Re: Hillary challengers/replacement, Jim Webb. He has many disadvantages, but he can present himself in an unusually unique place: a moderate who can attack Hillary from the “left” on national securitt and economics. He is a former Secretary of the Navy who wrote/writes extensively about the dangers of military adventurism (especially critical of the action in Libya, which will be a big deal in '16), and presidential unilateralism. He also has anti-Wall Street bona fides and is making economic inequality for the middle class a focus, on which he can savage Clinton and appeal to progressives and independents.
He has no machine and loathes fund-raising, but I think he wants the job.[/quote]
Off the cuff this guy sounds awesome.
The fact he’ll need Wall Street money to compete is going to hurt though, because, like everyone else, he’ll have favors to repay.
I’m sure his stance on the 2nd blows, his tax vision is moronic and he only speaks of “freedom and liberty” if you’re something other than a white male, therefore I’ll avoid him like the plague but… What you say here sounds nice.
Many people, including myself, have said the republican field is weak. But it’s probably a better list of candidates than last time, IMO. Baby steps I suppose.[/quote]
Agreed for the most part, except Carson. Again, he gives good speeches, but I’d not vote for him. Couldn’t be happier about the way he bitch slapped Obama at the breakfast, and enjoyed his name in the news to remind people of that, but his political chops make Biden look like Jefferson. If he’s smart, he takes what he has left of a reputation (Jesus were those comments on gay people moronic for anyone let alone a brain surgeon) and parlays it into a speaking gig for the next decade or so.
RE: Liz Warren. She scares the living shit out of me, so it’s nice to hear she isn’t getting much traction outside the far left. I’ll take Hillary over her, Biden over her, and a 3rd term for Obama over her.
RE: Liz Warren. She scares the living shit out of me, so it’s nice to hear she isn’t getting much traction outside the far left. I’ll take Hillary over her, Biden over her, and a 3rd term for Obama over her. [/quote]
RE: Liz Warren. She scares the living shit out of me, so it’s nice to hear she isn’t getting much traction outside the far left. I’ll take Hillary over her, Biden over her, and a 3rd term for Obama over her. [/quote]
Wow.[/quote]
I hear you, but I would take Warren over Obama, any time. One thing I can respect - you know where she’s coming from. Agree or disagree, she’s isn’t playing games - she swings for the bridge of the nose. I can respect that.
She has many, many flaws and wouldnt be a good president - but I do like that she is willing to take on the Big Banks and bad trade deals.
I don’t think any woman should be President (or CEO, Queen, etc) They aren’t hardwired for it.
source: Virtually every society, worldwide since recorded time.
And before you jump all over me as misogynist, who is the leader in your own household?
RE: Liz Warren. She scares the living shit out of me, so it’s nice to hear she isn’t getting much traction outside the far left. I’ll take Hillary over her, Biden over her, and a 3rd term for Obama over her. [/quote]
Wow.[/quote]
I hear you, but I would take Warren over Obama, any time. One thing I can respect - you know where she’s coming from. Agree or disagree, she’s isn’t playing games - she swings for the bridge of the nose. I can respect that.
She has many, many flaws and wouldnt be a good president - but I do like that she is willing to take on the Big Banks and bad trade deals.[/quote]
Yeah I’ll agree with this. I really, really dislike her. But to quote a great American songwriter she “moves hard to the left and strikes to the face”. And I really respect people that don’t play games. It’s one reason, as much as he made incredibly bad moves as POTUS, that I liked GWB. Not politics per se although of course I do lean to the right of center (as I said he made a lot of bonehead moves and some terrible judgement calls), but you for the most part could tell where he stood in his convictions whether it was popular or not.
Many people, including myself, have said the republican field is weak. But it’s probably a better list of candidates than last time, IMO. Baby steps I suppose.[/quote]
Agreed for the most part, except Carson. Again, he gives good speeches, but I’d not vote for him. Couldn’t be happier about the way he bitch slapped Obama at the breakfast, and enjoyed his name in the news to remind people of that, but his political chops make Biden look like Jefferson. If he’s smart, he takes what he has left of a reputation (Jesus were those comments on gay people moronic for anyone let alone a brain surgeon) and parlays it into a speaking gig for the next decade or so.
