Who in 2016?

[nodoginnafight]

My neighbor is a very likable guy but I would hardly consider him charismatic. We have had a number of charismatic leaders, FDR, Kennedy, Reagan, and Clinton. Bush doesn't even come close. I really felt sorry for him as he stumbled through his press conferences and speeches.

Giving Bush-43 the benefit of the doubt, he could be viewed a lot like Biden. Very good in a small room - but not so good in a big room.
But yeah, I define "charismatic" as a big room kinda trait.

George Bush, who does remind me of my neighbor would seem to be a guy I wouldn't mind sharing a beer with and talking over Sunday's football game, but his presidency just proves the old adage, "In America, anybody can be president. That's one of the risks you take."

Yeah, everyone has their own definition of "presidential" but I don't get the folks who are looking for a beer buddy calling the shots.

Maybe they drink in much better circles?????

 

[LuckyDuck01!]

Personally, I'd like to see a new political party called, "The Centrist Party," and its candidate would hold views that were from non-extreme elements of both the republican and democrat party. A "middle of the road" candidate.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Personally, I'd like to see a new political party called, "The Centrist Party," and its candidate would hold views that were from non-extreme elements of both the republican and democrat party. A "middle of the road" candidate.

I don't like the name - but I like the idea.

How about reviving the American Liberty Party.

(It was the American Liberty League back in the 30s)

 

[Derideo_Te]

Personally, I'd like to see a new political party called, "The Centrist Party," and its candidate would hold views that were from non-extreme elements of both the republican and democrat party. A "middle of the road" candidate.

I don't like the name - but I like the idea.

How about reviving the American Liberty Party.

(It was the American Liberty League back in the 30s)

The Moderate Middle has been desperate for a unifying party in the center. However it needs someone who can lead it and establish it as a bona fide party. The primary principle should not be to hold majority power but instead always hold the balance of power. For example in a hypothetical senate with the GOP and the Dems each holding 40 seats the MM party would have 20 seats that could go either way depending on the issue. The ability to figure out a compromise that will appeal to the centrists will be the goal of both major parties if they want to push their agenda. The same principle would hold for the house.

 

[rightwinger]

The difference between Bush 43 and Obama-----Bush is basically a good person, Obama is not.

And anyone questions whether the GOP is full of morons

 

[midcan5]

Given the importance of the SCOTUS and other federal court choices for our American freedoms, my hope would be Hillary.

 

[Redfish]

The difference between Bush 43 and Obama-----Bush is basically a good person, Obama is not.

And anyone questions whether the GOP is full of morons

Stating a fact does not make one a moron. continuing to heap praise on a failed marxist is a clear mark of a moron. Thinking that obama only has pure motives makes YOU a moron.

If his motives are pure why is he stirring up racial hatred over the zimmerman case? why did he call the Cambridge police stupid acting? why has he not told Sharpton and Jackson to tone it down? Why has he refused to pass a budget bill in over 5 years?

 

[Redfish]

Given the importance of the SCOTUS and other federal court choices for our American freedoms, my hope would be Hillary.

Yes, the supreme court needs more liberal lesbians.

 

[rightwinger]

The difference between Bush 43 and Obama-----Bush is basically a good person, Obama is not.

And anyone questions whether the GOP is full of morons

Stating a fact does not make one a moron. continuing to heap praise on a failed marxist is a clear mark of a moron. Thinking that obama only has pure motives makes YOU a moron.

If his motives are pure why is he stirring up racial hatred over the zimmerman case? why did he call the Cambridge police stupid acting? why has he not told Sharpton and Jackson to tone it down? Why has he refused to pass a budget bill in over 5 years?

Posts like that clarify that you are a simplistic moron who looks at politics as good vs evil

Politics is just different paths towards the same goal. Guess what? All politicians love their country. Democrats love their country, Republicans love their country

Someone having differnet political opinions than your own does not make them evil. Stiring up hatred against your fellow Americans is, in fact, evil

 

[JakeStarkey]

Redfish is in fact evil. He does not understand that women and gays and minorities and non-Christians are every bit as equal as he is when it comes to governing.

Neither Bush nor Obama are evil, never were. But if Redfish's vision takes the government, we will see evil on a great scale.

 

[Derideo_Te]

The difference between Bush 43 and Obama-----Bush is basically a good person, Obama is not.

And anyone questions whether the GOP is full of morons

While it was hard to fathom the level of oscitancy of the post you responded to, RW, it was subsequently exceeded by the response that you received in reply.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Redfish is in fact evil. He does not understand that women and gays and minorities and non-Christians are every bit as equal as he is when it comes to governing.

Neither Bush nor Obama are evil, never were. But if Redfish's vision takes the government, we will see evil on a great scale.

But they will claim that their motives are pure and justified from "on high" while they implement those levels of evil, Jake.

 

[Redfish]

Redfish is in fact evil. He does not understand that women and gays and minorities and non-Christians are every bit as equal as he is when it comes to governing.

