|
|
  Semper Fi
    
Location: North Texas | Itsme - 2015-01-30 9:57 PM Frodo - 2015-01-30 8:47 PM Itsme - 2015-01-30 6:36 PM Ron Paul! 
Hotbear's right. Mitt running as a VP would be like trying out for the A team with all your heart and soul and then "settling" for the B team. Mitt ain't that kinda guy.
oh no, I meant that kook Ron... We should have elected that other "Kook" in the 90s, you remember him?
Are you referring to Ross Perot? | |
| | |
Expert
Posts: 1561
| foundation horse - 2015-01-30 10:10 PM
Itsme - 2015-01-30 9:57 PM Frodo - 2015-01-30 8:47 PM Itsme - 2015-01-30 6:36 PM Ron Paul!
Hotbear's right. Mitt running as a VP would be like trying out for the A team with all your heart and soul and then "settling" for the B team. Mitt ain't that kinda guy.
oh no, I meant that kook Ron... We should have elected that other "Kook" in the 90s, you remember him?
"The "giant sucking sound" was United States Presidential candidate Ross Perot's colorful phrase for what he believed would be the negative effects of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which he opposed."
When the right, the left and the media throw you under the bus, you just might be onto something. | |
| | |
Semper Fi
Location: North Texas | Itsme - 2015-01-30 10:41 PM foundation horse - 2015-01-30 10:10 PM Itsme - 2015-01-30 9:57 PM Frodo - 2015-01-30 8:47 PM Itsme - 2015-01-30 6:36 PM Ron Paul!
Hotbear's right. Mitt running as a VP would be like trying out for the A team with all your heart and soul and then "settling" for the B team. Mitt ain't that kinda guy.
oh no, I meant that kook Ron... We should have elected that other "Kook" in the 90s, you remember him? "The "giant sucking sound" was United States Presidential candidate Ross Perot's colorful phrase for what he believed would be the negative effects of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA ), which he opposed." When the right, the left and the media throw you under the bus, you just might be onto something.
Many people erroneously blame Slick Willie for NAFTA. In reality it was George H.W. Bush. Also Herber Bush publiclly endorsed "The New World Order". In retrospect, The Dude was scary!
| |
| | |
 BHW Resident Surgeon
Posts: 25352
Location: Bastrop, Texas | I think a candidate with REAL executive experience will have a very distinct advantage over Hillary. Walker can point to his record and say this is what we did in Wisconsin while I was governor. They can look at what he said he would do when he ran for governor, and look at what they accomplished once he was elected. In the case of Cruz and Paul, it's harder to point to real accomplishments. Basically, the voters will have to compare and contrast nothing other than rhetoric when considering someone like Paul or Cruz with Hillary. In my opinion, that demonstrated success as a chief executive gives someone, especiallyWalker, a real advantage over Hillary.
When you think about it, what has either Paul or Cruz really accomplished besides give good speeches and firing up their supporters? Isn't that what we said about Obama? | |
| | |
Semper Fi
Location: North Texas | Bear - 2015-01-31 8:28 AM I think a candidate with REAL executive experience will have a very distinct advantage over Hillary. Walker can point to his record and say this is what we did in Wisconsin while I was governor. They can look at what he said he would do when he ran for governor, and look at what they accomplished once he was elected. In the case of Cruz and Paul, it's harder to point to real accomplishments. Basically, the voters will have to compare and contrast nothing other than rhetoric when considering someone like Paul or Cruz with Hillary. In my opinion, that demonstrated success as a chief executive gives someone, especiallyWalker, a real advantage over Hillary. When you think about it, what has either Paul or Cruz really accomplished besides give good speeches and firing up their supporters? Isn't that what we said about Obama?
