Campaign 2016 - A Trump l'oeil? Kepler's Laws of Election Motions? Ship of Fools?

[joecct]

The last thread went from 0 to 1,000 in almost record time. Now, back to the action.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Campaign 2016 - A Trump l'oeil? Kepler's Laws of Election Motions? Ship of Fools

And people say Fox is a conservative organization. Tell Craig James that.

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/ncaaf-...184333071.html

I see the floor show was back today. Still doesn't think Fox or the Supreme Court or anyone else is conservative.

Speaking of floor show.

http://www.nytimes.com/politics/fir...suggests-womens-health-issues-are-overfunded/

“I’m not sure we need half a billion dollars for women’s health issues,” Mr. Bush said during an interview with a leader of the Southern Baptist Convention on Tuesday.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Campaign 2016 - A Trump l'oeil? Kepler's Laws of Election Motions? Ship of Fools

Kasich is in the debate. Rick Perry is out. That's going to be laugh out loud funny when he reacts.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/05/u...an-debate.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur&_r=0

 

[Handyman]

Re: Campaign 2016 - A Trump l'oeil? Kepler's Laws of Election Motions? Ship of Fools

Comparing Trump to Jesse (from the last thread) is laughable. First of all Jesse had been in local politics unlike Trump who is best know for making hotels that no one likes and killing the USFL. Jesse also ran against a DFL candidate who got in on name (Skip Humphrey) who had zero actual ideas and Norm Coleman who half the people hated cause he flipped parties. Jesse went grassroots speaking at colleges (I saw him) and while his bravado was annoying and his policies didnt always match he at least said something unlike the talking heads he ran against.

Not to mention he didnt have to win different districts to win, just the overall count. Trump isnt going to win any of the Blue States after going full birther and he will lose the SW because apparently Mexican Immigrants are rapists. He cant get 35% of the vote and hope to win whereas Jesse could...

 

[Kepler]

Re: Campaign 2016 - A Trump l'oeil? Kepler's Laws of Election Motions? Ship of Fools

Kasich is in the debate. Rick Perry is out. That's going to be laugh out loud funny when he reacts.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/05/u...an-debate.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur&_r=0

Good for the nation but bad for comedy. Kasich is soda water; Perry is tequila.

 

[burd]

Re: Campaign 2016 - A Trump l'oeil? Kepler's Laws of Election Motions? Ship of Fools

Good for the nation but bad for comedy. Kasich is soda water; Perry is tequila.

There's a lot of Ripple Red in that lineup. It's just stunning that a party with such a history simply cannot produce a smart, fiscally conservative, socially moderate POTUS candidate with just a little charisma. It's going to be a close race no matter who they pick, but the weight over on the goofy right side of their ship has them sailing in circles.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Campaign 2016 - A Trump l'oeil? Kepler's Laws of Election Motions? Ship of Fools

There's a lot of Ripple Red in that lineup. It's just stunning that a party with such a history simply cannot produce a smart, fiscally conservative, socially moderate POTUS candidate with just a little charisma. It's going to be a close race no matter who they pick, but the weight over on the goofy right side of their ship has them sailing in circles.

This is the harvest of the idiocy the right turned to post-94. They're an open sewer now.

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: Campaign 2016 - A Trump l'oeil? Kepler's Laws of Election Motions? Ship of Fools

Subscribed because Acorn registered me for this thread.

 

[Rover]

Re: Campaign 2016 - A Trump l'oeil? Kepler's Laws of Election Motions? Ship of Fools

Lord help me but if the twins cooperate I might actually watch the GOP debate! TRUMP ALL THE WAY BABY!

Agreed that GOP field ex-Trump is a bunch of stiffs. There's an article covering the Q&A in New Hampshire where 14 of them showed up and all wanted to take us back to the Bush 2/Bush 1/Reagan era.

Here it is:

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/08/roger-simon-gop-rat-pack-120969.html?hp=b3_c1

 

[Handyman]

Re: Campaign 2016 - A Trump l'oeil? Kepler's Laws of Election Motions? Ship of Fools

Lord help me but if the twins cooperate I might actually watch the GOP debate! TRUMP ALL THE WAY BABY!

Agreed that GOP field ex-Trump is a bunch of stiffs. There's an article covering the Q&A in New Hampshire where 14 of them showed up and all wanted to take us back to the Bush 2/Bush 1/Reagan era.

Here it is:

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/08/roger-simon-gop-rat-pack-120969.html?hp=b3_c1

None of those people are ready for prime time.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Campaign 2016 - A Trump l'oeil? Kepler's Laws of Election Motions? Ship of Fools

None of those people are ready for prime time.

