Regan won 2 terms and he was a movie star. Trump is a TV star and protestant. Bernie is Jewish. Hilary is part of New York Cosa Nostra and represents filthy unpatriotic immigrants and muslims say she is a quarter jewish. The last president who wasn't protestant got a bullet to the head by the CIA. Therefore Trump is the next president.
Reagan WAS a movie star, President of SAG (and, interestingly, a supporter of unions all his life), corporate spokeman for GE (the world's biggest corp. at the time that grew him into the role of "The Great Communicator") and Governor of California, home of the most electoral votes. Trump is a rich asshole who, through serendipity and exploitive cunning, is taking advantage of 20 years of work Fox News has put in making the American people angry and dumb.
Trump has a good chance.
The latest polls in a head-to-head match up are from February 5 (Quinnipiac):
General Election: Trump vs. Clinton Clinton 46, Trump 41 Clinton +5
General Election: Trump vs. Sanders Sanders 49, Trump 39 Sanders +10
General Election: Cruz vs. Clinton Cruz 45, Clinton 45 Tie
General Election: Cruz vs. Sanders Sanders 46, Cruz 42 Sanders +4
General Election: Rubio vs. Clinton Rubio 48, Clinton 41 Rubio +7
General Election: Rubio vs. Sanders Rubio 43, Sanders 43 Tie
Of course, these are National Polls, which don't account for the electoral math. (Or Rubio's recent bad press, or Clinton on-going email developments). It's an interesting race.
Maybe Rubio if he is nominated and a Clinton scandal way worse than the emails emerges. Something like Clinton beating a crippled child with his own crunches, caught on video by at least three people.
If Clinton ever gets a hankering to beat a crippled child with his own crutches she better pray that Cruz is the nominee.
I actually think that there may be a third party in the race, albeit Trump or Bloomberg. I think the Republican Party is going to push Bush very hard (after all he did have a strong 4TH place finish) and he may come on strong in some of the larger states. The Republican Party has failed in trying to kill the Trump momentum so far, but I think at some point he will have had enough of them and go it on his own.
My bet is Trump will still be standing at the end of the primaries unless something crazy happens, (like getting caught in bed with a dead girl or a live boy, even then he might pull it out) not sure about Hillary or Sanders just yet but Hillary did rub me the wrong way with her speech conceding to Sanders, she acted like she won, instead of lost, tells me she isn't getting it yet.
It's a roller coaster. I think if the Republicans put up an establishment candidate they win, if it's Trump or Cruz they lose to Clinton and maybe Sanders.
Introduce a Bloomberg or independent Clinton or both?? Who knows.
Hillary has a huge personal negative aura around her. Even her supporters admit that. Frankly I don't like her either, but I can't abide by the mean spirited planks of the Republican party towards the LGBT community, women, abortion rights, education....and the religious right seem to be more minions of evil than anything a benign deity would want worship from.
I may be holding my nose, but if forced to vote for Clinton, I will.
I think Kasich could have broader appeal than his poll numbers show but right now he is getting lost in the field / lost in the noise. The same is true of Bush.
Unless a candidate like Kasich or Bush can secure the GOP spot then I believe the Democratic candidate (either Clinton or Sanders) will win the general election.
I dont like trump, I hate Clinton, I hate Sanders.... I would vote for Ben Carson. If Clinton or Sanders wins I will be selling everything and my next review will be from Costa Rica. Clinton with her emails and Bengazi has proven she cares nothing for this country. Sanders is just fucking crazy... There is no such thing as a free lunch.
Good question londonguy that has always been one of my pet peeves, along with the fact that about 80% of our federal elected officials were trained to be attorneys. Now I am not saying that all lawyers are bad (before JS69 goes off on me) but their overrepresentation in the halls of government, is one of the reasons for the problems that we seem to have agreeing on anything. I think that a serious answer to your question is long overdue by our elected representatives. BTW our first formally elected president George Washington was a surveyor, just a little tidbit of trivia.
