Mdraf wrote:
It was single payer. The insurance industry mounted a campaign and destroyed it. So this time around Obama approached and cut deals with both the insurance companies and drug manufacturers, the two gorillas which could have wrecked it.
You don't think she would have figured out a way around this too? I mean, she'a a lot better of a politician than Obama is.
I did a little word association exercise in my mind for Bill and Hillary Clinton and here's the first thing that popped into my mind for each of them:
Hillary Clinton = cold-blooded
Bill Clinton = boner
Q: “Do you have funny shaped balloons?”
A: “Not unless round is funny.”
TennPaGa wrote:
It's August 2013 -- there are 3+ years until the next election. Are you all really that confident that Hillary will win in 2016? It isn't clear to me that she will get the Dem nomination.
Alot can happen before then.
Yes, I'm really that confident because the electorate is really that stupid and ignorant. Who is going to run against her? Biden? The late night comedians are busy sacrificing livestock to Satan hoping for Biden to run again. And I don't think there's any credible challenger on the GOP side at all. All the players with name recognition have it generally followed by "...is a douche." Or in Chris Christie's case, "...is a morbidly obese douche" (which is why he got the surgery...to blend in with the average sized douches).
Clinton's resignation allows her to avoid getting tainted by all the shit and mud that's being slug around that administration these days (Bengazi excluded, of course). Despite the fact that I'm sure there's still some of her mess left there.
Barring some catastrophe or a major GOP star coming from nowhere, I don't see how she can lose. If the American electorate voted in Obama after what he did during his first term, she should have no problem beating down the current field of GOP contenders since she doesn't have anywhere NEAR the baggage going into the 2016 election that Obama did going into 2012.
You're not referring to Ron and Rand Paul are you? I'm a Libertarian and they're so much better than the rest if our options that it's staggering, but I don't think either would win a general election. The percentage of the electorate that yearns for the cold hard truth followed by freedom is outweighed by the percentage that only wants the warm fuzzy blanket of nanny state lies.
Having ovaries alone gives her a certain percentage of the electorate.
Personally I hope Cruz is the R's choice, both because I'd like to see an articulate true conservative chosen, and because I'd love to see the left's true hypocrisy exposed as they all try to play the "birther card" i.e. Cruz wasn't born in the US, so is he eligible?).
It was good being the party of Robin Hood. Until they morphed into the Sheriff of Nottingham
RuralEngineer wrote:
You're not referring to Ron and Rand Paul are you? I'm a Libertarian and they're so much better than the rest if our options that it's staggering, but I don't think either would win a general election. The percentage of the electorate that yearns for the cold hard truth followed by freedom is outweighed by the percentage that only wants the warm fuzzy blanket of nanny state lies.
Sadly, I think this is true. We can't handle the truth! The majority just wants its bread and circuses undisturbed.
Human behavior is economic behavior. The particulars may vary, but competition for limited resources remains a constant.
- CEO Nwabudike Morgan
Unfortunately, it appears that gender, race and ethnicity trump ideas and values with the general electorate. To ignore this fact is foolhearty. For this reason alone it might be that Cruz or Rubio is the best alternative to the Madame.
Last edited by Reub on Sun Aug 18, 2013 2:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Reub wrote:
Unfortunately, it appears that race and ethnicity trump ideas and values with the general electorate. To ignore this fact is foolhearty. For this reason alone it might be that Cruz or Rubio is the best alternative to the Madame.
Reub,
I'm curious, you don't like Cruz?
Rubio, Ryan and Christie all want to give in on immigration (which will be fatal), so that just leaves Paul. I do like what I've heard from him, but need to learn more.
It was good being the party of Robin Hood. Until they morphed into the Sheriff of Nottingham
I do like what I've heard about Cruz. I actually like all of them a whole lot more than the alternative. What is needed is a candidate who can actually win. My only fault with Rand Paul(as you know, I'm a war-mongering neocon) is his tendency to withdraw from the rest of the world. He also might not garner any of the ethnic/gender groups that seem to drive elections these days.
Please don't talk about Ted Cruz as a serious presidential candidate.
In Texas, it's widely understood that he is little more than an opportunistic demagogue. He doesn't get close coverage in the rest of the country, but IMHO he is a grade A dickhead.
A Cruz nomination is the stuff of Hillary Clinton's dreams.
Q: “Do you have funny shaped balloons?”
A: “Not unless round is funny.”
Reub wrote:
I do like what I've heard about Cruz. I actually like all of them a whole lot more than the alternative. What is needed is a candidate who can actually win. My only fault with Rand Paul(as you know, I'm a war-mongering neocon) is his tendency to withdraw from the rest of the world. He also might not garner any of the ethnic/gender groups that seem to drive elections these days.
