# Angry Conservative



## BuckToothMoron

I am an angry conservative, and I can see  there is a similar outrage being manifested on the other side as well. Voters of both political ilk are showing real disdain for their respective establishment leaders. Frankly, I will not vote for any candidate, but rather most certainly against either Clinton or Cruz...NO C's for me. And there just might be a way to keep both the awful C's out. 

If the republicans disregard the clear choice candidate per the primaries they will definitely lose in November. Voters like me, and especially those who actually ballyhoo Trump for president wIll refuse to vote for anybody but Trump. We will either not vote, perhaps childishly cut off our nose and vote for the Dem, or (this is my preference) support a Third party run by the Trumpster. Remember, I am no Trumpite, but I am sick of the worn out joke of a party, the Gop. As a note- I would discourage anyone from being loyal to any party in lieu of being true to your own dogma. 

So the conventional wisdom is that no 3rd party candidate can win, but we are already sailing a political ark in a sea like no other. Trump is 50% ahead of Cruz, his mouth is a boiling cauldron of vile, putrid muck, and the steamy ejects always land and sear his opponents. The closer the opponent is to the Republican establishment the more he is seared. Jeb-gone! Rubio tripped on his own tongue trying to avoid the scalding ejections. He's out! The armored suit Cruz built by calling Mitch "the ditch" McConnell a liar on the senate floor protects him, but does not allow him to advance. And John Kasich is a little gnat that merely survives by being to small to hit.

But Trump can't win with Only the support of disgruntled conservatives, so look around the corner and down the street. There you will find another group who has had it with what their party is shoving down their throats. The Bernie folks hate Clinton the way Trumpsters hate the Republicans. Short of an indictment, these guys will have to vote for Clinton, not vote, or ( my preference) support a third party canidate. 

If Trump would wage a third party candidacy and ask Bernie to VP the ticket they could win, and in the process redraw the political lines. They can manufacture a platform to draw all people who hate the establishment. 

Will somebody get these two guys in a room?


----------



## TheOldSchool

Trump should reform the Bull Moose party


----------



## Cecilie1200

BuckToothMoron said:


> I am an angry conservative, and I can see  there is a similar outrage being manifested on the other side as well. Voters of both political ilk are showing real disdain for their respective establishment leaders. Frankly, I will not vote for any candidate, but rather most certainly against either Clinton or Cruz...NO C's for me. And there just might be a way to keep both the awful C's out.
> 
> If the republicans disregard the clear choice candidate per the primaries they will definitely lose in November. Voters like me, and especially those who actually ballyhoo Trump for president wIll refuse to vote for anybody but Trump. We will either not vote, perhaps childishly cut off our nose and vote for the Dem, or (this is my preference) support a Third party run by the Trumpster. Remember, I am no Trumpite, but I am sick of the worn out joke of a party, the Gop. As a note- I would discourage anyone from being loyal to any party in lieu of being true to your own dogma.
> 
> So the conventional wisdom is that no 3rd party candidate can win, but we are already sailing a political ark in a sea like no other. Trump is 50% ahead of Cruz, his mouth is a boiling cauldron of vile, putrid muck, and the steamy ejects always land and sear his opponents. The closer the opponent is to the Republican establishment the more he is seared. Jeb-gone! Rubio tripped on his own tongue trying to avoid the scalding ejections. He's out! The armored suit Cruz built by calling Mitch "the ditch" McConnell a liar on the senate floor protects him, but does not allow him to advance. And John Kasich is a little gnat that merely survives by being to small to hit.
> 
> But Trump can't win with Only the support of disgruntled conservatives, so look around the corner and down the street. There you will find another group who has had it with what their party is shoving down their throats. The Bernie folks hate Clinton the way Trumpsters hate the Republicans. Short of an indictment, these guys will have to vote for Clinton, not vote, or ( my preference) support a third party canidate.
> 
> If Trump would wage a third party candidacy and ask Bernie to VP the ticket they could win, and in the process redraw the political lines. They can manufacture a platform to draw all people who hate the establishment.
> 
> Will somebody get these two guys in a room?



Well, at least you chose the right screen name for yourself.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

"The Bernie folks hate Clinton the way Trumpsters hate the Republicans."

Wrong.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

"If Trump would wage a third party candidacy and ask Bernie to VP..."

Idiocy.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

"I am an angry conservative..."

You’re a ridiculous conservative – which is likely redundant.


----------



## Two Thumbs

trump with bern makes good sense

since neither is a conservative
neither understand the economy
neither know history, or do now it and want the worst to repeat

the only con running is Cruz and no liberals are running for the dems


----------



## Harry Dresden

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> "I am an angry conservative..."
> 
> You’re a ridiculous conservative – which is likely redundant.


shut the fuck up jones....your a pussy who has never replied to anyone.....that makes you a scared left winger....


----------



## BuckToothMoron

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> "I am an angry conservative..."
> 
> You’re a ridiculous conservative – which is likely redundant.


Hmm, I guess I confused this board with one that has intelligent comments and debates instead of thoughtless name calling.


----------



## BuckToothMoron

Two Thumbs said:


> trump with bern makes good sense
> 
> since neither is a conservative
> neither understand the economy
> neither know history, or do now it and want the worst to repeat
> 
> the only con running is Cruz and no liberals are running for the dems



I agree that neither is a conservative nor understand the economy. But I would offer that is true with every canidate left. My hope is we can alter the status quo by replacing the tired established leaders and open new debates.


----------



## BuckToothMoron

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> "If Trump would wage a third party candidacy and ask Bernie to VP..."
> 
> Idiocy.


Thank you for that well thought out and in depth analysis, I guess I can start watching Fox News and MSNBC now.


----------



## BuckToothMoron

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> "If Trump would wage a third party candidacy and ask Bernie to VP..."
> 
> Idiocy.



Can I ask who you will be voting for and why?


----------



## Cecilie1200

BuckToothMoron said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> "I am an angry conservative..."
> 
> You’re a ridiculous conservative – which is likely redundant.
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm, I guess I confused this board with one that has intelligent comments and debates instead of thoughtless name calling.
Click to expand...


I'm sorry, you thought, "I'm ANGRY!  My anger makes me valid!" was going to constitute an intelligent comment?

Admittedly, CC is among our most incoherent posters, but ranting on about your "very important" anger isn't exactly impressive, either.


----------



## Cecilie1200

BuckToothMoron said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> trump with bern makes good sense
> 
> since neither is a conservative
> neither understand the economy
> neither know history, or do now it and want the worst to repeat
> 
> the only con running is Cruz and no liberals are running for the dems
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree that neither is a conservative nor understand the economy. But I would offer that is true with every canidate left. My hope is we can alter the status quo by replacing the tired established leaders and open new debates.
Click to expand...


Really?  You would offer that Cruz and Kasich don't understand the economy?  And you base that assertion on what evidence?

"Alter the status quo"?  To what?  How?  How do you know that will be the result?

Smashing the system just to be smashing it is never a good thing.  You have to have a plan for what happens next.  What's yours?


----------



## BuckToothMoron

Cecilie1200 said:


> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> trump with bern makes good sense
> 
> since neither is a conservative
> neither understand the economy
> neither know history, or do now it and want the worst to repeat
> 
> the only con running is Cruz and no liberals are running for the dems
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree that neither is a conservative nor understand the economy. But I would offer that is true with every canidate left. My hope is we can alter the status quo by replacing the tired established leaders and open new debates.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?  You would offer that Cruz and Kasich don't understand the economy?  And you base that assertion on what evidence?
> 
> "Alter the status quo"?  To what?  How?  How do you know that will be the result?
> 
> Smashing the system just to be smashing it is never a good thing.  You have to have a plan for what happens next.  What's yours?
Click to expand...




Cecilie1200 said:


> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> trump with bern makes good sense
> 
> since neither is a conservative
> neither understand the economy
> neither know history, or do now it and want the worst to repeat
> 
> the only con running is Cruz and no liberals are running for the dems
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree that neither is a conservative nor understand the economy. But I would offer that is true with every canidate left. My hope is we can alter the status quo by replacing the tired established leaders and open new debates.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?  You would offer that Cruz and Kasich don't understand the economy?  And you base that assertion on what evidence?
> 
> "Alter the status quo"?  To what?  How?  How do you know that will be the result?
> 
> Smashing the system just to be smashing it is never a good thing.  You have to have a plan for what happens next.  What's yours?
Click to expand...


I will try to address your pertinent comments and questions. First, you say that smashing the system is never a good thing. I didn't suggest smashing the system. I am tired of the current political leaders and ripping their power does not constitute smashing the system. Try to think with a bit of nuance rather than extreme radicalism. Secondly, I suggested NONE of the candidates really inderstand the economy, and I would ask you to provide evidence to the contrary. Thirdly, you asked how to alter the status quo. I'm sorry, I thought it was obvious that electing a Trump/Kasich ticket would clearly alter the status quo since most people would say Trump is not a true Republican and Bernie only caucuses with The Dems because there is no viable party farther left. Finally you wrote "you have to have a plan for what happens next". Really? Nobody knows what will happen next, but if you have some scenarios in mind I would be happy to discuss them. 

My point is that Trump and Bernie represent a large fraction of voters who feel betrayed and disenfranchised by the current political leaders, and by electing them we could open new lines of communication and debate.


----------



## Cecilie1200

BuckToothMoron said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> trump with bern makes good sense
> 
> since neither is a conservative
> neither understand the economy
> neither know history, or do now it and want the worst to repeat
> 
> the only con running is Cruz and no liberals are running for the dems
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree that neither is a conservative nor understand the economy. But I would offer that is true with every canidate left. My hope is we can alter the status quo by replacing the tired established leaders and open new debates.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?  You would offer that Cruz and Kasich don't understand the economy?  And you base that assertion on what evidence?
> 
> "Alter the status quo"?  To what?  How?  How do you know that will be the result?
> 
> Smashing the system just to be smashing it is never a good thing.  You have to have a plan for what happens next.  What's yours?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> trump with bern makes good sense
> 
> since neither is a conservative
> neither understand the economy
> neither know history, or do now it and want the worst to repeat
> 
> the only con running is Cruz and no liberals are running for the dems
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree that neither is a conservative nor understand the economy. But I would offer that is true with every canidate left. My hope is we can alter the status quo by replacing the tired established leaders and open new debates.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?  You would offer that Cruz and Kasich don't understand the economy?  And you base that assertion on what evidence?
> 
> "Alter the status quo"?  To what?  How?  How do you know that will be the result?
> 
> Smashing the system just to be smashing it is never a good thing.  You have to have a plan for what happens next.  What's yours?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I will try to address your pertinent comments and questions. First, you say that smashing the system is never a good thing. I didn't suggest smashing the system. I am tired of the current political leaders and ripping their power does not constitute smashing the system. Try to think with a bit of nuance rather than extreme radicalism. Secondly, I suggested NONE of the candidates really inderstand the economy, and I would ask you to provide evidence to the contrary. Thirdly, you asked how to alter the status quo. I'm sorry, I thought it was obvious that electing a Trump/Kasich ticket would clearly alter the status quo since most people would say Trump is not a true Republican and Bernie only caucuses with The Dems because there is no viable party farther left. Finally you wrote "you have to have a plan for what happens next". Really? Nobody knows what will happen next, but if you have some scenarios in mind I would be happy to discuss them.
> 
> My point is that Trump and Bernie represent a large fraction of voters who feel betrayed and disenfranchised by the current political leaders, and by electing them we could open new lines of communication and debate.
Click to expand...


Okay, first of all, you're very much suggesting smashing the system.  Delude yourself all you want, but that's what Trump's candidacy is all about.  I'm not even going to touch the laughable notion of "nuance" in regards to Donald Trump.

Second of all, YOU made the statement.  It is not MY job to prove or disprove YOUR statement.  If you can't back it up, then issue a retraction.  If you want to stand by it, then get on substantiating it, or you've _de facto_ retracted it and admitted to being full of shit, anyway.  Your choice.  Believe me, this probably the gentlest you're going to be told on this board that "I said it, YOU prove me wrong" won't fly . . . no matter what the political proclivities of the poster you're talking to.

Third, I sincerely doubt Kasich has any interest in being in any way associated with Donald Trump.

Fourth, I didn't ask you to tell me what's "obvious" to you, nor did I ask for, "Just elect Donald, and it will make all my dreams come true!  You'll see!"  Specifics, hon.  EXACTLY what do you intend to build in place of the system you rail against, and how?  "Let's just elect someone who says he'll be different" is crap.

You don't have to know what will happen next, but you DO have to have a plan for what you intend to accomplish and how.  Contingency provisions are also a good idea.  The military will tell you that no battle plan ever survives contact with the enemy, but notice that they don't just invade willy-nilly.

MY point is "Let's just make it different!  Let's elect these guys, and see what happens!" is imbecilic and childish.


----------



## Dhara

Wow.  Serious intro thread.


----------



## BuckToothMoron

Cecilie1200 said:


> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> trump with bern makes good sense
> 
> since neither is a conservative
> neither understand the economy
> neither know history, or do now it and want the worst to repeat
> 
> the only con running is Cruz and no liberals are running for the dems
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree that neither is a conservative nor understand the economy. But I would offer that is true with every canidate left. My hope is we can alter the status quo by replacing the tired established leaders and open new debates.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?  You would offer that Cruz and Kasich don't understand the economy?  And you base that assertion on what evidence?
> 
> "Alter the status quo"?  To what?  How?  How do you know that will be the result?
> 
> Smashing the system just to be smashing it is never a good thing.  You have to have a plan for what happens next.  What's yours?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> trump with bern makes good sense
> 
> since neither is a conservative
> neither understand the economy
> neither know history, or do now it and want the worst to repeat
> 
> the only con running is Cruz and no liberals are running for the dems
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree that neither is a conservative nor understand the economy. But I would offer that is true with every canidate left. My hope is we can alter the status quo by replacing the tired established leaders and open new debates.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?  You would offer that Cruz and Kasich don't understand the economy?  And you base that assertion on what evidence?
> 
> "Alter the status quo"?  To what?  How?  How do you know that will be the result?
> 
> Smashing the system just to be smashing it is never a good thing.  You have to have a plan for what happens next.  What's yours?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I will try to address your pertinent comments and questions. First, you say that smashing the system is never a good thing. I didn't suggest smashing the system. I am tired of the current political leaders and ripping their power does not constitute smashing the system. Try to think with a bit of nuance rather than extreme radicalism. Secondly, I suggested NONE of the candidates really inderstand the economy, and I would ask you to provide evidence to the contrary. Thirdly, you asked how to alter the status quo. I'm sorry, I thought it was obvious that electing a Trump/Kasich ticket would clearly alter the status quo since most people would say Trump is not a true Republican and Bernie only caucuses with The Dems because there is no viable party farther left. Finally you wrote "you have to have a plan for what happens next". Really? Nobody knows what will happen next, but if you have some scenarios in mind I would be happy to discuss them.
> 
> My point is that Trump and Bernie represent a large fraction of voters who feel betrayed and disenfranchised by the current political leaders, and by electing them we could open new lines of communication and debate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay, first of all, you're very much suggesting smashing the system.  Delude yourself all you want, but that's what Trump's candidacy is all about.  I'm not even going to touch the laughable notion of "nuance" in regards to Donald Trump.
> 
> Second of all, YOU made the statement.  It is not MY job to prove or disprove YOUR statement.  If you can't back it up, then issue a retraction.  If you want to stand by it, then get on substantiating it, or you've _de facto_ retracted it and admitted to being full of shit, anyway.  Your choice.  Believe me, this probably the gentlest you're going to be told on this board that "I said it, YOU prove me wrong" won't fly . . . no matter what the political proclivities of the poster you're talking to.
> 
> Third, I sincerely doubt Kasich has any interest in being in any way associated with Donald Trump.
> 
> Fourth, I didn't ask you to tell me what's "obvious" to you, nor did I ask for, "Just elect Donald, and it will make all my dreams come true!  You'll see!"  Specifics, hon.  EXACTLY what do you intend to build in place of the system you rail against, and how?  "Let's just elect someone who says he'll be different" is crap.
> 
> You don't have to know what will happen next, but you DO have to have a plan for what you intend to accomplish and how.  Contingency provisions are also a good idea.  The military will tell you that no battle plan ever survives contact with the enemy, but notice that they don't just invade willy-nilly.
> 
> MY point is "Let's just make it different!  Let's elect these guys, and see what happens!" is imbecilic and childish.
Click to expand...


Smashing the the system is your characterization of electing a non-typical canidate as a 3rd party canidate. If in your mind that is smashing the system then we will have to accept that we have a different view on what constitutes smashing the system.  

With regard to Kasich and Cruz understanding the economy- Economics is a highly complex system, most major universities offer PHDs in Economics because it is so complex. It is a soft science with relatively few natural laws compared to a hard science. Neither Cruz nor Kasich have any significant education in economics. If either were elected president they would rely on a bevy of real economist for advice and information, cause an effect etc. 

When did I suggest that Kasish would want to have anything to do with Trump? I suggested that Bernie run as Trumps VP, however if I inadvertently used Kasish instead of Bernie, it was a mistake on my part, and I apologize.

 In your previous post you used quotation marks as if they were my words. 
I never posted "let's just make it different, lets elect these guys and see what happens". If you want to have an honest and mature debate/discussion I will engage, so please have the decency not to suggest your words are mine and I will do the same.


----------



## Votto

BuckToothMoron said:


> I am an angry conservative, and I can see  there is a similar outrage being manifested on the other side as well. Voters of both political ilk are showing real disdain for their respective establishment leaders. Frankly, I will not vote for any candidate, but rather most certainly against either Clinton or Cruz...NO C's for me. And there just might be a way to keep both the awful C's out.
> 
> If the republicans disregard the clear choice candidate per the primaries they will definitely lose in November. Voters like me, and especially those who actually ballyhoo Trump for president wIll refuse to vote for anybody but Trump. We will either not vote, perhaps childishly cut off our nose and vote for the Dem, or (this is my preference) support a Third party run by the Trumpster. Remember, I am no Trumpite, but I am sick of the worn out joke of a party, the Gop. As a note- I would discourage anyone from being loyal to any party in lieu of being true to your own dogma.
> 
> So the conventional wisdom is that no 3rd party candidate can win, but we are already sailing a political ark in a sea like no other. Trump is 50% ahead of Cruz, his mouth is a boiling cauldron of vile, putrid muck, and the steamy ejects always land and sear his opponents. The closer the opponent is to the Republican establishment the more he is seared. Jeb-gone! Rubio tripped on his own tongue trying to avoid the scalding ejections. He's out! The armored suit Cruz built by calling Mitch "the ditch" McConnell a liar on the senate floor protects him, but does not allow him to advance. And John Kasich is a little gnat that merely survives by being to small to hit.
> 
> But Trump can't win with Only the support of disgruntled conservatives, so look around the corner and down the street. There you will find another group who has had it with what their party is shoving down their throats. The Bernie folks hate Clinton the way Trumpsters hate the Republicans. Short of an indictment, these guys will have to vote for Clinton, not vote, or ( my preference) support a third party canidate.
> 
> If Trump would wage a third party candidacy and ask Bernie to VP the ticket they could win, and in the process redraw the political lines. They can manufacture a platform to draw all people who hate the establishment.
> 
> Will somebody get these two guys in a room?



Donald has already become a third party candidate, even if he does not go third party.

Your post confirms this.

Enjoy Hillary as President.  Trump is in love with her anyway.