Neither was Obama. When Hillary blew it, there he was. And then McCain blew it by picking a psychotic to run with him.

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: Campaign 2016 - A Trump l'oeil? Kepler's Laws of Election Motions? Ship of Fools

Neither was Obama. When Hillary blew it, there he was. And then McCain blew it by picking a psychotic to run with him.

Scooby has a point here.

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: Campaign 2016 - A Trump l'oeil? Kepler's Laws of Election Motions? Ship of Fools

So here's a question for the mid- to far-left posters:

Is there a person in government who doesn't caucus with the Democrats that you would consider voting for in a presidential race*?


*Assume you were the deciding vote, so none of this, "Well, I vote in Minnesota so it doesn't matter" or "Trump isn't electable" dodges.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Campaign 2016 - A Trump l'oeil? Kepler's Laws of Election Motions? Ship of Fools

So here's a question for the mid- to far-left posters:

Is there a person in government who doesn't caucus with the Democrats that you would consider voting for in a presidential race*?


*Assume you were the deciding vote, so none of this, "Well, I vote in Minnesota so it doesn't matter" or "Trump isn't electable" dodges.

No. Kasich comes closest but when (Kepler pointed me to it) you look at his voting record, I can't get there.

 

[unofan]

So here's a question for the mid- to far-left posters:

Is there a person in government who doesn't caucus with the Democrats that you would consider voting for in a presidential race*?


*Assume you were the deciding vote, so none of this, "Well, I vote in Minnesota so it doesn't matter" or "Trump isn't electable" dodges.

If a moderate Republican came out and credibly said he would veto any tea party derp that crossed his desk, sure. But they can't do that, so in reality, probably not.

As I've posted before, I could see myself voting for a Christie or Kasich in a neutral political environment, but not now. It's not that I think they'd push the derp, I just don't see them stopping it, which is just as bad.

Frankly it's the opposite of the last judicial retention election here in Iowa. The Supreme Court justice that was up I would've voted against in any other climate because he's an *** and a pr!ck. But it was clouded by the fact the derps wanted to oust him for the gay marriage decision. Wasn't going to let that happen, especially after they ousted three others 2 years prior.

 

[Twitch Boy]

Re: Campaign 2016 - A Trump l'oeil? Kepler's Laws of Election Motions? Ship of Fools

So here's a question for the mid- to far-left posters:

Is there a person in government who doesn't caucus with the Democrats that you would consider voting for in a presidential race*?


*Assume you were the deciding vote, so none of this, "Well, I vote in Minnesota so it doesn't matter" or "Trump isn't electable" dodges.

Jon Huntsman. Not happening, I know.

 

[St. Clown]

Re: Campaign 2016 - A Trump l'oeil? Kepler's Laws of Election Motions? Ship of Fools

Neither was Obama. When Hillary blew it, there he was. And then McCain blew it by picking a psychotic to run with him.

McCain wasn't going to win that election - no Republican was going to win in '08, not coming on the heels of Bush. The Dalai Lama - himself! - couldn't have won that election if he'd had a R after his name. They had a chance in '12, but failed to find the right candidate.

 

[Rover]

Re: Campaign 2016 - A Trump l'oeil? Kepler's Laws of Election Motions? Ship of Fools

McCain wasn't going to win that election - no Republican was going to win in '08, not coming on the heels of Bush. The Dalai Lama - himself! - couldn't have won that election if he'd had a R after his name. They had a chance in '12, but failed to find the right candidate.

Yeah I don't know what kind of dope Scooby's been using (Scooby snacks?) but Reagan's ghost couldn't have won in 2008. 2012 was a failure to come off of policies that used to work but that the electorate has moved on from ("we should still be in Iraq" "tax cuts for the rich" "lets jack up defense spending", etc). Romney was out of central casting for Republicans aside from his religion which hopefully is no longer a campaign issue. As Obama told him in a debate "1982 called. It wants its ideas back".

I could maybe vote for Charlie Baker (Mass gov) or perhaps Susan Collins.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: Campaign 2016 - A Trump l'oeil? Kepler's Laws of Election Motions? Ship of Fools

McCain wasn't going to win that election - no Republican was going to win in '08, not coming on the heels of Bush. The Dalai Lama - himself! - couldn't have won that election if he'd had a R after his name. They had a chance in '12, but failed to find the right candidate.

No, they found the right candidate. He was just instructed to blow the last two debates, with help coming from the cow that ran the second one.

 

[joecct]

Re: Campaign 2016 - A Trump l'oeil? Kepler's Laws of Election Motions? Ship of Fools

I doubt Reagan could win now. The electorate has changed.