As a fellow war mongering neocon I'd like to point out that Rand Paul is making inroads in the under-30 group, which is the only hope to claw the White House away from perpetual Dem dominance
Reub wrote:
I do like what I've heard about Cruz. I actually like all of them a whole lot more than the alternative. What is needed is a candidate who can actually win. My only fault with Rand Paul(as you know, I'm a war-mongering neocon) is his tendency to withdraw from the rest of the world. He also might not garner any of the ethnic/gender groups that seem to drive elections these days.
As a fellow war mongering neocon I'd like to point out that Rand Paul is making inroads in the under-30 group, which is the only hope to claw the White House away from perpetual Dem dominance
I like what Rand Paul is doing, but a guy like that could never be elected President. The media would take him down before he ever got a sniff of the White House, just like they did with his dad every time he started to get any traction in his presidential campaigns.
Q: “Do you have funny shaped balloons?”
A: “Not unless round is funny.”
MediumTex wrote:
The media would take him down before he ever got a sniff of the White House, just like they did with his dad every time he started to get any traction in his presidential campaigns.
How is what the media will do to Paul, different from what the media will do to anyone else not democratic?
Simonjester wrote:
the media pattern with Ron was marginalize or ignore, the pattern with the other candidates was promote as new front runner then tear down.
Ron had the double problem of being marginalized or pushed out of the way by the GOP as well..
i hope rand has a better time of it but i suspect he may not...
It was good being the party of Robin Hood. Until they morphed into the Sheriff of Nottingham
Benko wrote:
I'd love to see the left's true hypocrisy exposed as they all try to play the "birther card" i.e. Cruz wasn't born in the US, so is he eligible?).
This isn't hard. It's all about the laundry.
Even though Obama's and Cruz's citizenship circumstances are nearly identical,
Most people who questioned Obama's eligibility for office will not question Cruz's (i.e. no one will be both an Obama birther and a Cruz birther).
Most people who question Cruz's eligibility did not question Obama's (i.e. no one will be both a Cruz birther and an Obama birther).
Both "sides" will complain about hypocrisy.
No one credible e.g. Fox news, WSJ, major journalist ever was a birther. CNN has already started wondering about Cruz's eligibility. So no it is not the same.
Oh and if the right were willing to do what the left was to get what they want e.g. how Obamacare was passed, things would be very different.
Last edited by Benko on Mon Aug 19, 2013 2:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.
It was good being the party of Robin Hood. Until they morphed into the Sheriff of Nottingham
Benko wrote:
I'd love to see the left's true hypocrisy exposed as they all try to play the "birther card" i.e. Cruz wasn't born in the US, so is he eligible?).
This isn't hard. It's all about the laundry.
Even though Obama's and Cruz's citizenship circumstances are nearly identical,
Most people who questioned Obama's eligibility for office will not question Cruz's (i.e. no one will be both an Obama birther and a Cruz birther).
Most people who question Cruz's eligibility did not question Obama's (i.e. no one will be both a Cruz birther and an Obama birther).
Both "sides" will complain about hypocrisy.
McCain wasn't born in the U.S. either, and I'm pretty sure there are no Obama/McCain birthers out there.
In other words, there may not be any "pure birthers."
I think that you have to dislike someone first before you can have birther beliefs about them.
Q: “Do you have funny shaped balloons?”
A: “Not unless round is funny.”
RuralEngineer wrote:
You're not referring to Ron and Rand Paul are you? I'm a Libertarian and they're so much better than the rest if our options that it's staggering, but I don't think either would win a general election. The percentage of the electorate that yearns for the cold hard truth followed by freedom is outweighed by the percentage that only wants the warm fuzzy blanket of nanny state lies.
These aren't the same polls that predicted Mitt Romney would defeat Obama in 2012 were they?
Recent polling from Rasmussen also suggests that the only other candidate that could be considered the victor in a make-believe match-up with Obama right now would be former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, who also won in a recent poll by a two percentage point margin.
Looks like they are. There's some credibility for you.
I'm not saying that Ron or Rand Paul couldn't get a sizable chunk of the vote. I'm just saying that they have no chance of winning. They might be able to get 45%, maybe more, but I don't see any possible scenario where they defeat Obama or Hillary without becoming the Statist liars that they despise, in which case there are better Statist liars to choose from.
Benko wrote:
I'd love to see the left's true hypocrisy exposed as they all try to play the "birther card" i.e. Cruz wasn't born in the US, so is he eligible?).