----------



## Cecilie1200

BuckToothMoron said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> trump with bern makes good sense
> 
> since neither is a conservative
> neither understand the economy
> neither know history, or do now it and want the worst to repeat
> 
> the only con running is Cruz and no liberals are running for the dems
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree that neither is a conservative nor understand the economy. But I would offer that is true with every canidate left. My hope is we can alter the status quo by replacing the tired established leaders and open new debates.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?  You would offer that Cruz and Kasich don't understand the economy?  And you base that assertion on what evidence?
> 
> "Alter the status quo"?  To what?  How?  How do you know that will be the result?
> 
> Smashing the system just to be smashing it is never a good thing.  You have to have a plan for what happens next.  What's yours?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> trump with bern makes good sense
> 
> since neither is a conservative
> neither understand the economy
> neither know history, or do now it and want the worst to repeat
> 
> the only con running is Cruz and no liberals are running for the dems
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree that neither is a conservative nor understand the economy. But I would offer that is true with every canidate left. My hope is we can alter the status quo by replacing the tired established leaders and open new debates.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?  You would offer that Cruz and Kasich don't understand the economy?  And you base that assertion on what evidence?
> 
> "Alter the status quo"?  To what?  How?  How do you know that will be the result?
> 
> Smashing the system just to be smashing it is never a good thing.  You have to have a plan for what happens next.  What's yours?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I will try to address your pertinent comments and questions. First, you say that smashing the system is never a good thing. I didn't suggest smashing the system. I am tired of the current political leaders and ripping their power does not constitute smashing the system. Try to think with a bit of nuance rather than extreme radicalism. Secondly, I suggested NONE of the candidates really inderstand the economy, and I would ask you to provide evidence to the contrary. Thirdly, you asked how to alter the status quo. I'm sorry, I thought it was obvious that electing a Trump/Kasich ticket would clearly alter the status quo since most people would say Trump is not a true Republican and Bernie only caucuses with The Dems because there is no viable party farther left. Finally you wrote "you have to have a plan for what happens next". Really? Nobody knows what will happen next, but if you have some scenarios in mind I would be happy to discuss them.
> 
> My point is that Trump and Bernie represent a large fraction of voters who feel betrayed and disenfranchised by the current political leaders, and by electing them we could open new lines of communication and debate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay, first of all, you're very much suggesting smashing the system.  Delude yourself all you want, but that's what Trump's candidacy is all about.  I'm not even going to touch the laughable notion of "nuance" in regards to Donald Trump.
> 
> Second of all, YOU made the statement.  It is not MY job to prove or disprove YOUR statement.  If you can't back it up, then issue a retraction.  If you want to stand by it, then get on substantiating it, or you've _de facto_ retracted it and admitted to being full of shit, anyway.  Your choice.  Believe me, this probably the gentlest you're going to be told on this board that "I said it, YOU prove me wrong" won't fly . . . no matter what the political proclivities of the poster you're talking to.
> 
> Third, I sincerely doubt Kasich has any interest in being in any way associated with Donald Trump.
> 
> Fourth, I didn't ask you to tell me what's "obvious" to you, nor did I ask for, "Just elect Donald, and it will make all my dreams come true!  You'll see!"  Specifics, hon.  EXACTLY what do you intend to build in place of the system you rail against, and how?  "Let's just elect someone who says he'll be different" is crap.
> 
> You don't have to know what will happen next, but you DO have to have a plan for what you intend to accomplish and how.  Contingency provisions are also a good idea.  The military will tell you that no battle plan ever survives contact with the enemy, but notice that they don't just invade willy-nilly.
> 
> MY point is "Let's just make it different!  Let's elect these guys, and see what happens!" is imbecilic and childish.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Smashing the the system is your characterization of electing a non-typical canidate as a 3rd party canidate. If in your mind that is smashing the system then we will have to accept that we have a different view on what constitutes smashing the system.
Click to expand...


No, smashing the system is my observation of what Trump and his followers themselves characterize what they're doing.  Have you not been paying attention all this time?



BuckToothMoron said:


> With regard to Kasich and Cruz understanding the economy- Economics is a highly complex system, most major universities offer PHDs in Economics because it is so complex. It is a soft science with relatively few natural laws compared to a hard science. Neither Cruz nor Kasich have any significant education in economics. If either were elected president they would rely on a bevy of real economist for advice and information, cause an effect etc.



Thanks for the backpedaling, temporizing, and word-parsing.  Now that you're done inadequately trying to CYA and walk back your attacks, let me point out that you did not say, "Cruz and Kasich don't have degrees in economics, they'll hire economists to work for them".  You said, "Neither understand the economy".  Repeatedly.  You then followed up with, "None of the candidates understand the economy."  There is a difference.  No one has ever suggested that either Cruz or Kasich has a degree in economics, or that it is their field of expertise, or that they intend to rely only on their own knowledge and expertise in that area.  Donald Trump, on the other hand, HAS suggested that being rich makes him an economic expert, and that he WILL rely primarily on his own "good brain" and self-advice.

Nevertheless, one does not have to be an economist to have a general grounding in and understanding of basic economics and how it does and should intersect with the government.  I can't speak for Kasich, because I find him utterly uninteresting, but I can tell you that Ted Cruz DOES have that understanding.  He also has the necessary understanding and wisdom to choose economic advisers who are not talking out their ivory-tower, never-worked-in-the-real-world, I-have-a-great-theory asses.



BuckToothMoron said:


> When did I suggest that Kasish would want to have anything to do with Trump? I suggested that Bernie run as Trumps VP, however if I inadvertently used Kasish instead of Bernie, it was a mistake on my part, and I apologize.



You did, in fact, say Trump/Kasich.  But I sincerely doubt that Bernie Sanders wants anything to do with Trump, either.



BuckToothMoron said:


> In your previous post you used quotation marks as if they were my words.
> I never posted "let's just make it different, lets elect these guys and see what happens". If you want to have an honest and mature debate/discussion I will engage, so please have the decency not to suggest your words are mine and I will do the same.



Quotation marks do not just signify direct quotes.  They also serve to indicate paraphrases and irony.  If you want to have an honest and mature debate/discussion, you're going to have to learn not to project your limited grammatical skills, laced with butthurt, onto me.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Votto said:


> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am an angry conservative, and I can see  there is a similar outrage being manifested on the other side as well. Voters of both political ilk are showing real disdain for their respective establishment leaders. Frankly, I will not vote for any candidate, but rather most certainly against either Clinton or Cruz...NO C's for me. And there just might be a way to keep both the awful C's out.
> 
> If the republicans disregard the clear choice candidate per the primaries they will definitely lose in November. Voters like me, and especially those who actually ballyhoo Trump for president wIll refuse to vote for anybody but Trump. We will either not vote, perhaps childishly cut off our nose and vote for the Dem, or (this is my preference) support a Third party run by the Trumpster. Remember, I am no Trumpite, but I am sick of the worn out joke of a party, the Gop. As a note- I would discourage anyone from being loyal to any party in lieu of being true to your own dogma.
> 
> So the conventional wisdom is that no 3rd party candidate can win, but we are already sailing a political ark in a sea like no other. Trump is 50% ahead of Cruz, his mouth is a boiling cauldron of vile, putrid muck, and the steamy ejects always land and sear his opponents. The closer the opponent is to the Republican establishment the more he is seared. Jeb-gone! Rubio tripped on his own tongue trying to avoid the scalding ejections. He's out! The armored suit Cruz built by calling Mitch "the ditch" McConnell a liar on the senate floor protects him, but does not allow him to advance. And John Kasich is a little gnat that merely survives by being to small to hit.
> 
> But Trump can't win with Only the support of disgruntled conservatives, so look around the corner and down the street. There you will find another group who has had it with what their party is shoving down their throats. The Bernie folks hate Clinton the way Trumpsters hate the Republicans. Short of an indictment, these guys will have to vote for Clinton, not vote, or ( my preference) support a third party canidate.
> 
> If Trump would wage a third party candidacy and ask Bernie to VP the ticket they could win, and in the process redraw the political lines. They can manufacture a platform to draw all people who hate the establishment.
> 
> Will somebody get these two guys in a room?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Donald has already become a third party candidate, even if he does not go third party.
> 
> Your post confirms this.
> 
> Enjoy Hillary as President.  Trump is in love with her anyway.
Click to expand...


The _Washington Post_ even ran an article revealing that Donald Trump decided to announce his candidacy after talking to Bill Clinton (although they have since deleted said article from their website).  I have no doubt whatsoever that if Trump were to become President - God help us all - it wouldn't be long before we'd see the Clintons visiting the White House for cozy little chats and nights in the Lincoln Bedroom.


----------



## BuckToothMoron

Votto said:


> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am an angry conservative, and I can see  there is a similar outrage being manifested on the other side as well. Voters of both political ilk are showing real disdain for their respective establishment leaders. Frankly, I will not vote for any candidate, but rather most certainly against either Clinton or Cruz...NO C's for me. And there just might be a way to keep both the awful C's out.
> 
> If the republicans disregard the clear choice candidate per the primaries they will definitely lose in November. Voters like me, and especially those who actually ballyhoo Trump for president wIll refuse to vote for anybody but Trump. We will either not vote, perhaps childishly cut off our nose and vote for the Dem, or (this is my preference) support a Third party run by the Trumpster. Remember, I am no Trumpite, but I am sick of the worn out joke of a party, the Gop. As a note- I would discourage anyone from being loyal to any party in lieu of being true to your own dogma.
> 
> So the conventional wisdom is that no 3rd party candidate can win, but we are already sailing a political ark in a sea like no other. Trump is 50% ahead of Cruz, his mouth is a boiling cauldron of vile, putrid muck, and the steamy ejects always land and sear his opponents. The closer the opponent is to the Republican establishment the more he is seared. Jeb-gone! Rubio tripped on his own tongue trying to avoid the scalding ejections. He's out! The armored suit Cruz built by calling Mitch "the ditch" McConnell a liar on the senate floor protects him, but does not allow him to advance. And John Kasich is a little gnat that merely survives by being to small to hit.
> 
> But Trump can't win with Only the support of disgruntled conservatives, so look around the corner and down the street. There you will find another group who has had it with what their party is shoving down their throats. The Bernie folks hate Clinton the way Trumpsters hate the Republicans. Short of an indictment, these guys will have to vote for Clinton, not vote, or ( my preference) support a third party canidate.
> 
> If Trump would wage a third party candidacy and ask Bernie to VP the ticket they could win, and in the process redraw the political lines. They can manufacture a platform to draw all people who hate the establishment.
> 
> Will somebody get these two guys in a room?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Donald has already become a third party candidate, even if he does not go third party.
> 
> Your post confirms this.
> 
> Enjoy Hillary as President.  Trump is in love with her anyway.
Click to expand...

I get your point that Trump is already a 3rd party canidate considering how he is treated by the established right, not exactly a warm embrace for the current delegate leader.


----------



## guno

*BuckToothMoron are you a southerner?*


----------



## BULLDOG




----------



## Cecilie1200

BuckToothMoron said:


> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am an angry conservative, and I can see  there is a similar outrage being manifested on the other side as well. Voters of both political ilk are showing real disdain for their respective establishment leaders. Frankly, I will not vote for any candidate, but rather most certainly against either Clinton or Cruz...NO C's for me. And there just might be a way to keep both the awful C's out.
> 
> If the republicans disregard the clear choice candidate per the primaries they will definitely lose in November. Voters like me, and especially those who actually ballyhoo Trump for president wIll refuse to vote for anybody but Trump. We will either not vote, perhaps childishly cut off our nose and vote for the Dem, or (this is my preference) support a Third party run by the Trumpster. Remember, I am no Trumpite, but I am sick of the worn out joke of a party, the Gop. As a note- I would discourage anyone from being loyal to any party in lieu of being true to your own dogma.
> 
> So the conventional wisdom is that no 3rd party candidate can win, but we are already sailing a political ark in a sea like no other. Trump is 50% ahead of Cruz, his mouth is a boiling cauldron of vile, putrid muck, and the steamy ejects always land and sear his opponents. The closer the opponent is to the Republican establishment the more he is seared. Jeb-gone! Rubio tripped on his own tongue trying to avoid the scalding ejections. He's out! The armored suit Cruz built by calling Mitch "the ditch" McConnell a liar on the senate floor protects him, but does not allow him to advance. And John Kasich is a little gnat that merely survives by being to small to hit.
> 
> But Trump can't win with Only the support of disgruntled conservatives, so look around the corner and down the street. There you will find another group who has had it with what their party is shoving down their throats. The Bernie folks hate Clinton the way Trumpsters hate the Republicans. Short of an indictment, these guys will have to vote for Clinton, not vote, or ( my preference) support a third party canidate.
> 
> If Trump would wage a third party candidacy and ask Bernie to VP the ticket they could win, and in the process redraw the political lines. They can manufacture a platform to draw all people who hate the establishment.
> 
> Will somebody get these two guys in a room?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Donald has already become a third party candidate, even if he does not go third party.
> 
> Your post confirms this.
> 
> Enjoy Hillary as President.  Trump is in love with her anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I get your point that Trump is already a 3rd party canidate considering how he is treated by the established right, not exactly a warm embrace for the current delegate leader.
Click to expand...


What, exactly, has the Establishment done to mistreat poor, sniveling Donny Boy, other than simply not being excited about being represented by him, in which opinion they are certainly not alone?


----------



## ClosedCaption

BuckToothMoron said:


> We will either not vote, perhaps childishly cut off our nose and vote for the Dem



What an apt characterization....Childishly accurately describes Trump supporters.  They only hate their party and have decided that they want to stick it to everyone by elevating a half way republican (for now) and whole fool


----------



## Votto

BuckToothMoron said:


> I am an angry conservative, and I can see  there is a similar outrage being manifested on the other side as well. Voters of both political ilk are showing real disdain for their respective establishment leaders. Frankly, I will not vote for any candidate, but rather most certainly against either Clinton or Cruz...NO C's for me. And there just might be a way to keep both the awful C's out.
> 
> If the republicans disregard the clear choice candidate per the primaries they will definitely lose in November. Voters like me, and especially those who actually ballyhoo Trump for president wIll refuse to vote for anybody but Trump. We will either not vote, perhaps childishly cut off our nose and vote for the Dem, or (this is my preference) support a Third party run by the Trumpster. Remember, I am no Trumpite, but I am sick of the worn out joke of a party, the Gop. As a note- I would discourage anyone from being loyal to any party in lieu of being true to your own dogma.
> 
> So the conventional wisdom is that no 3rd party candidate can win, but we are already sailing a political ark in a sea like no other. Trump is 50% ahead of Cruz, his mouth is a boiling cauldron of vile, putrid muck, and the steamy ejects always land and sear his opponents. The closer the opponent is to the Republican establishment the more he is seared. Jeb-gone! Rubio tripped on his own tongue trying to avoid the scalding ejections. He's out! The armored suit Cruz built by calling Mitch "the ditch" McConnell a liar on the senate floor protects him, but does not allow him to advance. And John Kasich is a little gnat that merely survives by being to small to hit.
> 
> But Trump can't win with Only the support of disgruntled conservatives, so look around the corner and down the street. There you will find another group who has had it with what their party is shoving down their throats. The Bernie folks hate Clinton the way Trumpsters hate the Republicans. Short of an indictment, these guys will have to vote for Clinton, not vote, or ( my preference) support a third party canidate.
> 
> If Trump would wage a third party candidacy and ask Bernie to VP the ticket they could win, and in the process redraw the political lines. They can manufacture a platform to draw all people who hate the establishment.
> 
> Will somebody get these two guys in a room?



Angry voter says Cruz is establishment even though he is virtually the only voice of dissention.

Angry voter votes for Trump who probably gave Hillary campaign money for her Presidential race cuz that's what you need to do in order to do business in the US of A.

Hilarious.


----------



## BuckToothMoron

Cecilie1200 said:


> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree that neither is a conservative nor understand the economy. But I would offer that is true with every canidate left. My hope is we can alter the status quo by replacing the tired established leaders and open new debates.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  You would offer that Cruz and Kasich don't understand the economy?  And you base that assertion on what evidence?
> 
> "Alter the status quo"?  To what?  How?  How do you know that will be the result?
> 
> Smashing the system just to be smashing it is never a good thing.  You have to have a plan for what happens next.  What's yours?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree that neither is a conservative nor understand the economy. But I would offer that is true with every canidate left. My hope is we can alter the status quo by replacing the tired established leaders and open new debates.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?  You would offer that Cruz and Kasich don't understand the economy?  And you base that assertion on what evidence?
> 
> "Alter the status quo"?  To what?  How?  How do you know that will be the result?
> 
> Smashing the system just to be smashing it is never a good thing.  You have to have a plan for what happens next.  What's yours?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I will try to address your pertinent comments and questions. First, you say that smashing the system is never a good thing. I didn't suggest smashing the system. I am tired of the current political leaders and ripping their power does not constitute smashing the system. Try to think with a bit of nuance rather than extreme radicalism. Secondly, I suggested NONE of the candidates really inderstand the economy, and I would ask you to provide evidence to the contrary. Thirdly, you asked how to alter the status quo. I'm sorry, I thought it was obvious that electing a Trump/Kasich ticket would clearly alter the status quo since most people would say Trump is not a true Republican and Bernie only caucuses with The Dems because there is no viable party farther left. Finally you wrote "you have to have a plan for what happens next". Really? Nobody knows what will happen next, but if you have some scenarios in mind I would be happy to discuss them.
> 
> My point is that Trump and Bernie represent a large fraction of voters who feel betrayed and disenfranchised by the current political leaders, and by electing them we could open new lines of communication and debate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay, first of all, you're very much suggesting smashing the system.  Delude yourself all you want, but that's what Trump's candidacy is all about.  I'm not even going to touch the laughable notion of "nuance" in regards to Donald Trump.
> 
> Second of all, YOU made the statement.  It is not MY job to prove or disprove YOUR statement.  If you can't back it up, then issue a retraction.  If you want to stand by it, then get on substantiating it, or you've _de facto_ retracted it and admitted to being full of shit, anyway.  Your choice.  Believe me, this probably the gentlest you're going to be told on this board that "I said it, YOU prove me wrong" won't fly . . . no matter what the political proclivities of the poster you're talking to.
> 
> Third, I sincerely doubt Kasich has any interest in being in any way associated with Donald Trump.
> 
> Fourth, I didn't ask you to tell me what's "obvious" to you, nor did I ask for, "Just elect Donald, and it will make all my dreams come true!  You'll see!"  Specifics, hon.  EXACTLY what do you intend to build in place of the system you rail against, and how?  "Let's just elect someone who says he'll be different" is crap.
> 
> You don't have to know what will happen next, but you DO have to have a plan for what you intend to accomplish and how.  Contingency provisions are also a good idea.  The military will tell you that no battle plan ever survives contact with the enemy, but notice that they don't just invade willy-nilly.
> 
> MY point is "Let's just make it different!  Let's elect these guys, and see what happens!" is imbecilic and childish.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Smashing the the system is your characterization of electing a non-typical canidate as a 3rd party canidate. If in your mind that is smashing the system then we will have to accept that we have a different view on what constitutes smashing the system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, smashing the system is my observation of what Trump and his followers themselves characterize what they're doing.  Have you not been paying attention all this time?
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> With regard to Kasich and Cruz understanding the economy- Economics is a highly complex system, most major universities offer PHDs in Economics because it is so complex. It is a soft science with relatively few natural laws compared to a hard science. Neither Cruz nor Kasich have any significant education in economics. If either were elected president they would rely on a bevy of real economist for advice and information, cause an effect etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks for the backpedaling, temporizing, and word-parsing.  Now that you're done inadequately trying to CYA and walk back your attacks, let me point out that you did not say, "Cruz and Kasich don't have degrees in economics, they'll hire economists to work for them".  You said, "Neither understand the economy".  Repeatedly.  You then followed up with, "None of the candidates understand the economy."  There is a difference.  No one has ever suggested that either Cruz or Kasich has a degree in economics, or that it is their field of expertise, or that they intend to rely only on their own knowledge and expertise in that area.  Donald Trump, on the other hand, HAS suggested that being rich makes him an economic expert, and that he WILL rely primarily on his own "good brain" and self-advice.
> 
> Nevertheless, one does not have to be an economist to have a general grounding in and understanding of basic economics and how it does and should intersect with the government.  I can't speak for Kasich, because I find him utterly uninteresting, but I can tell you that Ted Cruz DOES have that understanding.  He also has the necessary understanding and wisdom to choose economic advisers who are not talking out their ivory-tower, never-worked-in-the-real-world, I-have-a-great-theory asses.
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> When did I suggest that Kasish would want to have anything to do with Trump? I suggested that Bernie run as Trumps VP, however if I inadvertently used Kasish instead of Bernie, it was a mistake on my part, and I apologize.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You did, in fact, say Trump/Kasich.  But I sincerely doubt that Bernie Sanders wants anything to do with Trump, either.
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> In your previous post you used quotation marks as if they were my words.
> I never posted "let's just make it different, lets elect these guys and see what happens". If you want to have an honest and mature debate/discussion I will engage, so please have the decency not to suggest your words are mine and I will do the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Quotation marks do not just signify direct quotes.  They also serve to indicate paraphrases and irony.  If you want to have an honest and mature debate/discussion, you're going to have to learn not to project your limited grammatical skills, laced with butthurt, onto me.
Click to expand...


So can I assume you are a Cruz supporter, and that your liberal use of quotation marks is generally intended as irony. Sorry, I missed that context. 

My original post topic was a third party run by a Trump/Bernie ticket. I did in fact misstate in a later post Trump/Kasish. Sorry for that. 

You maybe right that Bernster wouldn't want to have anything to do with Trump, but you never know when you dangle a VPship in front of him. It would give him a larger platform to spew his socialistic views, and all these guys are major egomaniacs. And when you consider that nobody really knows what the Trumpsters real political agenda is (maybe somebody does, I certainly don't),  Bernie may think he can advance his agenda.

In regards to political leaders and there understanding of the economy in general- My view is that virtually all these candidates are less inclined to act in what they think is in the best interest of the country economically, but rather what is in their best interest politically. Sure, they all have some basic ideological platform Economically. Bernie and Hillary are clearly more socialistic and favor various degrees of wealth distribution and government control, Teddy is more free market based, restraint of government, and inclined to private sector. You can say they all have basic knowledge of economics and how it should or does intersect with government.  My opinion is they don't have a very deep understanding of cause and effect with regard to economic policy. Donald Trump is the only canidate to never vote to increase the staggering federal debt which is over $19 trillion, but I also assume the debt will likely increase under Trump or any other canidate who wins. 

