If I have to Put up with a Bazillion Trump aka neuveua Palin Threads ....

[jillian]

Right now, there appears to be one clear front-runner in the race for the Republican presidential nomination: ambivalence.

According to a new New York Times/CBS News poll, nearly 60 percent of Republicans say there is no single candidate that sparks their enthusiasm.

Poll shows GOP voters ambivalent about presidential aspirants - latimes.com

I would have to put myself in the same catagory of those 60% that say the current crop of candidates that have shown an interest in running for 2012 on the Republican side hold little interest or little chance of winning the Whitehouse. Frankly, this field of candidates reminds me of 1996 somewhat in terms of the excitement level and candidates that have a chance in 2012. It would be nice to see a candidate step forward to give the President a run for his money.

that's right now. the repubs always unite behind whomever they nominate. i expect that will be the case this time around. unless they nominate atilla the hun, they're pretty much guaranteed 44% of the vote.

 

[R.D.]

Why would anyone step forward yet? Look at the disgraceful behavior of our media towards any potential candidate. Our political system has become one of 'soap opera' scandal, innuendo and total bullshit. What decent individual would put their family through that shit?

yeah, they've been pretty vile toward the president.

they've been awesome to trump, though.

Trump is comic relief

 

[Cuyo]

I agree. The biggest problem we have is that lies become truth.

Agreed. Global warming is just a theory, tax cuts are always the answer, unions are responsible for offshoring jobs, Social Security is bankrupting the country, did I miss anything?

 

[California Girl]

Why would anyone step forward yet? Look at the disgraceful behavior of our media towards any potential candidate. Our political system has become one of 'soap opera' scandal, innuendo and total bullshit. What decent individual would put their family through that shit?

yeah, they've been pretty vile toward the president.

they've been awesome to trump, though.

You are shitting me right? Vile? To Obama? Mo chara, I love you dearly... honestly I do.... we share the bond of shoes.... but...... Obama was the least vetted of any candidate in decades. The MSM gave him what I like to call the 'Affirmative Action Pass'.

 

[xsited1]

I'm going to vote for Donald Trump because his wife is hot.

 

[jillian]

Why would anyone step forward yet? Look at the disgraceful behavior of our media towards any potential candidate. Our political system has become one of 'soap opera' scandal, innuendo and total bullshit. What decent individual would put their family through that shit?

yeah, they've been pretty vile toward the president.

they've been awesome to trump, though.

Trump is comic relief

i actually don't think so. i think the wackos will vote for him.

 

[Navy1960]

Right now, there appears to be one clear front-runner in the race for the Republican presidential nomination: ambivalence.

According to a new New York Times/CBS News poll, nearly 60 percent of Republicans say there is no single candidate that sparks their enthusiasm.

Poll shows GOP voters ambivalent about presidential aspirants - latimes.com

I would have to put myself in the same catagory of those 60% that say the current crop of candidates that have shown an interest in running for 2012 on the Republican side hold little interest or little chance of winning the Whitehouse. Frankly, this field of candidates reminds me of 1996 somewhat in terms of the excitement level and candidates that have a chance in 2012. It would be nice to see a candidate step forward to give the President a run for his money.

that's right now. the repubs always unite behind whomever they nominate. i expect that will be the case this time around. unless they nominate atilla the hun, they're pretty much guaranteed 44% of the vote.

I did happen to see jillian that at the same time in 2007 the front runner for the Republican Party was Rudy G. and we all know how far he went and the front runner on the Democrat side was Hillary. So your point is well taken in that it is still early to be sure, and todays front runner will be tomorrow's collective blip on the radar. I do believe that the basic problem of candidates both Republican and Democrat that have little interest in the nations business and more interest in who put them there needs to be resolved.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

FOK OFF!!!!!

​

 

[Jarhead]

Why would anyone step forward yet? Look at the disgraceful behavior of our media towards any potential candidate. Our political system has become one of 'soap opera' scandal, innuendo and total bullshit. What decent individual would put their family through that shit?

