US Presidential Candidates

It should be Sanders.

You guys need something to shake up the seriously entrenched 2 party system.

But then if it is Sandrs, how likely is any potential house to work with him? Not very likely at all.

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

Annachie wrote:It should be Sanders.

You guys need something to shake up the seriously entrenched 2 party system.

But then if it is Sandrs, how likely is any potential house to work with him? Not very likely at all.

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

That assumes a GOP controlled House would work with *anybody*. They can barely even work with themselves these days... they're so far down the ideological "government is the root of all problems" rabbit hole they have no real serious interest in all the fine details of seriously governing.


It still astonishes me that after 40 odd years of half the country electing people to run the government who insist the government not only doesn't but *can't* do anything right on most issues then watching those people proceed to screw up the government in every way possible as an act of self fulfilling prophecy people continue to vote for them because "Look! Government broken! So they're RIGHT!"

PeterZ wrote:We agree as well on what is preferred. I don't see us getting that in this election and I don't think Clinton will win. So, when confronted with suboptimal options, which will you pick?

I will tend towards supporting someone that will wreck government more than build it up. However distasteful that individual might be. Translation- I'll vote Trump over Hillary but Hillary over Bush. Bush will be much better at making big government palatable. Hillary will simply show just how corrupt her brand of liberal truly is. That will tend to erode support for liberals in general, just as Obama is doing now in his own way.

In Trump vs Clinton I am currently undecided. Which is a change from 3 months ago when I would have picked Clinton. The more I've seen of her in the past 3 months the more concerned I am about her. I really wish the Democrats had come up with someone better. Those individuals do exist but none of them are running.

In Bush vs Clinton Although I'm not a Bush fan I would definitely back him vs Clinton. He was a reasonably effective governor in Florida. I don't particularly like him but he's OK, not great not horrible just OK.

gcomeau wrote:

That assumes a GOP controlled House would work with *anybody*. They can barely even work with themselves these days... they're so far down the ideological "government is the root of all problems" rabbit hole they have no real serious interest in all the fine details of seriously governing.


It still astonishes me that after 40 odd years of half the country electing people to run the government who insist the government not only doesn't but *can't* do anything right on most issues then watching those people proceed to screw up the government in every way possible as an act of self fulfilling prophecy people continue to vote for them because "Look! Government broken! So they're RIGHT!"[/quote]

And this is why the Democratic dominated state of California is so well run.

biochem wrote:

gcomeau wrote:That assumes a GOP controlled House would work with *anybody*. They can barely even work with themselves these days... they're so far down the ideological "government is the root of all problems" rabbit hole they have no real serious interest in all the fine details of seriously governing.


It still astonishes me that after 40 odd years of half the country electing people to run the government who insist the government not only doesn't but *can't* do anything right on most issues then watching those people proceed to screw up the government in every way possible as an act of self fulfilling prophecy people continue to vote for them because "Look! Government broken! So they're RIGHT!"

And this is why the Democratic dominated state of California is so well run.

You may not have been paying attention the last few years, but since the Democrats actually re-took control of the state legislature (meaning, a Democratic Governor is back in control and the GOP numbers have been pruned back enough that they can no longer block everything useful from actually getting done) the state has been *very* well run. Deficit wiped out, employment surging...

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-c ... story.html

biochem wrote:

PeterZ wrote:We agree as well on what is preferred. I don't see us getting that in this election and I don't think Clinton will win. So, when confronted with suboptimal options, which will you pick?

I will tend towards supporting someone that will wreck government more than build it up. However distasteful that individual might be. Translation- I'll vote Trump over Hillary but Hillary over Bush. Bush will be much better at making big government palatable. Hillary will simply show just how corrupt her brand of liberal truly is. That will tend to erode support for liberals in general, just as Obama is doing now in his own way.

In Trump vs Clinton I am currently undecided. Which is a change from 3 months ago when I would have picked Clinton. The more I've seen of her in the past 3 months the more concerned I am about her. I really wish the Democrats had come up with someone better. Those individuals do exist but none of them are running.

In Bush vs Clinton Although I'm not a Bush fan I would definitely back him vs Clinton. He was a reasonably effective governor in Florida. I don't particularly like him but he's OK, not great not horrible just OK.

Lord help me, but I agree with everything you post. He is indeed OK as a governor. Yet, having someone that agrees with Clinton's politics but can actually execute them well will tend to move us towards greater statist governments. I would hate to see that come to pass. Bush will not only move us more effectively towards a much more powerful central government than Sen. Clinton, the Bush family is also no less a practitioner of crony capitalism than the Clinton's save that they are much better at hiding it. They have to be because the press won't give them a pass.

