|
|
Post by Hoosier X on May 5, 2015 13:07:27 GMT -5
In Hillary Clinton related news, "Clinton Cash" author is worried he might be killed for writing Clinton book. And the news host shows a wonderful gift for adding to the rich tapestry of the ever-evolving English language by using the term "Vince Fostered." |
|
|
|
Post by Hoosier X on May 5, 2015 13:55:43 GMT -5
I was going to stop for the day, but then I saw this: Chuck Norris weighs in on Jade Helm 15 coup. Take THAT, skeptics! Rand Paul, Ted Cruz and the governor of Texas are probably feeling a lot better now that their position is being bolstered by a heavyweight like Chuck Norris. What does Ted Nugent think? Sarah Palin? Bobby Jindal? Carly Fiorina? |
|
|
|
Post by The Captain on May 5, 2015 14:23:08 GMT -5
Every four years, I am taken back in my mind to the South Park episode where the school has to vote on a new mascot, and the choices are Turd Sandwich and Giant Douche.
Right now, along with those options, it's silly season, where we have Bleeding Head Wound, Kick To The Groin, Festering Canker, Inflamed Scabies, and Genital Wart all vying for attention in the national spotlight and all with absolutely no way of ever getting a nomination. It's especially bad when the Republicans aren't in the White House, as each successive candidate tries to out-crazy the others by shifting ever further to the right, hoping their particular brand of insanity is the one that somehow catches fire in the public arena and gets them into the White House.
I despise politics in the US, because I never get a candidate that I can actually vote for and not hate myself in the morning.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hoosier X on May 5, 2015 15:31:44 GMT -5
Every four years, I am taken back in my mind to the South Park episode where the school has to vote on a new mascot, and the choices are Turd Sandwich and Giant Douche. I don't really like that episode. It was almost as stupid as the one where Bono turned out to be the biggest bowel movement ever.
I may be disappointed by the Democrats a lot, but there really is no comparison between the two parties, and that extends to the quality of the candidates.
A better contrast might have been choosing between two options for dinner. Number One is a Turd Sandwich. Number Two is a Tic Tac.
You'd choose Number Two. It's edible, and it goes down easy, but you want more.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ish Kabbible on May 5, 2015 17:56:16 GMT -5
Can even Hillary withstand that unstoppable juggernaut of genius, that paragon of political suave-Uncle Joe Biden? If he decides to make a run for it ( and how many VPs haven't?) then watch out world!!!  |
|
|
|
Post by dupersuper on May 5, 2015 22:22:12 GMT -5
I'm Canadian, so no Democrat, but quite liberal in my political views, and - while obviously she's better than the terrifying Republicans you guys keep spewing out - she's not my favourite.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 5, 2015 23:41:08 GMT -5
It's okay for people to express their own political views - but I don't because it's matter of personal security and integrity. I'm not an Democrat nor a Republican. I don't even belong to a political party at all. I'm a loyal Independent that looks at the two candidates and decide which one is closer to my political views and once I decided on that - I will vote for him/her no matter what the other person is trying to impose their views on.
I don't even discuss politics with my family and dearest friends because it's will destroy my friendship with them and I rather not discuss it because it's personal, sacred, and most importantly it will destroy my integrity of which I believe it's the right thing to do.
In short, I like to keep things "private" as possible.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ish Kabbible on May 6, 2015 0:03:43 GMT -5
Fine piece of research Wesley
I was thinking of it more in line to my lifetime's memories and of all the VPs starting with Eisenhower's Nixon-every single one ran for president or became one due to assassination or resignation. So yes, I include Mondale along with Dan Quayle. The exceptions so far being Nelson Rockefeller (who failed previously and really didn't need the job) and Dick Cheney (who had to know that he was totally unelectable).