Would take someone who has "courage" to ignore the people who have nothing but their own interests in mind and not the nations. While I agree our political process has become more like a reality TV show, it's people that can take it back. You know it will take a person willing to look past the cameras to the people in the audience and address them as they are the ones who do the hiring here and as of late we have let the media have that responsibility so perhaps its time we take it back?

Nowadays, with the news media as biased as it is...for one with conservative values to run for anything opens them up to loss of career.

When I was a teenager, there were many things I did that I am ashamed to admit I did now that I am an adult. Heck, by the time I was 22 there were things I did at 18 that I was ashamed of.

But a conservative candidate dabbled in witchcraft...which was nothing more than curiosity.....and what she did as a kid has completely ruined her career...not just her reputation with the community...but her career.

Ironically...ruined by the same people who say that a 17 year old who gets pregnant should not have to live the rest of her life suffering the consequences of a stupid decision made when she was a teenager.

 

[G.T.]

Obama was vetted.

You can't boast that FOX is the #1 news channel in ratings and then say that Obama wasn't vetted.

Debates were all televised and unedited.

Google makes vetting people a fuck-ton easier and a fuck-ton more thorough then it was in the 70's 80's and 90's before the boom. Noone's "unvetted."

 

[G.T.]

Why would anyone step forward yet? Look at the disgraceful behavior of our media towards any potential candidate. Our political system has become one of 'soap opera' scandal, innuendo and total bullshit. What decent individual would put their family through that shit?

Would take someone who has "courage" to ignore the people who have nothing but their own interests in mind and not the nations. While I agree our political process has become more like a reality TV show, it's people that can take it back. You know it will take a person willing to look past the cameras to the people in the audience and address them as they are the ones who do the hiring here and as of late we have let the media have that responsibility so perhaps its time we take it back?

Nowadays, with the news media as biased as it is...for one with conservative values to run for anything opens them up to loss of career.

When I was a teenager, there were many things I did that I am ashamed to admit I did now that I am an adult. Heck, by the time I was 22 there were things I did at 18 that I was ashamed of.

But a conservative candidate dabbled in witchcraft...which was nothing more than curiosity.....and what she did as a kid has completely ruined her career...not just her reputation with the community...but her career.

Ironically...ruined by the same people who say that a 17 year old who gets pregnant should not have to live the rest of her life suffering the consequences of a stupid decision made when she was a teenager.

It wasn't just witchcraft, although that was the biggest issue. She said a plethora of stupid things.

 

[California Girl]

yeah, they've been pretty vile toward the president.

they've been awesome to trump, though.

Trump is comic relief

i actually don't think so. i think the wackos will vote for him.

I'm sure some will, most won't. But then.... a whole hell of a lot of wackos voted for Obama. And look where that got us.... get your credit card out, mo chara... we're having a collection to pay off the debt.

 

[Flopper]

I agree. The biggest problem we have is that lies become truth.

Agreed. Global warming is just a theory, tax cuts are always the answer, unions are responsible for offshoring jobs, Social Security is bankrupting the country, did I miss anything?

The Easter Bunny lays eggs.

 

[jillian]

Right now, there appears to be one clear front-runner in the race for the Republican presidential nomination: ambivalence.

According to a new New York Times/CBS News poll, nearly 60 percent of Republicans say there is no single candidate that sparks their enthusiasm.

Poll shows GOP voters ambivalent about presidential aspirants - latimes.com

I would have to put myself in the same catagory of those 60% that say the current crop of candidates that have shown an interest in running for 2012 on the Republican side hold little interest or little chance of winning the Whitehouse. Frankly, this field of candidates reminds me of 1996 somewhat in terms of the excitement level and candidates that have a chance in 2012. It would be nice to see a candidate step forward to give the President a run for his money.

that's right now. the repubs always unite behind whomever they nominate. i expect that will be the case this time around. unless they nominate atilla the hun, they're pretty much guaranteed 44% of the vote.