I really would prefer to engage in a politically based discussion, and I am not here to try and make those with a different political view look silly or call them names. Am I in the wrong place?


----------



## Cecilie1200

BuckToothMoron said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  You would offer that Cruz and Kasich don't understand the economy?  And you base that assertion on what evidence?
> 
> "Alter the status quo"?  To what?  How?  How do you know that will be the result?
> 
> Smashing the system just to be smashing it is never a good thing.  You have to have a plan for what happens next.  What's yours?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  You would offer that Cruz and Kasich don't understand the economy?  And you base that assertion on what evidence?
> 
> "Alter the status quo"?  To what?  How?  How do you know that will be the result?
> 
> Smashing the system just to be smashing it is never a good thing.  You have to have a plan for what happens next.  What's yours?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I will try to address your pertinent comments and questions. First, you say that smashing the system is never a good thing. I didn't suggest smashing the system. I am tired of the current political leaders and ripping their power does not constitute smashing the system. Try to think with a bit of nuance rather than extreme radicalism. Secondly, I suggested NONE of the candidates really inderstand the economy, and I would ask you to provide evidence to the contrary. Thirdly, you asked how to alter the status quo. I'm sorry, I thought it was obvious that electing a Trump/Kasich ticket would clearly alter the status quo since most people would say Trump is not a true Republican and Bernie only caucuses with The Dems because there is no viable party farther left. Finally you wrote "you have to have a plan for what happens next". Really? Nobody knows what will happen next, but if you have some scenarios in mind I would be happy to discuss them.
> 
> My point is that Trump and Bernie represent a large fraction of voters who feel betrayed and disenfranchised by the current political leaders, and by electing them we could open new lines of communication and debate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay, first of all, you're very much suggesting smashing the system.  Delude yourself all you want, but that's what Trump's candidacy is all about.  I'm not even going to touch the laughable notion of "nuance" in regards to Donald Trump.
> 
> Second of all, YOU made the statement.  It is not MY job to prove or disprove YOUR statement.  If you can't back it up, then issue a retraction.  If you want to stand by it, then get on substantiating it, or you've _de facto_ retracted it and admitted to being full of shit, anyway.  Your choice.  Believe me, this probably the gentlest you're going to be told on this board that "I said it, YOU prove me wrong" won't fly . . . no matter what the political proclivities of the poster you're talking to.
> 
> Third, I sincerely doubt Kasich has any interest in being in any way associated with Donald Trump.
> 
> Fourth, I didn't ask you to tell me what's "obvious" to you, nor did I ask for, "Just elect Donald, and it will make all my dreams come true!  You'll see!"  Specifics, hon.  EXACTLY what do you intend to build in place of the system you rail against, and how?  "Let's just elect someone who says he'll be different" is crap.
> 
> You don't have to know what will happen next, but you DO have to have a plan for what you intend to accomplish and how.  Contingency provisions are also a good idea.  The military will tell you that no battle plan ever survives contact with the enemy, but notice that they don't just invade willy-nilly.
> 
> MY point is "Let's just make it different!  Let's elect these guys, and see what happens!" is imbecilic and childish.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Smashing the the system is your characterization of electing a non-typical canidate as a 3rd party canidate. If in your mind that is smashing the system then we will have to accept that we have a different view on what constitutes smashing the system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, smashing the system is my observation of what Trump and his followers themselves characterize what they're doing.  Have you not been paying attention all this time?
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> With regard to Kasich and Cruz understanding the economy- Economics is a highly complex system, most major universities offer PHDs in Economics because it is so complex. It is a soft science with relatively few natural laws compared to a hard science. Neither Cruz nor Kasich have any significant education in economics. If either were elected president they would rely on a bevy of real economist for advice and information, cause an effect etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks for the backpedaling, temporizing, and word-parsing.  Now that you're done inadequately trying to CYA and walk back your attacks, let me point out that you did not say, "Cruz and Kasich don't have degrees in economics, they'll hire economists to work for them".  You said, "Neither understand the economy".  Repeatedly.  You then followed up with, "None of the candidates understand the economy."  There is a difference.  No one has ever suggested that either Cruz or Kasich has a degree in economics, or that it is their field of expertise, or that they intend to rely only on their own knowledge and expertise in that area.  Donald Trump, on the other hand, HAS suggested that being rich makes him an economic expert, and that he WILL rely primarily on his own "good brain" and self-advice.
> 
> Nevertheless, one does not have to be an economist to have a general grounding in and understanding of basic economics and how it does and should intersect with the government.  I can't speak for Kasich, because I find him utterly uninteresting, but I can tell you that Ted Cruz DOES have that understanding.  He also has the necessary understanding and wisdom to choose economic advisers who are not talking out their ivory-tower, never-worked-in-the-real-world, I-have-a-great-theory asses.
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> When did I suggest that Kasish would want to have anything to do with Trump? I suggested that Bernie run as Trumps VP, however if I inadvertently used Kasish instead of Bernie, it was a mistake on my part, and I apologize.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You did, in fact, say Trump/Kasich.  But I sincerely doubt that Bernie Sanders wants anything to do with Trump, either.
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> In your previous post you used quotation marks as if they were my words.
> I never posted "let's just make it different, lets elect these guys and see what happens". If you want to have an honest and mature debate/discussion I will engage, so please have the decency not to suggest your words are mine and I will do the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Quotation marks do not just signify direct quotes.  They also serve to indicate paraphrases and irony.  If you want to have an honest and mature debate/discussion, you're going to have to learn not to project your limited grammatical skills, laced with butthurt, onto me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So can I assume you are a Cruz supporter, and that your liberal use of quotation marks is generally intended as irony. Sorry, I missed that context.
Click to expand...


You may assume if you wish, or if you wish to be courteous, you could ask.



BuckToothMoron said:


> My original post topic was a third party run by a Trump/Bernie ticket. I did in fact misstate in a later post Trump/Kasish. Sorry for that.



It happens.  I'm often posting with a seven-year-old running in and out of the room, screaming like a dervish, at which point I'm doing good to put together a coherent sentence.



BuckToothMoron said:


> You maybe right that Bernster wouldn't want to have anything to do with Trump, but you never know when you dangle a VPship in front of him. It would give him a larger platform to spew his socialistic views, and all these guys are major egomaniacs. And when you consider that nobody really knows what the Trumpsters real political agenda is (maybe somebody does, I certainly don't),  Bernie may think he can advance his agenda.



Honestly, Bernie Sanders doesn't even vaguely strike me as someone who has EVER cared about his own personal power, prestige, and position.  Whatever else he is, he comes off as a sincere and impassioned ideologue.  I disagree vehemently with every single thing he says and believes, but he has given me no reason to think he's not genuine.

That being said, it's hard to imagine him having any reason or desire to align himself with a campaign that's so completely about Narcissus-on-Fifth-Avenue and his lifelong love affair with himself.  If I can figure out that Donald Trump doesn't give the platform to anyone else, Bernie can figure it out, too.  His agenda isn't difficult to suss out (although I think it's a stretch to call it a _political _agenda):  he's a giant, overinflated ego on legs.



BuckToothMoron said:


> In regards to political leaders and there understanding of the economy in general- My view is that virtually all these candidates are less inclined to act in what they think is in the best interest of the country economically, but rather what is in their best interest politically. Sure, they all have some basic ideological platform Economically. Bernie and Hillary are clearly more socialistic and favor various degrees of wealth distribution and government control, Teddy is more free market based, restraint of government, and inclined to private sector. You can say they all have basic knowledge of economics and how it should or does intersect with government.  My opinion is they don't have a very deep understanding of cause and effect with regard to economic policy. Donald Trump is the only canidate to never vote to increase the staggering federal debt which is over $19 trillion, but I also assume the debt will likely increase under Trump or any other canidate who wins.



If I may ask, on what are you basing this blanket view of "all these candidates"?  Is it something specific in their individual backgrounds and records, or is it general ennui and a love of sounded _pseudo_-sophisticated and jaded?  I add the last because such things are so incredibly rampant, to the point of the ridiculous.  Some people are just so enamored of yawning and saying, "All politicians are corrupt.  These are not our best and brightest", regardless of who's actually being discussed, that they don't even waste time finding a reason to say it any more, but jump right to the shitting on them all generally part.



BuckToothMoron said:


> I really would prefer to engage in a politically based discussion, and I am not here to try and make those with a different political view look silly or call them names. Am I in the wrong place?



Honestly, it depends on who you talk to and how you talk to them.

This message board is like any other group of human beings, generally speaking:  the idiots outnumber the intelligent on any given day, and membership in both sides changes frequently.

Most of the people here are more informed and politically involved than your average American, but that doesn't always mean they're thinking coherently about the information they have.  And it's not a place for the faint-of-heart or the easily-offended, because very few people here, regardless of where they fall on the political spectrum, are much interested in being nice.

That being said, if you have a thick skin and are prepared to state your positions logically and with substantiation, and then to hold your ground and defend them vigorously, you can find people who will respond in kind.


----------



## BuckToothMoron

Votto said:


> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am an angry conservative, and I can see  there is a similar outrage being manifested on the other side as well. Voters of both political ilk are showing real disdain for their respective establishment leaders. Frankly, I will not vote for any candidate, but rather most certainly against either Clinton or Cruz...NO C's for me. And there just might be a way to keep both the awful C's out.
> 
> If the republicans disregard the clear choice candidate per the primaries they will definitely lose in November. Voters like me, and especially those who actually ballyhoo Trump for president wIll refuse to vote for anybody but Trump. We will either not vote, perhaps childishly cut off our nose and vote for the Dem, or (this is my preference) support a Third party run by the Trumpster. Remember, I am no Trumpite, but I am sick of the worn out joke of a party, the Gop. As a note- I would discourage anyone from being loyal to any party in lieu of being true to your own dogma.
> 
> So the conventional wisdom is that no 3rd party candidate can win, but we are already sailing a political ark in a sea like no other. Trump is 50% ahead of Cruz, his mouth is a boiling cauldron of vile, putrid muck, and the steamy ejects always land and sear his opponents. The closer the opponent is to the Republican establishment the more he is seared. Jeb-gone! Rubio tripped on his own tongue trying to avoid the scalding ejections. He's out! The armored suit Cruz built by calling Mitch "the ditch" McConnell a liar on the senate floor protects him, but does not allow him to advance. And John Kasich is a little gnat that merely survives by being to small to hit.
> 
> But Trump can't win with Only the support of disgruntled conservatives, so look around the corner and down the street. There you will find another group who has had it with what their party is shoving down their throats. The Bernie folks hate Clinton the way Trumpsters hate the Republicans. Short of an indictment, these guys will have to vote for Clinton, not vote, or ( my preference) support a third party canidate.
> 
> If Trump would wage a third party candidacy and ask Bernie to VP the ticket they could win, and in the process redraw the political lines. They can manufacture a platform to draw all people who hate the establishment.
> 
> Will somebody get these two guys in a room?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Angry voter says Cruz is establishment even though he is virtually the only voice of dissention.
> 
> Angry voter votes for Trump who probably gave Hillary campaign money for her Presidential race cuz that's what you need to do in order to do business in the US of A.
> 
> Hilarious.
Click to expand...

In my opinion he is a mild vote of dissension.  He is a member of the established republican leadership and has voted to raise the debt ceiling even though he has railed against it. I give him high marks for calling McConnell a liar.

Trump is the vote for those who are worn out by the lip service of the republicans and then cave in when it is time to stand their ground.

We know what is behind doors 1 and 2, Trump is the unopened door number 3.


----------



## Votto

Cecilie1200 said:


> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am an angry conservative, and I can see  there is a similar outrage being manifested on the other side as well. Voters of both political ilk are showing real disdain for their respective establishment leaders. Frankly, I will not vote for any candidate, but rather most certainly against either Clinton or Cruz...NO C's for me. And there just might be a way to keep both the awful C's out.
> 
> If the republicans disregard the clear choice candidate per the primaries they will definitely lose in November. Voters like me, and especially those who actually ballyhoo Trump for president wIll refuse to vote for anybody but Trump. We will either not vote, perhaps childishly cut off our nose and vote for the Dem, or (this is my preference) support a Third party run by the Trumpster. Remember, I am no Trumpite, but I am sick of the worn out joke of a party, the Gop. As a note- I would discourage anyone from being loyal to any party in lieu of being true to your own dogma.
> 
> So the conventional wisdom is that no 3rd party candidate can win, but we are already sailing a political ark in a sea like no other. Trump is 50% ahead of Cruz, his mouth is a boiling cauldron of vile, putrid muck, and the steamy ejects always land and sear his opponents. The closer the opponent is to the Republican establishment the more he is seared. Jeb-gone! Rubio tripped on his own tongue trying to avoid the scalding ejections. He's out! The armored suit Cruz built by calling Mitch "the ditch" McConnell a liar on the senate floor protects him, but does not allow him to advance. And John Kasich is a little gnat that merely survives by being to small to hit.
> 
> But Trump can't win with Only the support of disgruntled conservatives, so look around the corner and down the street. There you will find another group who has had it with what their party is shoving down their throats. The Bernie folks hate Clinton the way Trumpsters hate the Republicans. Short of an indictment, these guys will have to vote for Clinton, not vote, or ( my preference) support a third party canidate.
> 
> If Trump would wage a third party candidacy and ask Bernie to VP the ticket they could win, and in the process redraw the political lines. They can manufacture a platform to draw all people who hate the establishment.
> 
> Will somebody get these two guys in a room?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Donald has already become a third party candidate, even if he does not go third party.
> 
> Your post confirms this.
> 
> Enjoy Hillary as President.  Trump is in love with her anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The _Washington Post_ even ran an article revealing that Donald Trump decided to announce his candidacy after talking to Bill Clinton (although they have since deleted said article from their website).  I have no doubt whatsoever that if Trump were to become President - God help us all - it wouldn't be long before we'd see the Clintons visiting the White House for cozy little chats and nights in the Lincoln Bedroom.
Click to expand...


Would Bill and Hillary give campaign money to Trump when he runs again?

That would be funny.


----------



## Cecilie1200

BuckToothMoron said:


> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am an angry conservative, and I can see  there is a similar outrage being manifested on the other side as well. Voters of both political ilk are showing real disdain for their respective establishment leaders. Frankly, I will not vote for any candidate, but rather most certainly against either Clinton or Cruz...NO C's for me. And there just might be a way to keep both the awful C's out.
> 
> If the republicans disregard the clear choice candidate per the primaries they will definitely lose in November. Voters like me, and especially those who actually ballyhoo Trump for president wIll refuse to vote for anybody but Trump. We will either not vote, perhaps childishly cut off our nose and vote for the Dem, or (this is my preference) support a Third party run by the Trumpster. Remember, I am no Trumpite, but I am sick of the worn out joke of a party, the Gop. As a note- I would discourage anyone from being loyal to any party in lieu of being true to your own dogma.
> 
> So the conventional wisdom is that no 3rd party candidate can win, but we are already sailing a political ark in a sea like no other. Trump is 50% ahead of Cruz, his mouth is a boiling cauldron of vile, putrid muck, and the steamy ejects always land and sear his opponents. The closer the opponent is to the Republican establishment the more he is seared. Jeb-gone! Rubio tripped on his own tongue trying to avoid the scalding ejections. He's out! The armored suit Cruz built by calling Mitch "the ditch" McConnell a liar on the senate floor protects him, but does not allow him to advance. And John Kasich is a little gnat that merely survives by being to small to hit.
> 
> But Trump can't win with Only the support of disgruntled conservatives, so look around the corner and down the street. There you will find another group who has had it with what their party is shoving down their throats. The Bernie folks hate Clinton the way Trumpsters hate the Republicans. Short of an indictment, these guys will have to vote for Clinton, not vote, or ( my preference) support a third party canidate.
> 
> If Trump would wage a third party candidacy and ask Bernie to VP the ticket they could win, and in the process redraw the political lines. They can manufacture a platform to draw all people who hate the establishment.
> 
> Will somebody get these two guys in a room?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Angry voter says Cruz is establishment even though he is virtually the only voice of dissention.
> 
> Angry voter votes for Trump who probably gave Hillary campaign money for her Presidential race cuz that's what you need to do in order to do business in the US of A.
> 
> Hilarious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In my opinion he is a mild vote of dissension.  He is a member of the established republican leadership and has voted to raise the debt ceiling even though he has railed against it. I give him high marks for calling McConnell a liar.
> 
> Trump is the vote for those who are worn out by the lip service of the republicans and then cave in when it is time to stand their ground.
> 
> We know what is behind doors 1 and 2, Trump is the unopened door number 3.
Click to expand...


Um, who told you Cruz voted to raise the debt ceiling?

And who told you that "Surprise!" is a good thing in a President?


----------



## Cecilie1200

Votto said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am an angry conservative, and I can see  there is a similar outrage being manifested on the other side as well. Voters of both political ilk are showing real disdain for their respective establishment leaders. Frankly, I will not vote for any candidate, but rather most certainly against either Clinton or Cruz...NO C's for me. And there just might be a way to keep both the awful C's out.
> 
> If the republicans disregard the clear choice candidate per the primaries they will definitely lose in November. Voters like me, and especially those who actually ballyhoo Trump for president wIll refuse to vote for anybody but Trump. We will either not vote, perhaps childishly cut off our nose and vote for the Dem, or (this is my preference) support a Third party run by the Trumpster. Remember, I am no Trumpite, but I am sick of the worn out joke of a party, the Gop. As a note- I would discourage anyone from being loyal to any party in lieu of being true to your own dogma.
> 
> So the conventional wisdom is that no 3rd party candidate can win, but we are already sailing a political ark in a sea like no other. Trump is 50% ahead of Cruz, his mouth is a boiling cauldron of vile, putrid muck, and the steamy ejects always land and sear his opponents. The closer the opponent is to the Republican establishment the more he is seared. Jeb-gone! Rubio tripped on his own tongue trying to avoid the scalding ejections. He's out! The armored suit Cruz built by calling Mitch "the ditch" McConnell a liar on the senate floor protects him, but does not allow him to advance. And John Kasich is a little gnat that merely survives by being to small to hit.
> 
> But Trump can't win with Only the support of disgruntled conservatives, so look around the corner and down the street. There you will find another group who has had it with what their party is shoving down their throats. The Bernie folks hate Clinton the way Trumpsters hate the Republicans. Short of an indictment, these guys will have to vote for Clinton, not vote, or ( my preference) support a third party canidate.
> 
> If Trump would wage a third party candidacy and ask Bernie to VP the ticket they could win, and in the process redraw the political lines. They can manufacture a platform to draw all people who hate the establishment.
> 
> Will somebody get these two guys in a room?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Donald has already become a third party candidate, even if he does not go third party.
> 
> Your post confirms this.
> 
> Enjoy Hillary as President.  Trump is in love with her anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The _Washington Post_ even ran an article revealing that Donald Trump decided to announce his candidacy after talking to Bill Clinton (although they have since deleted said article from their website).  I have no doubt whatsoever that if Trump were to become President - God help us all - it wouldn't be long before we'd see the Clintons visiting the White House for cozy little chats and nights in the Lincoln Bedroom.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Would Bill and Hillary give campaign money to Trump when he runs again?
> 
> That would be funny.
Click to expand...


Those cheap pieces of crap?  Only if they could get the money by hocking the silverware they stole when they left the White House.