RE: Liz Warren. She scares the living shit out of me, so it’s nice to hear she isn’t getting much traction outside the far left. I’ll take Hillary over her, Biden over her, and a 3rd term for Obama over her. [/quote]
Yeah, Carson…man that made me want to vomit. That’s one of the dumbest smart person moves I’ve ever seen in politics. He needs to get out. And thunderbolt is dead right: the fact that he’s 4th in popularity is a terrible omen for the GOP field.
[quote]treco wrote:
I don’t think any woman should be President (or CEO, Queen, etc) They aren’t hardwired for it.
source: Virtually every society, worldwide since recorded time.
And before you jump all over me as misogynist, who is the leader in your own household?
Flame away.[/quote]
Never trust anyone who gets half the money and keeps all the pussy.
And thunderbolt is dead right: the fact that he’s 4th in popularity is a terrible omen for the GOP field.[/quote]
And this is a very tendency and very, very bad problem that resides in the “conservative movement”: if someone - basically anyone - shows up and offers up some bumper sticker lines in some public place - “Obama is a socialist tyrant and anyone who disagrees needs to to read the damn constitution!” - that person is immediately anointed as a candidate for very high office. And that’s it.
Witness Carson. He makes a dig at the National Prayer Breakfast, and instantly - instantly - he is in the conversation to run for president among the “conservative movement.” One remark. He becomes a de facto candidate, functions as a representative of the movement, gets into more public space and talks and flames out as someone not even suited to run for dogcatcher. Too late, though - the damage is done.
And he wins fourth at CPAC!
And those within the “conservative movement” still can’t quite figure out why they can’t win national elections these days.
President’s Party since 1860:
1861-1865: R
1865-1869: D
1869-1885: R
1885-1889: D
1889-1893: R
1893-1897: D
1897-1913: R
1913-1921: D
1921-1933: R
1933-1953: D
1953-1961: R
1961-1969: D
1969-1977: R
1977-1981: D
1981-1993: R
1993-2001: D
2001-2009: R
2009-2017: D
With all the back-and-forth between the parties in the last 150+ years, I bet the country has hardly changed, right? A Republican has been President for 88 years; a Democrat will have been President for 68 years.
If you are a Democrat, do you blame the Republican presidents for the problems you see in this country? If you are a Republican, do you blame the Democrat presidents for the problems you see in this country? If you are an “independent,” do you blame both parties for the problems you see in this country?
*Regardless of your party affiliation, I have total faith that the next election will be the one that really makes a difference…well either it, or the one after it…or maybe the one following that one…just make sure to put your stamp of approval on whoever is elected.
With all the back-and-forth between the parties in the last 150+ years, I bet the country has hardly changed, right?
[/quote]
While I understand the point you want to make, I think you’re over-simplifying it.
Given your ideology, I’m pretty sure you’d say the nation is quite a bit different now when compared to just a century ago.[/quote]
It certainly has, and that shows that it does not matter who controls the presidency. The two parties have split the presidency pretty evenly since Lincoln, and it’s obvious that Presidents don’t get rid of the shit passed by the other party.
If you don’t like the President’s party, just wait awhile and it will change-just don’t expect much change that matters.
[quote]treco wrote:
I don’t think any woman should be President (or CEO, Queen, etc) They aren’t hardwired for it.
source: Virtually every society, worldwide since recorded time.
And before you jump all over me as misogynist, who is the leader in your own household?
Flame away.[/quote]
There are probably more men hardwired for it than women. It’s wrong to say there are no women hardwired for top leadership positions, though. Some really are, just not at the same rate as men.
I don’t think your statement makes you a misogynist, I think it means you just haven’t been exposed to these type of women in your own life.
