(03-02-2015 10:25 PM)Policiious Wrote:  Warren has said that she is not now interested in running.

No need to update my passport, thank God!

(03-03-2015 12:04 AM)MaddDawgz02 Wrote:  

(03-02-2015 10:25 PM)Policiious Wrote:  Warren has said that she is not now interested in running.

No need to update my passport, thank God!

The problem is, even if you did leave the country, you would still post your craziness on here.

(03-03-2015 12:04 AM)MaddDawgz02 Wrote:  

(03-02-2015 10:25 PM)Policiious Wrote:  Warren has said that she is not now interested in running.

No need to update my passport, thank God!

...where would you go that is less "socialized" then the United States? haha

(03-02-2015 07:45 PM)niubrad00 Wrote:  

(03-02-2015 01:38 PM)MaddDawgz02 Wrote:  I just feel like I have to pinch myself to get out of this ongoing nightmare. The United States is negotiating and buddy buddy with the terrorist state of Iran, but the president refuses to talk to the Israeli PM on his visit. Not sure about anyone else, but I refuse to call this idiot "my" president. A complete and total disgrace to the office.

And here I thought you were just scary ignorant about NIU athletics. I guess it carries over to life in general too.

(03-02-2015 07:59 PM)MaddDawgz02 Wrote:  

(02-27-2015 06:15 PM)niuguy Wrote:  

(02-27-2015 04:29 PM)BleedsHuskieRed Wrote:  

(02-27-2015 03:26 PM)BobL Wrote:  

(02-27-2015 03:01 PM)MaddDawgz02 Wrote:  So many bright and exciting minds in the broad pool of Republican candidates. What a stark contrast to these new innovative politicians, on the Democratic side you have Hillary and Warren hahah, wow. As bad as Hillary would be, I would leave the country (no exaggeration) if Warren became President.

How cowardly and unamerican not to mention plain silly

I would actually prefer Warren over Hillary. Much less of a hawk. That being said, I would prefer both of them just not win.

You're a pretty reasonable dude. Who do you like right now?

Under Warren we will have socialization of abortions. Noone should have to pay for that other than those committing it.

There are some really bright young minds on the Rebublican side. Nov 2016 will be one of the best times this country has ever seen, and the healing process can begin.

You got that right. Dems will take back the senate. House is too gerrymandered.

(03-03-2015 11:19 AM)niuguy Wrote:  

(03-03-2015 12:04 AM)MaddDawgz02 Wrote:  

(03-02-2015 10:25 PM)Policiious Wrote:  Warren has said that she is not now interested in running.

No need to update my passport, thank God!

...where would you go that is less "socialized" then the United States? haha

There's always Somalia :)

I was thinking today..... if the election is between Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush, I actually may actively work for the most convenient third party to my house. Green, Communist, Buddhist, Anarchist - I don't care.

If they both run and are the official party candidates, on my left bumper I will put a sticker that says "Anyone but Clinton." On my right bumper I will have a sticker that says "Anyone but Bush."

(03-05-2015 10:00 AM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  I was thinking today..... if the election is between Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush, I actually may actively work for the most convenient third party to my house. Green, Communist, Buddhist, Anarchist - I don't care.

If they both run and are the official party candidates, on my left bumper I will put a sticker that says "Anyone but Clinton." On my right bumper I will have a sticker that says "Anyone but Bush."

Ill have a bumper sticker "Any empty chair would be better than Obama"

If you remove Bush's last name, I don't see what there isn't to like about him unless you are more on the more extreme right. He's conservative but realistic. Not hawkish but not a dove. He is realistic about immigration and can appeal to more than just scared old white dudes. Is he not angry enough for people? I can't imagine any other republican out there as president and actually being forced to try to balance all their bluff and bluster with the realities of governing.

(03-05-2015 10:49 AM)niuguy Wrote:  If you remove Bush's last name, I don't see what there isn't to like about him unless you are more on the more extreme right. He's conservative but realistic. Not hawkish but not a dove. He is realistic about immigration and can appeal to more than just scared old white dudes. Is he not angry enough for people? I can't imagine any other republican out there as president and actually being forced to try to balance all their bluff and bluster with the realities of governing.