It all depends on your perceived notion of what skill set the job of President requires:
1. Commander in Chief? (Military background is useful)
2. Chief Executive Officer? (Governors get good on the job training)
3. Legislative Leadership (Usually attorneys, often Senators)
4. Moral/Ethical/Social Leadership (See community activist)
5. Economic Leadership (Former CEO, economist)
It is quite difficult to find any candidate that checks all the boxes, so often it seems to hinge on the single issue or factor perceived al the most urgent or important on election day. One year it is the economy, another national security, another year social issues are paramount.
Sadly, in America, we tend to vote for style over substance, in any event.
To answer the OP, I feel the overwhelming national mood is anger. When angry, we vote for the polar opposite of whatever we currently have. For now, Trump has most successfully tapped into this anger and must be considered the front runner at this time.
"Why is it that most Presidents past seem to have been governors or senators, can't 'ordinary' citizens become President?"
Such people have run. They tend to be businessmen like for instance Ross Perot. And now we have Donald Trump.
But people also want to see a record. So they like Senators and Governors. Having been a Cabinet Secretary or Vice President also helps. But you are correct, Governors and Senators are preferred. For one thing, these folks were elected state wide and so they were scrutinized by major city newspapers.
So Ronald Reagan, Arnold Swartzenegger, Jessie Ventura, and George W. Bush were all been elected for the first time as Governor. And Al Franken was elected Senator. But the Presidency is not seen as entry level.
Now for Generals, Dwight Eisenhower was elected and Colin Powell had a chance.
I would point out here that Donald Trump is not really a Republican and he isn't helping them. He had the chance to run under Ross Perot's Reform Party and to run for Governor of New York. He did not follow thru with either.
There are also unelected roles he could per sue if he wanted to be taken seriously. Today though, he is something elected Republicans need to distance themselves from and be apologizing for. So I don't worry much about him getting any further. And remember that the Republican Governor of South Carolina, someone who gained much credibility in how she dealt with the Confederate Flag issue, has already spoken out against Trump.
I want a president that sends gunships and warplanes next time our sailors get hijacked by psychos like Iran,. instead of our sailors cowering and crying in fear, because they don't know what's going to happen
Londonguy - I think Harry Truman was a "regular guy". Obama had been a one term Senator , but over the last 50 years things have shifted making the nomination process weighted towards "Washington Insiders" and effectively blocking third party candidates. However, Bloomberg's interest this year is of interest in that he may be prepared to spend $1,000,000,000 of his own money ( he's reputed to be worth 34 billion). He is a fiscal conservative and social liberal and might steal voters from both ends of the voting spectrum. Sanders is getting attention with his plans to re-build the middle class by taxing the shit out of the wealthy and expand the ACA towards universal healthcare.
This should be fun.
Personally I like Sanders (in theory), am turned off by Clinton, think that Trump, Carson, & Cruz should be institutionalized, and that the other Republican candidates are speaking to a relatively small percentage of our voting population. I would welcome Bloomberg to the race in that I think Sanders is too old, Clinton is too sketchy, and the rest are unpalatable.
Harry Truman was a prominent member of the Senate before FDR selected him as his 4th term running mate. FDR was being pressured by conservatives to dump Henry Wallace, one of the best people we have ever had so close to the Presidency.
"Trump, Carson, & Cruz should be institutionalized, and that the other Republican candidates are speaking to a relatively small percentage of our voting population. "
AGREED!
But I also do not want Bloomberg. I think the idea that some outsider could make big changes is just wrong, a myth. But also I do strongly object to Bloomberg.
You understand that two parties, each racing to the center, is just how it is always going to be. I am always voting against the other side, rather than for my own candidate. This year will be no different.
The only exceptions to this in our nation's history, times a third party has won, have been when something just shifted and so the new third party replaced one of the older two.
So as the old Whig party of George Washington and John Adams could not deal with the slavery issue, and as the Democratic Party was still largely for slavery and could not deal with it either, there was turmoil and a few other parties. The Republican Party emerged, always northern and anti-slavery, largely in response to the violence in Kansas Territory, and much of it led by John Brown.
The Republican Party's first Presidential candidate for 1856, John C. Fremont, one of the first pair of Senators from California, ran on a tough anti-slavery platform and was defeated.
