The unofficial online home for fans of the Western Michigan University Broncos. Part of Collegiate Sports Nation (CSN).

(02-27-2016 01:33 PM)ColinApocalypse Wrote:  

(02-27-2016 12:47 PM)gobaseline Wrote:  

(02-27-2016 12:43 PM)ColinApocalypse Wrote:  

(02-27-2016 12:18 PM)okgc Wrote:  Hillary would easily be the most dishonest President in history.

I also agree with this.

She is just so sketchy. Her whole campaign is built on lies, manipulation, pandering, deceit, and dirty money.

Ugh, I just want one decent candidate.

What constitutes a decent candidate from your perspective?

Someone honest and hardworking. Not scandalous. Not extremist or bigoted in their views. Willingness to cooperate and compromise. Someone inclusive rather than divisive.

Just a few qualities off the top of the head.

Thank you.

So who historically comes to mind that has sat in the Oval Office that comes close to your perspective?

I ask this because there is a record of having either done so or not while in that position.

(02-27-2016 12:50 PM)brovol Wrote:  

(02-27-2016 11:11 AM)ColinApocalypse Wrote:  

(02-27-2016 10:46 AM)Hoekjeness Wrote:  Anybody but Trump.

Truly scary if he gets elected Prez.

Sums up my feelings as well.

But the whole field, on both sides of the aisle....they're all pretty terrible. This election really is a clown show.

I don't know why it's so hard for a decent person that's politically moderate to be a candidate. Maybe it's too boring for the majority of Americans.

Why is moderate good? People need to determine; what is the presidents role? It isn't to legislate. Look at Article 2.

Younger folks have little perspective for history and the importance of the constitution because at some point the American education system became more liberal, and those things were not a valued element of fundamental education.

If we have slipped way too far left in our country, then finding a "moderate" is just putting another log on the fire. Likewise, if we had been leaning too far to the right, then the same would be true. What made America different than the rest, and gave us greatness, and the envy of people worldwide, is our constitution, individual liberties, and our free enterprise system. Anything less than that is wrong; even if it isn't popular by all.

I'm in my phone so I'll try to keep the replies short.

See my previous post for what I mean by "moderate". I mean it more in personality sense, than a political sense. But that too.

Also, I'm a younger person and a history major. I have a profound knowledge and appreciation for our Constitution, so no lecture will be necessary. Not being rude, just letting you know.

Short answer: president's role is to lead. Hard to lead with divisive rhetoric and alienating half of the population.

(02-27-2016 01:38 PM)gobaseline Wrote:  

(02-27-2016 01:33 PM)ColinApocalypse Wrote:  

(02-27-2016 12:47 PM)gobaseline Wrote:  

(02-27-2016 12:43 PM)ColinApocalypse Wrote:  

(02-27-2016 12:18 PM)okgc Wrote:  Hillary would easily be the most dishonest President in history.

I also agree with this.

She is just so sketchy. Her whole campaign is built on lies, manipulation, pandering, deceit, and dirty money.

Ugh, I just want one decent candidate.

What constitutes a decent candidate from your perspective?

Someone honest and hardworking. Not scandalous. Not extremist or bigoted in their views. Willingness to cooperate and compromise. Someone inclusive rather than divisive.

Just a few qualities off the top of the head.

Thank you.

So who historically comes to mind that has sat in the Oval Office that comes close to your perspective?

I ask this because there is a record of having either done so or not while in that position.

Woodrow Wilson and FDR come to mind. Not perfect, but they successfully led our nation through trying times.

I don't know if any president has ever fully inhabited those qualities, but I'm sure we can do better than the candidates we have right now.

(02-27-2016 01:39 PM)ColinApocalypse Wrote:  

(02-27-2016 12:50 PM)brovol Wrote:  

(02-27-2016 11:11 AM)ColinApocalypse Wrote:  

(02-27-2016 10:46 AM)Hoekjeness Wrote:  Anybody but Trump.

Truly scary if he gets elected Prez.

Sums up my feelings as well.

But the whole field, on both sides of the aisle....they're all pretty terrible. This election really is a clown show.

I don't know why it's so hard for a decent person that's politically moderate to be a candidate. Maybe it's too boring for the majority of Americans.

Why is moderate good? People need to determine; what is the presidents role? It isn't to legislate. Look at Article 2.

Younger folks have little perspective for history and the importance of the constitution because at some point the American education system became more liberal, and those things were not a valued element of fundamental education.