Both Cruz and Paul have authored/sponsored legislation that supports The Constitution...............And while I agree with you in regards to Walker, Cruz and Paul already have the D.C. experience to 'hit the ground running' once in the Oval Office.
| |
| | |
BHW Resident Surgeon
Posts: 25352
Location: Bastrop, Texas | I think voters, in general, are sick and tired of the "DC experience", Clay. Lately, we the people, have not been well served by the DC experience. Again, the idea of bringing someone to the White House who has actually done something outside of speeches and symbolic gestures, and outside of DC, has a much more broad appeal. Whether we care to admit it or not, the deep divisions in this country is one of our biggest problems. I like what Cruz says, and I like the man, but....where's the beef? Cruz is to the right what Obozo was to the left. After all, how much "DC experience" did Reagan have? With congress having a favorability rating of less than 10%, I'm not so sure I would use that as a strong selling point. In fact, I would tend to throw that line of reasoning out the window. | |
| | |
 Proud to be Deplorable
Posts: 1929
| Bear - 2015-01-31 8:28 AM
I think a candidate with REAL executive experience will have a very distinct advantage over Hillary. Walker can point to his record and say this is what we did in Wisconsin while I was governor. They can look at what he said he would do when he ran for governor, and look at what they accomplished once he was elected. In the case of Cruz and Paul, it's harder to point to real accomplishments. Basically, the voters will have to compare and contrast nothing other than rhetoric when considering someone like Paul or Cruz with Hillary. In my opinion, that demonstrated success as a chief executive gives someone, especiallyWalker, a real advantage over Hillary.
When you think about it, what has either Paul or Cruz really accomplished besides give good speeches and firing up their supporters? Isn't that what we said about Obama?
For that matter what has Hillary done? As a Senator she accomplished zero. As Sec.State she spent all her time on a plane trying to put out fires started by her boss all of which are burning brighter than ever. So I would count that as a big fail. And yet the Dem's think she is great ...go figure. I do agree with you on Walker and his record. | |
| | |
 Nicknameless
Posts: 4565
Location: I can see the end of the world from here! | Bear - 2015-01-31 7:28 AM I think a candidate with REAL executive experience will have a very distinct advantage over Hillary. Walker can point to his record and say this is what we did in Wisconsin while I was governor. They can look at what he said he would do when he ran for governor, and look at what they accomplished once he was elected. In the case of Cruz and Paul, it's harder to point to real accomplishments. Basically, the voters will have to compare and contrast nothing other than rhetoric when considering someone like Paul or Cruz with Hillary. In my opinion, that demonstrated success as a chief executive gives someone, especiallyWalker, a real advantage over Hillary. When you think about it, what has either Paul or Cruz really accomplished besides give good speeches and firing up their supporters? Isn't that what we said about Obama?
I have to say that I'm fast approaching the solid opinion that whoever 'serves' in the WH should NOT come from the ranks of state reps because: it's the job of state representatives to grow government, whereas, the job of the fed should be to minimize it. In that regard I think Cruz & Rubio look pretty good! | |
| | |
Semper Fi
Location: North Texas | Bear - 2015-01-31 8:53 AM I think voters, in general, are sick and tired of the "DC experience", Clay. Lately, we the people, have not been well served by the DC experience. Again, the idea of bringing someone to the White House who has actually done something outside of speeches and symbolic gestures, and outside of DC, has a much more broad appeal. Whether we care to admit it or not, the deep divisions in this country is one of our biggest problems. I like what Cruz says, and I like the man, but....where's the beef? Cruz is to the right what Obozo was to the left. After all, how much "DC experience" did Reagan have? With congress having a favorability rating of less than 10%, I'm not so sure I would use that as a strong selling point. In fact, I would tend to throw that line of reasoning out the window.
You're trashing Cruz and leaving Paul out. Both have done more nationally than Walker, due to their positions.
Reagan was and is great. However, Reagan was/is an extremely positive and sucessful anomaly. Not saying I will not support Walker, just making the case for Cruz and Paul.
| |
| | |
BHW Resident Surgeon
Posts: 25352
Location: Bastrop, Texas | Walker seems to have a real broad appeal across the spectrum already, including the Tea Party. The contrasts between Hillary and Walker are pretty stark. In my opinion, Cruz and Paul should stay right where they are. If the GOP can hold onto control of both houses, and capture the White House, they will have a chance to actually turn things around. | |
| | |
Proud to be Deplorable
Posts: 1929
| foundation horse - 2015-01-31 8:38 AM
Bear - 2015-01-31 8:28 AM I think a candidate with REAL executive experience will have a very distinct advantage over Hillary. Walker can point to his record and say this is what we did in Wisconsin while I was governor. They can look at what he said he would do when he ran for governor, and look at what they accomplished once he was elected. In the case of Cruz and Paul, it's harder to point to real accomplishments. Basically, the voters will have to compare and contrast nothing other than rhetoric when considering someone like Paul or Cruz with Hillary. In my opinion, that demonstrated success as a chief executive gives someone, especiallyWalker, a real advantage over Hillary. When you think about it, what has either Paul or Cruz really accomplished besides give good speeches and firing up their supporters? Isn't that what we said about Obama?
