shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,864
Member is Online
|
Post by shaxper on May 4, 2015 8:18:12 GMT -5
Perhaps it's time I rephrased the question: is there any Democrat out there who does prefer Hillary, or has she been handed a mandate from the political machine?
|
|
|
|
Post by wildfire2099 on May 4, 2015 11:43:09 GMT -5
I think a better question is, who else is there? Most prominent Democrats out there are just not viable. I've already opined on Elizabeth Warren... maybe Sanders will come towards the center enough to gain traction, but I'm not sure I see that. It would be pretty fun to have a super polar opposite campaign... say, Sanders Vs. Cruz... that would be very fun to watch  |
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,864
Member is Online
|
Post by shaxper on May 4, 2015 12:48:54 GMT -5
I think a better question is, who else is there? Most prominent Democrats out there are just not viable. I've already opined on Elizabeth Warren... maybe Sanders will come towards the center enough to gain traction, but I'm not sure I see that. It would be pretty fun to have a super polar opposite campaign... say, Sanders Vs. Cruz... that would be very fun to watch Were political machines not involved (an impossibility, I know), and we were basing candidates solely on what America wants at this exact moment, I'd say what's needed is a centrist Republican. I think most conservatives would never be open to the possibility of voting Democrat (Fox news has played a large role in that), but that many Democrats, who are, in general, more open to change and to seeing the other side's perspective, could be persuaded to accept a Republican who isn't towing the party line. Bring in a Republican who is more in line with what the party stood for three decades ago, distancing themselves somewhat from religion, special interests, and extremist political ideologies, and I think you'd get somewhere fast. The conservatives have shifted the conversation so far to the right that a Republican willing to stand where the party was thirty years earlier would come off like a raging liberal to Democrats now. |
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on May 4, 2015 12:58:24 GMT -5
I think a better question is, who else is there? Most prominent Democrats out there are just not viable. I've already opined on Elizabeth Warren... maybe Sanders will come towards the center enough to gain traction, but I'm not sure I see that. It would be pretty fun to have a super polar opposite campaign... say, Sanders Vs. Cruz... that would be very fun to watch Were political machines not involved (an impossibility, I know), and we were basing candidates solely on what America wants at this exact moment, I'd say what's needed is a centrist Republican. I think most conservatives would never be open to the possibility of voting Democrat (Fox news has played a large role in that), but that many Democrats, who are, in general, more open to change and to seeing the other side's perspective, could be persuaded to accept a Republican who isn't towing the party line. Bring in a Republican who is more in line with what the party stood for three decades ago, distancing themselves somewhat from religion, special interests, and extremist political ideologies, and I think you'd get somewhere fast. The conservatives have shifted the conversation so far to the right that a Republican willing to stand where the party was thirty years earlier would come off like a raging liberal to Democrats now. We've had a centrist Republican President for the last six years. |
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,864
Member is Online
|
Post by shaxper on May 4, 2015 13:04:10 GMT -5
Were political machines not involved (an impossibility, I know), and we were basing candidates solely on what America wants at this exact moment, I'd say what's needed is a centrist Republican. I think most conservatives would never be open to the possibility of voting Democrat (Fox news has played a large role in that), but that many Democrats, who are, in general, more open to change and to seeing the other side's perspective, could be persuaded to accept a Republican who isn't towing the party line. Bring in a Republican who is more in line with what the party stood for three decades ago, distancing themselves somewhat from religion, special interests, and extremist political ideologies, and I think you'd get somewhere fast. The conservatives have shifted the conversation so far to the right that a Republican willing to stand where the party was thirty years earlier would come off like a raging liberal to Democrats now. We've had a centrist Republican President for the last six years. The way I see it, we've had an idealist who has had no idea how to oppose a lock-step opposition party. I think Obama's approach to immigration and terrorism has felt conservative, but not the rest. |
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on May 4, 2015 13:14:53 GMT -5
We've had a centrist Republican President for the last six years. The way I see it, we've had an idealist who has had no idea how to oppose a lock-step opposition party. I think Obama's approach to immigration and terrorism has felt conservative, but not the rest. If you look at him policy by policy Obama is well to the right of Eisenhower, Nixon and Ford. And not significantly left of Reagan or Bush I. The difference is that the Republican part as a whole has moved whole-sale to the right-wing of the 19th Century. |
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,864
Member is Online
|
Post by shaxper on May 4, 2015 13:41:18 GMT -5
The way I see it, we've had an idealist who has had no idea how to oppose a lock-step opposition party. I think Obama's approach to immigration and terrorism has felt conservative, but not the rest. If you look at him policy by policy Obama is well to the right of Eisenhower, Nixon and Ford. And not significantly left of Reagan or Bush I. If you're only counting policy that has been implemented, then yes. That's because 99% of everything he'd tried to do for the past six years has been blocked. No president in history has seen more opposition while in office. And most of the 20th. |
|
|
|
Post by wildfire2099 on May 4, 2015 14:13:47 GMT -5
I think Slam is right, but, like Shax said, it's what's been IMPLEMENTED, not what Obama promised, or what I suspect he'd do if he was in control.
