Many of you who have read my posts through the years know that I’m a republican, nothing new about that. With that said, I am not in favor of Jeb Bush becoming our next President. The Bush family has a record of talking conservative and ruling somewhere center left. Examples of both former Bush Presidents:
George H. W. Bush once said “read my lips no new taxes” and then within two years of being elected raised taxes. I felt a great amount of betrayal at that point.
George W. Bush and his “no child left behind” was nothing more than government interfering with what I believe should be left to the county’s and states to handle. Granted he did lower taxes and appointed two conservative judges…hold on Roberts was the one who allowed Obamacare to go through so he only gets partial credit for the judges.
Anyway…the way Jeb is talking he’d be one more centrist that talks the talk but when it comes time to get moving doesn’t walk the walk.
I think the country would be far better off with someone like Marco Rubio or John Kasich.
Don’t get me wrong should Jeb be the nominee I will not only vote for him but I will donate money and work for him as well. What many of you seem to forget is that a candidate that you agree with only 25% of the time is better than a candidate that you disagree with almost 100% of the time.
Stop being purists its rare that you will get the ideal candidate of your choice.
Those who stayed home rather than vote for Romney (who they speculated was not much better than Obama) helped Obama get elected. And every time a democrat wins we get more left wingnut judges and a myriad of other things that harm the country. Like Obama not signing the Keystone pipeline legislation which any republican future President, even Bush and Christie would certainly go along with.
So, put your black and white glasses down and understand that there is middle ground. While we may not get our ideal candidate staying home on election day will only allow democrats another four years to do the exact opposite of what the country needs. And I wonder, can we even survive another eight years of runaway liberalism?
[quote]ZEB wrote:
And I wonder, can we even survive another eight years of runaway liberalism?
[/quote]
What we need is some good old fashioned Classical Liberalism. (Which both parties sometimes get right and sometimes get wrong.)
What we don’t need is more Contemporary American Liberalism that amounts to “I’m not willing to pay for your college, or my own. But I certainly am willing to elect people that will take some other person’s money from them and pay for College.” And let’s us not forget “anything you say that hurts my feelings is hate speech and should be banned, but we can put a picture of Christ in piss and mock you if you feel offended.”
[quote]ZEB wrote:
And I wonder, can we even survive another eight years of runaway liberalism?
[/quote]
What we need is some good old fashioned Classical Liberalism. (Which both parties sometimes get right and sometimes get wrong.)
What we don’t need is more Contemporary American Liberalism that amounts to “I’m not willing to pay for your college, or my own. But I certainly am willing to elect people that will take some other person’s money from them and pay for College.” And let’s us not forget “anything you say that hurts my feelings is hate speech and should be banned, but we can put a picture of Christ in piss and mock you if you feel offended.”
[/quote]
As to that, it always baffles me that Muslims go absolutely batshit if anybody dares to depict Muhammad in any way at all, even in a non-insulting manner, but don’t utter a peep when an image of Jesus is defaced. Jesus being the number two Prophet in Islam, second in importance only to Muhammad, you’d think they would feel at least similarly offended.
I wonder if they feel the same outrage when they see the portraits and illustrations of Muhammad done by fifteenth-century Persian Muslims.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
And I wonder, can we even survive another eight years of runaway liberalism?
[/quote]
What we need is some good old fashioned Classical Liberalism. (Which both parties sometimes get right and sometimes get wrong.)
What we don’t need is more Contemporary American Liberalism that amounts to “I’m not willing to pay for your college, or my own. But I certainly am willing to elect people that will take some other person’s money from them and pay for College.” And let’s us not forget “anything you say that hurts my feelings is hate speech and should be banned, but we can put a picture of Christ in piss and mock you if you feel offended.”
[quote]ZEB wrote:
And I wonder, can we even survive another eight years of runaway liberalism?
[/quote]
What we need is some good old fashioned Classical Liberalism. (Which both parties sometimes get right and sometimes get wrong.)
What we don’t need is more Contemporary American Liberalism that amounts to “I’m not willing to pay for your college, or my own. But I certainly am willing to elect people that will take some other person’s money from them and pay for College.” And let’s us not forget “anything you say that hurts my feelings is hate speech and should be banned, but we can put a picture of Christ in piss and mock you if you feel offended.”
