The Reagan Revolution, wasn’t a real revolution?
5 Likes
Lol, too funny.
2 Likes
Politicians today don’t have opportunities to create real change? They lack the conviction to do so because they don’t want to risk their careers. The Founders only risked their lives.
Huh?
That’s certainly an interesting opinion.
They sure did.
Fixed. I could round up 50 guys with rifles and declare some 2 square mile island the “Independent Republic of Gainz”, wouldn’t go well methinks.
2 Likes
I mean, we’re probably just going to have to agree to disagree (and despite being accused of leftiness on these boards, I’m not much of an Obama fan) but for anyone else reading, that’s a pretty staggering oversimplification of what Obama had achieved in his life prior to running for office.
Obama would have been successful in any number of pursuits, and was well on his way there prior to beginning his political career. If you honestly believe otherwise, I don’t really know what to tell you.
1 Like
If the standard for being a statesman is “leading a war for independence” we’re gonna be waiting a decent while, methinks.
Are you seriously suggesting that, if only the Confederacy had been successful in the good ol’ War for Southern Independence, the CSA would have had the first worthy statesmen since the Revolution?
3 Likes
Ya, I don’t really understand. These guys are like the hall of fame of politics/statecraft. Using them as the benchmark makes no sense.
The ideal? In many ways, yes, but not the standard.
Not all revolutions are violent.
I understand that but it’s one thing to try and come up short and another to not even try and rise above mediocrity.
How do you know they aren’t attempting the former as opposed to the latter?
This is starting to feel like a Monty Python sketch
1 Like
Thow shalt count 3… no more no less.
1 Like
Maybe a few are. I think Paul has integrity. And he was also literally laughed out of the primaries.
The rest are bureaucratic mediocrities, at best.
That’s a problem with the people is it not?
I made no qualms about the fact that I was voting for Gary Johnson and there was a similar reaction by many here.
Paul was laughed at by the candidates. He was the only adult up there. Those idiots were arguing about hand size and whose father killed JFK. So maybe I’m not being fair or reasonable to expect Jefferson but I should be happy with those clowns?
Then you have the Dems for whom Hillary was the chosen one just because her husband was president first and cheated on her. Sanders, like him or not, was not treated fairly which is what you apparently get for taking the high road. And then all Hillary could talk about was pussy grabbing. I still don’t know what her plans were if she won.
I must have missed that.
I don’t think any of them knew how to respond to Trump’s lunacy. So, yes, I agree there were times when the Republican candidates acted childish or clownish if you will, but I think that, excluding Trump, those times were few and far between.
There are also counterexamples. I thought the way Fiorina reacted to Trump’s look at that face comment was acceptable and classy.
Sure, the Dems are in disarray. No argument there.
The thing is, Trump won. So maybe we are guilty of being dumber and less mature than those who came before us. I guess my grandparents were right.
I just don’t want to make a habit of TV personalities running for President. I got nothing against Oprah. But I really hope she doesn’t run. She probably would win, but I think one time around the block is enough.
Let politicians do politics and celebrities entertain us with their work, of for the other half, their fucked up lives.
1 Like
I used to think this too until I did the math… That’s of course after seeing other countries do it and go through it. If we have say a third viable party on the ticket. Majority rules becomes 34%.
The question becomes, do you want potentially 34% of the country dictating the lives of the other 66% of the country? If you have 4 viable parties, that number drops to 26% of majority rules.