If we have slipped way too far left in our country, then finding a "moderate" is just putting another log on the fire. Likewise, if we had been leaning too far to the right, then the same would be true. What made America different than the rest, and gave us greatness, and the envy of people worldwide, is our constitution, individual liberties, and our free enterprise system. Anything less than that is wrong; even if it isn't popular by all.

I'm in my phone so I'll try to keep the replies short.

See my previous post for what I mean by "moderate". I mean it more in personality sense, than a political sense. But that too.

Also, I'm a younger person and a history major. I have a profound knowledge and appreciation for our Constitution, so no lecture will be necessary. Not being rude, just letting you know.

Short answer: president's role is to lead. Hard to lead when with divisive rhetoric and alienating half of the population.

We then share a love of history. My major at WMU.

No lecture, not from me. Know plenty of 50+ who are clueless re the constitution. And I'll admit I haven't studied it in a long time.

Being on your phone what last names of former Presidents or others OR current folk seem to that fit your bill?

(02-27-2016 01:46 PM)gobaseline Wrote:  

(02-27-2016 01:39 PM)ColinApocalypse Wrote:  

(02-27-2016 12:50 PM)brovol Wrote:  

(02-27-2016 11:11 AM)ColinApocalypse Wrote:  

(02-27-2016 10:46 AM)Hoekjeness Wrote:  Anybody but Trump.

Truly scary if he gets elected Prez.

Sums up my feelings as well.

But the whole field, on both sides of the aisle....they're all pretty terrible. This election really is a clown show.

I don't know why it's so hard for a decent person that's politically moderate to be a candidate. Maybe it's too boring for the majority of Americans.

Why is moderate good? People need to determine; what is the presidents role? It isn't to legislate. Look at Article 2.

Younger folks have little perspective for history and the importance of the constitution because at some point the American education system became more liberal, and those things were not a valued element of fundamental education.

If we have slipped way too far left in our country, then finding a "moderate" is just putting another log on the fire. Likewise, if we had been leaning too far to the right, then the same would be true. What made America different than the rest, and gave us greatness, and the envy of people worldwide, is our constitution, individual liberties, and our free enterprise system. Anything less than that is wrong; even if it isn't popular by all.

I'm in my phone so I'll try to keep the replies short.

See my previous post for what I mean by "moderate". I mean it more in personality sense, than a political sense. But that too.

Also, I'm a younger person and a history major. I have a profound knowledge and appreciation for our Constitution, so no lecture will be necessary. Not being rude, just letting you know.

Short answer: president's role is to lead. Hard to lead when with divisive rhetoric and alienating half of the population.

We then share a love of history. My major at WMU.

No lecture, not from me. Know plenty of 50+ who are clueless re the constitution. And I'll admit I haven't studied it in a long time.

Being on your phone what last names of former Presidents or others OR current folk seem to that fit your bill?

Granted, I'm no expert on most of the politicians in this country, but I think Gary Johnson seems to be a good fit. I haven't researched him a few years now, but he was a strong moderate Republican, and now Libertarian. Had a constitutional "hands-off" approach.

But I'll reiterate: I haven't researched every politician and I don't have all the answers.

(02-27-2016 01:53 PM)ColinApocalypse Wrote:  

(02-27-2016 01:46 PM)gobaseline Wrote:  

(02-27-2016 01:39 PM)ColinApocalypse Wrote:  

(02-27-2016 12:50 PM)brovol Wrote:  

(02-27-2016 11:11 AM)ColinApocalypse Wrote:  Sums up my feelings as well.

But the whole field, on both sides of the aisle....they're all pretty terrible. This election really is a clown show.

I don't know why it's so hard for a decent person that's politically moderate to be a candidate. Maybe it's too boring for the majority of Americans.

Why is moderate good? People need to determine; what is the presidents role? It isn't to legislate. Look at Article 2.

Younger folks have little perspective for history and the importance of the constitution because at some point the American education system became more liberal, and those things were not a valued element of fundamental education.

If we have slipped way too far left in our country, then finding a "moderate" is just putting another log on the fire. Likewise, if we had been leaning too far to the right, then the same would be true. What made America different than the rest, and gave us greatness, and the envy of people worldwide, is our constitution, individual liberties, and our free enterprise system. Anything less than that is wrong; even if it isn't popular by all.

I'm in my phone so I'll try to keep the replies short.

See my previous post for what I mean by "moderate". I mean it more in personality sense, than a political sense. But that too.