----------



## BuckToothMoron

Cecilie1200 said:


> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> I will try to address your pertinent comments and questions. First, you say that smashing the system is never a good thing. I didn't suggest smashing the system. I am tired of the current political leaders and ripping their power does not constitute smashing the system. Try to think with a bit of nuance rather than extreme radicalism. Secondly, I suggested NONE of the candidates really inderstand the economy, and I would ask you to provide evidence to the contrary. Thirdly, you asked how to alter the status quo. I'm sorry, I thought it was obvious that electing a Trump/Kasich ticket would clearly alter the status quo since most people would say Trump is not a true Republican and Bernie only caucuses with The Dems because there is no viable party farther left. Finally you wrote "you have to have a plan for what happens next". Really? Nobody knows what will happen next, but if you have some scenarios in mind I would be happy to discuss them.
> 
> My point is that Trump and Bernie represent a large fraction of voters who feel betrayed and disenfranchised by the current political leaders, and by electing them we could open new lines of communication and debate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, first of all, you're very much suggesting smashing the system.  Delude yourself all you want, but that's what Trump's candidacy is all about.  I'm not even going to touch the laughable notion of "nuance" in regards to Donald Trump.
> 
> Second of all, YOU made the statement.  It is not MY job to prove or disprove YOUR statement.  If you can't back it up, then issue a retraction.  If you want to stand by it, then get on substantiating it, or you've _de facto_ retracted it and admitted to being full of shit, anyway.  Your choice.  Believe me, this probably the gentlest you're going to be told on this board that "I said it, YOU prove me wrong" won't fly . . . no matter what the political proclivities of the poster you're talking to.
> 
> Third, I sincerely doubt Kasich has any interest in being in any way associated with Donald Trump.
> 
> Fourth, I didn't ask you to tell me what's "obvious" to you, nor did I ask for, "Just elect Donald, and it will make all my dreams come true!  You'll see!"  Specifics, hon.  EXACTLY what do you intend to build in place of the system you rail against, and how?  "Let's just elect someone who says he'll be different" is crap.
> 
> You don't have to know what will happen next, but you DO have to have a plan for what you intend to accomplish and how.  Contingency provisions are also a good idea.  The military will tell you that no battle plan ever survives contact with the enemy, but notice that they don't just invade willy-nilly.
> 
> MY point is "Let's just make it different!  Let's elect these guys, and see what happens!" is imbecilic and childish.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Smashing the the system is your characterization of electing a non-typical canidate as a 3rd party canidate. If in your mind that is smashing the system then we will have to accept that we have a different view on what constitutes smashing the system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, smashing the system is my observation of what Trump and his followers themselves characterize what they're doing.  Have you not been paying attention all this time?
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> With regard to Kasich and Cruz understanding the economy- Economics is a highly complex system, most major universities offer PHDs in Economics because it is so complex. It is a soft science with relatively few natural laws compared to a hard science. Neither Cruz nor Kasich have any significant education in economics. If either were elected president they would rely on a bevy of real economist for advice and information, cause an effect etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks for the backpedaling, temporizing, and word-parsing.  Now that you're done inadequately trying to CYA and walk back your attacks, let me point out that you did not say, "Cruz and Kasich don't have degrees in economics, they'll hire economists to work for them".  You said, "Neither understand the economy".  Repeatedly.  You then followed up with, "None of the candidates understand the economy."  There is a difference.  No one has ever suggested that either Cruz or Kasich has a degree in economics, or that it is their field of expertise, or that they intend to rely only on their own knowledge and expertise in that area.  Donald Trump, on the other hand, HAS suggested that being rich makes him an economic expert, and that he WILL rely primarily on his own "good brain" and self-advice.
> 
> Nevertheless, one does not have to be an economist to have a general grounding in and understanding of basic economics and how it does and should intersect with the government.  I can't speak for Kasich, because I find him utterly uninteresting, but I can tell you that Ted Cruz DOES have that understanding.  He also has the necessary understanding and wisdom to choose economic advisers who are not talking out their ivory-tower, never-worked-in-the-real-world, I-have-a-great-theory asses.
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> When did I suggest that Kasish would want to have anything to do with Trump? I suggested that Bernie run as Trumps VP, however if I inadvertently used Kasish instead of Bernie, it was a mistake on my part, and I apologize.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You did, in fact, say Trump/Kasich.  But I sincerely doubt that Bernie Sanders wants anything to do with Trump, either.
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> In your previous post you used quotation marks as if they were my words.
> I never posted "let's just make it different, lets elect these guys and see what happens". If you want to have an honest and mature debate/discussion I will engage, so please have the decency not to suggest your words are mine and I will do the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Quotation marks do not just signify direct quotes.  They also serve to indicate paraphrases and irony.  If you want to have an honest and mature debate/discussion, you're going to have to learn not to project your limited grammatical skills, laced with butthurt, onto me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So can I assume you are a Cruz supporter, and that your liberal use of quotation marks is generally intended as irony. Sorry, I missed that context.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You may assume if you wish, or if you wish to be courteous, you could ask.
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> My original post topic was a third party run by a Trump/Bernie ticket. I did in fact misstate in a later post Trump/Kasish. Sorry for that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It happens.  I'm often posting with a seven-year-old running in and out of the room, screaming like a dervish, at which point I'm doing good to put together a coherent sentence.
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> You maybe right that Bernster wouldn't want to have anything to do with Trump, but you never know when you dangle a VPship in front of him. It would give him a larger platform to spew his socialistic views, and all these guys are major egomaniacs. And when you consider that nobody really knows what the Trumpsters real political agenda is (maybe somebody does, I certainly don't),  Bernie may think he can advance his agenda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Honestly, Bernie Sanders doesn't even vaguely strike me as someone who has EVER cared about his own personal power, prestige, and position.  Whatever else he is, he comes off as a sincere and impassioned ideologue.  I disagree vehemently with every single thing he says and believes, but he has given me no reason to think he's not genuine.
> 
> That being said, it's hard to imagine him having any reason or desire to align himself with a campaign that's so completely about Narcissus-on-Fifth-Avenue and his lifelong love affair with himself.  If I can figure out that Donald Trump doesn't give the platform to anyone else, Bernie can figure it out, too.  His agenda isn't difficult to suss out (although I think it's a stretch to call it a _political _agenda):  he's a giant, overinflated ego on legs.
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> In regards to political leaders and there understanding of the economy in general- My view is that virtually all these candidates are less inclined to act in what they think is in the best interest of the country economically, but rather what is in their best interest politically. Sure, they all have some basic ideological platform Economically. Bernie and Hillary are clearly more socialistic and favor various degrees of wealth distribution and government control, Teddy is more free market based, restraint of government, and inclined to private sector. You can say they all have basic knowledge of economics and how it should or does intersect with government.  My opinion is they don't have a very deep understanding of cause and effect with regard to economic policy. Donald Trump is the only canidate to never vote to increase the staggering federal debt which is over $19 trillion, but I also assume the debt will likely increase under Trump or any other canidate who wins.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If I may ask, on what are you basing this blanket view of "all these candidates"?  Is it something specific in their individual backgrounds and records, or is it general ennui and a love of sounded _pseudo_-sophisticated and jaded?  I add the last because such things are so incredibly rampant, to the point of the ridiculous.  Some people are just so enamored of yawning and saying, "All politicians are corrupt.  These are not our best and brightest", regardless of who's actually being discussed, that they don't even waste time finding a reason to say it any more, but jump right to the shitting on them all generally part.
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> I really would prefer to engage in a politically based discussion, and I am not here to try and make those with a different political view look silly or call them names. Am I in the wrong place?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Honestly, it depends on who you talk to and how you talk to them.
> 
> This message board is like any other group of human beings, generally speaking:  the idiots outnumber the intelligent on any given day, and membership in both sides changes frequently.
> 
> Most of the people here are more informed and politically involved than your average American, but that doesn't always mean they're thinking coherently about the information they have.  And it's not a place for the faint-of-heart or the easily-offended, because very few people here, regardless of where they fall on the political spectrum, are much interested in being nice.
> 
> That being said, if you have a thick skin and are prepared to state your positions logically and with substantiation, and then to hold your ground and defend them vigorously, you can find people who will respond in kind.
Click to expand...


I couldn't agree more that Bernie is easily the most sincere canidate, and I too reject his views. But I think there are 3 things that you must do to some degree to be successful in politics, I like to call them the evil trinity of politics. 1- you must be willing to ask people for money (Billionaire Trump is the rare exception proving the rule), 2- you must compromise your values. Getting things done requires compromise since this is not a dictatorship. 3- you must be willing to lie/deceive/cheat.   A corollary  is the more successful you are at these 3 things the higher  you will rise in politics. 

 So yes, I am one who holds politicians in low regard. They are necessary to run the government, but I think we give them way too much unchecked power. I would prefer the state governments to handle most of what the federal government does, and in this way we would have multiple small experiments in health care, education, etc., rather than one large system with all our eggs in one basket, different systems that can learn from each other. 

Who is your canidate of choice?


----------



## BuckToothMoron

Cecilie1200 said:


> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am an angry conservative, and I can see  there is a similar outrage being manifested on the other side as well. Voters of both political ilk are showing real disdain for their respective establishment leaders. Frankly, I will not vote for any candidate, but rather most certainly against either Clinton or Cruz...NO C's for me. And there just might be a way to keep both the awful C's out.
> 
> If the republicans disregard the clear choice candidate per the primaries they will definitely lose in November. Voters like me, and especially those who actually ballyhoo Trump for president wIll refuse to vote for anybody but Trump. We will either not vote, perhaps childishly cut off our nose and vote for the Dem, or (this is my preference) support a Third party run by the Trumpster. Remember, I am no Trumpite, but I am sick of the worn out joke of a party, the Gop. As a note- I would discourage anyone from being loyal to any party in lieu of being true to your own dogma.
> 
> So the conventional wisdom is that no 3rd party candidate can win, but we are already sailing a political ark in a sea like no other. Trump is 50% ahead of Cruz, his mouth is a boiling cauldron of vile, putrid muck, and the steamy ejects always land and sear his opponents. The closer the opponent is to the Republican establishment the more he is seared. Jeb-gone! Rubio tripped on his own tongue trying to avoid the scalding ejections. He's out! The armored suit Cruz built by calling Mitch "the ditch" McConnell a liar on the senate floor protects him, but does not allow him to advance. And John Kasich is a little gnat that merely survives by being to small to hit.
> 
> But Trump can't win with Only the support of disgruntled conservatives, so look around the corner and down the street. There you will find another group who has had it with what their party is shoving down their throats. The Bernie folks hate Clinton the way Trumpsters hate the Republicans. Short of an indictment, these guys will have to vote for Clinton, not vote, or ( my preference) support a third party canidate.
> 
> If Trump would wage a third party candidacy and ask Bernie to VP the ticket they could win, and in the process redraw the political lines. They can manufacture a platform to draw all people who hate the establishment.
> 
> Will somebody get these two guys in a room?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Angry voter says Cruz is establishment even though he is virtually the only voice of dissention.
> 
> Angry voter votes for Trump who probably gave Hillary campaign money for her Presidential race cuz that's what you need to do in order to do business in the US of A.
> 
> Hilarious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In my opinion he is a mild vote of dissension.  He is a member of the established republican leadership and has voted to raise the debt ceiling even though he has railed against it. I give him high marks for calling McConnell a liar.
> 
> Trump is the vote for those who are worn out by the lip service of the republicans and then cave in when it is time to stand their ground.
> 
> We know what is behind doors 1 and 2, Trump is the unopened door number 3.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Um, who told you Cruz voted to raise the debt ceiling?
> 
> And who told you that "Surprise!" is a good thing in a President?
Click to expand...




Cecilie1200 said:


> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am an angry conservative, and I can see  there is a similar outrage being manifested on the other side as well. Voters of both political ilk are showing real disdain for their respective establishment leaders. Frankly, I will not vote for any candidate, but rather most certainly against either Clinton or Cruz...NO C's for me. And there just might be a way to keep both the awful C's out.
> 
> If the republicans disregard the clear choice candidate per the primaries they will definitely lose in November. Voters like me, and especially those who actually ballyhoo Trump for president wIll refuse to vote for anybody but Trump. We will either not vote, perhaps childishly cut off our nose and vote for the Dem, or (this is my preference) support a Third party run by the Trumpster. Remember, I am no Trumpite, but I am sick of the worn out joke of a party, the Gop. As a note- I would discourage anyone from being loyal to any party in lieu of being true to your own dogma.
> 
> So the conventional wisdom is that no 3rd party candidate can win, but we are already sailing a political ark in a sea like no other. Trump is 50% ahead of Cruz, his mouth is a boiling cauldron of vile, putrid muck, and the steamy ejects always land and sear his opponents. The closer the opponent is to the Republican establishment the more he is seared. Jeb-gone! Rubio tripped on his own tongue trying to avoid the scalding ejections. He's out! The armored suit Cruz built by calling Mitch "the ditch" McConnell a liar on the senate floor protects him, but does not allow him to advance. And John Kasich is a little gnat that merely survives by being to small to hit.
> 
> But Trump can't win with Only the support of disgruntled conservatives, so look around the corner and down the street. There you will find another group who has had it with what their party is shoving down their throats. The Bernie folks hate Clinton the way Trumpsters hate the Republicans. Short of an indictment, these guys will have to vote for Clinton, not vote, or ( my preference) support a third party canidate.
> 
> If Trump would wage a third party candidacy and ask Bernie to VP the ticket they could win, and in the process redraw the political lines. They can manufacture a platform to draw all people who hate the establishment.
> 
> Will somebody get these two guys in a room?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Angry voter says Cruz is establishment even though he is virtually the only voice of dissention.
> 
> Angry voter votes for Trump who probably gave Hillary campaign money for her Presidential race cuz that's what you need to do in order to do business in the US of A.
> 
> Hilarious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In my opinion he is a mild vote of dissension.  He is a member of the established republican leadership and has voted to raise the debt ceiling even though he has railed against it. I give him high marks for calling McConnell a liar.
> 
> Trump is the vote for those who are worn out by the lip service of the republicans and then cave in when it is time to stand their ground.
> 
> We know what is behind doors 1 and 2, Trump is the unopened door number 3.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Um, who told you Cruz voted to raise the debt ceiling?
> 
> And who told you that "Surprise!" is a good thing in a President?
Click to expand...


Cruz, Rubio Vote To Increase Debt By $400 Billion- Paul, Sanders Vote No


----------



## Cecilie1200

BuckToothMoron said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, first of all, you're very much suggesting smashing the system.  Delude yourself all you want, but that's what Trump's candidacy is all about.  I'm not even going to touch the laughable notion of "nuance" in regards to Donald Trump.
> 
> Second of all, YOU made the statement.  It is not MY job to prove or disprove YOUR statement.  If you can't back it up, then issue a retraction.  If you want to stand by it, then get on substantiating it, or you've _de facto_ retracted it and admitted to being full of shit, anyway.  Your choice.  Believe me, this probably the gentlest you're going to be told on this board that "I said it, YOU prove me wrong" won't fly . . . no matter what the political proclivities of the poster you're talking to.
> 
> Third, I sincerely doubt Kasich has any interest in being in any way associated with Donald Trump.
> 
> Fourth, I didn't ask you to tell me what's "obvious" to you, nor did I ask for, "Just elect Donald, and it will make all my dreams come true!  You'll see!"  Specifics, hon.  EXACTLY what do you intend to build in place of the system you rail against, and how?  "Let's just elect someone who says he'll be different" is crap.
> 
> You don't have to know what will happen next, but you DO have to have a plan for what you intend to accomplish and how.  Contingency provisions are also a good idea.  The military will tell you that no battle plan ever survives contact with the enemy, but notice that they don't just invade willy-nilly.
> 
> MY point is "Let's just make it different!  Let's elect these guys, and see what happens!" is imbecilic and childish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Smashing the the system is your characterization of electing a non-typical canidate as a 3rd party canidate. If in your mind that is smashing the system then we will have to accept that we have a different view on what constitutes smashing the system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, smashing the system is my observation of what Trump and his followers themselves characterize what they're doing.  Have you not been paying attention all this time?
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> With regard to Kasich and Cruz understanding the economy- Economics is a highly complex system, most major universities offer PHDs in Economics because it is so complex. It is a soft science with relatively few natural laws compared to a hard science. Neither Cruz nor Kasich have any significant education in economics. If either were elected president they would rely on a bevy of real economist for advice and information, cause an effect etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks for the backpedaling, temporizing, and word-parsing.  Now that you're done inadequately trying to CYA and walk back your attacks, let me point out that you did not say, "Cruz and Kasich don't have degrees in economics, they'll hire economists to work for them".  You said, "Neither understand the economy".  Repeatedly.  You then followed up with, "None of the candidates understand the economy."  There is a difference.  No one has ever suggested that either Cruz or Kasich has a degree in economics, or that it is their field of expertise, or that they intend to rely only on their own knowledge and expertise in that area.  Donald Trump, on the other hand, HAS suggested that being rich makes him an economic expert, and that he WILL rely primarily on his own "good brain" and self-advice.
> 
> Nevertheless, one does not have to be an economist to have a general grounding in and understanding of basic economics and how it does and should intersect with the government.  I can't speak for Kasich, because I find him utterly uninteresting, but I can tell you that Ted Cruz DOES have that understanding.  He also has the necessary understanding and wisdom to choose economic advisers who are not talking out their ivory-tower, never-worked-in-the-real-world, I-have-a-great-theory asses.
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> When did I suggest that Kasish would want to have anything to do with Trump? I suggested that Bernie run as Trumps VP, however if I inadvertently used Kasish instead of Bernie, it was a mistake on my part, and I apologize.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You did, in fact, say Trump/Kasich.  But I sincerely doubt that Bernie Sanders wants anything to do with Trump, either.
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> In your previous post you used quotation marks as if they were my words.
> I never posted "let's just make it different, lets elect these guys and see what happens". If you want to have an honest and mature debate/discussion I will engage, so please have the decency not to suggest your words are mine and I will do the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Quotation marks do not just signify direct quotes.  They also serve to indicate paraphrases and irony.  If you want to have an honest and mature debate/discussion, you're going to have to learn not to project your limited grammatical skills, laced with butthurt, onto me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So can I assume you are a Cruz supporter, and that your liberal use of quotation marks is generally intended as irony. Sorry, I missed that context.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You may assume if you wish, or if you wish to be courteous, you could ask.
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> My original post topic was a third party run by a Trump/Bernie ticket. I did in fact misstate in a later post Trump/Kasish. Sorry for that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It happens.  I'm often posting with a seven-year-old running in and out of the room, screaming like a dervish, at which point I'm doing good to put together a coherent sentence.
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> You maybe right that Bernster wouldn't want to have anything to do with Trump, but you never know when you dangle a VPship in front of him. It would give him a larger platform to spew his socialistic views, and all these guys are major egomaniacs. And when you consider that nobody really knows what the Trumpsters real political agenda is (maybe somebody does, I certainly don't),  Bernie may think he can advance his agenda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Honestly, Bernie Sanders doesn't even vaguely strike me as someone who has EVER cared about his own personal power, prestige, and position.  Whatever else he is, he comes off as a sincere and impassioned ideologue.  I disagree vehemently with every single thing he says and believes, but he has given me no reason to think he's not genuine.
> 
> That being said, it's hard to imagine him having any reason or desire to align himself with a campaign that's so completely about Narcissus-on-Fifth-Avenue and his lifelong love affair with himself.  If I can figure out that Donald Trump doesn't give the platform to anyone else, Bernie can figure it out, too.  His agenda isn't difficult to suss out (although I think it's a stretch to call it a _political _agenda):  he's a giant, overinflated ego on legs.
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> In regards to political leaders and there understanding of the economy in general- My view is that virtually all these candidates are less inclined to act in what they think is in the best interest of the country economically, but rather what is in their best interest politically. Sure, they all have some basic ideological platform Economically. Bernie and Hillary are clearly more socialistic and favor various degrees of wealth distribution and government control, Teddy is more free market based, restraint of government, and inclined to private sector. You can say they all have basic knowledge of economics and how it should or does intersect with government.  My opinion is they don't have a very deep understanding of cause and effect with regard to economic policy. Donald Trump is the only canidate to never vote to increase the staggering federal debt which is over $19 trillion, but I also assume the debt will likely increase under Trump or any other canidate who wins.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If I may ask, on what are you basing this blanket view of "all these candidates"?  Is it something specific in their individual backgrounds and records, or is it general ennui and a love of sounded _pseudo_-sophisticated and jaded?  I add the last because such things are so incredibly rampant, to the point of the ridiculous.  Some people are just so enamored of yawning and saying, "All politicians are corrupt.  These are not our best and brightest", regardless of who's actually being discussed, that they don't even waste time finding a reason to say it any more, but jump right to the shitting on them all generally part.
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> I really would prefer to engage in a politically based discussion, and I am not here to try and make those with a different political view look silly or call them names. Am I in the wrong place?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Honestly, it depends on who you talk to and how you talk to them.
> 
> This message board is like any other group of human beings, generally speaking:  the idiots outnumber the intelligent on any given day, and membership in both sides changes frequently.
> 
> Most of the people here are more informed and politically involved than your average American, but that doesn't always mean they're thinking coherently about the information they have.  And it's not a place for the faint-of-heart or the easily-offended, because very few people here, regardless of where they fall on the political spectrum, are much interested in being nice.
> 
> That being said, if you have a thick skin and are prepared to state your positions logically and with substantiation, and then to hold your ground and defend them vigorously, you can find people who will respond in kind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I couldn't agree more that Bernie is easily the most sincere canidate, and I too reject his views. But I think there are 3 things that you must do to some degree to be successful in politics, I like to call them the evil trinity of politics. 1- you must be willing to ask people for money (Billionaire Trump is the rare exception proving the rule), 2- you must compromise your values. Getting things done requires compromise since this is not a dictatorship. 3- you must be willing to lie/deceive/cheat.   A corollary  is the more successful you are at these 3 things the higher  you will rise in politics.
> 
> So yes, I am one who holds politicians in low regard. They are necessary to run the government, but I think we give them way too much unchecked power. I would prefer the state governments to handle most of what the federal government does, and in this way we would have multiple small experiments in health care, education, etc., rather than one large system with all our eggs in one basket, different systems that can learn from each other.
> 
> Who is your canidate of choice?
Click to expand...


