Gyroscopic Investing

Desert wrote: There MUST be someone better than what the Republicans threw out there in the last election.  I felt like I was watching One Flew Over the Cuckoos Nest when I watched the Republican debates a couple years ago.  The Republicans should be able to win, if they can simply (?) put a candidate out there that isn't a complete embarrassment. 

Reub wrote: Can anyone else besides me envision a scenario where Michelle Obama runs for President against Hillary in the Democrat primaries in 2016? It seems that it is very difficult for Presidential families to forego power and fame once they have it and she seems very ambitious. I'm sure that the Obamas have plenty of "dirt" on Hillary that they can use when necessary.

MachineGhost wrote:

Reub wrote: Can anyone else besides me envision a scenario where Michelle Obama runs for President against Hillary in the Democrat primaries in 2016? It seems that it is very difficult for Presidential families to forego power and fame once they have it and she seems very ambitious. I'm sure that the Obamas have plenty of "dirt" on Hillary that they can use when necessary.

NO!  She has zero qualifications.

Mountaineer wrote: Pretty much like her husband. 

MachineGhost wrote:

Mountaineer wrote: Pretty much like her husband. 

And we see how well that works out, don't we?  I trust electoral voters pay attention next time and never again elect someone without executive experience.  You can't change the culture of DC if you're surrounded by unelected advisors telling you what you don't know.

Desert wrote: I'm trying to think who the most qualified president in recent years was ... I'm thinking it's a tossup between Bush Sr. and Bill Clinton.

Libertarian666 wrote: Even the Republicans have figured this out, if I can go by the changes in the "national surveys" they send me all the time, since I was a delegate to the Texas convention. There are two major changes:

1. They have a new question asking whether they should forget about the "social issues" and just concentrate on the fiscal ones.
2. In the first part, where they ask "how do you describe your political leanings" (or words to that effect), they have added "Libertarian" as an option. It was never there before.

Pointedstick wrote:

Libertarian666 wrote: Even the Republicans have figured this out, if I can go by the changes in the "national surveys" they send me all the time, since I was a delegate to the Texas convention. There are two major changes:

1. They have a new question asking whether they should forget about the "social issues" and just concentrate on the fiscal ones.
2. In the first part, where they ask "how do you describe your political leanings" (or words to that effect), they have added "Libertarian" as an option. It was never there before.

I get these too and was similarly surprised.

Then again, they're the Republicans. They're probably going to find a way to screw the pooch anyway. A year or two ago, the RNC came out with a huge report that basically said that to remain relevant, they needed to drop the social issues, stop demonizing immigrants, and STFU about women's issues, and it was promptly ignored.

moda0306 wrote: Really?  What does executive experience really give us?

Mountaineer wrote:

Desert wrote: I'm trying to think who the most qualified president in recent years was ... I'm thinking it's a tossup between Bush Sr. and Bill Clinton.

Thomas Jefferson - very recent in terms of time since the last ice age. 


... Mountaineer

Reub wrote: I'm genetically related to Thomas Jefferson so he is immediately excluded as the most
qualified. 

dualstow wrote:

Reub wrote: I'm genetically related to Thomas Jefferson so he is immediately excluded as the most
qualified. 

If you are serious, then you are related to my dad's former personal trainer near Annapolis. How'bout that.