But he is a Bush, she is a Clinton, and this country is not an oligarchy. Perhaps it is small minded to only look at the possible election through this type of lens, but I personally find this to be very important.

No Clinton. No Bush.

(03-05-2015 11:27 AM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(03-05-2015 10:49 AM)niuguy Wrote:  If you remove Bush's last name, I don't see what there isn't to like about him unless you are more on the more extreme right. He's conservative but realistic. Not hawkish but not a dove. He is realistic about immigration and can appeal to more than just scared old white dudes. Is he not angry enough for people? I can't imagine any other republican out there as president and actually being forced to try to balance all their bluff and bluster with the realities of governing.

But he is a Bush, she is a Clinton, and this country is not an oligarchy. Perhaps it is small minded to only look at the possible election through this type of lens, but I personally find this to be very important.

No Clinton. No Bush.

Hey, I agree. I'm happy with smart moderate alternatives. There just ain't many.

(03-05-2015 10:49 AM)niuguy Wrote:  If you remove Bush's last name, I don't see what there isn't to like about him unless you are more on the more extreme right. He's conservative but realistic. Not hawkish but not a dove. He is realistic about immigration and can appeal to more than just scared old white dudes. Is he not angry enough for people? I can't imagine any other republican out there as president and actually being forced to try to balance all their bluff and bluster with the realities of governing.

I'[m afraid that's not the case. We know Jeb's foreign policy advisers are mostly the same Iraq War architects who worked for W. There are a couple moderate realists like Schultz who worked for Bush 41, but it looks like overwhelmingly he's advised by the W team.

http://crooksandliars.com/2015/02/jeb-bu...cy-experts



Given that, and his lack of knowledge on foreign policy (confusing Iraq and Iran in his speech last week, saying there are 200,000 ISIS fighters when there are more like 20,000), I'd be very concerned that these guys would goad him into the same hawkish stance his brother took. Their belief that the US has to play the world's sheriff is at odds with where the American people are at and can be very costly like we saw in Iraq.

That said, overall, Bush looks to be the most sane of the GOP candidates, like Huntsman was in 2012. But that's like saying he's the tallest midget.

As for Warren saying she "isn't running", that's what people say until they announce they're running. I'm not convinced she'll run, but I wouldn't rule her out based on that.

I will agree that the foreign policy "experts" who tend to follow republican presidents around tend to be the same group of hawks that were completely wrong about the effects of the Iraq war on both Iraq and the region and that is a real reason to be concerned. Obviously Paul wouldn't share that group but then I worry more about his domestic policies rather than his foreign ones. Purists (left and right) are always in for a rude awakening when they actually gain power.

I was reading a pew study from the 2012 election. Voters self identified as follows. 28% rep, 35% dem, 33% ind. of the independents 28 identified as conservative, 42% moderate and 29% liberal.
The GOP needs to find more leaders in their party who are in fact moderates, Bush 1 moderate. Guys like walker, Cruz and Rubio will not win a national election.

(03-05-2015 02:54 PM)BobL Wrote:  I was reading a pew study from the 2012 election. Voters self identified as follows. 28% rep, 35% dem, 33% ind. of the independents 28 identified as conservative, 42% moderate and 29% liberal.
The GOP needs to find more leaders in their party who are in fact moderates, Bush 1 moderate. Guys like walker, Cruz and Rubio will not win a national election.

What polls like this tell you is that we are a left of center nation, and the only way Republicans get elected is by the Democratic base not coming out to the polls, generally because they're younger and poorer and don't get excited by off year elections.

The GOP knows this and instead of moving to the left to get more of the moderates, they do things like make it more difficult to vote (cutting voter registration days, early voting, requiring IDs to vote and accepting NRA membership cards but not college IDs) and use incendiary rhetoric to whip their base into a rage so they're always angry and will never not show up at the polls. In the end though they're just masking their problems and as the country's demographics change and we become less and less white they'll be forced to make bigger changes to their platform to stay relevant.

Ehh, we are a right of center nation. A moderate democrat is right of center relative to the rest of the developed world.