First, I would like to point out that Trump is taking less in donations (don't ever believe his bullshit about self-funding), not because he's a billionaire, but because the media has been willingly footing most of the bill.  I cannot remember the last time, if ever, that the media has been this far up a candidate's ass without a microscope.

Second, I disagree that it's necessary to compromise one's values.  True, most people DO end up doing so, but it's not necessary.  Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.  I will agree that it's sometimes necessary to make compromises, to accept half-a-loaf now and then work toward getting the other half later, rather than demanding the whole loaf right away and getting jack shit.  But that isn't the same thing.

Third, I absolutely disagree that one has to lie/deceive/cheat to succeed in politics.  But generally, one DOES have to be good at phrasing the truth in the right way to make an impact and accomplish one's goals.  This is really not any different from the normal diplomacy most adults have to employ to continue holding jobs, having friends, maintaining relationships with relatives . . .

I will agree that we give away entirely too much power to the federal government.  People bitch about the need to take money out of politics, but the truth is, the only way to really do that is to make politicians less valuable, ie. take away the power that they currently wield.  Who would want to bribe them if they didn't have so much control?

I am, in fact, supporting Ted Cruz, in large part because I believe he's serious about wanting to re-institute the Constitutional checks and balances that are supposed to protect us.  And I think he more than proved himself the Don Quixote we need to tilt at the windmill of federal overreach while he was in the Senate.


----------



## Cecilie1200

BuckToothMoron said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am an angry conservative, and I can see  there is a similar outrage being manifested on the other side as well. Voters of both political ilk are showing real disdain for their respective establishment leaders. Frankly, I will not vote for any candidate, but rather most certainly against either Clinton or Cruz...NO C's for me. And there just might be a way to keep both the awful C's out.
> 
> If the republicans disregard the clear choice candidate per the primaries they will definitely lose in November. Voters like me, and especially those who actually ballyhoo Trump for president wIll refuse to vote for anybody but Trump. We will either not vote, perhaps childishly cut off our nose and vote for the Dem, or (this is my preference) support a Third party run by the Trumpster. Remember, I am no Trumpite, but I am sick of the worn out joke of a party, the Gop. As a note- I would discourage anyone from being loyal to any party in lieu of being true to your own dogma.
> 
> So the conventional wisdom is that no 3rd party candidate can win, but we are already sailing a political ark in a sea like no other. Trump is 50% ahead of Cruz, his mouth is a boiling cauldron of vile, putrid muck, and the steamy ejects always land and sear his opponents. The closer the opponent is to the Republican establishment the more he is seared. Jeb-gone! Rubio tripped on his own tongue trying to avoid the scalding ejections. He's out! The armored suit Cruz built by calling Mitch "the ditch" McConnell a liar on the senate floor protects him, but does not allow him to advance. And John Kasich is a little gnat that merely survives by being to small to hit.
> 
> But Trump can't win with Only the support of disgruntled conservatives, so look around the corner and down the street. There you will find another group who has had it with what their party is shoving down their throats. The Bernie folks hate Clinton the way Trumpsters hate the Republicans. Short of an indictment, these guys will have to vote for Clinton, not vote, or ( my preference) support a third party canidate.
> 
> If Trump would wage a third party candidacy and ask Bernie to VP the ticket they could win, and in the process redraw the political lines. They can manufacture a platform to draw all people who hate the establishment.
> 
> Will somebody get these two guys in a room?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Angry voter says Cruz is establishment even though he is virtually the only voice of dissention.
> 
> Angry voter votes for Trump who probably gave Hillary campaign money for her Presidential race cuz that's what you need to do in order to do business in the US of A.
> 
> Hilarious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In my opinion he is a mild vote of dissension.  He is a member of the established republican leadership and has voted to raise the debt ceiling even though he has railed against it. I give him high marks for calling McConnell a liar.
> 
> Trump is the vote for those who are worn out by the lip service of the republicans and then cave in when it is time to stand their ground.
> 
> We know what is behind doors 1 and 2, Trump is the unopened door number 3.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Um, who told you Cruz voted to raise the debt ceiling?
> 
> And who told you that "Surprise!" is a good thing in a President?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am an angry conservative, and I can see  there is a similar outrage being manifested on the other side as well. Voters of both political ilk are showing real disdain for their respective establishment leaders. Frankly, I will not vote for any candidate, but rather most certainly against either Clinton or Cruz...NO C's for me. And there just might be a way to keep both the awful C's out.
> 
> If the republicans disregard the clear choice candidate per the primaries they will definitely lose in November. Voters like me, and especially those who actually ballyhoo Trump for president wIll refuse to vote for anybody but Trump. We will either not vote, perhaps childishly cut off our nose and vote for the Dem, or (this is my preference) support a Third party run by the Trumpster. Remember, I am no Trumpite, but I am sick of the worn out joke of a party, the Gop. As a note- I would discourage anyone from being loyal to any party in lieu of being true to your own dogma.
> 
> So the conventional wisdom is that no 3rd party candidate can win, but we are already sailing a political ark in a sea like no other. Trump is 50% ahead of Cruz, his mouth is a boiling cauldron of vile, putrid muck, and the steamy ejects always land and sear his opponents. The closer the opponent is to the Republican establishment the more he is seared. Jeb-gone! Rubio tripped on his own tongue trying to avoid the scalding ejections. He's out! The armored suit Cruz built by calling Mitch "the ditch" McConnell a liar on the senate floor protects him, but does not allow him to advance. And John Kasich is a little gnat that merely survives by being to small to hit.
> 
> But Trump can't win with Only the support of disgruntled conservatives, so look around the corner and down the street. There you will find another group who has had it with what their party is shoving down their throats. The Bernie folks hate Clinton the way Trumpsters hate the Republicans. Short of an indictment, these guys will have to vote for Clinton, not vote, or ( my preference) support a third party canidate.
> 
> If Trump would wage a third party candidacy and ask Bernie to VP the ticket they could win, and in the process redraw the political lines. They can manufacture a platform to draw all people who hate the establishment.
> 
> Will somebody get these two guys in a room?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Angry voter says Cruz is establishment even though he is virtually the only voice of dissention.
> 
> Angry voter votes for Trump who probably gave Hillary campaign money for her Presidential race cuz that's what you need to do in order to do business in the US of A.
> 
> Hilarious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In my opinion he is a mild vote of dissension.  He is a member of the established republican leadership and has voted to raise the debt ceiling even though he has railed against it. I give him high marks for calling McConnell a liar.
> 
> Trump is the vote for those who are worn out by the lip service of the republicans and then cave in when it is time to stand their ground.
> 
> We know what is behind doors 1 and 2, Trump is the unopened door number 3.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Um, who told you Cruz voted to raise the debt ceiling?
> 
> And who told you that "Surprise!" is a good thing in a President?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cruz, Rubio Vote To Increase Debt By $400 Billion- Paul, Sanders Vote No
Click to expand...


Okay, if I'm understanding the byzantine workings of the Senate, its rules of procedure, and its annoying habit of tacking unrelated amendments onto bills - and I won't swear that I AM understanding them entirely, because they ARE byzantine - it looks like what he voted in favor of was not the bill itself, but cloture, ie. ending the debate (or filibuster, as the case may be) and moving on to taking a vote on the bill.  Again, if I'm reading correctly, the bill in question was intended to be the Senate's vehicle of disapproval for the Iran Nuclear Treaty.

Don't carve that in stone, or anything, because the mass of amendments and numerous votes related to them is a labyrinth, and I for one would appreciate any clarification anyone can provide.

I will tell you that Congressional votes on bills are rarely as clearcut as that article would like to imply.


----------



## BuckToothMoron

Cecilie1200 said:


> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> Smashing the the system is your characterization of electing a non-typical canidate as a 3rd party canidate. If in your mind that is smashing the system then we will have to accept that we have a different view on what constitutes smashing the system.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, smashing the system is my observation of what Trump and his followers themselves characterize what they're doing.  Have you not been paying attention all this time?
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> With regard to Kasich and Cruz understanding the economy- Economics is a highly complex system, most major universities offer PHDs in Economics because it is so complex. It is a soft science with relatively few natural laws compared to a hard science. Neither Cruz nor Kasich have any significant education in economics. If either were elected president they would rely on a bevy of real economist for advice and information, cause an effect etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks for the backpedaling, temporizing, and word-parsing.  Now that you're done inadequately trying to CYA and walk back your attacks, let me point out that you did not say, "Cruz and Kasich don't have degrees in economics, they'll hire economists to work for them".  You said, "Neither understand the economy".  Repeatedly.  You then followed up with, "None of the candidates understand the economy."  There is a difference.  No one has ever suggested that either Cruz or Kasich has a degree in economics, or that it is their field of expertise, or that they intend to rely only on their own knowledge and expertise in that area.  Donald Trump, on the other hand, HAS suggested that being rich makes him an economic expert, and that he WILL rely primarily on his own "good brain" and self-advice.
> 
> Nevertheless, one does not have to be an economist to have a general grounding in and understanding of basic economics and how it does and should intersect with the government.  I can't speak for Kasich, because I find him utterly uninteresting, but I can tell you that Ted Cruz DOES have that understanding.  He also has the necessary understanding and wisdom to choose economic advisers who are not talking out their ivory-tower, never-worked-in-the-real-world, I-have-a-great-theory asses.
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> When did I suggest that Kasish would want to have anything to do with Trump? I suggested that Bernie run as Trumps VP, however if I inadvertently used Kasish instead of Bernie, it was a mistake on my part, and I apologize.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You did, in fact, say Trump/Kasich.  But I sincerely doubt that Bernie Sanders wants anything to do with Trump, either.
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> In your previous post you used quotation marks as if they were my words.
> I never posted "let's just make it different, lets elect these guys and see what happens". If you want to have an honest and mature debate/discussion I will engage, so please have the decency not to suggest your words are mine and I will do the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Quotation marks do not just signify direct quotes.  They also serve to indicate paraphrases and irony.  If you want to have an honest and mature debate/discussion, you're going to have to learn not to project your limited grammatical skills, laced with butthurt, onto me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So can I assume you are a Cruz supporter, and that your liberal use of quotation marks is generally intended as irony. Sorry, I missed that context.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You may assume if you wish, or if you wish to be courteous, you could ask.
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> My original post topic was a third party run by a Trump/Bernie ticket. I did in fact misstate in a later post Trump/Kasish. Sorry for that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It happens.  I'm often posting with a seven-year-old running in and out of the room, screaming like a dervish, at which point I'm doing good to put together a coherent sentence.
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> You maybe right that Bernster wouldn't want to have anything to do with Trump, but you never know when you dangle a VPship in front of him. It would give him a larger platform to spew his socialistic views, and all these guys are major egomaniacs. And when you consider that nobody really knows what the Trumpsters real political agenda is (maybe somebody does, I certainly don't),  Bernie may think he can advance his agenda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Honestly, Bernie Sanders doesn't even vaguely strike me as someone who has EVER cared about his own personal power, prestige, and position.  Whatever else he is, he comes off as a sincere and impassioned ideologue.  I disagree vehemently with every single thing he says and believes, but he has given me no reason to think he's not genuine.
> 
> That being said, it's hard to imagine him having any reason or desire to align himself with a campaign that's so completely about Narcissus-on-Fifth-Avenue and his lifelong love affair with himself.  If I can figure out that Donald Trump doesn't give the platform to anyone else, Bernie can figure it out, too.  His agenda isn't difficult to suss out (although I think it's a stretch to call it a _political _agenda):  he's a giant, overinflated ego on legs.
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> In regards to political leaders and there understanding of the economy in general- My view is that virtually all these candidates are less inclined to act in what they think is in the best interest of the country economically, but rather what is in their best interest politically. Sure, they all have some basic ideological platform Economically. Bernie and Hillary are clearly more socialistic and favor various degrees of wealth distribution and government control, Teddy is more free market based, restraint of government, and inclined to private sector. You can say they all have basic knowledge of economics and how it should or does intersect with government.  My opinion is they don't have a very deep understanding of cause and effect with regard to economic policy. Donald Trump is the only canidate to never vote to increase the staggering federal debt which is over $19 trillion, but I also assume the debt will likely increase under Trump or any other canidate who wins.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If I may ask, on what are you basing this blanket view of "all these candidates"?  Is it something specific in their individual backgrounds and records, or is it general ennui and a love of sounded _pseudo_-sophisticated and jaded?  I add the last because such things are so incredibly rampant, to the point of the ridiculous.  Some people are just so enamored of yawning and saying, "All politicians are corrupt.  These are not our best and brightest", regardless of who's actually being discussed, that they don't even waste time finding a reason to say it any more, but jump right to the shitting on them all generally part.
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> I really would prefer to engage in a politically based discussion, and I am not here to try and make those with a different political view look silly or call them names. Am I in the wrong place?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Honestly, it depends on who you talk to and how you talk to them.
> 
> This message board is like any other group of human beings, generally speaking:  the idiots outnumber the intelligent on any given day, and membership in both sides changes frequently.
> 
> Most of the people here are more informed and politically involved than your average American, but that doesn't always mean they're thinking coherently about the information they have.  And it's not a place for the faint-of-heart or the easily-offended, because very few people here, regardless of where they fall on the political spectrum, are much interested in being nice.
> 
> That being said, if you have a thick skin and are prepared to state your positions logically and with substantiation, and then to hold your ground and defend them vigorously, you can find people who will respond in kind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I couldn't agree more that Bernie is easily the most sincere canidate, and I too reject his views. But I think there are 3 things that you must do to some degree to be successful in politics, I like to call them the evil trinity of politics. 1- you must be willing to ask people for money (Billionaire Trump is the rare exception proving the rule), 2- you must compromise your values. Getting things done requires compromise since this is not a dictatorship. 3- you must be willing to lie/deceive/cheat.   A corollary  is the more successful you are at these 3 things the higher  you will rise in politics.
> 
> So yes, I am one who holds politicians in low regard. They are necessary to run the government, but I think we give them way too much unchecked power. I would prefer the state governments to handle most of what the federal government does, and in this way we would have multiple small experiments in health care, education, etc., rather than one large system with all our eggs in one basket, different systems that can learn from each other.
> 
> Who is your canidate of choice?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First, I would like to point out that Trump is taking less in donations (don't ever believe his bullshit about self-funding), not because he's a billionaire, but because the media has been willingly footing most of the bill.  I cannot remember the last time, if ever, that the media has been this far up a candidate's ass without a microscope.
> 
> Second, I disagree that it's necessary to compromise one's values.  True, most people DO end up doing so, but it's not necessary.  Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.  I will agree that it's sometimes necessary to make compromises, to accept half-a-loaf now and then work toward getting the other half later, rather than demanding the whole loaf right away and getting jack shit.  But that isn't the same thing.
> 
> Third, I absolutely disagree that one has to lie/deceive/cheat to succeed in politics.  But generally, one DOES have to be good at phrasing the truth in the right way to make an impact and accomplish one's goals.  This is really not any different from the normal diplomacy most adults have to employ to continue holding jobs, having friends, maintaining relationships with relatives . . .
> 
> I will agree that we give away entirely too much power to the federal government.  People bitch about the need to take money out of politics, but the truth is, the only way to really do that is to make politicians less valuable, ie. take away the power that they currently wield.  Who would want to bribe them if they didn't have so much control?
> 
> I am, in fact, supporting Ted Cruz, in large part because I believe he's serious about wanting to re-institute the Constitutional checks and balances that are supposed to protect us.  And I think he more than proved himself the Don Quixote we need to tilt at the windmill of federal overreach while he was in the Senate.
Click to expand...


Great point on how media coverage is self funding for Trump. He is a master self promoter. Almost makes you wonder if he really could make Mexico pay for that wall. BTW-That's meant as sarcasm, so please don't think I am looking for that debate.

Maybe I am too jaded concerning politicians. I am admittedly creeped out by the whole political process. Is seems so disingenuous. I understand the need, but I don't have to like it. Some people have to clean sewers, but I wouldn't want that job either. 

I see three vehicles of trade and barter in Washington - Power, money, and influence, and one begets the other. Go to Washington as a young, newly elected congressman with a few grains of power and influence, and if you play the game well you will get much richer. Make lots of money in business and buy yourself an election.....presto, instant influence. Stay in congress for 30 years like John Boehner and enjoy your power. The whole thing seems very unseemly to me.

This country was created and inspired by men who as political leaders made sacrifices. They didn't get rich by telling King George to get out. Instead they invited pain and agony. They were Statesmen, so allow me the fairy tale of looking for those types of leaders. Remember, you referenced Don Quixote. 

I have actually had moments of supporting Cruz, but I am concerned about being made the fool again. FYI- I was all in on Carly until she was proven unviable.


----------



## Cecilie1200

BuckToothMoron said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, smashing the system is my observation of what Trump and his followers themselves characterize what they're doing.  Have you not been paying attention all this time?
> 
> Thanks for the backpedaling, temporizing, and word-parsing.  Now that you're done inadequately trying to CYA and walk back your attacks, let me point out that you did not say, "Cruz and Kasich don't have degrees in economics, they'll hire economists to work for them".  You said, "Neither understand the economy".  Repeatedly.  You then followed up with, "None of the candidates understand the economy."  There is a difference.  No one has ever suggested that either Cruz or Kasich has a degree in economics, or that it is their field of expertise, or that they intend to rely only on their own knowledge and expertise in that area.  Donald Trump, on the other hand, HAS suggested that being rich makes him an economic expert, and that he WILL rely primarily on his own "good brain" and self-advice.
> 
> Nevertheless, one does not have to be an economist to have a general grounding in and understanding of basic economics and how it does and should intersect with the government.  I can't speak for Kasich, because I find him utterly uninteresting, but I can tell you that Ted Cruz DOES have that understanding.  He also has the necessary understanding and wisdom to choose economic advisers who are not talking out their ivory-tower, never-worked-in-the-real-world, I-have-a-great-theory asses.
> 
> You did, in fact, say Trump/Kasich.  But I sincerely doubt that Bernie Sanders wants anything to do with Trump, either.
> 
> Quotation marks do not just signify direct quotes.  They also serve to indicate paraphrases and irony.  If you want to have an honest and mature debate/discussion, you're going to have to learn not to project your limited grammatical skills, laced with butthurt, onto me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So can I assume you are a Cruz supporter, and that your liberal use of quotation marks is generally intended as irony. Sorry, I missed that context.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You may assume if you wish, or if you wish to be courteous, you could ask.
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> My original post topic was a third party run by a Trump/Bernie ticket. I did in fact misstate in a later post Trump/Kasish. Sorry for that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It happens.  I'm often posting with a seven-year-old running in and out of the room, screaming like a dervish, at which point I'm doing good to put together a coherent sentence.
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> You maybe right that Bernster wouldn't want to have anything to do with Trump, but you never know when you dangle a VPship in front of him. It would give him a larger platform to spew his socialistic views, and all these guys are major egomaniacs. And when you consider that nobody really knows what the Trumpsters real political agenda is (maybe somebody does, I certainly don't),  Bernie may think he can advance his agenda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Honestly, Bernie Sanders doesn't even vaguely strike me as someone who has EVER cared about his own personal power, prestige, and position.  Whatever else he is, he comes off as a sincere and impassioned ideologue.  I disagree vehemently with every single thing he says and believes, but he has given me no reason to think he's not genuine.
> 
> That being said, it's hard to imagine him having any reason or desire to align himself with a campaign that's so completely about Narcissus-on-Fifth-Avenue and his lifelong love affair with himself.  If I can figure out that Donald Trump doesn't give the platform to anyone else, Bernie can figure it out, too.  His agenda isn't difficult to suss out (although I think it's a stretch to call it a _political _agenda):  he's a giant, overinflated ego on legs.
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> In regards to political leaders and there understanding of the economy in general- My view is that virtually all these candidates are less inclined to act in what they think is in the best interest of the country economically, but rather what is in their best interest politically. Sure, they all have some basic ideological platform Economically. Bernie and Hillary are clearly more socialistic and favor various degrees of wealth distribution and government control, Teddy is more free market based, restraint of government, and inclined to private sector. You can say they all have basic knowledge of economics and how it should or does intersect with government.  My opinion is they don't have a very deep understanding of cause and effect with regard to economic policy. Donald Trump is the only canidate to never vote to increase the staggering federal debt which is over $19 trillion, but I also assume the debt will likely increase under Trump or any other canidate who wins.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If I may ask, on what are you basing this blanket view of "all these candidates"?  Is it something specific in their individual backgrounds and records, or is it general ennui and a love of sounded _pseudo_-sophisticated and jaded?  I add the last because such things are so incredibly rampant, to the point of the ridiculous.  Some people are just so enamored of yawning and saying, "All politicians are corrupt.  These are not our best and brightest", regardless of who's actually being discussed, that they don't even waste time finding a reason to say it any more, but jump right to the shitting on them all generally part.
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> I really would prefer to engage in a politically based discussion, and I am not here to try and make those with a different political view look silly or call them names. Am I in the wrong place?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Honestly, it depends on who you talk to and how you talk to them.
> 
> This message board is like any other group of human beings, generally speaking:  the idiots outnumber the intelligent on any given day, and membership in both sides changes frequently.
> 
> Most of the people here are more informed and politically involved than your average American, but that doesn't always mean they're thinking coherently about the information they have.  And it's not a place for the faint-of-heart or the easily-offended, because very few people here, regardless of where they fall on the political spectrum, are much interested in being nice.
> 
> That being said, if you have a thick skin and are prepared to state your positions logically and with substantiation, and then to hold your ground and defend them vigorously, you can find people who will respond in kind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I couldn't agree more that Bernie is easily the most sincere canidate, and I too reject his views. But I think there are 3 things that you must do to some degree to be successful in politics, I like to call them the evil trinity of politics. 1- you must be willing to ask people for money (Billionaire Trump is the rare exception proving the rule), 2- you must compromise your values. Getting things done requires compromise since this is not a dictatorship. 3- you must be willing to lie/deceive/cheat.   A corollary  is the more successful you are at these 3 things the higher  you will rise in politics.
> 
> So yes, I am one who holds politicians in low regard. They are necessary to run the government, but I think we give them way too much unchecked power. I would prefer the state governments to handle most of what the federal government does, and in this way we would have multiple small experiments in health care, education, etc., rather than one large system with all our eggs in one basket, different systems that can learn from each other.
> 
> Who is your canidate of choice?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First, I would like to point out that Trump is taking less in donations (don't ever believe his bullshit about self-funding), not because he's a billionaire, but because the media has been willingly footing most of the bill.  I cannot remember the last time, if ever, that the media has been this far up a candidate's ass without a microscope.
> 
> Second, I disagree that it's necessary to compromise one's values.  True, most people DO end up doing so, but it's not necessary.  Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.  I will agree that it's sometimes necessary to make compromises, to accept half-a-loaf now and then work toward getting the other half later, rather than demanding the whole loaf right away and getting jack shit.  But that isn't the same thing.
> 
> Third, I absolutely disagree that one has to lie/deceive/cheat to succeed in politics.  But generally, one DOES have to be good at phrasing the truth in the right way to make an impact and accomplish one's goals.  This is really not any different from the normal diplomacy most adults have to employ to continue holding jobs, having friends, maintaining relationships with relatives . . .
> 
> I will agree that we give away entirely too much power to the federal government.  People bitch about the need to take money out of politics, but the truth is, the only way to really do that is to make politicians less valuable, ie. take away the power that they currently wield.  Who would want to bribe them if they didn't have so much control?
> 
> I am, in fact, supporting Ted Cruz, in large part because I believe he's serious about wanting to re-institute the Constitutional checks and balances that are supposed to protect us.  And I think he more than proved himself the Don Quixote we need to tilt at the windmill of federal overreach while he was in the Senate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Great point on how media coverage is self funding for Trump. He is a master self promoter. Almost makes you wonder if he really could make Mexico pay for that wall. BTW-That's meant as sarcasm, so please don't think I am looking for that debate.
Click to expand...