[/quote]
As to that, it always baffles me that Muslims go absolutely batshit if anybody dares to depict Muhammad in any way at all, even in a non-insulting manner, but don’t utter a peep when an image of Jesus is defaced. Jesus being the number two Prophet in Islam, second in importance only to Muhammad, you’d think they would feel at least similarly offended.
I wonder if they feel the same outrage when they see the portraits and illustrations of Muhammad done by fifteenth-century Persian Muslims.[/quote]
I kinda get the feeling those that would murder over something like that are just looking for an excuse to murder, and not really all that bent out of shape about Muhammad. I don’t really buy the whole “I slaughter for my religion” thing. I feel like it’s more “I want money and power, and this religion thing gives me an excuse to do evil things to accomplish it”. Sort of like how all religions were corrupted by evil people through time.
Don’t get me wrong should Jeb be the nominee I will not only vote for him but I will donate money and work for him as well. What many of you seem to forget is that a candidate that you agree with only 25% of the time is better than a candidate that you disagree with almost 100% of the time.
[/quote]
I pray that I don’t have to make a choice between Jeb and a Democrat. Andrew Breitbart said we need to get rid of the Democrats then the RINOs. But when the public gets governance from a RINO they end up with the same terrible results as a Democrat, which in turn looks bad for Republicans. Then the next elections rolls around and the low information voter wants “change,” and we end up more to the left. RINOs and Democrats bring us to the same place, the only difference is the speed.
My presidential vote barely means anything as I am in upstate NY and the city drags the rest of us into hell.
Don’t get me wrong should Jeb be the nominee I will not only vote for him but I will donate money and work for him as well. What many of you seem to forget is that a candidate that you agree with only 25% of the time is better than a candidate that you disagree with almost 100% of the time.
[/quote]
I pray that I don’t have to make a choice between Jeb and a Democrat. Andrew Breitbart said we need to get rid of the Democrats then the RINOs. But when the public gets governance from a RINO they end up with the same terrible results as a Democrat, which in turn looks bad for Republicans. Then the next elections rolls around and the low information voter wants “change,” and we end up more to the left. RINOs and Democrats bring us to the same place, the only difference is the speed.
My presidential vote barely means anything as I am in upstate NY and the city drags the rest of us into hell.
[/quote]
Much of what you said has merit. But, as I’ve already stated when you elect a democrat there is literally no hope. He/she will appoint more liberal judges, raise taxes and continue to worship the environment as if it’s actually going to change over the next 3 million years.
While Jeb Bush is my second least favorite republican (Christie being the worst) I would vote for either of them over Hillary Clinton. So in that sense it is not a difficult choice. But let’s hope we get better…I think we will.
Pretty much a wash that Hitlery is going to be ponied up as the dumbocratic candidate. So who has the clout to run up against her besides Jeb? I don’t see anyone else with that kind of potential. I voted for Romney in 2012, 2008 I wasn’t able to vote for that crack-pot McCain. I think the last republican candidate I voted for was Bush Sr. on his initial run. I have never ever voted for a democrat.
The problem is we cannot separate social and fiscal, given that a majority of Americans are fiscally conservative and socially centrist or left leaning. Any candidate/party who takes a hard live stance against social issues that are inevitable (Roe v Wade will NOT be overturned, gay marriage WILL be legal, recreational use of marijuana WILL become legal, etc.) is wasting his candidacy/life.
[quote]Aggv wrote:
No Bush. It’s too easy to get drawn into W. bashing and general muckraking by the media. [/quote]
If it is Bush v Clinton I will vote third party or not vote. I will probably vote Libertarian either way. Doesn’t really matter because I live in Kansas and Republicans will easily carry.
If I lived in a swing state I may be more likely to choose the lesser of two evils, but I truly think that is acknowledging the system is broken and we may as well just accept it. The simple matter is for the big things I care about not a huge amount of difference exists between the parties. Socially I’m more liberal and fiscally I’m more conservative so neither Republicans nor Democrats tend to appeal to me.
I really don’t think Republicans want to run Jeb so I’m hoping that scenario doesn’t come true.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
And I wonder, can we even survive another eight years of runaway liberalism?
[/quote]
What we need is some good old fashioned Classical Liberalism. (Which both parties sometimes get right and sometimes get wrong.)
What we don’t need is more Contemporary American Liberalism that amounts to “I’m not willing to pay for your college, or my own. But I certainly am willing to elect people that will take some other person’s money from them and pay for College.” And let’s us not forget “anything you say that hurts my feelings is hate speech and should be banned, but we can put a picture of Christ in piss and mock you if you feel offended.”
