To be clear I am hardly an across the board Obama apologist, and no doubt he genuinely feels he could have done better on the general subject of the political divisions in this country. But political leadership requires comparing alternative approaches and saying which is the one that should be pursued. Yes, that "divides" those who agree and those who do not. But that is not the division I am talking about. I am talking about saying we don't have to listen to those people because they are from such and such part of the country, or because they generally are this or that, liberal or conservative. Or have some immutable characteristic we don't like. It is one thing to say I think it is wrong to support gun ownership with no limitations. That is comparing a position on a specific issue to alternatives to it. It is another to say we should not listen to your position and arguments on THIS issue because you are a liberal, or a conservative, or from New York, or Nebraska. Or because you are black, or a muslim, or of a different gender. THe former is essential to rational discourse. The latter is incompatible with rational discourse. As for what Obama does when he can't get something passed, you can be sure that his opponents have said plenty about him by the time he gets around to explaining why he did something else. The things in any event you are complaining about do not make blanket condemnations because so and so on the other side is this or that. Even the climate change argument you don't like is a logical point. It's not one I would make, but it is also one that is not the same as what I am talking about in terms of divisiveness. Back to Cruz, even people like Rubio, Christie and of course Trump have criticized what he said. So it's not just me.
trump is the next president and possibly our first king. only question left is who is his vp. trump/palin would really make the lefts skin crawl.
rand paul ama https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/422tnb/i_am_senator_doctor_and_presidential_candidate/
I don't think the issue is so much that I feel that way, as to why you are so smug in concluding they are equally bad, and based on what evidence. I don't like that the Dems cater too much to special interest groups. The ideological purity and absence of explanations how they hope to achieve their lofty goals puts me off the Sanders campaign. But most of what the Obama admin has done is really somewhere between center and center left. And there is no moral equivalent, meaning immoral equivalent, to Ted Cruz in the Democratic Party. Planned Parenthood is not the threat to our democracy that the Kochs and Adelsons of this world are. And while there are some (rather odd, but still) similarities between the Sanders campaign and Trump's, there quite obviously is no equivalent to Trump. Having said that it is fine with me if you don't respond, since I sense you are more interested in the kind of post I quoted than any real discussion. That's really okay.
I believe the GOP establishment will defect to a Clinton Presidential campaign if Trump-Palin is the ticket. I t won't be a "we're all going at once" thing it will be dribs and drabs and Clinton will wind up with a Lincoln-esque cabinet full of Democrats and Republicans, Liberals and Moderates and even a Conservative or two. The Tea Party isn't going to come to power behind a bombastic candidate who might totally upset the applecart. The guys who might have brought about that kind of change in Republican politics were Scott Walker and Rand Paul and neither of them resonated with the anger of the moment. That's why they would have been good watershed candidates. You can't angry to the top, you have to happy there, like Reagan and Bill Clinton and George W. Bush and Barack Obama did.
I don't think Trump shares any of the values of the tea party movement and Palin's endorsement of Trump says more about her changing than the tea party.
And there is no equivalent to Hillary Clinton in the GOP. And looking at any specific evil individual in time and projecting that onto the entire party is just silly. Cruz = Evil therefore the GOP = Evil seems a bit rash. I'm mean, John Edwards was a sweetheart, right? It's funny how you believe your party is less imperfect because it caters to some of the ideals that appeal to you. And I really don't care to get into a discussion of the relative imperfections of the two parties, I just think it's cute how some folks delude themselves to thinking one is less imperfect that the other. They are both imperfect in different ways, you may believe subjectively one is less imperfect and that's fine--I've become less and less political as I get older so it's nice to see some youngsters still believe that. To me it's like comparing horseshit and cowshit. Some may prefer horse shit because horses eat hay and their poop smells nice when driving through the countryside and you can use it in composting your garden and,well, horsey's are just plain cute. Some may prefer cowshit because they eat grass and are dopey animals and you can use it for fuel they are in those funny commercials. Horseshit and cowshit are both imperfect and who can say objectively which is less imperfect--it's in the type of droppings subjectively you prefer. But at the end of the day, they are both shit. That's logic. _
Just as I figured. More smug bs. Your cynicism is an excuse for doing nothing and laughing at people who want to remain at least somewhat involved in the democratic endeavor. At least stop with the age crap. Better yet, have a nice day. I can see this is going nowhere.
Its not that I have nothing BB. Its that I challenge as to why you are so smug in concluding that I have nothing, and what evidence you are basing that claim on haha
It's not smug bs, I'm commenting on the commentary, not the underlying bullshit. Believe what you want. Stay involved. You sound like me when I was younger. Good for you. You'll learn. _