I did happen to see jillian that at the same time in 2007 the front runner for the Republican Party was Rudy G. and we all know how far he went and the front runner on the Democrat side was Hillary. So your point is well taken in that it is still early to be sure, and todays front runner will be tomorrow's collective blip on the radar. I do believe that the basic problem of candidates both Republican and Democrat that have little interest in the nations business and more interest in who put them there needs to be resolved.

i would have loved the opportunity to see hillary inaugurated. and what is "common knowledge" in april 2011 will not be "common knowledge" in november, 2012... or even november, 2011. at the time of the republican convention, it looked like mccain was going to win. and then the economic meltdown happened.

giuliani had to implode at some point. prior to 9/11, his approval ratings in new york were horrible. we called him the teeny weeny mussolini. and the only reason he became "america's mayor" was that he stupidly and stubbornly ignored all advice to keep the command center out of the WTC.... so ended up walking around downtown with no where to go after the attacks.

i agree with you about people who care about the nation's business, btw. i just don't think that will change until candidates aren't reliant on lobbyists and special interests to raise money.

 

[California Girl]

Obama was vetted.

You can't boast that FOX is the #1 news channel in ratings and then say that Obama wasn't vetted.

Debates were all televised and unedited.

Google makes vetting people a fuck-ton easier and a fuck-ton more thorough then it was in the 70's 80's and 90's before the boom. Noone's "unvetted."

One station is not 'vetting'. Vetting is for the whole media to investigate, research and provide facts - and, if they really must - opine about it. All FNC did was balance to total sycophantic shit from the rest of the MSM.

And, I can't believe you actually said that about Google. Oh. My. Gawd. How stupid are you?

 

[Jarhead]

Obama was vetted.

You can't boast that FOX is the #1 news channel in ratings and then say that Obama wasn't vetted.

Debates were all televised and unedited.

Google makes vetting people a fuck-ton easier and a fuck-ton more thorough then it was in the 70's 80's and 90's before the boom. Noone's "unvetted."

Excuse me...Fox News DID vett the candidate Obama...and the other news agencies, as opposed to addressing the issues, tended to address the "agenda" of Fox News....minimizing the normally concerning issues that were attached to Obama.

As for the deabtes.....the debates are not nearly as effective as the ensuing analyses of the media...

So when Obama gave this answer...

"Lots of people were friends with Ayers so whats the big deal that I was...."

No one in the media analyzed it as it should have been analyzed....

Such as:

Those other people are not asking to be electeds Presdient.
lots of people were friends with OJ but that doesnt rationalize it
that doesnt answer the question of WHY you deemed it appropriate to be friends with someone who was invoved with an organization that used violence to make a point

Any other candidate would have been thrown those questions...but not his time around...

instead?

"see, he has a very rational explanation"

 

[Navy1960]

Why would anyone step forward yet? Look at the disgraceful behavior of our media towards any potential candidate. Our political system has become one of 'soap opera' scandal, innuendo and total bullshit. What decent individual would put their family through that shit?

Would take someone who has "courage" to ignore the people who have nothing but their own interests in mind and not the nations. While I agree our political process has become more like a reality TV show, it's people that can take it back. You know it will take a person willing to look past the cameras to the people in the audience and address them as they are the ones who do the hiring here and as of late we have let the media have that responsibility so perhaps its time we take it back?

Nowadays, with the news media as biased as it is...for one with conservative values to run for anything opens them up to loss of career.

When I was a teenager, there were many things I did that I am ashamed to admit I did now that I am an adult. Heck, by the time I was 22 there were things I did at 18 that I was ashamed of.

But a conservative candidate dabbled in witchcraft...which was nothing more than curiosity.....and what she did as a kid has completely ruined her career...not just her reputation with the community...but her career.

Ironically...ruined by the same people who say that a 17 year old who gets pregnant should not have to live the rest of her life suffering the consequences of a stupid decision made when she was a teenager.