Remember, 'Obamacare' is really just the plan we have here in Massachusetts (Which Mitt Romney created, though he denies it now), writ larger.
|
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on May 4, 2015 14:26:06 GMT -5
I think Slam is right, but, like Shax said, it's what's been IMPLEMENTED, not what Obama promised, or what I suspect he'd do if he was in control. Remember, 'Obamacare' is really just the plan we have here in Massachusetts (Which Mitt Romney created, though he denies it now), writ larger. It's a plan that has been floated by Republicans of all stripes at various times since the 1950s. I'm trying to think of anything that Obama promised that isn't a dead center policy. |
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,864
Member is Online
|
Post by shaxper on May 4, 2015 14:55:32 GMT -5
I'm trying to think of anything that Obama promised that isn't a dead center policy. Regardless of its origins, promising universal health care for all Americans is a very liberal proposition. The approach, itself, was centrist, but not the ideology. And I think that speaks well of the President rather than as a criticism -- he worked hard to find a way to get it done so that it was more palatable to people on both sides, even if it ultimately wasn't. Also, closing Guantanamo. Granted, he epic-failed at that, but definitely not a centrist proposition. |
|
Polar Bear
Full Member
Married, father of six
Posts: 107 
|
Post by Polar Bear on May 4, 2015 15:32:01 GMT -5
I'm a political oddball, holding far-left economic/environmental views and far-right social views (except on crime, where I'm on neither side, plus I want more money for NASA) ... kind of the opposite of the Libertarian Party, I suppose, with occasional adjustments.
There's no way I'd vote for H. Clinton, O'Malley, Biden, nor Action Ace's picks, nor for the neo-libertarian R. Paul; I find all of them actively scary. Bobby Jindal I find amateur hour & opportunistic.
However, I'm attracted to both Sanders and to Huckabee, and I might be able to be talked into J. Bush. I'll probably donate money to the first two. If none of those three get nominated, I'll probably have to vote Third Party or Write-In for the fourth or fifth time in a row.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hoosier X on May 4, 2015 15:59:13 GMT -5
There is documented evidence that she claimed to be Native American to get scholarships for college (or to get accepted, one or the other), when faced with it, she had some really lame 'but my grandfather always said that' line. Do you have a source for the claim that Warren actually got a scholarship by claiming to be Native American? The way I remember it is that the GOP made a big deal out of a past incident where she claimed to be part Cherokee (because she's the only person in America who ever repeated some less-than-reliable family history ... or something) but it was pretty quickly forgotten because it was very trivial and there was absolutely no evidence that she ever tried to use it for advancement. |
|
|
|
Post by Hoosier X on May 4, 2015 16:08:17 GMT -5
Here's the most recent Huckabee sighting that I remember. I don't think he comes off too good. |
|
|
|
Post by DE Sinclair on May 4, 2015 16:32:27 GMT -5
I think a better question is, who else is there? Most prominent Democrats out there are just not viable. I've already opined on Elizabeth Warren... maybe Sanders will come towards the center enough to gain traction, but I'm not sure I see that. It would be pretty fun to have a super polar opposite campaign... say, Sanders Vs. Cruz... that would be very fun to watch Were political machines not involved (an impossibility, I know), and we were basing candidates solely on what America wants at this exact moment, I'd say what's needed is a centrist Republican. I think most conservatives would never be open to the possibility of voting Democrat (Fox news has played a large role in that), but that many Democrats, who are, in general, more open to change and to seeing the other side's perspective, could be persuaded to accept a Republican who isn't towing the party line. Bring in a Republican who is more in line with what the party stood for three decades ago, distancing themselves somewhat from religion, special interests, and extremist political ideologies, and I think you'd get somewhere fast. The conservatives have shifted the conversation so far to the right that a Republican willing to stand where the party was thirty years earlier would come off like a raging liberal to Democrats now. I would just like to point out that three decades ago was smack in the middle of the Reagan years. While Republicans have deified him over the years, I personally thought then, and think moreso now, that he was a lousy president. His economic policy was "trickle down economics" which was "throw enough money at the super rich and eventually they'll spend some of it, which may benefit the little people". He's also credited with "winning" the Cold War, which amounted to being the guy in the White House when the Soviet Union collapsed under it's own economy (which, granted he helped with skyrocketing defense spending (I still remember the days of his "600 ship Navy") that helped kill their economy trying to keep up). I won't even get into the Iran-Contra scandal.
As a resident of Wisconsin, I'd also like to mention that if Scott Walker somehow becomes president, I will seriously consider escaping to Canada.
|
|
|
|
Post by wildfire2099 on May 4, 2015 16:44:43 GMT -5
There is documented evidence that she claimed to be Native American to get scholarships for college (or to get accepted, one or the other), when faced with it, she had some really lame 'but my grandfather always said that' line. Do you have a source for the claim that Warren actually got a scholarship by claiming to be Native American? The way I remember it is that the GOP made a big deal out of a past incident where she claimed to be part Cherokee (because she's the only person in America who ever repeated some less-than-reliable family history ... or something) but it was pretty quickly forgotten because it was very trivial and there was absolutely no evidence that she ever tried to use it for advancement. I don't, but I remember hearing it on NPR, which I consider a reliable source. A quick google search shows claims that she reported it as such on her College and Law School application... but it's a right-wing news site, so that's not exactly proof. She also re-iterates it in her book (according to that same site)... that would be easy enough to check if you were so inclined. Here's a highly critical article of her from US News and World Report... It's been years since I noticed anything from them, so I'm not sure what their political leaning are (though my vague recollection would be their right-center). They have links to a whole lot of other stuff... it's a long, conprehensive article.... you can judge for yourself its accuracy. Snopes confirms that she called herself a 'minority law teacher' when she was at UPenn, and received an award as such, but they couldn't find any evidence she actually used that to get a job. I think the fact she has refused to make her law school application to Harvard public, so that certainly implies there's something on it she doesn't want the public to know, though what, obviously, one can only speculate. |
|