But by the 1860 election, affairs had been further polarized by John Brown's guerrilla raid on Harper's Ferry, trying to start a slave revolt, and then being executed by the State of Virginia. The Republicans selected a much lesser qualified candidate, having only been a member of the US House of Representatives, and than having lost his bid for the Senate, and then running on a much more compromising platform, Abraham Lincoln.
What made his election and war completely unavoidable were the actions of the Southern Democrats. At the 1860 Democratic Convention they insisted on a "slave code for the West". This was always the issue of greatest contention, those territories appropriated from Mexico and not yet made into states.
When the Southerners did not get this slave code in the party platform, following the lead of the Senator from Mississippi, Jefferson Davis, they walked out and split the party.
This ensured the election of Lincoln, actually a moderate. And then before he could even be inaugurated 7 states announced their intent to secede, and then 4 more would do so shortly after Lincoln was inaugurated and Fort Sumter in South Carolina destroyed.
So short of such an impasse situation, we have to accept that there are two parties. Both of the two parties are actually quite plastic. The Republican Party only turned into this specter poised to destroy our nation when Teddy Roosevelt decided to run against it and try to get a third term. In so doing he did split the Republican Party and left it with only it's most reactionary elements. I believe this would have been 1916.
The Democratic Party has taken great losses, but mostly because Lyndon Johnson showed such courage as to sign the 1964 Civil Rights Act. He said, "Now we've lost the South for a generation." Ever since the Republicans have been using Richard Nixon's Southern Strategy of finding social wedge issues to break away Democratic voters with conservative social views. And then we have the huge amounts of money going into right wing think tanks, and you can see what they put out as most of our TUSCL members are well-off white males, and many of them just repeat this stuff.
So like it or not we have to live with this system. When people do not agree, they tend to divide into two camps. The names of the two camps do not really make any difference.
The real issue here is all the alienated voters who are turned off by all of this and so instead decide to stay home. We need to find someway to bring them back in.
mikeya2: That's Hillary which is why I'm not all gung-ho. She stands behind the Iraq invasion and has butted heads with Obama many times when he didn't threaten military action. She might as well be a Republican when it comes to foreign policy.
If I have to vote for Hillary to stop the Republican Party, I will.
But what I would rather have is someone far to the Left of Bernie Sanders.
I live in this society, so I have to accept how it works.
What I really want though is some non-election means of reaching out to the population and enlightening them, so that the center of our politics will shift far to the Left.
I can accept Bernie Sander's position on free medical care. I think, eventually, our nation will head in that direction.
I can't accept free college for everyone. We already have several generations of unemployed and underemployed college graduates. A college degree will not be worth the paper it's printed on
There are already programs in place - Pell Grants, Stafford Loans, private scholarships - that anyone who wants to go to school can
I have a BS and an MBA. No help from my parents. No help from the government. Graduated debt free. I had an academic scholarship that paid my tuition. I sweated my ass off working summers in a factory to pay for room and board. I didn't go to grad school until I saved enough money to pay for it
I have not watched "Good Will Hunting". I don't watch television.
It was wrong to ever think that college somehow pays back in future income. It does not. Mostly it is just a way of maintaining our class structure. Private schools do this, and the public schools do it too.
And yes, the people who know things have educated themselves.
But for our democracy to work, it is still advantageous to have people in school on a long term basis. Most will still want to be employed because of the enhanced social status this carries. But if they also want to be in school, we should remove all obstacles.
College continues to get more and more expensive, and as I see it, without reason.
If you think you need to go to college to make money, ask Bill Gates, Larry Ellison, Steve Jobs, or Steve Wozniac.
But if you want to learn of alternative points of view and learn critical thinking skills, college can help. Sure, some will learn on their own. That is what college is really for, to teach you how to educate yourself. So many who have not been to college will benefit if the doors can be opened to them.
FWIW, I am building an organization and everyone in it will be in a supervised program of life long independent study. But for the general population, opening the doors of college to them will make a big difference.
Remember that besides the monetary cost of college, there is also the time and energy cost, and the also the opportunity cost, the cost of whatever else you are not doing.
So for those willing to put in the time and energy, and forego whatever else they might be doing, I say remove the monetary costs.
