has proposed (he cannot, and I find myslef ironically agreeing with Hilliary that his plans are ridiculous and unworkable).

I'll say one thing for Sanders, he knows who he is and where the meat of his outreach in his arguments are. He may be crazy, but he knows how to appeal to fellow unrealistic crazy voters on the left, and he's kicking butt in making that work for him.

Hilliary is so calculated, she is a plastic mannequin. I know she will be a formidable opponent to any of the Republicans. The only thing she wants is to be President. She has no other real vision or agenda, and is willing to ruin millions of lives to feed her power-mad hunger. It's pretty revolting to watch. Her foreign policy answers reflect her gross naivety, and how she would also foolishly play right into our enemies' hands as they lie to her and she trusts them to "keep" each new "agreement" that they make with her. Maybe because she's such a liar herself, she believes agreements don't really mean anything anyway, so she doesn't care. That would at least explain it.

On the GOP side, it was the most embarrassing thing to watch these six bicker and especially Trump and Cruz act like schoolchildren attacking each other on nothing. The moderators on their debates are hell-bent on attacking and making gotcha media moments, rather than shooting for a thoughtful discussion of positions on the issues. They certainly are biased against the Republicans in general, with the exception of Kasich, who's a Dimocrat, and seldom toss the Reps the softballs they do in the Dim debate love fests.

Trump is too thin-skinned and would do well to just shut up and listen without interrupting almost every single time, and look more Presidential. His biggest problem is I can't imagine him with his finger on the button. I can't imagine him not getting us into a bigger foreign policy mess. And his record as any kind of conservative is highly suspect.

Trump is like Bernie in that he just keeps saying 'We'll win;' he gives almost no specifics, and he thinks he will just hire people to tell him what to do. Maybe he's right, and he will hire the best and brightest, but I just think he's too hot-headed to handle the multiple crises that are sure to come his way. It's hard to be confident in him for four years. Maybe one, but not for four.

Cruz comes across like a slimy evangelical too much for me to believe he'll beat Hilliary in a general. I have no doubt he's a conservative, and that he could handle the job and mostly get it right. I do not like his tax plan, and I do not trust or like him personally, but he could do the job.

Rubio has his moments, but he just can't get over the hump of inexperience with me, and I vacillate between thinking he'd give Hilliary the most problems in the general, to seeing how she'd take him apart piece by piece. I like his personal vision for the country and what it is supposed to be. Other than Carson, he is the strongest in this area.

It's not a fair fight-- all Hilliary has to do is enough damage to her opponent to gain a few extra votes. The Republicans have the tougher job to try to gain back a block of voters they lost to win the general election. They have to be more on-target, tested and capable. I'm just not seeing that.

Jeb! had his best debate performance, but I can't see another Bush winning, and especially against Hilliary, there's just no way to have confidence he could beat her, scum though she is. His name and family would be too much baggage, and he's not the crafty debater and liar as she is. Plus, I don't think he's in touch with the working class "Reagan Democrats" he'd absolutely need to swing the general election his way. I don't see right now where he could actually beat Hilliary, so he's still a non-starter.

Kasich should be running for the Dims nomination. I don't know what he's doing on that stage. It'd be funny if it wasn't so important. If he somehow won the nomination just because he's kind of a Republican Jimmy Carter, Hilliary would win the general in a landslide because so many Rep voters would sit out another election.

Carson, I actually like much (not all) of what his written plans on his website are. I have been to all their websites now, and Carson's is miles ahead as far as depth, especially on domestic issues and agendas. I'm still not convinced Carson could remotely handle the foreign policy or stand up to our enemies. Then again, if he hires good advisers, I think he can make generally good decisions. I can't imagine him actually being the President because he personally comes across as the weakest by far of either side, and that is a shame, because he clearly has thought through all the domestic issues at least and knows the right thing to do for the most part. He's just not got the balls you need in someone to be a strong President, which is what we really need right now.

Still, I may end up voting for Carson in the primary as he has the best handle on the actual issues and the best solutions by far. I love his Health Empowerment Accounts. All the reps should adopt that approach. I am not as on board with Carson's tax approach, but perhaps he could work some more on it when he gets there.