[/quote]
As to that, it always baffles me that Muslims go absolutely batshit if anybody dares to depict Muhammad in any way at all, even in a non-insulting manner, but don’t utter a peep when an image of Jesus is defaced. Jesus being the number two Prophet in Islam, second in importance only to Muhammad, you’d think they would feel at least similarly offended.
I wonder if they feel the same outrage when they see the portraits and illustrations of Muhammad done by fifteenth-century Persian Muslims.[/quote]
I believe under the caliphate Christians have special permission to have pictures of Jesus in their homes etc as long as they pay the Jizya. I am not 100% on that though. The real absurdity is that Christians and Jews are granted safety albeit oppression under the caliphate but Shia are offered no such leniency.
How the fuck does such a minor deviation between the same religion get you killed over being a jew or a christian?
[quote]beachguy498 wrote:
Pretty much a wash that Hitlery is going to be ponied up as the dumbocratic candidate. So who has the clout to run up against her besides Jeb? I don’t see anyone else with that kind of potential. I voted for Romney in 2012, 2008 I wasn’t able to vote for that crack-pot McCain. I think the last republican candidate I voted for was Bush Sr. on his initial run. I have never ever voted for a democrat. [/quote]
The “clout” that you speak of will be gained by running an intelligent campaign and raising a good deal of money. In my opinion most of the republican candidates can defeat Hillary. As a personality she wears thin very quickly.
[quote]Aggv wrote:
No Bush. It’s too easy to get drawn into W. bashing and general muckraking by the media. [/quote]
I agree the media trashed. In part it was his own fault. He had a policy of never answering his critics which I feel was pretty foolish. Was he a great President? Absolutely not. But he was a hell of a lot better than the fool we have in the White House currently. Yet, the media remains quiet on the many Obama errors and potential crimes.
[quote]Aggv wrote:
No Bush. It’s too easy to get drawn into W. bashing and general muckraking by the media. [/quote]
If it is Bush v Clinton I will vote third party or not vote. I will probably vote Libertarian either way. Doesn’t really matter because I live in Kansas and Republicans will easily carry.
If I lived in a swing state I may be more likely to choose the lesser of two evils, but I truly think that is acknowledging the system is broken and we may as well just accept it. The simple matter is for the big things I care about not a huge amount of difference exists between the parties. Socially I’m more liberal and fiscally I’m more conservative so neither Republicans nor Democrats tend to appeal to me.
I really don’t think Republicans want to run Jeb so I’m hoping that scenario doesn’t come true. [/quote]
I understand where you are coming from. But, keep in mind when you throw your vote away on a third party candidate you are basically saying “everyone please decide for me who you would like to win because I don’t want to take part.”
[quote]Aggv wrote:
No Bush. It’s too easy to get drawn into W. bashing and general muckraking by the media. [/quote]
If it is Bush v Clinton I will vote third party or not vote. I will probably vote Libertarian either way. Doesn’t really matter because I live in Kansas and Republicans will easily carry.
If I lived in a swing state I may be more likely to choose the lesser of two evils, but I truly think that is acknowledging the system is broken and we may as well just accept it. The simple matter is for the big things I care about not a huge amount of difference exists between the parties. Socially I’m more liberal and fiscally I’m more conservative so neither Republicans nor Democrats tend to appeal to me.
I really don’t think Republicans want to run Jeb so I’m hoping that scenario doesn’t come true. [/quote]
I understand where you are coming from. But, keep in mind when you throw your vote away on a third party candidate you are basically saying “everyone please decide for me who you would like to win because I don’t want to take part.”
[/quote]
My vote for President doesn’t really matter because Kansas is always going to go Republican for the forseeable future and it won’t be close.
I am taking part by voting for a third party, I’m saying I don’t see a huge difference between the two dominant parties so I won’t vote for either. Yes, one of the people running for these two parties will win, but I’m not contributing to the political football game and voting the lesser of two evils.
If more people did that we may have a chance at real change at some point. If someone thinks that real change is going to happen from one of the two major parties then they haven’t been paying attention to recent history. Isn’t the definition of insanity doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results?
With the results of the election in my state a foregone conclusion I have nothing to gain by contributing to the Republican or Democratic tally anyways. May as well sleep better knowing I didn’t vote for big government.