It is a fact that Donald Trump's major business skill is in self-promotion.  In a very real sense, much of his wealth and success has come from this.  Even he admits that his "brand" is a substantial chunk of his assets, although he typically values it more highly than financial experts do.



BuckToothMoron said:


> Maybe I am too jaded concerning politicians. I am admittedly creeped out by the whole political process. Is seems so disingenuous. I understand the need, but I don't have to like it. Some people have to clean sewers, but I wouldn't want that job either.
> 
> I see three vehicles of trade and barter in Washington - Power, money, and influence, and one begets the other. Go to Washington as a young, newly elected congressman with a few grains of power and influence, and if you play the game well you will get much richer. Make lots of money in business and buy yourself an election.....presto, instant influence. Stay in congress for 30 years like John Boehner and enjoy your power. The whole thing seems very unseemly to me.



Politicians are much like anyone else, when it comes right down to it:  motivated by self-interest.  I'm okay with that, in general.  It's easy and predictable, and can be worked with, provided one does not wish to be lazy and apathetic.  Problem is, so much of our nation DOES want to be lazy and apathetic.

Altruists and do-gooders creep me out more, because they could do any damned thing, at any given moment, and they're damned unpredictable.



BuckToothMoron said:


> This country was created and inspired by men who as political leaders made sacrifices. They didn't get rich by telling King George to get out. Instead they invited pain and agony. They were Statesmen, so allow me the fairy tale of looking for those types of leaders. Remember, you referenced Don Quixote.



True.  And if you can find a statesman, who truly understands and subscribes to the good of the nation as a whole, then it's a rare and wonderful thing.  They are not common, and let's be honest, the way we treat people who run for office is more than enough to make most people capable of being statesmen write it off as a bad idea.

Most people who find something about the story and character of Don Quixote to admire do so through the allegory of tilting at windmills, fighting a hopeless battle against a huge, indifferent opponent, not because you have any chance of winning, but because sometimes losing battles are the ones that most need to be fought.  I compare Ted Cruz's performance in the Senate to Don Quixote because, in a sense, he was not sent to the Senate to win battles (in the sense of passing legislation), but to fight the losing battles in order to bring to light the problems in the system.  And he did it.  If there is any candidate in recent history who understands the importance of picking a hill to die on, it's Ted Cruz.



BuckToothMoron said:


> I have actually had moments of supporting Cruz, but I am concerned about being made the fool again. FYI- I was all in on Carly until she was proven unviable.



Well, I am a born skeptic, bordering on cynic, and my bullshit detector was further honed by being raised in a fundamentalist Pentecostal church.  I've seen my fair share of tent revivals and thought packing its bags and heading for the Bahamas to leave emotion in charge.  I genuinely believe that Cruz is serious about his goals of re-imposing Constitutional restrictions on government and increasing freedom from government for Americans.  I don't know that that resonates with populist voters, so I don't know that they realize that achieving his goals WILL achieve their goals.  But I think his history and record tell us that he WILL consider rule of law - and particularly, rule of THE law, the Constituion - as his guiding principle.  As Texas Solicitor General, he fought every case he was told to fight, to the best of his ability, even when they were not in line with his personal opinions, because it was his job, and because it was the law.  I think that speaks very well of his respect for both things.


----------



## BuckToothMoron

Raised Pentecostal, ok, that gives me some insight on your perspective. I have to admit that Teds manner and tone remind me of a religious jubilee taking place inside a tent next to a cornfield. But that is just tv for me. I Wasn't raised with it and I don't find it comforting. I don't want the federal government to ban abortion. Scalia knew it wasn't an issue for the federal government. I respect everybody's chosen faith, but to me it is a slippery slope in politics and government. I'd prefer to listen to a debate of the issues without any canidate invoking God. Still, I'd taking him any day over Hillary.


----------



## Cecilie1200

BuckToothMoron said:


> Raised Pentecostal, ok, that gives me some insight on your perspective. I have to admit that Teds manner and tone remind me of a religious jubilee taking place inside a tent next to a cornfield. But that is just tv for me. I Wasn't raised with it and I don't find it comforting. I don't want the federal government to ban abortion. Scalia knew it wasn't an issue for the federal government. I respect everybody's chosen faith, but to me it is a slippery slope in politics and government. I'd prefer to listen to a debate of the issues without any canidate invoking God. Still, I'd taking him any day over Hillary.



See, I don't have a problem with the way Ted talks, which seems more like a trial lawyer than a preacher to me.  I am not one who looks for a candidate I "like" or "would want to have a beer with".  I'm never going to meet the guy in person, so it's irrelevant to me whether I would want to be friends with him or not.  I LIKE the idea of a President who sounds smarter, better educated, and more informed than I am.  That's VERY comforting, because I'm asking him to do a job I could never do myself.

I don't think Ted Cruz would be pushing for the federal government to ban abortion.  That's not Constitutional, and he's a Constitutionalist, who believes that the powers not enumerated therein belong to the states.  I believe he would push to return that power to the states, to let them and their people decide what THEY want.  And we can't ask any more than that.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Harry Dresden said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> "I am an angry conservative..."
> 
> You’re a ridiculous conservative – which is likely redundant.
> 
> 
> 
> shut the fuck up jones....your a pussy who has never replied to anyone.....that makes you a scared left winger....
Click to expand...


Very unlike you Harry.  Why the animus?


----------



## BuckToothMoron

Cecilie1200 said:


> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> Raised Pentecostal, ok, that gives me some insight on your perspective. I have to admit that Teds manner and tone remind me of a religious jubilee taking place inside a tent next to a cornfield. But that is just tv for me. I Wasn't raised with it and I don't find it comforting. I don't want the federal government to ban abortion. Scalia knew it wasn't an issue for the federal government. I respect everybody's chosen faith, but to me it is a slippery slope in politics and government. I'd prefer to listen to a debate of the issues without any canidate invoking God. Still, I'd taking him any day over Hillary.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See, I don't have a problem with the way Ted talks, which seems more like a trial lawyer than a preacher to me.  I am not one who looks for a candidate I "like" or "would want to have a beer with".  I'm never going to meet the guy in person, so it's irrelevant to me whether I would want to be friends with him or not.  I LIKE the idea of a President who sounds smarter, better educated, and more informed than I am.  That's VERY comforting, because I'm asking him to do a job I could never do myself.
> 
> I don't think Ted Cruz would be pushing for the federal government to ban abortion.  That's not Constitutional, and he's a Constitutionalist, who believes that the powers not enumerated therein belong to the states.  I believe he would push to return that power to the states, to let them and their people decide what THEY want.  And we can't ask any more than that.
Click to expand...


Yep, the way a canidate speaks has a huge effect on how they are perceived. My son actually likes to listen to old Ronald Reagan speeches (yes, I am beaming), I have never heard anyone better. 

I am not so concerned with Ted, or any canidates for that matter, going hell bent after legal abortions. I mentioned it only to reveal a point of contention I have with the GOP platform. Full disclosure- I dropped my party affiliation about ten years ago, but I still vote right. I just no longer want to be associated with the party.

I like to think of myself as a constitutionalist, and I believe the biggest reason the Feds have absconded with the powers that should be with the states is the 17th Amendment.


----------



## Harry Dresden

Wry Catcher said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> "I am an angry conservative..."
> 
> You’re a ridiculous conservative – which is likely redundant.
> 
> 
> 
> shut the fuck up jones....your a pussy who has never replied to anyone.....that makes you a scared left winger....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Very unlike you Harry.  Why the animus?
Click to expand...

have you ever noticed that jones comes into a thread and will say something but...NEVER and i mean never will answer questions about what he posts like everyone else does here?....when he first showed up in the other format,me and quite a few others would ask the guy to either explain what he means,back up what you say,but the jerk never answers....and when he comments on what you say it matters especially when he calls the poster a name,like he did here....if he cant partake in the conversation here like EVERYONE else does....why is he here?.... it cant be to debate or argue or whatever you want to call what happens here....the guy is a pussy...and thats the reason Wry....


----------



## BuckToothMoron

Harry Dresden said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> "I am an angry conservative..."
> 
> You’re a ridiculous conservative – which is likely redundant.
> 
> 
> 
> shut the fuck up jones....your a pussy who has never replied to anyone.....that makes you a scared left winger....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Very unlike you Harry.  Why the animus?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> have you ever noticed that jones comes into a thread and will say something but...NEVER and i mean never will answer questions about what he posts like everyone else does here?....when he first showed up in the other format,me and quite a few others would ask the guy to either explain what he means,back up what you say,but the jerk never answers....and when he comments on what you say it matters especially when he calls the poster a name,like he did here....if he cant partake in the conversation here like EVERYONE else does....why is he here?.... it cant be to debate or argue or whatever you want to call what happens here....the guy is a pussy...and thats the reason Wry....
Click to expand...

I tend to ignore post which are more about personal attacks and less about intelligent debate and ideas.


----------



## Harry Dresden

BuckToothMoron said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> "I am an angry conservative..."
> 
> You’re a ridiculous conservative – which is likely redundant.
> 
> 
> 
> shut the fuck up jones....your a pussy who has never replied to anyone.....that makes you a scared left winger....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Very unlike you Harry.  Why the animus?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> have you ever noticed that jones comes into a thread and will say something but...NEVER and i mean never will answer questions about what he posts like everyone else does here?....when he first showed up in the other format,me and quite a few others would ask the guy to either explain what he means,back up what you say,but the jerk never answers....and when he comments on what you say it matters especially when he calls the poster a name,like he did here....if he cant partake in the conversation here like EVERYONE else does....why is he here?.... it cant be to debate or argue or whatever you want to call what happens here....the guy is a pussy...and thats the reason Wry....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I tend to ignore post which are more about personal attacks and less about intelligent debate and ideas.
Click to expand...

not all of jones posts are personal attacks.....most of them are criticisms of what is posted..... criticisms that he is to much of a pussy to defend when called on it....


----------



## Wry Catcher

Harry Dresden said:


> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> "I am an angry conservative..."
> 
> You’re a ridiculous conservative – which is likely redundant.
> 
> 
> 
> shut the fuck up jones....your a pussy who has never replied to anyone.....that makes you a scared left winger....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Very unlike you Harry.  Why the animus?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> have you ever noticed that jones comes into a thread and will say something but...NEVER and i mean never will answer questions about what he posts like everyone else does here?....when he first showed up in the other format,me and quite a few others would ask the guy to either explain what he means,back up what you say,but the jerk never answers....and when he comments on what you say it matters especially when he calls the poster a name,like he did here....if he cant partake in the conversation here like EVERYONE else does....why is he here?.... it cant be to debate or argue or whatever you want to call what happens here....the guy is a pussy...and thats the reason Wry....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I tend to ignore post which are more about personal attacks and less about intelligent debate and ideas.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> not all of jones posts are personal attacks.....most of them are criticisms of what is posted..... criticisms that he is to much of a pussy to defend when called on it....
Click to expand...


Rabbi(t) who got the 't' added 'cause he runs each time (often) that he lies, makes up stuff and edits the posts of others to build a straw man.  Thus I understand you frustration, my comment was based on my experience with you.  Mea culpa.


----------



## saveliberty

Welcome to the board.  Politics can be discussed in sections below this one.  You can type and form opinions, pretty much the benchmark around here.


----------



## saveliberty

BuckToothMoron said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> "I am an angry conservative..."
> 
> You’re a ridiculous conservative – which is likely redundant.
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm, I guess I confused this board with one that has intelligent comments and debates instead of thoughtless name calling.
Click to expand...


We get that a lot.


----------



## Harry Dresden

Wry Catcher said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> shut the fuck up jones....your a pussy who has never replied to anyone.....that makes you a scared left winger....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Very unlike you Harry.  Why the animus?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> have you ever noticed that jones comes into a thread and will say something but...NEVER and i mean never will answer questions about what he posts like everyone else does here?....when he first showed up in the other format,me and quite a few others would ask the guy to either explain what he means,back up what you say,but the jerk never answers....and when he comments on what you say it matters especially when he calls the poster a name,like he did here....if he cant partake in the conversation here like EVERYONE else does....why is he here?.... it cant be to debate or argue or whatever you want to call what happens here....the guy is a pussy...and thats the reason Wry....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I tend to ignore post which are more about personal attacks and less about intelligent debate and ideas.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> not all of jones posts are personal attacks.....most of them are criticisms of what is posted..... criticisms that he is to much of a pussy to defend when called on it....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Rabbi(t) who got the 't' added 'cause he runs each time (often) that he lies, makes up stuff and edits the posts of others to build a straw man.  Thus I understand you frustration, my comment was based on my experience with you.  Mea culpa.
Click to expand...

but at least rabbi will respond to posts...jones has never responded.....jones is like the guy who waits for someone else to knock someone down and then runs up to the guy and gets a kick in and calls the guy an asshole and of course then runs away....


----------



## BuckToothMoron

saveliberty said:


> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> "I am an angry conservative..."
> 
> You’re a ridiculous conservative – which is likely redundant.
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm, I guess I confused this board with one that has intelligent comments and debates instead of thoughtless name calling.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We get that a lot.
Click to expand...


Interesting, on another thread I was recently accused of being a &@$!? Democrat. Lesser folks might develop an identity crisis.


----------



## saveliberty

BuckToothMoron said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> "I am an angry conservative..."
> 
> You’re a ridiculous conservative – which is likely redundant.
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm, I guess I confused this board with one that has intelligent comments and debates instead of thoughtless name calling.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We get that a lot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Interesting, on another thread I was recently accused of being a &@$!? Democrat. Lesser folks might develop an identity crisis.
Click to expand...


There are many online quizzes you can take to confirm your affiliation.  Just in case a crisis actually develops.


----------



## Martin Eden Mercury

BuckToothMoron said:


> I am an angry conservative, and I can see  there is a similar outrage being manifested on the other side as well. Voters of both political ilk are showing real disdain for their respective establishment leaders.


Actually, you have listed a fantasy world reality. Voters in the Democratic primaries have overwhelmingly voted for Hillary Clinton. Voters in the Republican primaries have given Donald Trump an average of  around 34/35% of the vote. Check out the actual numbers, and then compare them to your fantasy world reality


----------



## BuckToothMoron

Martin Eden Mercury said:


> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am an angry conservative, and I can see  there is a similar outrage being manifested on the other side as well. Voters of both political ilk are showing real disdain for their respective establishment leaders.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, you have listed a fantasy world reality. Voters in the Democratic primaries have overwhelmingly voted for Hillary Clinton. Voters in the Republican primaries have given Donald Trump an average of  around 34/35% of the vote. Check out the actual numbers, and then compare them to your fantasy world reality
Click to expand...


Sorry, I am not sure if I follow you. Are you saying Hillary slapping around Bernie Sanders is more significant than Trump dominating every other republican canidate ( at least nine)? If that is your point- using your own numbers, I think  winning 35 % in a loaded field is at least as impressive as winning a majority in a 2 horse race.  With 4 or 5 canidates in the field, what percentage would impress you?


----------



## BlueGin

BuckToothMoron said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> "I am an angry conservative..."
> 
> You’re a ridiculous conservative – which is likely redundant.
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm, I guess I confused this board with one that has intelligent comments and debates instead of thoughtless name calling.
Click to expand...

You sure did. Good job.


----------



## Martin Eden Mercury

BuckToothMoron said:


> Martin Eden Mercury said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am an angry conservative, and I can see  there is a similar outrage being manifested on the other side as well. Voters of both political ilk are showing real disdain for their respective establishment leaders.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, you have listed a fantasy world reality. Voters in the Democratic primaries have overwhelmingly voted for Hillary Clinton. Voters in the Republican primaries have given Donald Trump an average of  around 34/35% of the vote. Check out the actual numbers, and then compare them to your fantasy world reality
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, I am not sure if I follow you. Are you saying Hillary slapping around Bernie Sanders is more significant than Trump dominating every other republican canidate ( at least nine)? If that is your point- using your own numbers, I think  winning 35 % in a loaded field is at least as impressive as winning a majority in a 2 horse race.  With 4 or 5 canidates in the field, what percentage would impress you?
Click to expand...

Fact: Trump did not pick up anything substantial after each candidate dropped out. So, he has a rock solid based. He has not improved (more than a few points) on that base over time. This after 9+ candidates drop out. Being stuck at around 35% is not a winning formula.

Hillary Clinton is popular with around 80% of Democratic voters.


----------



## DarkFury

Martin Eden Mercury said:


> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Martin Eden Mercury said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am an angry conservative, and I can see  there is a similar outrage being manifested on the other side as well. Voters of both political ilk are showing real disdain for their respective establishment leaders.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, you have listed a fantasy world reality. Voters in the Democratic primaries have overwhelmingly voted for Hillary Clinton. Voters in the Republican primaries have given Donald Trump an average of  around 34/35% of the vote. Check out the actual numbers, and then compare them to your fantasy world reality
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, I am not sure if I follow you. Are you saying Hillary slapping around Bernie Sanders is more significant than Trump dominating every other republican canidate ( at least nine)? If that is your point- using your own numbers, I think  winning 35 % in a loaded field is at least as impressive as winning a majority in a 2 horse race.  With 4 or 5 canidates in the field, what percentage would impress you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fact: Trump did not pick up anything substantial after each candidate dropped out. So, he has a rock solid based. He has not improved (more than a few points) on that base over time. This after 9+ candidates drop out. Being stuck at around 35% is not a winning formula.
> 
> Hillary Clinton is popular with around 80% of Democratic voters.
Click to expand...