Most will only want to be in college until they find other things they want to do, like business, employment, or self study. Some might return to it at major life junctions, like after a career dead end or a divorce.
The industrial revolution has paid off. We don't need much of a work force at all anymore. Everyday that we continue to push large scale employment as an objective we are just wasting critical resources.
"study something that can actually get you a job later"
It's fine if people want to do this, but that job still might not actually be there, or it might be one that can pay bills or one that you find you actually want.
As far as getting into school, no problem.
But the money is still a problem for many. And then the private schools are quite out of reach.
If this is what Bernie Sanders is calling for, free access to unlimited college, I say YES! Great good will come from this.
I would not encourage people to borrow money for college. That is very risky, and they've got the laws rigged so you can't get out of it by bankruptcy. It is bullshit, and lots of people are trapped, forced out of the banking system by collectors.
Motor: Godd for you! That's something anyone should be proud of. Isn't our country and thus our economy better off if we can not only count on the few like you who can go it alone to get higher education, but also allow some who need more help than you did to become more educated? Or are YOU the standard: people who aren't as capable as you should fail while those as accomplished as you or better get ahead? YOU are the pass/fail line?
I for one am happy to pay higher taxes to allow more access to education for those who want it. I cannot count on just people with your drive for the success of our country; we need those who need more opportunity too.
@londonguy: Like in any advanced country, being a politician is a professional job. Why can't an average Joe play baseball? Because it takes a specific skill set.
Sanders, Trump, Carson are average Joes... chances are none will survive because people like Hillary and Rubio have BTDT and know how to win in the long run. Or Trumps smoke and mirrors will entertain enough to prevail.
That being said, Sanders should scare establishment Democrats as well as all Republicans, just like Trump scares extablishment Republicans, and all Democrats. Sanders is the populist liberal and there hasn't been any since Jon Anderson. Maybe this time it will work? I'm skeptical, but like Trump supporters I like Sanders because I like to say "FUCK YOU" to the status quo.
I do not have a problem with people wanting free education, free healthcare, free whatever.... There are obviously people on this board who advocate such things. If you would gladly pay more in taxes to support free college then donate money to a university of your choosing, surely others who feel this way can also pitch in. If you want to subsidize healthcare there are places you can do that. Where I have a big problem is people dictating to me what I do with the money that I earned. So a candidate like Sanders who wants to give away all of these things wants to do so with my money... That is just plain wrong.
If they want free college then also equalize the grades.... No matter how hard you study you will get a C, Also no matter whether you come to class or not you will get a C... Everyone graduates with no debt... Fucking Crazy
"But the money is still a problem for many. And then the private schools are quite out of reach"
Who is the money a problem for? As I said 70%ish make it happen. Presumably some of the remainder don't want to go and some shouldn't go.
Then don't go to private school. Go to public, much cheaper and for the most part a comparable education.
We don't need thousands more Art History majors and if we make college free, that's what we're going to end up with. Not more accountants and engineers.
There isn't one single thing Bernie Sanders says he will do that he would be able to do as President. Another fact is that if you don't study something like mechanical engineering or accounting in college then you might as well not go. Graphic artists make the same as the manager of a pizza restaurant.
I have to wonder what free college education means. Does it include room and board? How about transportation and electronics? Have to throw medical care in the somewhere too right? No risk of people abusing such a system I'm sure.
I dont see Sanders beating Hillary. Look at the polls in South Carolina. She's got the black and Latino vote, and the party elites.
If the Republicans nominate Trump, Hillary wins. That's a greater than zero percent chance at this point.
Rubio could make it scary on election night for Hillary . Kasich could too. The rest have serious flaws. At this point I don't give hillary or Rubio a better than 55% chance if that's the match up.
Cubber: Clinton has flaws, but when push comes to shove, people are afraid of Trump. People hate Clinton but she shouldn't scare anyone (if anyone is, their opinion is boring). If Trump were elected, a lot of people would be working to safeguard our country from a madman. If Clinton wins, just a white female more conservative Obama. Not a big deal. In fact mainstream Republicans should actually like her policies if they can get over she's a Democratic woman. She's VERY conservative compared to Sanders and much to the right of Obama.