Both Cruz and Paul have authored/sponsored legislation that supports The Constitution...............And while I agree with you in regards to Walker, Cruz and Paul already have the D.C. experience to 'hit the ground running' once in the Oval Office.
Paul and Cruz while both are good Senators and seem to support the constitution neither have any experience at running anything besides their own check book. Not enough IMO. The country needs a good Governor. | |
| | |
Cold hands and Warm Heart
Location: oklahoma | What about jindal? How is his reputation for the folks in la.?
| |
| | |
BHW Resident Surgeon
Posts: 25352
Location: Bastrop, Texas | foundation horse - 2015-01-31 8:59 AM
Bear - 2015-01-31 8:53 AM I think voters, in general, are sick and tired of the "DC experience", Clay. Lately, we the people, have not been well served by the DC experience. Again, the idea of bringing someone to the White House who has actually done something outside of speeches and symbolic gestures, and outside of DC, has a much more broad appeal. Whether we care to admit it or not, the deep divisions in this country is one of our biggest problems. I like what Cruz says, and I like the man, but....where's the beef? Cruz is to the right what Obozo was to the left. After all, how much "DC experience" did Reagan have? With congress having a favorability rating of less than 10%, I'm not so sure I would use that as a strong selling point. In fact, I would tend to throw that line of reasoning out the window.
You're trashing Cruz and leaving Paul out. Both have done more nationally than Walker, due to their positions.
Reagan was and is great. However, Reagan was/is an extremely positive and sucessful anomaly. Not saying I will not support Walker, just making the case for Cruz and Paul.
I'm not really trashing either of them. All I am doing is pointing out my observations. I like them. Cruz gives a great speech, and it agree with him almost always. That was Obama's appeal as well.
Zero executive experience. That's the glaring difference. I would support Cruz if he won the nomination....but I doubt he will. | |
| | |
 Fact Checker
Posts: 16575
Location: Displaced Iowegian | Bear - 2015-01-31 9:09 AM foundation horse - 2015-01-31 8:59 AM Bear - 2015-01-31 8:53 AM I think voters, in general, are sick and tired of the "DC experience", Clay. Lately, we the people, have not been well served by the DC experience. Again, the idea of bringing someone to the White House who has actually done something outside of speeches and symbolic gestures, and outside of DC, has a much more broad appeal. Whether we care to admit it or not, the deep divisions in this country is one of our biggest problems. I like what Cruz says, and I like the man, but....where's the beef? Cruz is to the right what Obozo was to the left. After all, how much "DC experience" did Reagan have? With congress having a favorability rating of less than 10%, I'm not so sure I would use that as a strong selling point. In fact, I would tend to throw that line of reasoning out the window. You're trashing Cruz and leaving Paul out. Both have done more nationally than Walker, due to their positions.
Reagan was and is great. However, Reagan was/is an extremely positive and sucessful anomaly. Not saying I will not support Walker, just making the case for Cruz and Paul.
I'm not really trashing either of them. All I am doing is pointing out my observations. I like them. Cruz gives a great speech, and it agree with him almost always. That was Obama's appeal as well. Zero executive experience. That's the glaring difference. I would support Cruz if he won the nomination....but I doubt he will.
I agree, I think Ted Cruz is just a great speech maker and a motivator….However, out of 104 bills and amendments sponsored and introduced by him, only ONE passed the senate and only ONE made it to law……This concerns me more than anything……..from Jan 2013 to Jan 2015, Cruz missed 45 of 706 roll call votes, which is 6.4%. This is worse than the median of 1.7% among the lifetime records of senators currently serving.
| |
| | |
BHW Resident Surgeon
Posts: 25352
Location: Bastrop, Texas | I think Norma makes some good points. I have to be honest and think back to 2008 when I used Obama's lack of executive experience and actual accomplishments as reasons why he wasn't qualified to be president. As much as I like what Cruz says, in reality, I would be no different than Obama's supporters were back then.....in the eyes of Democrats. They would be justified in calling me hypocritical, or at least of having double standards.