Also, I'm a younger person and a history major. I have a profound knowledge and appreciation for our Constitution, so no lecture will be necessary. Not being rude, just letting you know.

Short answer: president's role is to lead. Hard to lead when with divisive rhetoric and alienating half of the population.

We then share a love of history. My major at WMU.

No lecture, not from me. Know plenty of 50+ who are clueless re the constitution. And I'll admit I haven't studied it in a long time.

Being on your phone what last names of former Presidents or others OR current folk seem to that fit your bill?

Granted, I'm no expert on most of the politicians in this country, but I think Gary Johnson seems to be a good fit. I haven't researched him a few years now, but he was a strong moderate Republican, and now Libertarian. Had a constitutional "hands-off" approach.

But I'll reiterate: I haven't researched every politician and I don't have all the answers.

If I had all the answers I'd be King.

Do you vote? Planning to?

(02-27-2016 01:58 PM)gobaseline Wrote:  

(02-27-2016 01:53 PM)ColinApocalypse Wrote:  

(02-27-2016 01:46 PM)gobaseline Wrote:  

(02-27-2016 01:39 PM)ColinApocalypse Wrote:  

(02-27-2016 12:50 PM)brovol Wrote:  Why is moderate good? People need to determine; what is the presidents role? It isn't to legislate. Look at Article 2.

Younger folks have little perspective for history and the importance of the constitution because at some point the American education system became more liberal, and those things were not a valued element of fundamental education.

If we have slipped way too far left in our country, then finding a "moderate" is just putting another log on the fire. Likewise, if we had been leaning too far to the right, then the same would be true. What made America different than the rest, and gave us greatness, and the envy of people worldwide, is our constitution, individual liberties, and our free enterprise system. Anything less than that is wrong; even if it isn't popular by all.

I'm in my phone so I'll try to keep the replies short.

See my previous post for what I mean by "moderate". I mean it more in personality sense, than a political sense. But that too.

Also, I'm a younger person and a history major. I have a profound knowledge and appreciation for our Constitution, so no lecture will be necessary. Not being rude, just letting you know.

Short answer: president's role is to lead. Hard to lead when with divisive rhetoric and alienating half of the population.

We then share a love of history. My major at WMU.

No lecture, not from me. Know plenty of 50+ who are clueless re the constitution. And I'll admit I haven't studied it in a long time.

Being on your phone what last names of former Presidents or others OR current folk seem to that fit your bill?

Granted, I'm no expert on most of the politicians in this country, but I think Gary Johnson seems to be a good fit. I haven't researched him a few years now, but he was a strong moderate Republican, and now Libertarian. Had a constitutional "hands-off" approach.

But I'll reiterate: I haven't researched every politician and I don't have all the answers.

If I had all the answers I'd be King.

Do you vote? Planning to?

I do vote and I'm planning to during this election cycle.

(02-27-2016 01:42 PM)ColinApocalypse Wrote:  Woodrow Wilson and FDR come to mind. Not perfect, but they successfully led our nation through trying times.

Woodrow Wilson quote:

Despite these warnings, Woodrow Wilson signed the 1913 Federal Reserve Act. A few years later he wrote: “I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated Governments in the civilized world no longer a Government by free opinion, no longer a Government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a Government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men.” -Woodrow Wilson

"Moderate" in what way?

Touche, but maybe moderate was the wrong word. Perhaps, a man of conviction?

I don't necessarily disagree with that quote. We still see many of the same issues today.

(02-27-2016 01:33 PM)ColinApocalypse Wrote:  

(02-27-2016 12:47 PM)gobaseline Wrote:  

(02-27-2016 12:43 PM)ColinApocalypse Wrote:  

(02-27-2016 12:18 PM)okgc Wrote:  Hillary would easily be the most dishonest President in history.

I also agree with this.

She is just so sketchy. Her whole campaign is built on lies, manipulation, pandering, deceit, and dirty money.

Ugh, I just want one decent candidate.

What constitutes a decent candidate from your perspective?

Someone honest and hardworking. Not scandalous. Not extremist or bigoted in their views. Willingness to cooperate and compromise. Someone inclusive rather than divisive.

Just a few qualities off the top of the head.

Is "comprising" a good thing? Or is it an assurance at reaching a wrong result. The nice thing about science is that there isn't any in between. Either the formula is correct or it is wrong. The same is really true with government or political science. Cutting the baby in half is a bad result.