Internally, I'm not so sure we're left of center. Its not clear. I think if republicans weren't so defiantly white and anti immigrant they would appeal to many conservative voters of other races. I think you'd find that voters don't have a clear right/left philosophy when asked about specific policies either. Everyone wants low taxes but most people also are in favor of the largest government programs. If you ask less government or more they will say less. If you ask about government funding in medicare/ss/education/medicine they want more.

Gay marriage is about to be come the norm. Pot is becoming legal in more and more states. At the same time, votor ID laws have spread as well as laws limiting abortion.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

(03-05-2015 03:37 PM)niuguy Wrote:  Ehh, we are a right of center nation. A moderate democrat is right of center relative to the rest of the developed world.

Internally, I'm not so sure we're left of center. Its not clear. I think if republicans weren't so defiantly white and anti immigrant they would appeal to many conservative voters of other races. I think you'd find that voters don't have a clear right/left philosophy when asked about specific policies either. Everyone wants low taxes but most people also are in favor of the largest government programs. If you ask less government or more they will say less. If you ask about government funding in medicare/ss/education/medicine they want more.

Gay marriage is about to be come the norm. Pot is becoming legal in more and more states. At the same time, votor ID laws have spread as well as laws limiting abortion.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I define "center" as the space between where the two parties currently stand. Back in 2000 and 2004, Bush got a solid share of the Latino vote because he wasn't far right on immigration. But since then the party has taken a hard right turn, forcing most Latinos into the Dem fold, and moving the "center" to the right. Now most people are left of center, and by that I mean lean toward the Democratic Party. If Jeb and his left of center immigration views wins the nomination they might get 40% of the Latino vote again which will go a long way toward closing the gap.

(03-05-2015 03:30 PM)Max Power Wrote:  What polls like this tell you is that we are a left of center nation

I agree. Mitt said it best.

....there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe that government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you name it. That that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them.

You've won, unfortunately. Soon the 47% will be 51% and this country will truly move into a Post-America that will be very different. Especially once those 51% run out of the other 49%'s money. I probably wouldn’t mind so much except I keep wondering what else will change in a Post-American era? Will life here become like Europe after the Fall of Rome? That might not be as much fun as some people seem to think....

(03-05-2015 03:30 PM)Max Power Wrote:  they do things like make it more difficult to vote (cutting voter registration days, early voting, requiring IDs to vote and accepting NRA membership cards but not college IDs) and use incendiary rhetoric to whip their base into a rage so they're always angry and will never not show up at the polls.

Boogey boogey!

(03-05-2015 03:30 PM)Max Power Wrote:  In the end though they're just masking their problems and as the country's demographics change and we become less and less white they'll be forced to make bigger changes to their platform to stay relevant.

Undoubtedly.

Link to the study I referenced is below...interesting stuff.

I still have not had time to review in detail, but it does seem to indicate that Independents like republicans more when it comes to running the government but like dems better on issues such as the environment, social policy, entitlements, etc.

http://www.people-press.org/files/legacy...y%20ID.pdf

Romney's 47% comment was outrageously misleading.

http://swampland.time.com/2012/09/18/fiv...7-remarks/
http://www.nbcnews.com/video/nightly-new...4#49079614



60% of the "47%" (who don't pay income taxes) do have jobs, and pay payroll taxes (and sales taxes, and other forms of taxes). What does it matter HOW their taxes are paid? To nitpick that in the first place is arbitrary. And 22% of the "47%" are elderly retirees living on Social Security (which they paid into during their working years). Newsflash for Romney: These seniors were his base. And millions are students and the unemployed (which if they're collecting unemployment means they recently had a job).

Romney's comment was meant to inflame conservatives on the Reaganite notion that there are tens of millions of "welfare queens" and "young bucks" driving around in Cadillacs and not working or even looking for jobs, but it's just not the case.

If anything is going to bring down America it's the growing inequality that will take drastic measures to correct and save the middle class. Or the automation which will put production in the hands of more and more machines and fewer and fewer workers, so that the owners of the capital will get insanely rich while the rest of the country falls further and further behind, practically necessitating socialism or a far more robust welfare state.