Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Rand, Christie, Ryan, Walker - I'm watching all of these guys.
On another note, don't fall for what I am beginning to see more and more on this forum - a retread of Clintons' "what difference does it make?" line.
They're all the same. They're all owned by big donars. They're all wealthy so what do they know about the average person?
Right now that's true, but it doesn't HAVE to be true if people become engaged in the process and demand accountability. It's been proven time and again that if enough people make enough noise with their political representatives, that these idiots fold like accordians.
So what's the point - they're all the same, right?
Rand, Christie, Ryan, Walker - I'm watching all of these guys.
On another note, don't fall for what I am beginning to see more and more on this forum - a retread of Clintons' "what difference does it make?" line.
They're all the same. They're all owned by big donars. They're all wealthy so what do they know about the average person?
Right now that's true, but it doesn't HAVE to be true if people become engaged in the process and demand accountability. It's been proven time and again that if enough people make enough noise with their political representatives, that these idiots fold like accordians.
So what's the point - they're all the same, right?
What difference does it make? A helluva lot.
it sure does; I too, am a little tired of the gloom and doom. I think it makes a lot of difference. Not just with who we elect as pres but who we elect to represent our states at the national level. The PRes can'g do it on his/her own. They have to be able to work with both houses, which isn't the case right now.
it sure does; I too, am a little tired of the gloom and doom. I think it makes a lot of difference. Not just with who we elect as pres but who we elect to represent our states at the national level. The PRes can'g do it on his/her own. They have to be able to work with both houses, which isn't the case right now.
That's why electing either McCain or Romney was so important. Either one of those men would have worked with the opposite party.
Obama is the most hyperpartisan President in my lifetime. He has never made any real effort to work with the opposition party. That's why we haven't had a budget most of the time he's been in office.
I want a conservative, but I want a conservative who is willing to compromise at times in order to get things done. That's why my preferences for President are people of the Paul Ryan, Scott Walker and Rand Paul mode.
This country really blew it when it didn't elect Romney.
That's why electing either McCain or Romney was so important. Either one of those men would have worked with the opposite party.
Obama is the most hyperpartisan President in my lifetime. He has never made any real effort to work with the opposition party. That's why we haven't had a budget most of the time he's been in office.
I want a conservative, but I want a conservative who is willing to compromise at times in order to get things done. That's why my preferences for President are people of the Paul Ryan, Scott Walker and Rand Paul mode.
This country really blew it when it didn't elect Romney.
Agreed. If I had my druthers I'd have a Ron Paul or other libertarian/conservative fire breather in there, but realistically I just want I guy who can hold the spending and corruption down to a dull roar. Even Reagan did not try to impose a libertarian/conservative utopia, but just tried to dial back liberal excesses.
This is indeed an argument for someone like a Paul Ryan, who is undoubtedly a conservative ideologue, but also knows how to negotiate w/ the other side, and has a strong track record of doing so.
Agreed. If I had my druthers I'd have a Ron Paul or other libertarian/conservative fire breather in there, but realistically I just want I guy who can hold the spending and corruption down to a dull roar. Even Reagan did not try to impose a libertarian/conservative utopia, but just tried to dial back liberal excesses.
This is indeed an argument for someone like a Paul Ryan, who is undoubtedly a conservative ideologue, but also knows how to negotiate w/ the other side, and has a strong track record of doing so.
I also want someone who has appeal to younger voters - not the next in line.
I never thought I'd be in favor of Rand Paul in the primary, but there's a lot I like from him. We'll have to see how things shake out.
it sure does; I too, am a little tired of the gloom and doom. I think it makes a lot of difference. Not just with who we elect as pres but who we elect to represent our states at the national level. The PRes can'g do it on his/her own. They have to be able to work with both houses, which isn't the case right now.
The rank and file people of this country are certainly not in a good space right now for a large number and variety of reasons, so I can understand some of the doom and gloom.
And maybe the "yeah our party does it, but so does YOUR party" schtick is just that - schtick. But I'm seeing it so consistently now that I am beginning to wonder if it's actually a stategy. To try and tamper down the enthusiasm of voters in an attempt to influence voter turnout in November. If that IS the case (and I'm probably wrong, but the hell knows?) for me it's not working. You couldn't pay me enough money not to vote in November.
That's why electing either McCain or Romney was so important. Either one of those men would have worked with the opposite party.
Obama is the most hyperpartisan President in my lifetime. He has never made any real effort to work with the opposition party. That's why we haven't had a budget most of the time he's been in office.
I want a conservative, but I want a conservative who is willing to compromise at times in order to get things done. That's why my preferences for President are people of the Paul Ryan, Scott Walker and Rand Paul mode.
This country really blew it when it didn't elect Romney.
Kinda hard to compromise and work with your political opponents when from day 1 all they do is obstruct, vote no on everything you try to do and use the filibuster 500 times to stop legislation, main focus on making the duly elected President a one term president...
Kinda hard to compromise and work with your political opponents when from day 1 all they do is obstruct, vote no on everything you try to do and use the filibuster 500 times to stop legislation, main focus on making the duly elected President a one term president...
Obama is the most hyperpartisan President in my lifetime. He has never made any real effort to work with the opposition party. That's why we haven't had a budget most of the time he's been in office.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