When that 5-10% of swing vote looks at everyone, Sanders is too far left and conservatives won't vote for Kasich. Trump is borderline manic and the other GOP candidates are un-electable. In the end, the country will do what I'm likely to do: either stay home or hold their nose and vote for Clinton. I'm really sorry to have to be the one to tell you this because I know you hate her.
Clubber, you are quite the neurotic paranoid! Have a shot of jack and chill. NO ONE is as powerful as you imagine Clinton to be. I am probably more informed than you in many different ways.
Clubber, you are quite the neurotic paranoid! Have a shot of jack and chill. NO ONE is as powerful as you imagine Clinton to be. I am probably more informed than you in many different ways.
Clubber, you are quite the neurotic paranoid! Have a shot of jack and chill. NO ONE is as powerful as you imagine Clinton to be. I am probably more informed than you in many different ways.
So Trump fucking blasts George W's decision to invade Iraq in the last debate in SC (where George W is extremely popular). Instead of suffering in the polls, Trump is again rising in the polls this morning. Trump can say whatever he wants, and it's always perceived as strength and power by the electorate.
At this point I think Trump and Hillary are going to be nominated and Hillary will pull it out in the end. This election is the most surreal of any in my lifetime.
Clubber: Yes, that link is a paranoid conspiracy devotee's wet dream isn't it! Do you REALLY think Clinton has a hit squad at her command??? If so, I'll pray for you, which is something we pagans rarely do. Let's stay in reality...if possible.
I certainly don't fact check those things, and yes, some can be overly sensational, BUT that doesn't mean there isn't truth in there. Weeding that out is where the intellect comes in.
I pretty much follow to old tried and true axiom, "Where there's smoke, there's fire." Also, if it walks like a duck, looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck...
I wish I knew but my gut feeling is that the free loaders will elected another socialist democrat. I just hope it isn't the cunt. She doesn't have qualifications to even suck a dick.
Hillary has her flaws, but she's a pretty generic, mainstream democrat. The demographics of the US mean the Republicans need to run a moderate mainstream candidate to stand a chance in the electoral college, and they clearly care more about ideology than electability this cycle.
Clinton can deliver the Democratic base, which is more than half the electorate in Presidential election years. Rubio might have a shother with Latinos, and he seems to be able to sell himself as moderate while having a conservative voting record.
But Rubio is short and can come across as slightly effeminate, which doesn't help with swing voters, even if they find Hillary personally grating.
Kasich "looks" the most "Presidential ". He's popular in Ohio. But he doesn't seem to.inspire much passion in voters right now.
I'd prefer Kasich if he would be a Democrat over Hillary if she were a Republican. But I find the GOP platform mean spirited at best and outright dangerous at worst, so I feel forced to choose between Clinton and Sanders. If the GOP were pro choice, pro gay marriage and could accept at lest better background checks for guns, I'd vote for their candidates.
Freedom is dangerous??? You know, I am nearing 70 and never heard anyone on my side say all babies should be born (I'm sure some might), That anyone can't marry (marriage is NOT a government function, rather a religious one). Now really, background checks? When does a criminal EVER respect a law. You can't be that stupid, yet government, yes.
76 comments
Even the Moslem is better than any of these ass clowns on either side
Trump has a good chance.
The latest polls in a head-to-head match up are from February 5 (Quinnipiac):
General Election: Trump vs. Clinton Clinton 46, Trump 41 Clinton +5
General Election: Trump vs. Sanders Sanders 49, Trump 39 Sanders +10
General Election: Cruz vs. Clinton Cruz 45, Clinton 45 Tie
General Election: Cruz vs. Sanders Sanders 46, Cruz 42 Sanders +4
General Election: Rubio vs. Clinton Rubio 48, Clinton 41 Rubio +7
General Election: Rubio vs. Sanders Rubio 43, Sanders 43 Tie
Of course, these are National Polls, which don't account for the electoral math. (Or Rubio's recent bad press, or Clinton on-going email developments). It's an interesting race.
I'd call it for Vermin Supreme.