Who among us remembers Mark Sanford? He was a front runner and a darling of the conservative Republicans. It turned out he was a hypocrite, a crook, and a lecher. I'm not saying Cruz is any of those things, but I'm not going to get overly excited about him just because he is a gifted orator. | |
| | |
Nicknameless
Posts: 4565
Location: I can see the end of the world from here! | Bear - 2015-01-31 2:01 PM I think Norma makes some good points. I have to be honest and think back to 2008 when I used Obama's lack of executive experience and actual accomplishments as reasons why he wasn't qualified to be president. As much as I like what Cruz says, in reality, I would be no different than Obama's supporters were back then.....in the eyes of Democrats. They would be justified in calling me hypocritical, or at least of having double standards. Who among us remembers Mark Sanford? He was a front runner and a darling of the conservative Republicans. It turned out he was a hypocrite, a crook, and a lecher. I'm not saying Cruz is any of those things, but I'm not going to get overly excited about him just because he is a gifted orator. No doubt he has a gift for speaking, however, the content of his speech is what I like...at least most of it. He is a Constitutionalist, even though I feel he still leans too far to the right when it comes to wanting to legislate morality...that will be the downfall of the TP.
Our Founding Fathers didn't have the executive experience, either...I think it can certainly be a hinderance (experience!)...Obama's problem is that he thinks HE is the expert on all things, he doesn't have a good, strong cabinet or admisnistrative body that he will take advice from. I see no comparison between Cruz & Obama.
Edited by musikmaker 2015-01-31 3:52 PM
| |
| | |
BHW Resident Surgeon
Posts: 25352
Location: Bastrop, Texas | musikmaker - 2015-01-31 3:51 PM
Bear - 2015-01-31 2:01 PM I think Norma makes some good points. I have to be honest and think back to 2008 when I used Obama's lack of executive experience and actual accomplishments as reasons why he wasn't qualified to be president. As much as I like what Cruz says, in reality, I would be no different than Obama's supporters were back then.....in the eyes of Democrats. They would be justified in calling me hypocritical, or at least of having double standards. Who among us remembers Mark Sanford? He was a front runner and a darling of the conservative Republicans. It turned out he was a hypocrite, a crook, and a lecher. I'm not saying Cruz is any of those things, but I'm not going to get overly excited about him just because he is a gifted orator. No doubt he has a gift for speaking, however, the content of his speech is what I like...at least most of it. He is a Constitutionalist, even though I feel he still leans too far to the right when it comes to wanting to legislate morality...that will be the downfall of the TP.
Our Founding Fathers didn't have the executive experience, either...I think it can certainly be a hinderance (experience!)...Obama's problem is that he thinks HE is the expert on all things, he doesn't have a good, strong cabinet or admisnistrative body that he will take advice from. I see no comparison between Cruz & Obama.
Cruz is to us on the right as Obama is to those on the left. I find the similarity to be quite striking, actually.
As to the Tea Party and their desire to legislate morality, I don't know where that idea came from. That has been a mischaracterization. In fact, if anything, I would say the Tea Party originated with a heavy libertarian leaning, if anything. Legislating morality is hardly a Libertarian precept. Conservatives have allowed the media to convince the general public that the Tea Party is a bunch of white, racist, religious zealots. Nothing could be further from the truth, as far as I'm concerned. The Tea Party to me is a movement based on a goal of smaller, less intrusive government, lower taxation, debt and deficit reduction, and adherence to the Constitution.
| |
| | |
Nicknameless
Posts: 4565
Location: I can see the end of the world from here! | Bear - 2015-01-31 4:27 PM musikmaker - 2015-01-31 3:51 PM Bear - 2015-01-31 2:01 PM I think Norma makes some good points. I have to be honest and think back to 2008 when I used Obama's lack of executive experience and actual accomplishments as reasons why he wasn't qualified to be president. As much as I like what Cruz says, in reality, I would be no different than Obama's supporters were back then.....in the eyes of Democrats. They would be justified in calling me hypocritical, or at least of having double standards. Who among us remembers Mark Sanford? He was a front runner and a darling of the conservative Republicans. It turned out he was a hypocrite, a crook, and a lecher. I'm not saying Cruz is any of those things, but I'm not going to get overly excited about him just because he is a gifted orator. No doubt he has a gift for speaking, however, the content of his speech is what I like...at least most of it. He is a Constitutionalist, even though I feel he still leans too far to the right when it comes to wanting to legislate morality...that will be the downfall of the TP.