Neither Bush nor Obama are evil, never were. But if Redfish's vision takes the government, we will see evil on a great scale.

you and RW just don't get it. To you fools everything is OK, there is no right and wrong, no good and bad. just grin and do whatever feels good.

I don't think obama is evil, I think his visions for this country are evil and damaging. I do not want my grandchildren to live in a sociaist country.

women, gays, minorities, and all religions are entitled to equal treatment under the law in the USA---------note the word "equal". When my rights are infringed on in order to give someone else preferential treatment, that is not equal.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Redfish is in fact evil. He does not understand that women and gays and minorities and non-Christians are every bit as equal as he is when it comes to governing.

Neither Bush nor Obama are evil, never were. But if Redfish's vision takes the government, we will see evil on a great scale.

you and RW just don't get it. To you fools everything is OK, there is no right and wrong, no good and bad. just grin and do whatever feels good.

I don't think obama is evil, I think his visions for this country are evil and damaging. I do not want my grandchildren to live in a sociaist country.

women, gays, minorities, and all religions are entitled to equal treatment under the law in the USA---------note the word "equal". When my rights are infringed on in order to give someone else preferential treatment, that is not equal.

Which of your rights are "infringed" by allowing gays to marry and serve in the military/

 

[Redfish]

Redfish is in fact evil. He does not understand that women and gays and minorities and non-Christians are every bit as equal as he is when it comes to governing.

Neither Bush nor Obama are evil, never were. But if Redfish's vision takes the government, we will see evil on a great scale.

you and RW just don't get it. To you fools everything is OK, there is no right and wrong, no good and bad. just grin and do whatever feels good.

I don't think obama is evil, I think his visions for this country are evil and damaging. I do not want my grandchildren to live in a sociaist country.

women, gays, minorities, and all religions are entitled to equal treatment under the law in the USA---------note the word "equal". When my rights are infringed on in order to give someone else preferential treatment, that is not equal.

Which of your rights are "infringed" by allowing gays to marry and serve in the military/

I have no issue with gays in the military, or any other profession, trade, or occupation. Gays should be able to make a living any way they choose.

The "marriage" question is different. I have no issue with gay couples being given the same rights as man/woman married couples. But two men or two women is NOT a marriage. It is a civil union or a mutual support contract. As such they should have rights to insurance, inheritance, etc.

But thats not what they want---------they demand the word "marriage". Its not about equality with them. Its about having the government force the rest of us to condone their lifestyle choices by allowing them to call their union a marriage.

 

[Derideo_Te]

you and RW just don't get it. To you fools everything is OK, there is no right and wrong, no good and bad. just grin and do whatever feels good.

I don't think obama is evil, I think his visions for this country are evil and damaging. I do not want my grandchildren to live in a sociaist country.

women, gays, minorities, and all religions are entitled to equal treatment under the law in the USA---------note the word "equal". When my rights are infringed on in order to give someone else preferential treatment, that is not equal.

Which of your rights are "infringed" by allowing gays to marry and serve in the military/

I have no issue with gays in the military, or any other profession, trade, or occupation. Gays should be able to make a living any way they choose.

The "marriage" question is different. I have no issue with gay couples being given the same rights as man/woman married couples. But two men or two women is NOT a marriage. It is a civil union or a mutual support contract. As such they should have rights to insurance, inheritance, etc.

But thats not what they want---------they demand the word "marriage". Its not about equality with them. Its about having the government force the rest of us to condone their lifestyle choices by allowing them to call their union a marriage.

The term "marriage" refers to a contract that is recognized by law. The term "holy matrimony" refers to a religious rite performed by a minister of religion. The minister of religion is empowered by law to oversee the legal contract of marriage in much the same way as a town clerk.

The legal term "marriage" is not a "right" that is owned by any segment of society. The law applies equally to everyone and so none of your "rights" have been infringed by the use of the term "marriage" by gays because you never had any such "right" in the first place.

 

[Flopper]

Giving Bush-43 the benefit of the doubt, he could be viewed a lot like Biden. Very good in a small room - but not so good in a big room.
But yeah, I define "charismatic" as a big room kinda trait.

George Bush, who does remind me of my neighbor would seem to be a guy I wouldn't mind sharing a beer with and talking over Sunday's football game, but his presidency just proves the old adage, "In America, anybody can be president. That's one of the risks you take."

Yeah, everyone has their own definition of "presidential" but I don't get the folks who are looking for a beer buddy calling the shots.

Maybe they drink in much better circles?????

How much of a role charisma plays is debatable. However, most people vote for people they like or at least hate less than the opposition. Some people are comfortable voting for the guy next type, other are only concerned with the issues, still other vote the party with no regard for candidates, and still others try to judge the charter of the candidate.

 

[JakeStarkey]

"e "marriage" question is different. I have no issue with gay couples being given the same rights as man/woman married couples. But two men or two women is NOT a marriage" is a statement of a reactionary social Christian nationalist.

End game. This is over for the evangelical and fundamentalist American legally. They can believe whatever they want but not use statist tactics to force everyone to live as they want.