Maybe Rubio if he is nominated and a Clinton scandal way worse than the emails emerges. Something like Clinton beating a crippled child with his own crunches, caught on video by at least three people.
If Clinton ever gets a hankering to beat a crippled child with his own crutches she better pray that Cruz is the nominee.
And with that, I think we're on-topic again.
Regards,
Ishmael
Introduce a Bloomberg or independent Clinton or both?? Who knows.
I may be holding my nose, but if forced to vote for Clinton, I will.
Unless a candidate like Kasich or Bush can secure the GOP spot then I believe the Democratic candidate (either Clinton or Sanders) will win the general election.
This is an interesting topic.
1. Commander in Chief? (Military background is useful)
2. Chief Executive Officer? (Governors get good on the job training)
3. Legislative Leadership (Usually attorneys, often Senators)
4. Moral/Ethical/Social Leadership (See community activist)
5. Economic Leadership (Former CEO, economist)
It is quite difficult to find any candidate that checks all the boxes, so often it seems to hinge on the single issue or factor perceived al the most urgent or important on election day. One year it is the economy, another national security, another year social issues are paramount.
Sadly, in America, we tend to vote for style over substance, in any event.
Such people have run. They tend to be businessmen like for instance Ross Perot. And now we have Donald Trump.
But people also want to see a record. So they like Senators and Governors. Having been a Cabinet Secretary or Vice President also helps. But you are correct, Governors and Senators are preferred. For one thing, these folks were elected state wide and so they were scrutinized by major city newspapers.
So Ronald Reagan, Arnold Swartzenegger, Jessie Ventura, and George W. Bush were all been elected for the first time as Governor. And Al Franken was elected Senator. But the Presidency is not seen as entry level.
Now for Generals, Dwight Eisenhower was elected and Colin Powell had a chance.
I would point out here that Donald Trump is not really a Republican and he isn't helping them. He had the chance to run under Ross Perot's Reform Party and to run for Governor of New York. He did not follow thru with either.
There are also unelected roles he could per sue if he wanted to be taken seriously. Today though, he is something elected Republicans need to distance themselves from and be apologizing for. So I don't worry much about him getting any further. And remember that the Republican Governor of South Carolina, someone who gained much credibility in how she dealt with the Confederate Flag issue, has already spoken out against Trump.
SJG
Deep Purple Perfect Strangers 1984 Full Album
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CvCvJ9N8…
This should be fun.
Personally I like Sanders (in theory), am turned off by Clinton, think that Trump, Carson, & Cruz should be institutionalized, and that the other Republican candidates are speaking to a relatively small percentage of our voting population. I would welcome Bloomberg to the race in that I think Sanders is too old, Clinton is too sketchy, and the rest are unpalatable.
"Trump, Carson, & Cruz should be institutionalized, and that the other Republican candidates are speaking to a relatively small percentage of our voting population. "
AGREED!
But I also do not want Bloomberg. I think the idea that some outsider could make big changes is just wrong, a myth. But also I do strongly object to Bloomberg.
You understand that two parties, each racing to the center, is just how it is always going to be. I am always voting against the other side, rather than for my own candidate. This year will be no different.
The only exceptions to this in our nation's history, times a third party has won, have been when something just shifted and so the new third party replaced one of the older two.
So as the old Whig party of George Washington and John Adams could not deal with the slavery issue, and as the Democratic Party was still largely for slavery and could not deal with it either, there was turmoil and a few other parties. The Republican Party emerged, always northern and anti-slavery, largely in response to the violence in Kansas Territory, and much of it led by John Brown.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bleeding_K…
The Republican Party's first Presidential candidate for 1856, John C. Fremont, one of the first pair of Senators from California, ran on a tough anti-slavery platform and was defeated.
But by the 1860 election, affairs had been further polarized by John Brown's guerrilla raid on Harper's Ferry, trying to start a slave revolt, and then being executed by the State of Virginia. The Republicans selected a much lesser qualified candidate, having only been a member of the US House of Representatives, and than having lost his bid for the Senate, and then running on a much more compromising platform, Abraham Lincoln.