Frist thing Jarhead, thank you for your service to our nation. The next thing is this, candidates for office these days are torn apart on a routine basis for the purpose of ratings for the media outlets that are doing so. While some may or may not have a political agenda behind them they are driven by ratings and if they can get an audience to watch them by tearing down someone be they Republican or Democrat then as you well know they will do it without hesitation. My contention is this, our nation does not lack any of of the same courage, honor of willing Americans as it has for the last 200 plus years, and it it is up to us the people that do the hiring now more so than ever to encourage them to step forward to do the nations business for us and not TV ratings. I could care less if they are Democrat or Republican at this point as long as they have the courage to work for the people of this nation rather than the people of K Street then we would have something.

 

[Jarhead]

Would take someone who has "courage" to ignore the people who have nothing but their own interests in mind and not the nations. While I agree our political process has become more like a reality TV show, it's people that can take it back. You know it will take a person willing to look past the cameras to the people in the audience and address them as they are the ones who do the hiring here and as of late we have let the media have that responsibility so perhaps its time we take it back?

Nowadays, with the news media as biased as it is...for one with conservative values to run for anything opens them up to loss of career.

When I was a teenager, there were many things I did that I am ashamed to admit I did now that I am an adult. Heck, by the time I was 22 there were things I did at 18 that I was ashamed of.

But a conservative candidate dabbled in witchcraft...which was nothing more than curiosity.....and what she did as a kid has completely ruined her career...not just her reputation with the community...but her career.

Ironically...ruined by the same people who say that a 17 year old who gets pregnant should not have to live the rest of her life suffering the consequences of a stupid decision made when she was a teenager.

It wasn't just witchcraft, although that was the biggest issue. She said a plethora of stupid things.

And so has Biden said some pretty stupid things. So has Obama, Pelosi and Boehner...
The witchcraft thing was what put her on her guard...and never allowed her campaign to get back the steam.

 

[G.T.]

Obama was vetted.

You can't boast that FOX is the #1 news channel in ratings and then say that Obama wasn't vetted.

Debates were all televised and unedited.

Google makes vetting people a fuck-ton easier and a fuck-ton more thorough then it was in the 70's 80's and 90's before the boom. Noone's "unvetted."

One station is not 'vetting'. Vetting is for the whole media to investigate, research and provide facts - and, if they really must - opine about it. All FNC did was balance to total sycophantic shit from the rest of the MSM.

And, I can't believe you actually said that about Google. Oh. My. Gawd. How stupid are you?

I dare you to tell me that the Wright and Ayers shit didn't air on every news station.

Google sees everything.

Just because it wasn't obsessed over, ala Fox, doesn't mean it wasn't reported.

Also, let's hear one thing you didn't know about him then that you know now.

(there's nothing stupid in pointing out that Google is essentially the world's largest library, but then again, you're not the best judge of stupid, stupid.)

 

[G.T.]

Obama was vetted.

You can't boast that FOX is the #1 news channel in ratings and then say that Obama wasn't vetted.

Debates were all televised and unedited.

Google makes vetting people a fuck-ton easier and a fuck-ton more thorough then it was in the 70's 80's and 90's before the boom. Noone's "unvetted."

Excuse me...Fox News DID vett the candidate Obama...and the other news agencies, as opposed to addressing the issues, tended to address the "agenda" of Fox News....minimizing the normally concerning issues that were attached to Obama.

As for the deabtes.....the debates are not nearly as effective as the ensuing analyses of the media...

So when Obama gave this answer...

"Lots of people were friends with Ayers so whats the big deal that I was...."

No one in the media analyzed it as it should have been analyzed....

Such as:

Those other people are not asking to be electeds Presdient.
lots of people were friends with OJ but that doesnt rationalize it
that doesnt answer the question of WHY you deemed it appropriate to be friends with someone who was invoved with an organization that used violence to make a point

Any other candidate would have been thrown those questions...but not his time around...

instead?

"see, he has a very rational explanation"

Yea, keep pushing that "friends with him" line. He "palled around" with him, too. There's shots of them shooting hoops together and at family bbq's together and everything.