I'd be shocked if Biden didn't make one more attempt |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 6, 2015 0:44:40 GMT -5
Fine piece of research Wesley
I was thinking of it more in line to my lifetime's memories and of all the VPs starting with Eisenhower's Nixon-every single one ran for president or became one due to assassination or resignation. So yes, I include Mondale along with Dan Quayle. The exceptions so far being Nelson Rockefeller (who failed previously and really didn't need the job) and Dick Cheney (who had to know that he was totally unelectable).
I'd be shocked if Biden didn't make one more attempt Rockefeller actually would have loved to be president, but was disheartened when Ford asked him to step away in 1976 and he knew that he would never get the opportunity to climb to the top. He didn't live to the next election anyway but nonetheless. Thinking about it, my 41 is still wrong because certain sitting VPs didn't have the chance to run. The 9 VPs that ascended to the presidency due to death or resignation during their first term need to be taken into account. Right, most vice presidents in recent years have run for president, although most of them had already ascended to the presidency one way or another, or ran but it was not as a sitting VP (Mondale, Quayle in 2000). But still, not many sitting VPs, which Biden is, have run. He's 72 right now and will be 73 by the time of the 2016 election, on the cusp of turning 74 with his late November birthday. I'd have the opposite reaction, I would be shocked if Biden DID throw his hat in the ring. I think in many ways he can be goofy, but I think he wants the party to have a stronger candidate who isn't quite as old (Hillary would be one of the oldest presidents if elected, but still 5 years younger than Biden) so that the party could theoretically have a leader that is in it for the long haul, at least relatively speaking. I don't think Biden runs whatsoever. But I suppose only time will tell, Ish. The thing with Quayle and Mondale that has to be taken into account if you are tallying all this up to seek for trends is that they were VPs to Presidents who lost re-election bids as incumbents so did not really have the opportunity to run as a sitting VP. Had Carter or Bush won reelection they most likely would have run as sitting VPs but they were not going to run against the sitting President in a party primary, as there really was no doubt who was going to run for their parties those years-the sitting President. So while they did not run as sitting VP, they both ran in the election they would have run in as sitting VPs if the incumbent they served under had been elected to a second term. -M |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 6, 2015 1:10:24 GMT -5
I understand the idea of not voting based on party loyalty, but I don't see it working in America.
Our politics are dominated by two parties, that's just a fact of life. In smaller government roles it's possible for an independent to win, but not the presidency. The cost of campaigning and the way our electoral college is set up just won't allow it. Not only that, but parties have platforms, and being a member of a party usually means agreeing with the party platform. In fact, it's more than usually. It's damn near 100% of the time, save for one or two occasional small topics. So if, for example, you didn't like anti-gay bigots, then it would be almost impossible to vote for a member of a party whose platform is built on a foundation of anti-gay bigotry. No matter how much you hate taxes.
And when it comes to the presidency, you're not just voting for the president, but pretty much every appointed office for the next eight years. Including lifetime positions, like the Supreme Court. So maybe you hate the idea of felons having to register their UZI, but do you hate it more than the next three Supreme Court justices thinking the world is flat?
|
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,866
|
Post by shaxper on May 6, 2015 7:06:47 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 6, 2015 15:27:19 GMT -5
I've read quite a few articles stating the same, fingers crossed they aren't overly optimistic. Although a Clinton win wouldn't be the worst thing in the world, I'd really love the nation to veer left of center for a while. |
|
|
|
Post by Action Ace on May 6, 2015 16:36:58 GMT -5
I don't know how much of a factor age is going to be, but by the time January 20, 2017 rolls around, Bernie Sanders will be 75 years old. I suppose we'll see. Hillary will be 69, the same age Ronald Reagan was when he took office.  |
|
|
|
Post by adamwarlock2099 on May 6, 2015 16:48:21 GMT -5
Is there a maximum age cut off to take presidency?
|
|
|
|
Post by Action Ace on May 6, 2015 16:49:35 GMT -5
Is there a maximum age cut off to take presidency? No maximum, the minimum age is 35. |
|