What made his election and war completely unavoidable were the actions of the Southern Democrats. At the 1860 Democratic Convention they insisted on a "slave code for the West". This was always the issue of greatest contention, those territories appropriated from Mexico and not yet made into states.
When the Southerners did not get this slave code in the party platform, following the lead of the Senator from Mississippi, Jefferson Davis, they walked out and split the party.
This ensured the election of Lincoln, actually a moderate. And then before he could even be inaugurated 7 states announced their intent to secede, and then 4 more would do so shortly after Lincoln was inaugurated and Fort Sumter in South Carolina destroyed.
strongly recommended:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QXXp1bHd…
Also, I've been meaning to read this:
http://www.amazon.com/Better-Off-Without…
So short of such an impasse situation, we have to accept that there are two parties. Both of the two parties are actually quite plastic. The Republican Party only turned into this specter poised to destroy our nation when Teddy Roosevelt decided to run against it and try to get a third term. In so doing he did split the Republican Party and left it with only it's most reactionary elements. I believe this would have been 1916.
The Democratic Party has taken great losses, but mostly because Lyndon Johnson showed such courage as to sign the 1964 Civil Rights Act. He said, "Now we've lost the South for a generation." Ever since the Republicans have been using Richard Nixon's Southern Strategy of finding social wedge issues to break away Democratic voters with conservative social views. And then we have the huge amounts of money going into right wing think tanks, and you can see what they put out as most of our TUSCL members are well-off white males, and many of them just repeat this stuff.
So like it or not we have to live with this system. When people do not agree, they tend to divide into two camps. The names of the two camps do not really make any difference.
The real issue here is all the alienated voters who are turned off by all of this and so instead decide to stay home. We need to find someway to bring them back in.
SJG
Post Super Bowl meltdown in Santa Clara California:
http://www.mercurynews.com/scott-herhold…
But what I would rather have is someone far to the Left of Bernie Sanders.
I live in this society, so I have to accept how it works.
What I really want though is some non-election means of reaching out to the population and enlightening them, so that the center of our politics will shift far to the Left.
SJG
I can't accept free college for everyone. We already have several generations of unemployed and underemployed college graduates. A college degree will not be worth the paper it's printed on
There are already programs in place - Pell Grants, Stafford Loans, private scholarships - that anyone who wants to go to school can
And also, the more people we have in school, and the more people we have working for the schools, the less other jobs we need to create.
SJG
Did you ever watch "Good Will Hunting" ?
"You wasted $150,000 on an education you coulda got for $1.50 in late fees at the public library."
Fuck Bernie Sanders. Fuck him.
It was wrong to ever think that college somehow pays back in future income. It does not. Mostly it is just a way of maintaining our class structure. Private schools do this, and the public schools do it too.
And yes, the people who know things have educated themselves.
But for our democracy to work, it is still advantageous to have people in school on a long term basis. Most will still want to be employed because of the enhanced social status this carries. But if they also want to be in school, we should remove all obstacles.
SJG
College continues to get more and more expensive, and as I see it, without reason.
If you think you need to go to college to make money, ask Bill Gates, Larry Ellison, Steve Jobs, or Steve Wozniac.
But if you want to learn of alternative points of view and learn critical thinking skills, college can help. Sure, some will learn on their own. That is what college is really for, to teach you how to educate yourself. So many who have not been to college will benefit if the doors can be opened to them.
FWIW, I am building an organization and everyone in it will be in a supervised program of life long independent study. But for the general population, opening the doors of college to them will make a big difference.
Remember that besides the monetary cost of college, there is also the time and energy cost, and the also the opportunity cost, the cost of whatever else you are not doing.
So for those willing to put in the time and energy, and forego whatever else they might be doing, I say remove the monetary costs.
Most will only want to be in college until they find other things they want to do, like business, employment, or self study. Some might return to it at major life junctions, like after a career dead end or a divorce.
The industrial revolution has paid off. We don't need much of a work force at all anymore. Everyday that we continue to push large scale employment as an objective we are just wasting critical resources.
SJG
Rainbow - Catch the Rainbow
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w94mhhRs…
SJG
70% of high school grads do it.