*Ah, no that is a lie.
*


*

Unfavorable55.2%

Favorable40.4%

Undecided
*
*Hillary Clinton Favorable Rating - Polls - HuffPost Pollster

A collection of over 300 polls one day old.
*


----------



## Cecilie1200

BuckToothMoron said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> "I am an angry conservative..."
> 
> You’re a ridiculous conservative – which is likely redundant.
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm, I guess I confused this board with one that has intelligent comments and debates instead of thoughtless name calling.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We get that a lot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Interesting, on another thread I was recently accused of being a &@$!? Democrat. Lesser folks might develop an identity crisis.
Click to expand...


Don't let it get to you.  I've been one of the five more hardline conservatives on this board for 8 years or so, and some of these driveling chuckleheads have decided I'M a liberal Democrat.  I keep saying, Trump Koolaid is clearly not only toxic, but hallucinogenic.


----------



## IsaacNewton

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> "I am an angry conservative..."
> 
> You’re a ridiculous conservative – which is likely redundant.



Likely? You are kind.


----------



## eagle1462010

This is an intro thread............Welcome Aboard and glad to have you here.............Suggest opening a post in politics or MORE FUN........the Flame Zone for the current discussion.......






I think you were going to fast when you introduced yourself......LOL


----------



## IsaacNewton




----------



## eagle1462010

Martin Eden Mercury said:


> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Martin Eden Mercury said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am an angry conservative, and I can see  there is a similar outrage being manifested on the other side as well. Voters of both political ilk are showing real disdain for their respective establishment leaders.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, you have listed a fantasy world reality. Voters in the Democratic primaries have overwhelmingly voted for Hillary Clinton. Voters in the Republican primaries have given Donald Trump an average of  around 34/35% of the vote. Check out the actual numbers, and then compare them to your fantasy world reality
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, I am not sure if I follow you. Are you saying Hillary slapping around Bernie Sanders is more significant than Trump dominating every other republican canidate ( at least nine)? If that is your point- using your own numbers, I think  winning 35 % in a loaded field is at least as impressive as winning a majority in a 2 horse race.  With 4 or 5 canidates in the field, what percentage would impress you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fact: Trump did not pick up anything substantial after each candidate dropped out. So, he has a rock solid based. He has not improved (more than a few points) on that base over time. This after 9+ candidates drop out. Being stuck at around 35% is not a winning formula.
> 
> Hillary Clinton is popular with around 80% of Democratic voters.
Click to expand...

So popular that she is losing states...........the Super Delegates have already ensured her nomination.........Liberals in charge of the DOJ ensure that she doesn't get indicted...................

but the Dems do flock together come the General..........It will be down to turn out that decides it....unless the GOP goes postal against the 2 front runners in convention......then Hillary will walk right in.............................

She shouldn't be running for the leader of a girl scout troop, let alone the President.............

Ensure.........LOL.........seems a lot of old people are running this election......


----------



## Martin Eden Mercury

DarkFury said:


> Martin Eden Mercury said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Martin Eden Mercury said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am an angry conservative, and I can see  there is a similar outrage being manifested on the other side as well. Voters of both political ilk are showing real disdain for their respective establishment leaders.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, you have listed a fantasy world reality. Voters in the Democratic primaries have overwhelmingly voted for Hillary Clinton. Voters in the Republican primaries have given Donald Trump an average of  around 34/35% of the vote. Check out the actual numbers, and then compare them to your fantasy world reality
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, I am not sure if I follow you. Are you saying Hillary slapping around Bernie Sanders is more significant than Trump dominating every other republican canidate ( at least nine)? If that is your point- using your own numbers, I think  winning 35 % in a loaded field is at least as impressive as winning a majority in a 2 horse race.  With 4 or 5 canidates in the field, what percentage would impress you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fact: Trump did not pick up anything substantial after each candidate dropped out. So, he has a rock solid based. He has not improved (more than a few points) on that base over time. This after 9+ candidates drop out. Being stuck at around 35% is not a winning formula.
> 
> Hillary Clinton is popular with around 80% of Democratic voters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Ah, no that is a lie.
> *
> 
> 
> *
> 
> Unfavorable55.2%
> 
> Favorable40.4%
> 
> Undecided
> *
> *Hillary Clinton Favorable Rating - Polls - HuffPost Pollster
> 
> A collection of over 300 polls one day old.*
Click to expand...

  

you don't know how to read the polls?

"Hillary Clinton is beloved by voters in her party. In national polls, her favorability ratings among Democrats usually exceed 80 percent." - still true today


The Bernie Sanders Surge Is About Bernie, Not Hillary​


----------



## Martin Eden Mercury

eagle1462010 said:


> Martin Eden Mercury said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Martin Eden Mercury said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am an angry conservative, and I can see  there is a similar outrage being manifested on the other side as well. Voters of both political ilk are showing real disdain for their respective establishment leaders.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, you have listed a fantasy world reality. Voters in the Democratic primaries have overwhelmingly voted for Hillary Clinton. Voters in the Republican primaries have given Donald Trump an average of  around 34/35% of the vote. Check out the actual numbers, and then compare them to your fantasy world reality
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, I am not sure if I follow you. Are you saying Hillary slapping around Bernie Sanders is more significant than Trump dominating every other republican canidate ( at least nine)? If that is your point- using your own numbers, I think  winning 35 % in a loaded field is at least as impressive as winning a majority in a 2 horse race.  With 4 or 5 canidates in the field, what percentage would impress you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fact: Trump did not pick up anything substantial after each candidate dropped out. So, he has a rock solid based. He has not improved (more than a few points) on that base over time. This after 9+ candidates drop out. Being stuck at around 35% is not a winning formula.
> 
> Hillary Clinton is popular with around 80% of Democratic voters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So popular that she is losing states...........the Super Delegates have already ensured her nomination.........Liberals in charge of the DOJ ensure that she doesn't get indicted...................
> 
> but the Dems do flock together come the General..........It will be down to turn out that decides it....unless the GOP goes postal against the 2 front runners in convention......then Hillary will walk right in.............................
> 
> She shouldn't be running for the leader of a girl scout troop, let alone the President.............
> 
> Ensure.........LOL.........seems a lot of old people are running this election......
Click to expand...


Popular candidates lose states.


----------



## BuckToothMoron

Martin Eden Mercury said:


> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Martin Eden Mercury said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am an angry conservative, and I can see  there is a similar outrage being manifested on the other side as well. Voters of both political ilk are showing real disdain for their respective establishment leaders.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, you have listed a fantasy world reality. Voters in the Democratic primaries have overwhelmingly voted for Hillary Clinton. Voters in the Republican primaries have given Donald Trump an average of  around 34/35% of the vote. Check out the actual numbers, and then compare them to your fantasy world reality
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, I am not sure if I follow you. Are you saying Hillary slapping around Bernie Sanders is more significant than Trump dominating every other republican canidate ( at least nine)? If that is your point- using your own numbers, I think  winning 35 % in a loaded field is at least as impressive as winning a majority in a 2 horse race.  With 4 or 5 canidates in the field, what percentage would impress you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fact: Trump did not pick up anything substantial after each candidate dropped out. So, he has a rock solid based. He has not improved (more than a few points) on that base over time. This after 9+ candidates drop out. Being stuck at around 35% is not a winning formula.
> 
> Hillary Clinton is popular with around 80% of Democratic voters.
Click to expand...


Never saw that poll, but then again I don't pay much attention to any polls.


----------



## emilynghiem

BuckToothMoron said:


> I am an angry conservative, and I can see  there is a similar outrage being manifested on the other side as well. Voters of both political ilk are showing real disdain for their respective establishment leaders. Frankly, I will not vote for any candidate, but rather most certainly against either Clinton or Cruz...NO C's for me. And there just might be a way to keep both the awful C's out.
> 
> If the republicans disregard the clear choice candidate per the primaries they will definitely lose in November. Voters like me, and especially those who actually ballyhoo Trump for president wIll refuse to vote for anybody but Trump. We will either not vote, perhaps childishly cut off our nose and vote for the Dem, or (this is my preference) support a Third party run by the Trumpster. Remember, I am no Trumpite, but I am sick of the worn out joke of a party, the Gop. As a note- I would discourage anyone from being loyal to any party in lieu of being true to your own dogma.
> 
> So the conventional wisdom is that no 3rd party candidate can win, but we are already sailing a political ark in a sea like no other. Trump is 50% ahead of Cruz, his mouth is a boiling cauldron of vile, putrid muck, and the steamy ejects always land and sear his opponents. The closer the opponent is to the Republican establishment the more he is seared. Jeb-gone! Rubio tripped on his own tongue trying to avoid the scalding ejections. He's out! The armored suit Cruz built by calling Mitch "the ditch" McConnell a liar on the senate floor protects him, but does not allow him to advance. And John Kasich is a little gnat that merely survives by being to small to hit.
> 
> But Trump can't win with Only the support of disgruntled conservatives, so look around the corner and down the street. There you will find another group who has had it with what their party is shoving down their throats. The Bernie folks hate Clinton the way Trumpsters hate the Republicans. Short of an indictment, these guys will have to vote for Clinton, not vote, or ( my preference) support a third party canidate.
> 
> If Trump would wage a third party candidacy and ask Bernie to VP the ticket they could win, and in the process redraw the political lines. They can manufacture a platform to draw all people who hate the establishment.
> 
> Will somebody get these two guys in a room?



Thank God for you BuckToothMoron 
Now I know I'm not the only one saying Trump-Sanders could rebuild the economy and reform govt if you put their ideas/bases and resources together.
YES!

Do you want to start selling bumper stickers that say TRUMP SANDERS 2016

All my friends are SANDERS supporters, but most of them don't get these ideas need to be funded and run through the private sector
or they will lose the conservatives who believe in limited govt at the top, and shifting control to states/local at the grassroots level.

In Houston the third party Libertarians/Indie Conservatives were hosting meetings with the independent Progressives/Peace and Justice Left
who are fed up with the politicized liberals buying out and hijacking the party.

Where are you? Who are your Reps or Senators, which precincts or independent civic organizations are you with?
Can we connect your resources/contacts with mine and get a partnership coalition movement going to unite the forces on left and right?

Thanks and keep on keeping on,
this joint approach is going to win in the longrun
it's the only way to set up something sustainable
so it is going to weed out all the divisive nonsense in the way.

I like all the other candidates if you create a job for them doing something that everyone wants
and keep them out of areas that create objection and division. We need all hands on board, all candidates to work full time
on an agreed part of the plan, and we can turn this around.

Don't give up,but channel that anger as "compassion" and mobilize the troops
around reform ideas we actually AGREE on. Like Carson and Obama both
agreeing on using MICROLENDING to replace welfare, and both bringing up criminal justice issues
(where reform could save billions of dollars per state to pay for health care instead of taxing citizens for crimes, abuses, waste, and problems we didn't create)

Where do you want to start?
I'm a Constitutionalist with the Democratic Party
so I am happy to partner with you if you are the same on the Conservative side.

What issues do you want to campaign for,
Border Reform and global trafficking:
Earned Amnesty
music video for Sustainable Campus converting sweatshop labor to workstudy jobs
What do you think will rally the Sanders and Trump supporters to unite around business
plans and rebuild instead of destroy?


----------



## BuckToothMoron

emilynghiem said:


> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am an angry conservative, and I can see  there is a similar outrage being manifested on the other side as well. Voters of both political ilk are showing real disdain for their respective establishment leaders. Frankly, I will not vote for any candidate, but rather most certainly against either Clinton or Cruz...NO C's for me. And there just might be a way to keep both the awful C's out.
> 
> If the republicans disregard the clear choice candidate per the primaries they will definitely lose in November. Voters like me, and especially those who actually ballyhoo Trump for president wIll refuse to vote for anybody but Trump. We will either not vote, perhaps childishly cut off our nose and vote for the Dem, or (this is my preference) support a Third party run by the Trumpster. Remember, I am no Trumpite, but I am sick of the worn out joke of a party, the Gop. As a note- I would discourage anyone from being loyal to any party in lieu of being true to your own dogma.
> 
> So the conventional wisdom is that no 3rd party candidate can win, but we are already sailing a political ark in a sea like no other. Trump is 50% ahead of Cruz, his mouth is a boiling cauldron of vile, putrid muck, and the steamy ejects always land and sear his opponents. The closer the opponent is to the Republican establishment the more he is seared. Jeb-gone! Rubio tripped on his own tongue trying to avoid the scalding ejections. He's out! The armored suit Cruz built by calling Mitch "the ditch" McConnell a liar on the senate floor protects him, but does not allow him to advance. And John Kasich is a little gnat that merely survives by being to small to hit.
> 
> But Trump can't win with Only the support of disgruntled conservatives, so look around the corner and down the street. There you will find another group who has had it with what their party is shoving down their throats. The Bernie folks hate Clinton the way Trumpsters hate the Republicans. Short of an indictment, these guys will have to vote for Clinton, not vote, or ( my preference) support a third party canidate.
> 
> If Trump would wage a third party candidacy and ask Bernie to VP the ticket they could win, and in the process redraw the political lines. They can manufacture a platform to draw all people who hate the establishment.
> 
> Will somebody get these two guys in a room?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank God for you BuckToothMoron
> Now I know I'm not the only one saying Trump-Sanders could rebuild the economy and reform govt if you put their ideas/bases and resources together.
> YES!
> 
> Do you want to start selling bumper stickers that say TRUMP SANDERS 2016
> 
> All my friends are SANDERS supporters, but most of them don't get these ideas need to be funded and run through the private sector
> or they will lose the conservatives who believe in limited govt at the top, and shifting control to states/local at the grassroots level.
> 
> In Houston the third party Libertarians/Indie Conservatives were hosting meetings with the independent Progressives/Peace and Justice Left
> who are fed up with the politicized liberals buying out and hijacking the party.
> 
> Where are you? Who are your Reps or Senators, which precincts or independent civic organizations are you with?
> Can we connect your resources/contacts with mine and get a partnership coalition movement going to unite the forces on left and right?
> 
> Thanks and keep on keeping on,
> this joint approach is going to win in the longrun
> it's the only way to set up something sustainable
> so it is going to weed out all the divisive nonsense in the way.
> 
> I like all the other candidates if you create a job for them doing something that everyone wants
> and keep them out of areas that create objection and division. We need all hands on board, all candidates to work full time
> on an agreed part of the plan, and we can turn this around.
> 
> Don't give up,but channel that anger as "compassion" and mobilize the troops
> around reform ideas we actually AGREE on. Like Carson and Obama both
> agreeing on using MICROLENDING to replace welfare, and both bringing up criminal justice issues
> (where reform could save billions of dollars per state to pay for health care instead of taxing citizens for crimes, abuses, waste, and problems we didn't create)
> 
> Where do you want to start?
> I'm a Constitutionalist with the Democratic Party
> so I am happy to partner with you if you are the same on the Conservative side.
> 
> What issues do you want to campaign for,
> Border Reform and global trafficking:
> Earned Amnesty
> music video for Sustainable Campus converting sweatshop labor to workstudy jobs
> What do you think will rally the Sanders and Trump supporters to unite around business
> plans and rebuild instead of destroy?
Click to expand...


Ooh Emily, I think you misinterpreted by intention of a Trump/ Sanders ticket. I think they are both idiots, and most of their ideas are stupid. I don't want them to try to rebuild the economy anymore than I want a blind surgeon operating on me. 

I want to minimize the voice and influence of the established political leaders. These two guys are the stooges in my plan.


----------



## Martin Eden Mercury

BuckToothMoron said:


> Hillary Clinton is popular with around 80% of Democratic voters.



Never saw that poll, but then again I don't pay much attention to any polls.[/QUOTE]

Willful ignorance is one thing. Being proud of it is another. The use of polling can be terrible, but much polling is pretty darn good. Far better to go with polling than with the ignorance of emotions and intuition.


----------



## BuckToothMoron

Martin Eden Mercury said:


> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hillary Clinton is popular with around 80% of Democratic voters.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Never saw that poll, but then again I don't pay much attention to any polls.
Click to expand...


Willful ignorance is one thing. Being proud of it is another. The use of polling can be terrible, but much polling is pretty darn good. Far better to go with polling than with the ignorance of emotions and intuition.[/QUOTE]

Sure, or perhaps we could consider actual voting results. How do you know a good poll from a bad one, if it supports your position? Were there any polls that showed most people thought Trump would be out of the race by December? I am not inclined to read poll results, read the poll questions, research the demographic of those who were polled, dissect the bias of the pollster and then say viola....I now can predict everything. But it seems to work for you.


----------



## Martin Eden Mercury

BuckToothMoron said:


> Sure, or perhaps we could consider actual voting results. How do you know a good poll from a bad one, if it supports your position? Were there any polls that showed most people thought Trump would be out of the race by December? I am not inclined to read poll results, read the poll questions, research the demographic of those who were polled, dissect the bias of the pollster and then say viola....I now can predict everything. But it seems to work for you.


There you go again. You assume others look at polls in the way you (and many people) do. 

There are people who analyze polls. These people do not do polls, but they do have track records of analyzing polls. Following them might give more people insight as to what exactly is being polled and how to look at the use of polling. You appear to be hostile to anything that challenges your world view. Good luck with that


----------



## BuckToothMoron

Martin Eden Mercury said:


> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, or perhaps we could consider actual voting results. How do you know a good poll from a bad one, if it supports your position? Were there any polls that showed most people thought Trump would be out of the race by December? I am not inclined to read poll results, read the poll questions, research the demographic of those who were polled, dissect the bias of the pollster and then say viola....I now can predict everything. But it seems to work for you.
> 
> 
> 
> There you go again. You assume others look at polls in the way you (and many people) do.
> 
> There are people who analyze polls. These people do not do polls, but they do have track records of analyzing polls. Following them might give more people insight as to what exactly is being polled and how to look at the use of polling. You appear to be hostile to anything that challenges your world view. Good luck with that
Click to expand...

Not sure where this is going...it all started when I referenced Your "80% of democrats support Hillary" and I commented that I never saw that poll.  Now you feel compelled to tell me people make a living analyzing polls, thanks for that btw, I had no idea, and that has made me hostile to ......wait, who am I hostile toward again?


Martin Eden Mercury said:


> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, or perhaps we could consider actual voting results. How do you know a good poll from a bad one, if it supports your position? Were there any polls that showed most people thought Trump would be out of the race by December? I am not inclined to read poll results, read the poll questions, research the demographic of those who were polled, dissect the bias of the pollster and then say viola....I now can predict everything. But it seems to work for you.
> 
> 
> 
> There you go again. You assume others look at polls in the way you (and many people) do.
> 
> There are people who analyze polls. These people do not do polls, but they do have track records of analyzing polls. Following them might give more people insight as to what exactly is being polled and how to look at the use of polling. You appear to be hostile to anything that challenges your world view. Good luck with that[/QUOT
Click to expand...


----------



## Martin Eden Mercury

BuckToothMoron said:


> Never saw that poll, but then again I don't pay much attention to any polls.


That subject has been polled for about a year now, and you have not heard that statistic? I have to ask, where do you get your information?


----------



## BuckToothMoron

Martin Eden Mercury said:


> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> Never saw that poll, but then again I don't pay much attention to any polls.
> 
> 
> 
> That subject has been polled for about a year now, and you have not heard that statistic? I have to ask, where do you get your information?
Click to expand...

Which information are you specifically referring to?


----------



## Martin Eden Mercury

BuckToothMoron, Hillary Clinton's popularity/favorability ratings with Democrats has been polled over and over again. I am aware that certain news outlets give those stories short shrift, and that most partisan blogs and web sites give it little, or severely negative attention.


----------



## BuckToothMoron

Martin Eden Mercury said:


> BuckToothMoron, Hillary Clinton's popularity/favorability ratings with Democrats has been polled over and over again. I am aware that certain news outlets give those stories short shrift, and that most partisan blogs and web sites give it little, or severely negative attention.




Favorability Ratings Show Hillary Clinton Is Unelectable and Bernie Sanders Wins a General Election

Look, my point is that there are so many polls taken, and I am not inclined to spend a bunch of time parsing through them to determine their validity. Therefore when somebody uses a poll to make a prediction, defend a position or whatever, I tend to be less impressed. That's all, no wrong or right, just not the type of information I consider good for drawing conclusions. Let's let it go. We are on the same side here.


----------



## Martin Eden Mercury

BuckToothMoron said:


> Martin Eden Mercury said:
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron, Hillary Clinton's popularity/favorability ratings with Democrats has been polled over and over again. I am aware that certain news outlets give those stories short shrift, and that most partisan blogs and web sites give it little, or severely negative attention.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Favorability Ratings Show Hillary Clinton Is Unelectable and Bernie Sanders Wins a General Election
> 
> Look, my point is that there are so many polls taken, and I am not inclined to spend a bunch of time parsing through them to determine their validity. Therefore when somebody uses a poll to make a prediction, defend a position or whatever, I tend to be less impressed. That's all, no wrong or right, just not the type of information I consider good for drawing conclusions. Let's let it go. We are on the same side here.
Click to expand...

Okay, I see. I get interested when I see opinion pieces that use polling data to back up a partisan attack, used as objective analysis of polling data.