Some polititions argue that we need legislators to compromise. Well the country we live in is currently the product of compromise. Our legislation created every law and regulation we live with by getting enough people to agree to bend one way or another in order to put together a bill which would pass, and then not get vetoed by a President, who probably didn't think the law was just right, but approved it, in the spirit of "compromise".

Do we like the way things are?

I'm really not trying to pick a fight. I know we all want a good righteous country, which is prosperous. It's just that the role of government, and people's understandings and expectations have changes so much during my lifetime, and not in a good way.

Even the Democrats who I know and respect are conceeding that things have gotten out of control.

My criticisms are not limited to Democrats, even slightly. Republicans have lost perspective as well. " social conservatives" have zero concept of the Bill of Rights, or civil rights. Many Republicans have no appreciation for the 4th Amendment; exept when it works for them.

To me, Trump is the biggest embarrassment, with the exception of Bernie Sanders. Hillary is.....well, Hillary. Need I say more. Kasich is a liberal panty waste, who wants everyone to participate in a circle jerk. I'm not fond of Cruz's social politics at all. Carson would be OK if he grew a pair, and was a leader, but that won't happen. So that leaves Rubio, who at least is standing up to Trump, and says a lot of good things along the way.

Carson- needs to grow a pair
Kasich- would be like having Mitch McConnell as president. A linguine spine.
Trump- a doer, but not schooled on the issues
Rubio- a bit too rehearsed, unaccomplished, a puppet for the donor class
Cruz- brilliant, schooled on the issues, too entrenched on social causes

Hillary- a smart politician, name recognition, poor leader, very untrustworthy
Bernie- a certified nut job, very scary that there are people who are buying his Load of crap

I *might* consider voting for Kasich but thats a moot point most likely. I think he's reasonable and pragmatic and could make major inroads on the federal budget.

Not only do I agree with Gary Johnson on most of the issues but he was a successful, popular governor and I liked his explanation of his approach (everything is a cost/benefit analysis) when he briefly was in the Republican debates last time around. Might've been interesting to see if he had run as an R again but I'll probably vote for him anyway.

(02-27-2016 03:45 PM)Chipdip2 Wrote:  Carson- needs to grow a pair
Kasich- would be like having Mitch McConnell as president. A linguine spine.
Trump- a doer, but not schooled on the issues
Rubio- a bit too rehearsed, unaccomplished, a puppet for the donor class
Cruz- brilliant, schooled on the issues, too entrenched on social causes

Hillary- a smart politician, name recognition, poor leader, very untrustworthy
Bernie- a certified nut job, very scary that there are people who are buying his Load of crap

I agree on pretty much all except Kasich. He has been an effective governor in a state that is critical to either party's election night hopes.

As both a Member of Congress and Governor he has a proven conservative track record (not as conservative as I would like, but still strong) and has demonstrated the ability to work his agenda with both sides of the aisle.

Remember, the executive proposes, but it is Congress that disposes. Unless a president can get 51 votes in the Senate (60 to break a filibuster) and a one vote majority in the House, than he's nothing more than a blowhard talk-show host. None of the GOP candidates, except Kasich, have demonstrated the ability to develop an agenda and actually get it passed. Cruz and Rubio have meager Senate records, Trump has no clue (Mexico is gonna pay for a wall...right...), and Carson, while likable, is unfortunately out of his depth.

I also like the fact Kasich was chair of the House Budget Committee. He knows exactly what he is getting into, fiscally, and knows the levers to pull to get the job done.

While it is unlikely Kasich will get the nomination, I am hoping he runs as an independent. There is NO WAY I will vote for Trump, Clinton or Sanders.

So disappointed in both political parties, but not surprised. The extremist nut-jobs have taken them over.

For Brovol, Dip and GL who reference or agree with "growing a pair" for Carson what does that exactly mean?

I understand the slang and pejorative meaning but specifically what are you pointing to?

(02-27-2016 09:47 PM)gobaseline Wrote:  For Brovol, Dip and GL who reference or agree with "growing a pair" for Carson what does that exactly mean?

I understand the slang and pejorative meaning but specifically what are you pointing to?

While I disagree with the phrase "growing a pair" for Carson, I do believe he is out of his depth as president. I was a Carson supporter until the debates started. Unfortunately, he does not articulate his view points well and is lacking a leadership presence combined with zero foreign policy or federal budget experience.

I really like the man and respect him. However, I do not think he would be a strong president. He would struggle. That said, he would be far better than Trump, Sanders or Clinton.

