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.
Name one politician on either side of the aisle that isn't wealthy regardless of how it was achieved.
I have the greatest respect in the world for someone who has made his or her own wealth. There is nothing intrinsincally wrong with wealth.
But no respect at all for those that inherited their money and did nothing of value at all with their lives (all of the Bushes).
If any of you Republicans decide to put another Bush in office it's simply because you are a foolish sheep, and want another fool to represent you to the world.
FWIW- I think history will look kindly on the first Bush. His presidency was probably our high water mark in terms of successful foreign policy and he made a lot of the hard decisions that really helped the economy by the mid to late 90s. The second President Bush will probably go down as a leading us into messy wars on flase pretense, starting a Republican spending frenzy, NCLB which reeks and not making attempts to rein in an out of control lending environment. He has however gone into retirement and stayed their better than any President in recent memory- and I think that leads to greater popularity when you compare him to his predecessor who has a somewhat pathological need for the spotlight.
So in some ways I think that helps neutralize the Bush family negatives. Especially in comparisons to the Clintons who never go away. With the Bushes they are bright enough to take a couple of years off and let people forget the flaws & mistakes to a certain degree.
That said- I think he'll be Romeny 2.0 in terms of financial disclosures & his politics seeming to be betrayed by his business dealings.
I have the greatest respect in the world for someone who has made his or her own wealth. There is nothing intrinsincally wrong with wealth.
But no respect at all for those that inherited their money and did nothing of value at all with their lives (all of the Bushes).
If any of you Republicans decide to put another Bush in office it's simply because you are a foolish sheep, and want another fool to represent you to the world.
I don't have a problem either with Americans who have worked hard for their wealth but why demonize those that merely inherit it? You can't be serious that none of the Bushs' have ever done anything with their lives. I am not a Bush fan so don't think that is where I am coming from. I can't stand Jeb Bush just for starters.
Speaking of foolish sheep? How about all those Democrats that elected the fool Obama twice? Pot, kettle, black.
Location: East St. Paul 651 forever (or North St. Paul) .
2,860 posts, read 3,392,849 times
Reputation: 1446
Why do democrats always bring up wealth? It's like six or seven of the top 10 richest members of congress who are democrat. It's ****ing annoying when you guys get all self righteous and all like your **** don't stink.
I don't have a problem either with Americans who have worked hard for their wealth but why demonize those that merely inherit it? You can't be serious that none of the Bushs' have ever done anything with their lives. I am not a Bush fan so don't think that is where I am coming from. I can't stand Jeb Bush just for starters.
Speaking of foolish sheep? How about all those Democrats that elected the fool Obama twice? Pot, kettle, black.
Exactly. Anyone who voted for Obama really has no basis to ever call anyone else stupid, ever. Those people are the dictionary definition of stupid.
wutitiz, I'm capable of winning Powerball, but I'm not budgeting for it. 7 straight is a lesson to be learned.
Why didn't the 'blue wall' work in 2014 for Senate and Gov races? There is nothing magical about presidential elections. Senate, Gov, and prez races are all in essence statewide races. You win the state, you win the seat, or the electoral votes. The GOP wound up 54-46 in the Senate and with 31 of 50 governors IIRC. Yet you're telling me that Democrats are a lock for the presidency in 2016?
It's going to depend on who the candidates are, and how well they campaign, as always. We don't know the answers to either of those questions at this point.
The Blue Wall is a POTUS thing only. It holds when the electorate is fullest and most diverse. 1 in 5 who vote for POTUS fail to vote in every off year election.
Ct is a perfect microcosm of the BW; despite having GOP govs for 20 years pre Malloy, at every POTUS race, the Wall held. It also had far larger turnouts every POTUS race vs prior off-year race.
The Blue Wall is a POTUS thing only. It holds when the electorate is fullest and most diverse. 1 in 5 who vote for POTUS fail to vote in every off year election.
Ct is a perfect microcosm of the BW; despite having GOP govs for 20 years pre Malloy, at every POTUS race, the Wall held. It also had far larger turnouts every POTUS race vs prior off-year race.
That's a fair point. Although I would reinterpret "fullest and most diverse" as 'max participation of low-info voters.'
Low info..who knows, but 1 person, 1 vote holds..that we know.
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.