If we have to have statist corporate cronyism rule the White House, better have it be very obvious. That's my take for what its worth.

This reminds me of the old joke where a cowboy chats with a lesbian who tells him she likes sex with women, and his response was "All this time I never knew I was a lesbian".

I just googled statism & found the definition "In political science, statism is the belief that the state should control either economic or social policy, or both, to some degree."

So I'm a statist and never knew it. Mind you I have some company, possibly 95% of western adults. One more word for my vocabulary.
I do enjoy this discussion, as I've never personally know anyone with the mind set of some here, and the novelty is intriguing.

gcomeau wrote:

Annachie wrote:It should be Sanders.
That assumes a GOP controlled House would work with *anybody*. They can barely even work with themselves these days... they're so far down the ideological "government is the root of all problems" rabbit hole they have no real serious interest in all the fine details of seriously governing.


It still astonishes me that after 40 odd years of half the country electing people to run the government who insist the government not only doesn't but *can't* do anything right on most issues then watching those people proceed to screw up the government in every way possible as an act of self fulfilling prophecy people continue to vote for them because "Look! Government broken! So they're RIGHT!"

I find it interesting that the Dems have been pushing their agenda forward for 80 years now, claiming to be helping the little people. But every time I look around, the people are less and less happy. Let's make worker safety laws and environmental laws because we want control. Then scratch our butts wondering why the jobs left the country or companies find ways of doing the work without as many workers. Lets not allow our teachers to be fired for not being able to teach, but then complain our education system is broken. Nothing wrong with home loans, Fanny and Freddy are fine. Oops, housing bubble bursts and now we need Dodds-Frank, the two that claimed there was no problem. So explain how the Dems have done anything to make lives better. They haven't. The party of the slave master is the party of the want to be slave master. This time they don't care about skin color.

Daryl wrote:This reminds me of the old joke where a cowboy chats with a lesbian who tells him she likes sex with women, and his response was "All this time I never knew I was a lesbian".

I just googled statism & found the definition "In political science, statism is the belief that the state should control either economic or social policy, or both, to some degree."

So I'm a statist and never knew it. Mind you I have some company, possibly 95% of western adults. One more word for my vocabulary.
I do enjoy this discussion, as I've never personally know anyone with the mind set of some here, and the novelty is intriguing.

As I said, Daryl. There is a difference in thinking of oneself as a sovereign citizen and a subject of a sovereign government. You accept the State's sovereignty social and economic matters. You are its subject.

PeterZ wrote:As I said, Daryl. There is a difference in thinking of oneself as a sovereign citizen and a subject of a sovereign government. You accept the State's sovereignty social and economic matters. You are its subject.

While in general I agree with you as reading most states constitutions would support that. I disagree with that as the driving force.

The real problem in a lot of ways is risk aversion in a cost benefit analysis. America was founded (most immigrants as well) by mostly "middle class" individuals who put everything on the table in hopes of getting more. For that matter look at the Oregon Trail. It was not to be taken lightly or CHEAPLY. Families needed to start with 6 months of food just to get there much less survive another year for that first crop. Oh and seed for that first crop.

10% died. For what, a free 160 acres of land(which the government took from the natives as they weren't "modern" enough to use it). Here is a rather simplistic link: http://alliance.la.asu.edu/geomath/GeoM ... regonS.pdf:

That actual equipment varied hugely. Most were not in fact the "Conestoga" wagon typically portrayed.

Also compare that to the Mormons hand cart migration to Utah. Without help most of them would of died. Yet they only had to go around half as far.

American Founders and immigrants put everything on the table to get away from where ever for a government that that gave them a chance for a better life. Contrary to most thoughts these were not stupid or ignorant people. You don't get ~2 years ahead on basic necessities if you are poor. Hell they knew that they were being gouged at the jumping off places. Even more knew they were ignorant of what they faced. yet they did it anyway.

Now for some reason we need to be like the rest of the world. That our ancestors fled.

Personally I am incredibly happy that all four grandparents got on that boat.

For what little it is worth,
T2M

PS For what it is worth in a Chief Joseph paraphrase, "Who the heck is too stupid to realize that when it is cold down there not to move up here." He was referring to the top and bottom of Snake river canyon on the Oregon Idaho border.