This isn't hard. It's all about the laundry.
Even though Obama's and Cruz's citizenship circumstances are nearly identical,
Most people who questioned Obama's eligibility for office will not question Cruz's (i.e. no one will be both an Obama birther and a Cruz birther).
Most people who question Cruz's eligibility did not question Obama's (i.e. no one will be both a Cruz birther and an Obama birther).
Both "sides" will complain about hypocrisy.
ok...i'm speak for no one but myself...so i'll go ahead a question whether Obama AND Cruz are "Natural Born Citizens"...any constitutional lawyers who will give a definitive definition of that requirement?
ps. i like the fight i've seen in Cruz (although I've only heard of him recently)...just I don't know that he's eligible for the office of President.
Mdraf wrote:
I like Cruz for no other reason than he is shaking the tree. He is the only one who seems to have the political courage to do it.
As best I can tell, he has beliefs and a spine. I believe a spine is crucial both in dealing with the liberal media, congress and Foreign leaders.
Hillary and Christie (would not vote for either) both have spines. Ryan has a spine and seeing him confront Obama (youtube) was quite impressive. What I gather his beliefs are on immigration disqualify him for me. Rubio not sure about the spine, and dislike his immigration beliefs.
Not sure about whether Paul has a spine or not. standing up against drones would suggest he does have one.
Hillary/Democrat/some republicans=immigration which will not lead anyplace good for the country.
It was good being the party of Robin Hood. Until they morphed into the Sheriff of Nottingham
murphy_p_t wrote:
ok...i'm speak for no one but myself...so i'll go ahead a question whether Obama AND Cruz are "Natural Born Citizens"...any constitutional lawyers who will give a definitive definition of that requirement?
While it is true that "natural born citizen" is not defined anywhere within the text of the Constitution and that the Constitution makes use of the phrase "citizen" and "natural born citizen", Supreme Court Decisions from United States v. Wong Kim Ark to the present have considered the distinction to be between natural-born and naturalized citizenship.
In her 1988 article in the Yale Law Journal, Jill Pryor wrote, "It is well settled that 'native-born' citizens, those born in the United States, qualify as natural born. It is also clear that persons born abroad of alien parents, who later become citizens by naturalization, do not. But whether a person born abroad of American parents, or of one American and one alien parent, qualifies as natural born has never been resolved."[20]
An April 2000 CRS report by the Congressional Research Service, asserts that most constitutional scholars interpret the phrase "natural born citizen" as including citizens born outside the United States to parents who are U.S. citizens under the "natural born" requirement.[21]
Obama was born in Hawaii - so is in the "well settled" (according to Jill Pryor) category of natural born.
Cruz was born in Canada to an American mother and non-American (at the time) father, but is a US citizen by birth - so falls into the category Pryor says "has never been resolved" but "most constitutional scholars" (according to the CRS) would consider included in "natural born".
rickb wrote:
Cruz was born in Canada to an American mother and non-American (at the time) father, but is a US citizen by birth - so falls into the category Pryor says "has never been resolved" but "most constitutional scholars" (according to the CRS) would consider included in "natural born".
For that matter, George Romney and John McCain are (were?) in the same category.
Human behavior is economic behavior. The particulars may vary, but competition for limited resources remains a constant.
- CEO Nwabudike Morgan
Reub wrote:
I see Rand Paul on Fox News all the time and they treat him with respect.
Well, of course they treat him with respect today. Paul is perceived as a rising star.
Even so, if you look carefully, you'll see that they are trying to marginalize his foreign policy views. Look at these questions from this week's "Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace" (questions from guest host John Roberts):
ROBERTS: On Egypt, Senator Paul, you issued a statement the other day after the carnage of Wednesday, calling on the president to end foreign assistance to Egypt, but that relationship does a number of things. It insures compliance with the Camp David accords. It allows American military overflights without prior notification. It moves U.S. war ships to the front of the line at the Suez Canal. If you were to remove that military assistance, could you potentially damage your relationship that the United States need to have with a very important ally in the Middle East?
ROBERTS: But there are ways to avoid that. There are ways to avoid that, which the president is pursuing now. The question is, would ending military aid to Egypt be a prudent thing to do?
To be clear, the foreign policy views of all mainstream media (Fox, CNN, WSJ, NYT, WaPo, etc.) is fairly homogeneous. On a pro-intervention scale of 0 (Ron Paul) to 100 (Lindsey Graham), they're all at least 98.
I don't believe in giving free passes to Presidential candidates (or Presidents) as Obama usually gets. Asking these legitimate questions to Rand Paul is what all journalists ought to be doing.