(02-27-2016 09:47 PM)gobaseline Wrote:  For Brovol, Dip and GL who reference or agree with "growing a pair" for Carson what does that exactly mean?

I understand the slang and pejorative meaning but specifically what are you pointing to?

Unfortunately, perception becomes reality. He's like the smart kid in class who sits in the back and doesn't raise his hand. Pretty soon people forget about him.

It isn't right, but it's the reality of politics.

(02-27-2016 10:51 PM)GullLake Wrote:  

(02-27-2016 09:47 PM)gobaseline Wrote:  For Brovol, Dip and GL who reference or agree with "growing a pair" for Carson what does that exactly mean?

I understand the slang and pejorative meaning but specifically what are you pointing to?

I do believe he is out of his depth as president. I was a Carson supporter until the debates started. Unfortunately, he does not articulate his view points well and is lacking a leadership presence combined with zero foreign policy or federal budget experience.

I really like the man and respect him. However, I do not think he would be a strong president. He would struggle.

Thanks for expanding on that.

Not quibble as I haven't made up my mind.

I believe I understand your two observations re articulation and presence. I have observed that he is soft spoken and measured in his delivery. I don't believe the debate format as utilized serves him. He hasn't always been succinct in those sessions. However, in one on ones and Town Hall formats I hear and see a different tone and presence.

That said, you mention two areas of interest that I see as critical moving forward, Foreign Policy and Economy (the Fed Budget is a part).

Other than using ones fav media outlet(s) for access and filtering I wonder how many people actually know what Carson's positions are or care to know?

I also wonder how has the aggregate experience of those current experts in the field of Foreign Policy and Federal Budget positioned the US lately? And as a result is that experience that serves us best?

(02-27-2016 11:17 PM)Chipdip2 Wrote:  

(02-27-2016 09:47 PM)gobaseline Wrote:  For Brovol, Dip and GL who reference or agree with "growing a pair" for Carson what does that exactly mean?

I understand the slang and pejorative meaning but specifically what are you pointing to?

Unfortunately, perception becomes reality. He's like the smart kid in class who sits in the back and doesn't raise his hand. Pretty soon people forget about him.

It isn't right, but it's the reality of politics.

If he is forgettable because he is quiet as you say, how is that the appropriate basis to pass judgment? I mean, politics in and of itself is useless except for the policy it produces. So do you want your kids and grandchildren living in a world of perception or reality?

I would vote for Carson for sure if he had a chance to win. I think you need to have the strength to fight openly in order to lead, and for some reason Carson hasn't displayed that at all during the campaign. The most important thing I look at is the candidates general philosophies, and I think Carson is very strong there. So I would put him on top if he would have put himself in a position to chalange. That ship has sailed though.

Kasich is a Democrat posing as a Republican. He believes in big government, social health care, holding hands, and singing kumbaya. Frankly, I also get a real creepy fealing about him, and he is the poster child for "politician", taking the middle road because he thinks that the most popular thing to do.

I do not think that a senator with " no legislative accomplishments " is a bad thing. To the contrary, I hate the senators who are pushing legislation, and "building a record" with bills which do nothing but add to the already over packed library of federal laws and regulations which get in the way of free enterprise and fairness. Simple is good. This is another media generated concept that a good legislator is one who sponsors lots of bills. That's bull sh1t.

I think both rubio and Cruz could be decent choices. As I said before, Cruz has the social idiology that I don't agree with, and while I am Christian, I hate when politicians cite "judeo Christian values" as a guide for policy. Im good with citing American values, which include religious and other individual freedoms. But don't cite specific religious values, at the exclusion of others, as that goes contrary to all religious freedom. But other that that, and the fact that he looks and sounds a little annoying, I could support Cruz.

Rubio is saying the right things, and is smart, well spoken, as is showing he has fight. I like that he is young, and it does not bother me that he is "establishment". I think the establishment in the Republican party is changing, and will never be the same. That's the only good thing that Trump has done. Rubio, I think, is a strong candidate.

(02-28-2016 01:07 AM)gobaseline Wrote:  I do believe he is out of his depth as president. I was a Carson supporter until the debates started. Unfortunately, he does not articulate his view points well and is lacking a leadership presence combined with zero foreign policy or federal budget experience.

I really like the man and respect him. However, I do not think he would be a strong president. He would struggle.

I had been familiar with Carson's career and life story before this past year.

I was sad when I learned that he planned to run for the presidency.

It's beneath him.