So then I took a look at Johnson's Libertarian site last night, and found that I agree with much of what he has there. I have no illusions he can win, and I despise the drug pushing he promotes in the name of freedom, as I see drugs are a prison and a curse on our children, so enabling people to destroy themselves and their children and families is a very hard thing to swallow from a potential leader of America. Of course, since the term "family" barely exists in our society anyway, what's the difference? The law basically does not support them already, so what's one more kook who's at least a bit more honest about it?

I'll vote in the primary, but I still don't know who for. Part of me says "screw it, let Trump take a shot, it can't be much worse that what we have now, and at least he knows business." I worry about his temperament and lack of self-control, especially as commander in chief dealing with other world leaders. Trump would be by far the hardest candidate for any enemy to manipulate, as Hilliary is a pawn and a child when it comes to foreign affairs. And maybe the threat Trump would get mad and bomb the hell out of them would be a good thing after the weakness of the last eight years. It would sure make our enemies be more careful and far less bold.

I wish someone on the stage had said to him: "Donald--control yourself." Cruz tried, but came across as sniveling in how he stated it. He's so full of ego it is hard to watch at times, though again, he could do the job. Cruz is just as unlikable when it comes to that, because he appears so power hungry at times. Trump just has no self control. And the image of him standing on that stage with all his kids a few weeks ago, knowing not one of them has the same mother, well, that's pretty revolting for a President. Even Obummer has one public spouse (his private issues notwithstanding) he puts up a good facade. Maybe because his own experience of a broken family taught him that any facade of a family is miles better than a split one. Score one for Obissmal.

Too bad we can't have Scalia as President. He would have been best of all.

Trump's first three children (Eric, Don Jr., and Ivanka) were all with Ivana. Tiffany was with Marla Maples, and Baron with his current wife, Ivana.

(02-17-2016 03:42 PM)ExcitedOwl18 Wrote:  Trump's first three children (Eric, Don Jr., and Ivanka) were all with Ivana. Tiffany was with Marla Maples, and Baron with his current wife, Ivana.

Yeah, that really makes it look better. Was waiting for someone to bite that one. Melania is Trump's current wife, not Ivana. Hard to keep track, I know, but it illustrates the very point I was making. Obissmal still looks better family-wise in comparison. Of course, that might change after he leaves office.

I may still hold my nose and primary vote for Trumpy because what the heck, all these candidates are turkeys on both sides and I will have to do the best I can. I was leaning Rubio before the NH debate, but that performance really gave me pause about is he really ready to do the job. He has a vision I can get behind mostly, but I worry he would get rattled and pushed around inn office too much and be a weak executive. Trump can handle those business aspects of the job, but he can't control himself. But at least you know where you stand with him, and I can appreciate that after the last few decades. People will either work with him or work around him. But they will go back to work, that is certain to be good for the country, and take the wind out of some of our enemies' sails.

Then again, he can't do any worse than the amateur hour debacle we've suffered for 8 years. I just don't think I can bring myself to vote for Cruz in the primary. He's too much like Hilliary in personality. I disagree with Cruz' tax plan more than anything and the combination of the two holds me back from him.

Bush is doing better, but as far as him winning in Nov I just don't see it happening. He's not as bad as the Dims make him out to be, though he's far from a good candidate, yet he will get destroyed because of his name in a general, and I don't think it would even be close, unless Hilliary gets jailed for her criminal behavior before then.

Carson I want to be better than he is at a lot of things. He has so many good ideas, and he is probably a great person from what I see, but I think he'd embolden our enemies too much to risk it.

Kasich is a joke and I can't believe he's still up there. A shame Christy couldn't hang in a little longer by doing well in New Hampshire instead. I liked how he spoke directly, and I believe he could have handled the job as well. Far from perfect, he was the best of the second tier.

inSaneders has been entertaining to watch, but there's just no way to take him seriously as being able to handle the actual job. At least Hilliary will fake interest while she destroys the country and tears up the Constitution. Barney won't even be able to find the bathroom, must less go.

In the general, I may take a very serious look at Johnson and hold my nose for him depending on who is up on the dais. He's too solid on economic issues that it may be worth four years of liberal social stuff from him to get the country back on course, though I'm not sure who he'd nominate for the Court. At least it wouldn't be Hilliary. It would be healthy if they let him in on the debates in the fall so people could have a choice.