Work hard, borrow money, go to public school, study something that can actually get you a job later.
It's fine if people want to do this, but that job still might not actually be there, or it might be one that can pay bills or one that you find you actually want.
As far as getting into school, no problem.
But the money is still a problem for many. And then the private schools are quite out of reach.
If this is what Bernie Sanders is calling for, free access to unlimited college, I say YES! Great good will come from this.
I would not encourage people to borrow money for college. That is very risky, and they've got the laws rigged so you can't get out of it by bankruptcy. It is bullshit, and lots of people are trapped, forced out of the banking system by collectors.
SJG
I for one am happy to pay higher taxes to allow more access to education for those who want it. I cannot count on just people with your drive for the success of our country; we need those who need more opportunity too.
Sanders, Trump, Carson are average Joes... chances are none will survive because people like Hillary and Rubio have BTDT and know how to win in the long run. Or Trumps smoke and mirrors will entertain enough to prevail.
That being said, Sanders should scare establishment Democrats as well as all Republicans, just like Trump scares extablishment Republicans, and all Democrats. Sanders is the populist liberal and there hasn't been any since Jon Anderson. Maybe this time it will work? I'm skeptical, but like Trump supporters I like Sanders because I like to say "FUCK YOU" to the status quo.
"70% of high school grads do it."
By the standards when I was a high school grad, these of today are illiterates!
If they want free college then also equalize the grades.... No matter how hard you study you will get a C, Also no matter whether you come to class or not you will get a C... Everyone graduates with no debt... Fucking Crazy
Who is the money a problem for? As I said 70%ish make it happen. Presumably some of the remainder don't want to go and some shouldn't go.
Then don't go to private school. Go to public, much cheaper and for the most part a comparable education.
We don't need thousands more Art History majors and if we make college free, that's what we're going to end up with. Not more accountants and engineers.
Would you agree that politicking and governing are two different animals?
If the Republicans nominate Trump, Hillary wins. That's a greater than zero percent chance at this point.
Rubio could make it scary on election night for Hillary . Kasich could too. The rest have serious flaws. At this point I don't give hillary or Rubio a better than 55% chance if that's the match up.
"Rubio could make it scary on election night for Hillary . Kasich could too. The rest have serious flaws."
The hill DOESN'T have MAJOR SERIOUS FLAWS???
When that 5-10% of swing vote looks at everyone, Sanders is too far left and conservatives won't vote for Kasich. Trump is borderline manic and the other GOP candidates are un-electable. In the end, the country will do what I'm likely to do: either stay home or hold their nose and vote for Clinton. I'm really sorry to have to be the one to tell you this because I know you hate her.
Ask Chris Stevens, Sean Smith, Tyrone Woods, and Glen Doherty if clinton "shouldn't scare anyone".
Oh wait, they aren't with us any longer.
BTW, enlighten yourself and get your "facts" straight! Don't just read the liberal left talking points. Be informed!
BTW, check this list. In the immortal words of 25, Just sayin'...
http://www.freewebs.com/jeffhead/liberty…
At this point I think Trump and Hillary are going to be nominated and Hillary will pull it out in the end. This election is the most surreal of any in my lifetime.
I certainly don't fact check those things, and yes, some can be overly sensational, BUT that doesn't mean there isn't truth in there. Weeding that out is where the intellect comes in.
I pretty much follow to old tried and true axiom, "Where there's smoke, there's fire." Also, if it walks like a duck, looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck...
Clinton can deliver the Democratic base, which is more than half the electorate in Presidential election years. Rubio might have a shother with Latinos, and he seems to be able to sell himself as moderate while having a conservative voting record.
But Rubio is short and can come across as slightly effeminate, which doesn't help with swing voters, even if they find Hillary personally grating.
Kasich "looks" the most "Presidential ". He's popular in Ohio. But he doesn't seem to.inspire much passion in voters right now.
Freedom is dangerous??? You know, I am nearing 70 and never heard anyone on my side say all babies should be born (I'm sure some might), That anyone can't marry (marriage is NOT a government function, rather a religious one). Now really, background checks? When does a criminal EVER respect a law. You can't be that stupid, yet government, yes.