Our Founding Fathers didn't have the executive experience, either...I think it can certainly be a hinderance (experience!)...Obama's problem is that he thinks HE is the expert on all things, he doesn't have a good, strong cabinet or admisnistrative body that he will take advice from. I see no comparison between Cruz & Obama. Cruz is to us on the right as Obama is to those on the left. I find the similarity to be quite striking, actually. As to the Tea Party and their desire to legislate morality, I don't know where that idea came from. That has been a mischaracterization. In fact, if anything, I would say the Tea Party originated with a heavy libertarian leaning, if anything. Legislating morality is hardly a Libertarian precept. Conservatives have allowed the media to convince the general public that the Tea Party is a bunch of white, racist, religious zealots. Nothing could be further from the truth, as far as I'm concerned. The Tea Party to me is a movement based on a goal of smaller, less intrusive government, lower taxation, debt and deficit reduction, and adherence to the Constitution.
They should stick to constitutional issues then. You know I'm very much a constitutionalist, I also believe that I'm the only one who will have to answer to my maker for my decisions. They made a major mistake and shut the door for a lot of possible support when they, first thing, went after the whatever bill about fetal pain then go after gay marriage...these right wing groups saw an opportunity to push an agenda, no different than the liberal groups do, that further divides our country. They would be smart to stick with the real issues that affect ALL of us...the general population (think: promote the general welfare), not a self-selected few (think: the rw zealots & those who choose abortion).
We need someone who wishes to lead us towards fixing our broken country...protect our borders, stop the insane gov't spending, the huge tax burden we all carry, let the free enterprise system work & provide jobs, get the fed out of our everday life and give us smaller gov't...there are so many things that could propel us towards making better personal choices. Making another 'law' doesn't work. People need to be inspired to better themselves.
Well...we've all talked this to death over the years! Lol..it has been fun, kinda sad now and tiring. I just hope & pray that somebody picks up the torch and inspires American Greatness again...with love & forgiveness rather than force.
| |
| | |
 Hawty & Nawty
Posts: 20424
| The argument between Bear and MM is symbolic of a serious fatal problem with Right wingers. TEA and I mean the ACTUAL TEA party cares about nothing else then reducing Federal Govt. taxes, control and restoring state rights. However, when the movement caught fire than all other kinds of right wingers jumped on the TEA wagon and screwed up the entire original message and now nobody actually can find the real core of TEA.
Republicans are so disenchanted with their party that they have cut themselves up like a pizza into segments and can't come together enough to beat the Zombie followers of the Democrats. We won't win this election unless magic happens and someone steps up to the plate that can appeal to all the fragments of the GOP.
Here's what else that's funny. Say we all come together and decide John Doe is perfect and speaks to us all .... Wont' matter. We are a party that controls the rural communities and states with low electoral besides TX and FL. While the Dems have most of the big cities and high electoral.
What I'm saying is..... buy extra Vaseline or take up knitting. Forget about it. | |
| | |
Nicknameless
Posts: 4565
Location: I can see the end of the world from here! | RidenFly - 2015-01-31 7:13 PM The argument between Bear and MM is symbolic of a serious fatal problem with Right wingers. TEA and I mean the ACTUAL TEA party cares about nothing else then reducing Federal Govt. taxes, control and restoring state rights. However, when the movement caught fire than all other kinds of right wingers jumped on the TEA wagon and screwed up the entire original message and now nobody actually can find the real core of TEA.
Republicans are so disenchanted with their party that they have cut themselves up like a pizza into segments and can't come together enough to beat the Zombie followers of the Democrats. We won't win this election unless magic happens and someone steps up to the plate that can appeal to all the fragments of the GOP.
Here's what else that's funny. Say we all come together and decide John Doe is perfect and speaks to us all .... Wont' matter. We are a party that controls the rural communities and states with low electoral besides TX and FL. While the Dems have most of the big cities and high electoral.
What I'm saying is..... buy extra Vaseline or take up knitting. Forget about it.
Any other choices? Like booze? Lol.
Obama ain't going anywhere anyhow.
| |
| |
| |
Folks on-line