I do not "spend a bunch of time parsing through them to determine their validity." What I do is go to people and web sites that have a great track record of doing that for the rest of us. I especially like Nate Silver and 538 if only because they explain their methods of analysis. They do this with sports as well as with politics. I use Gallup for general questions because they got out of the politics horse races and now spend time polling issues.  Then there are The Green Papers: United States Presidential Election 2016 there are more sites and people I follow

I do not give much credence to the polling talking points of campaigns or partisan media (unless they have a great track record).


----------



## BuckToothMoron

Martin Eden Mercury said:


> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Martin Eden Mercury said:
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron, Hillary Clinton's popularity/favorability ratings with Democrats has been polled over and over again. I am aware that certain news outlets give those stories short shrift, and that most partisan blogs and web sites give it little, or severely negative attention.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Favorability Ratings Show Hillary Clinton Is Unelectable and Bernie Sanders Wins a General Election
> 
> Look, my point is that there are so many polls taken, and I am not inclined to spend a bunch of time parsing through them to determine their validity. Therefore when somebody uses a poll to make a prediction, defend a position or whatever, I tend to be less impressed. That's all, no wrong or right, just not the type of information I consider good for drawing conclusions. Let's let it go. We are on the same side here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Okay, I see. I get interested when I see opinion pieces that use polling data to back up a partisan attack, used as objective analysis of polling data.
> 
> I do not "spend a bunch of time parsing through them to determine their validity." What I do is go to people and web sites that have a great track record of doing that for the rest of us. I especially like Nate Silver and 538 if only because they explain their methods of analysis. They do this with sports as well as with politics. I use Gallup for general questions because they got out of the politics horse races and now spend time polling issues.  Then there are The Green Papers: United States Presidential Election 2016 there are more sites and people I follow
> 
> I do not give much credence to the polling talking points of campaigns or partisan media (unless they have a great track record).
Click to expand...

Kudos, you are clearly more qualified to comment on good versus bad polls than I am.


----------



## Martin Eden Mercury

BuckToothMoron said:


> Martin Eden Mercury said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Martin Eden Mercury said:
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron, Hillary Clinton's popularity/favorability ratings with Democrats has been polled over and over again. I am aware that certain news outlets give those stories short shrift, and that most partisan blogs and web sites give it little, or severely negative attention.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Favorability Ratings Show Hillary Clinton Is Unelectable and Bernie Sanders Wins a General Election
> 
> Look, my point is that there are so many polls taken, and I am not inclined to spend a bunch of time parsing through them to determine their validity. Therefore when somebody uses a poll to make a prediction, defend a position or whatever, I tend to be less impressed. That's all, no wrong or right, just not the type of information I consider good for drawing conclusions. Let's let it go. We are on the same side here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Okay, I see. I get interested when I see opinion pieces that use polling data to back up a partisan attack, used as objective analysis of polling data.
> 
> I do not "spend a bunch of time parsing through them to determine their validity." What I do is go to people and web sites that have a great track record of doing that for the rest of us. I especially like Nate Silver and 538 if only because they explain their methods of analysis. They do this with sports as well as with politics. I use Gallup for general questions because they got out of the politics horse races and now spend time polling issues.  Then there are The Green Papers: United States Presidential Election 2016 there are more sites and people I follow
> 
> I do not give much credence to the polling talking points of campaigns or partisan media (unless they have a great track record).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Kudos, you are clearly more qualified to comment on good versus bad polls than I am.
Click to expand...

Not really, but I am informed on the subject


----------



## Mertex

BuckToothMoron said:


> I am an angry conservative, and* I can see  there is a similar outrage being manifested on the other side as well. *Voters of both political ilk are showing real disdain for their respective establishment leaders. Frankly, I will not vote for any candidate, but rather most certainly against either Clinton or Cruz...NO C's for me. And there just might be a way to keep both the awful C's out.
> 
> If the republicans disregard the clear choice candidate per the primaries they will definitely lose in November. Voters like me, and especially those who actually ballyhoo Trump for president wIll refuse to vote for anybody but Trump. We will either not vote, perhaps childishly cut off our nose and vote for the Dem, or (this is my preference) support a Third party run by the Trumpster. Remember, I am no Trumpite, but I am sick of the worn out joke of a party, the Gop. As a note- I would discourage anyone from being loyal to any party in lieu of being true to your own dogma.
> 
> So the conventional wisdom is that no 3rd party candidate can win, but we are already sailing a political ark in a sea like no other. Trump is 50% ahead of Cruz, his mouth is a boiling cauldron of vile, putrid muck, and the steamy ejects always land and sear his opponents. The closer the opponent is to the Republican establishment the more he is seared. Jeb-gone! Rubio tripped on his own tongue trying to avoid the scalding ejections. He's out! The armored suit Cruz built by calling Mitch "the ditch" McConnell a liar on the senate floor protects him, but does not allow him to advance. And John Kasich is a little gnat that merely survives by being to small to hit.
> 
> But Trump can't win with Only the support of disgruntled conservatives, so look around the corner and down the street. There you will find another group who has had it with what their party is shoving down their throats. The Bernie folks hate Clinton the way Trumpsters hate the Republicans. Short of an indictment, these guys will have to vote for Clinton, not vote, or ( my preference) support a third party canidate.
> 
> If Trump would wage a third party candidacy and ask Bernie to VP the ticket they could win, and in the process redraw the political lines. They can manufacture a platform to draw all people who hate the establishment.
> 
> Will somebody get these two guys in a room?



Misery likes company....but I hate to break your bubble....there is no Democratic party trying to derail one of its candidates....and most Hillary supporters will gladly vote for Bernie, should it come to that.  Your party is a mess.....but don't try to console yourself by trying to make it seem that the Democratic party is in the same kind of shit bowl....good luck with your brokered convention....it will be fun to watch the Trumpsters riot....too bad they decided not to allow open carry at the convention.........

Not sure you're going to remain.....most weird named noobs just want to vent....but Welcome, anyway!


----------



## sealybobo

BuckToothMoron said:


> I am an angry conservative, and I can see  there is a similar outrage being manifested on the other side as well. Voters of both political ilk are showing real disdain for their respective establishment leaders. Frankly, I will not vote for any candidate, but rather most certainly against either Clinton or Cruz...NO C's for me. And there just might be a way to keep both the awful C's out.
> 
> If the republicans disregard the clear choice candidate per the primaries they will definitely lose in November. Voters like me, and especially those who actually ballyhoo Trump for president wIll refuse to vote for anybody but Trump. We will either not vote, perhaps childishly cut off our nose and vote for the Dem, or (this is my preference) support a Third party run by the Trumpster. Remember, I am no Trumpite, but I am sick of the worn out joke of a party, the Gop. As a note- I would discourage anyone from being loyal to any party in lieu of being true to your own dogma.
> 
> So the conventional wisdom is that no 3rd party candidate can win, but we are already sailing a political ark in a sea like no other. Trump is 50% ahead of Cruz, his mouth is a boiling cauldron of vile, putrid muck, and the steamy ejects always land and sear his opponents. The closer the opponent is to the Republican establishment the more he is seared. Jeb-gone! Rubio tripped on his own tongue trying to avoid the scalding ejections. He's out! The armored suit Cruz built by calling Mitch "the ditch" McConnell a liar on the senate floor protects him, but does not allow him to advance. And John Kasich is a little gnat that merely survives by being to small to hit.
> 
> But Trump can't win with Only the support of disgruntled conservatives, so look around the corner and down the street. There you will find another group who has had it with what their party is shoving down their throats. The Bernie folks hate Clinton the way Trumpsters hate the Republicans. Short of an indictment, these guys will have to vote for Clinton, not vote, or ( my preference) support a third party canidate.
> 
> If Trump would wage a third party candidacy and ask Bernie to VP the ticket they could win, and in the process redraw the political lines. They can manufacture a platform to draw all people who hate the establishment.
> 
> Will somebody get these two guys in a room?


I think you've been bamboozled. First of all, why are conservatives so angry? I can see being angry in 2008 and it's taken awhile but really the only people still hurting are uneducated blue collar workers. Are you one of these people? Because this is who trumps trying to win over. I don't believe Republicans truly care about these people because usually their advice to these people who took a step backward is for them to start their own business or go back to school. Now trumps gonna fix NAFTA? If we want to do that we'll need more liberal pro union politicians.

It's an election year. Either that's why you are worked up or you are a victim. Tell me your story. Is it your fault or someone else.


----------



## emilynghiem

sealybobo said:


> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am an angry conservative, and I can see  there is a similar outrage being manifested on the other side as well. Voters of both political ilk are showing real disdain for their respective establishment leaders. Frankly, I will not vote for any candidate, but rather most certainly against either Clinton or Cruz...NO C's for me. And there just might be a way to keep both the awful C's out.
> 
> If the republicans disregard the clear choice candidate per the primaries they will definitely lose in November. Voters like me, and especially those who actually ballyhoo Trump for president wIll refuse to vote for anybody but Trump. We will either not vote, perhaps childishly cut off our nose and vote for the Dem, or (this is my preference) support a Third party run by the Trumpster. Remember, I am no Trumpite, but I am sick of the worn out joke of a party, the Gop. As a note- I would discourage anyone from being loyal to any party in lieu of being true to your own dogma.
> 
> So the conventional wisdom is that no 3rd party candidate can win, but we are already sailing a political ark in a sea like no other. Trump is 50% ahead of Cruz, his mouth is a boiling cauldron of vile, putrid muck, and the steamy ejects always land and sear his opponents. The closer the opponent is to the Republican establishment the more he is seared. Jeb-gone! Rubio tripped on his own tongue trying to avoid the scalding ejections. He's out! The armored suit Cruz built by calling Mitch "the ditch" McConnell a liar on the senate floor protects him, but does not allow him to advance. And John Kasich is a little gnat that merely survives by being to small to hit.
> 
> But Trump can't win with Only the support of disgruntled conservatives, so look around the corner and down the street. There you will find another group who has had it with what their party is shoving down their throats. The Bernie folks hate Clinton the way Trumpsters hate the Republicans. Short of an indictment, these guys will have to vote for Clinton, not vote, or ( my preference) support a third party canidate.
> 
> If Trump would wage a third party candidacy and ask Bernie to VP the ticket they could win, and in the process redraw the political lines. They can manufacture a platform to draw all people who hate the establishment.
> 
> Will somebody get these two guys in a room?
> 
> 
> 
> I think you've been bamboozled. First of all, why are conservatives so angry? I can see being angry in 2008 and it's taken awhile but really the only people still hurting are uneducated blue collar workers. Are you one of these people? Because this is who trumps trying to win over. I don't believe Republicans truly care about these people because usually their advice to these people who took a step backward is for them to start their own business or go back to school. Now trumps gonna fix NAFTA? If we want to do that we'll need more liberal pro union politicians.
> 
> It's an election year. Either that's why you are worked up or you are a victim. Tell me your story. Is it your fault or someone else.
Click to expand...


Dear sealybobo
For conservatives who are serious in their beliefs against running social programs and agenda through govt, this trend is completely disturbing, destructive, and backwards with no way out.

If all the conservatives are preaching to keep control of funds, policies and programs OUT of govt hands, but more and more is going INTO govt hands.

And if all the liberal politicians keep SELLING this "dependence on govt" as benefits to get voters to support this trend, then this will never end but keep going in that direction.

So of course conservatives are fed up with this.

The ones who are hypocrites about it may be even MORE upset.  So it's ironic if the ones who HAVE been building programs outside of govt and "practicing what they've preached all along" may be MORE at peace (because they don't depend on govt in the first place); while the ones who HAVE been depending on govt and politics are the ones REALLY at odds. Because they have grown as dependent as the liberals they claimed to be different from.

I hope this means pushing more people to invest and develop sustainable programs outside of govt controls, so this doesn't affect them so much. If conservatives are right, then we shouldn't be depending on govt. And if liberals are right about being 'all inclusive with diversity' then that ALSO means everyone organizing things on a grassroots "DIY" level so everyone gets their way regardless how different our needs and beliefs are.

For either liberals or conservatives to achieve their ultimate goals, people need to "do it ourselves" anyway.  

Anyone who "lives in fear" that the "other party" is going to push "THEIR agenda through govt" at the expense of others, that spells misery.  You can't depend on govt to "establish your religion" -- anyone who depends on govt for that is missing the point.


----------



## sealybobo

emilynghiem said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am an angry conservative, and I can see  there is a similar outrage being manifested on the other side as well. Voters of both political ilk are showing real disdain for their respective establishment leaders. Frankly, I will not vote for any candidate, but rather most certainly against either Clinton or Cruz...NO C's for me. And there just might be a way to keep both the awful C's out.
> 
> If the republicans disregard the clear choice candidate per the primaries they will definitely lose in November. Voters like me, and especially those who actually ballyhoo Trump for president wIll refuse to vote for anybody but Trump. We will either not vote, perhaps childishly cut off our nose and vote for the Dem, or (this is my preference) support a Third party run by the Trumpster. Remember, I am no Trumpite, but I am sick of the worn out joke of a party, the Gop. As a note- I would discourage anyone from being loyal to any party in lieu of being true to your own dogma.
> 
> So the conventional wisdom is that no 3rd party candidate can win, but we are already sailing a political ark in a sea like no other. Trump is 50% ahead of Cruz, his mouth is a boiling cauldron of vile, putrid muck, and the steamy ejects always land and sear his opponents. The closer the opponent is to the Republican establishment the more he is seared. Jeb-gone! Rubio tripped on his own tongue trying to avoid the scalding ejections. He's out! The armored suit Cruz built by calling Mitch "the ditch" McConnell a liar on the senate floor protects him, but does not allow him to advance. And John Kasich is a little gnat that merely survives by being to small to hit.
> 
> But Trump can't win with Only the support of disgruntled conservatives, so look around the corner and down the street. There you will find another group who has had it with what their party is shoving down their throats. The Bernie folks hate Clinton the way Trumpsters hate the Republicans. Short of an indictment, these guys will have to vote for Clinton, not vote, or ( my preference) support a third party canidate.
> 
> If Trump would wage a third party candidacy and ask Bernie to VP the ticket they could win, and in the process redraw the political lines. They can manufacture a platform to draw all people who hate the establishment.
> 
> Will somebody get these two guys in a room?
> 
> 
> 
> I think you've been bamboozled. First of all, why are conservatives so angry? I can see being angry in 2008 and it's taken awhile but really the only people still hurting are uneducated blue collar workers. Are you one of these people? Because this is who trumps trying to win over. I don't believe Republicans truly care about these people because usually their advice to these people who took a step backward is for them to start their own business or go back to school. Now trumps gonna fix NAFTA? If we want to do that we'll need more liberal pro union politicians.
> 
> It's an election year. Either that's why you are worked up or you are a victim. Tell me your story. Is it your fault or someone else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear sealybobo
> For conservatives who are serious in their beliefs against running social programs and agenda through govt, this trend is completely disturbing, destructive, and backwards with no way out.
> 
> If all the conservatives are preaching to keep control of funds, policies and programs OUT of govt hands, but more and more is going INTO govt hands.
> 
> And if all the liberal politicians keep SELLING this "dependence on govt" as benefits to get voters to support this trend, then this will never end but keep going in that direction.
> 
> So of course conservatives are fed up with this.
> 
> The ones who are hypocrites about it may be even MORE upset.  So it's ironic if the ones who HAVE been building programs outside of govt and "practicing what they've preached all along" may be MORE at peace (because they don't depend on govt in the first place); while the ones who HAVE been depending on govt and politics are the ones REALLY at odds. Because they have grown as dependent as the liberals they claimed to be different from.
> 
> I hope this means pushing more people to invest and develop sustainable programs outside of govt controls, so this doesn't affect them so much. If conservatives are right, then we shouldn't be depending on govt. And if liberals are right about being 'all inclusive with diversity' then that ALSO means everyone organizing things on a grassroots "DIY" level so everyone gets their way regardless how different our needs and beliefs are.
> 
> For either liberals or conservatives to achieve their ultimate goals, people need to "do it ourselves" anyway.
> 
> Anyone who "lives in fear" that the "other party" is going to push "THEIR agenda through govt" at the expense of others, that spells misery.  You can't depend on govt to "establish your religion" -- anyone who depends on govt for that is missing the point.
Click to expand...

You said "if conservatives are right". They rarely are


----------



## emilynghiem

sealybobo said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am an angry conservative, and I can see  there is a similar outrage being manifested on the other side as well. Voters of both political ilk are showing real disdain for their respective establishment leaders. Frankly, I will not vote for any candidate, but rather most certainly against either Clinton or Cruz...NO C's for me. And there just might be a way to keep both the awful C's out.
> 
> If the republicans disregard the clear choice candidate per the primaries they will definitely lose in November. Voters like me, and especially those who actually ballyhoo Trump for president wIll refuse to vote for anybody but Trump. We will either not vote, perhaps childishly cut off our nose and vote for the Dem, or (this is my preference) support a Third party run by the Trumpster. Remember, I am no Trumpite, but I am sick of the worn out joke of a party, the Gop. As a note- I would discourage anyone from being loyal to any party in lieu of being true to your own dogma.
> 
> So the conventional wisdom is that no 3rd party candidate can win, but we are already sailing a political ark in a sea like no other. Trump is 50% ahead of Cruz, his mouth is a boiling cauldron of vile, putrid muck, and the steamy ejects always land and sear his opponents. The closer the opponent is to the Republican establishment the more he is seared. Jeb-gone! Rubio tripped on his own tongue trying to avoid the scalding ejections. He's out! The armored suit Cruz built by calling Mitch "the ditch" McConnell a liar on the senate floor protects him, but does not allow him to advance. And John Kasich is a little gnat that merely survives by being to small to hit.
> 
> But Trump can't win with Only the support of disgruntled conservatives, so look around the corner and down the street. There you will find another group who has had it with what their party is shoving down their throats. The Bernie folks hate Clinton the way Trumpsters hate the Republicans. Short of an indictment, these guys will have to vote for Clinton, not vote, or ( my preference) support a third party canidate.
> 
> If Trump would wage a third party candidacy and ask Bernie to VP the ticket they could win, and in the process redraw the political lines. They can manufacture a platform to draw all people who hate the establishment.
> 
> Will somebody get these two guys in a room?
> 
> 
> 
> I think you've been bamboozled. First of all, why are conservatives so angry? I can see being angry in 2008 and it's taken awhile but really the only people still hurting are uneducated blue collar workers. Are you one of these people? Because this is who trumps trying to win over. I don't believe Republicans truly care about these people because usually their advice to these people who took a step backward is for them to start their own business or go back to school. Now trumps gonna fix NAFTA? If we want to do that we'll need more liberal pro union politicians.
> 
> It's an election year. Either that's why you are worked up or you are a victim. Tell me your story. Is it your fault or someone else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear sealybobo
> For conservatives who are serious in their beliefs against running social programs and agenda through govt, this trend is completely disturbing, destructive, and backwards with no way out.
> 
> If all the conservatives are preaching to keep control of funds, policies and programs OUT of govt hands, but more and more is going INTO govt hands.
> 
> And if all the liberal politicians keep SELLING this "dependence on govt" as benefits to get voters to support this trend, then this will never end but keep going in that direction.
> 
> So of course conservatives are fed up with this.
> 
> The ones who are hypocrites about it may be even MORE upset.  So it's ironic if the ones who HAVE been building programs outside of govt and "practicing what they've preached all along" may be MORE at peace (because they don't depend on govt in the first place); while the ones who HAVE been depending on govt and politics are the ones REALLY at odds. Because they have grown as dependent as the liberals they claimed to be different from.
> 
> I hope this means pushing more people to invest and develop sustainable programs outside of govt controls, so this doesn't affect them so much. If conservatives are right, then we shouldn't be depending on govt. And if liberals are right about being 'all inclusive with diversity' then that ALSO means everyone organizing things on a grassroots "DIY" level so everyone gets their way regardless how different our needs and beliefs are.
> 
> For either liberals or conservatives to achieve their ultimate goals, people need to "do it ourselves" anyway.
> 
> Anyone who "lives in fear" that the "other party" is going to push "THEIR agenda through govt" at the expense of others, that spells misery.  You can't depend on govt to "establish your religion" -- anyone who depends on govt for that is missing the point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You said "if conservatives are right". They rarely are
Click to expand...


Dear sealybobo they are completely right about NOT managing "social programs" through govt. Because it causes all this mess since people have conflicting beliefs. 

Since govt is NOT supposed to regulate policies based on beliefs, this is why it's such a convoluted mess.

That's like trying to regulate communions, baptisms, prayers, sexual relations, etc. through govt when people all have different ways and means.

If you want free choice, you don't want govt spelling out the terms and conditions on it or it contradicts itself.

Conservatives are right about this, including when they themselves violate these very principles.  the problems that result prove why we need to respect Constitutional limits on govt that otherwise prevent those messes!

Thanks sealybobo


----------