It certainly has, and that shows that it does not matter who controls the presidency. The two parties have split the presidency pretty evenly since Lincoln, and it’s obvious that Presidents don’t get rid of the shit passed by the other party.
If you don’t like the President’s party, just wait awhile and it will change-just don’t expect much change that matters.[/quote]
I don’t think that’s quite fair.
A Democrat president, for example, probably would have handled reconstruction quite a bit more differently than a Republican. Heck, it’s pretty certain that if McClellan won against Lincoln in 1864, then slavery probably wouldn’t have been abolished. The Confederacy may very well have survived.
As for presidents not changing the works of their predecessors- That’s largely because of how evenly split the power is between the two main parties.
[quote]magick wrote:
As for presidents not changing the works of their predecessors- That’s largely because of how evenly split the power is between the two main parties.[/quote]
Is it? How do their predecessors manage to pass those works to begin with? It’s awfully strange that one party can get a lot of things done when in power, but the opposite party can almost never undo those things when it’s in power.
To address your comment about POSSIBLE differences between Lincoln’s presidency and a hypothetical McClellan presidency: What if’s are fun, but they don’t carry much weight. What if nobody had voted in the presidential election of 1860?
A Democrat president, for example, probably would have handled reconstruction quite a bit more differently than a Republican. Heck, it’s pretty certain that if McClellan won against Lincoln in 1864, then slavery probably wouldn’t have been abolished. The Confederacy may very well have survived.
As for presidents not changing the works of their predecessors- That’s largely because of how evenly split the power is between the two main parties.[/quote]
I agree that a Democrat would have handled Reconstruction differently, but a thorough examination of history would cast doubt on your 13th Amendment scenario.
Lincoln had issued with Emancipation Proclamation well prior to the election of 1864, although it is important to note that it (the Proclamation) really didn’t free anybody for the most part, and also that there is NO direct Executive Branch role in the constitutional amendment process. In fact, it was essentially northern congressman who spearheaded and pushed the effort through Congress, and most of that work was done prior to the President taking office for his second term in March 1865 (this was prior to the present inauguration that now occurs in JAN). But even had it been McClellan, it was essentially pushing through Congress throughout 1864, and ratified by Congress (this is step #1 in the amendment process) literally before the end of Lincoln’s first term (Lincoln did sign it as a formality, but it was just that - the POTUS has zero legal role in the amending process).
The 13th Amendment made it through the requisite number of state legislatures later that year (1865), and likely would have done so with or without Lincoln in office, because it had long since been ratified by Congress. There were enough northern and western states to get the 3/4 requirement for ratification without the immediate ratification on the part of a few renegade southern states, some of which ratified the amendment later on.
Lincoln had issued with Emancipation Proclamation well prior to the election of 1864, although it is important to note that it (the Proclamation) really didn’t free anybody for the most part, and also that there is NO direct Executive Branch role in the constitutional amendment process. In fact, it was essentially northern congressman who spearheaded and pushed the effort through Congress, and most of that work was done prior to the President taking office for his second term in March 1865 (this was prior to the present inauguration that now occurs in JAN). But even had it been McClellan, it was essentially pushing through Congress throughout 1864, and ratified by Congress (this is step #1 in the amendment process) literally before the end of Lincoln’s first term (Lincoln did sign it as a formality, but it was just that - the POTUS has zero legal role in the amending process).
[/quote]
But if McClellan won in Nov., would the necessary Democrat votes have come? Or, to be more precise, would the Republicans have had enough spirit and will to do the work to push the amendment through?
The point I wanted to make is that a Democrat victory in the 1864 election would have profoundly changed the mood in government.
This is similar to what “may” (as Nickviar rightly points out- what ifs? are fun but ultimately pointless exercises; but they’re fun and I’ll continue doing them) have happened if Truman lost the 1948 election. The Republicans became significantly more anti-communist (and supported McCarthy so strongly largely because the White House was in Democrat hands) because of the defeat. If Dewey won the office, we don’t know what would have happened in the 50s.