(02-03-2016 12:51 AM)CrabCake Wrote:  

(02-02-2016 07:10 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  I'm not sure where Clinton can be happy after Iowa. She had a 50 point lead there not too long ago. I can't recall the exact exit poll numbers but it was something like only 15 pct of voters under 30 voted for her instead of Sanders. That's shocking. And she didn't dominate the women's vote either - getting like 55 pct of that vote? Sanders will give her a real run for her money.

On the Republican side, New Hampshire will make or break the three governors (Bush, Kasich, Christie) who are the only real opposition to Rubio at this point. It could be Rubio vs. Cruz or Trump for the bulk of the spring, but I still think it's too early to say that for sure. When Trump/Cruz/Carson got 60 pct of the vote in Iowa (even though the Evangelical base is strong there), that's a strong indication that the anti-establishment faction will not give up an easy path for a safer candidate like Rubio to get the nomination. We won't have a brokered convention is my guess, but we could have a very ugly Feb. and March, possibly with Rubio pitted vs Cruz in a vicious UFC battle until one of them taps out.

Yes, for the most part you are correct on the figures for HRC's voting data. When a reporter asked Bill Clinton why his wife is not popular with younger voters, he said it was because Sanders is promising to go after big banks and provide free college to everyone. (his assessment, not mine)

As far as Rubio, his campaign staff has said they are taking a "3-2-1" approach to the first round of elections - goal of 3rd in Iowa, 2nd in New Hampshire and 1st in South Carolina (they are banking on Tim Scott's endorsement*). If Rubio can finish these first 3 elections like this, some feel he could win the nomination.

* With respect to the South Carolina endorsement game, it's hard to judge the overall "pull". Cruz has Charlie Condon and Jeff Duncan, aka "the most coveted SC endorsement". Trump has the endorsement of the Lt. Gov. Nikki Haley has yet to publicly endorse a candidate, although, many in her close circle are backing Rubio. With the potential for Haley to be a serious contender for the VP role, she will have to play her cards very carefully ...

... and she just played her hand by endorsing Rubio this afternoon

(02-11-2016 04:46 PM)westsidewolf1989 Wrote:  I think Kasich is the most tolerable and well qualified of the Republican candidates, but I'll be shocked if he's in the race after Super Tuesday. He's running low on cash and is polling very low in South Carolina and the southern states that make up ; I think the Bush camp's statement that Kasich is a "one-state guy" may turn out to be true...

There's another factor as well. Republican Party rules state that a candidate to be placed into nomination for President at the convention must have won at least eight state primaries or caucuses. Trump and Cruz almost certainly will hit that mark, and Rubio could do it as well, but I don't see anyone else on the Republican side likely to do it at this time. As I stated previously, the key question now is where the support for the other candidates will go. Trump is leading in the polls, but he's not likely the second-choice of most of those candidates' supporters. Will they decide that the most palatable candidate among the top three is Rubio and go there, or will enough go to Cruz to put him on top? Maybe Trump will pick up just enough of them to make it to the finish line....

Quote:... for whatever bizarre reason, the Republican party is moving away from candidates that have practical experience in reaching across the aisle / those that have been responsible for running a state to demagogues like Trump...

I think the Democratic Party's move away from candidates who reach across the aisle has something to do with it...

Quote:... or people that are universally hated like Cruz.

Reading something like this puzzles me, because a recent survey I saw had Cruz with the second-highest net favorability among the Republican candidates (Carson was the highest and Trump was the lowest; on the Democratic side Sanders was well-ahead of Clinton). Related to that, Texas Monthly recently published in its "Politics" weblog an analysis of Cruz which is an interesting read, especially coming from a magazine which overall despises conservatives.

Nate Silver channels Soul Asylum:

“runaway trump, never goin’ back /
right way on the outsider track /
seems like rubio should be getting somewhere /
somehow cruz is neither here nor there”

(02-18-2016 10:32 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  Nate Silver channels Soul Asylum:

“runaway trump, never goin’ back /
right way on the outsider track /
seems like rubio should be getting somewhere /
somehow cruz is neither here nor there”

The latest polls show Trump with a big lead in SC but Cruz with a lead nationally.