The obvious is confirmed. The Republican party is a fraud.

So I know I posted this before but what say ye to a national Punch a Politician day to further accountability towards our elected officials? Just saying

May I nominate Mr. Scott Walker as the Presidential nominee on any ticket?

I am ready to do so from the floor right now! Please oh please?

Then, at least 55 % of the American people, if not more, could weigh in on just what a bloviating gas-bag they think the man is.

I mean really Trucker, Walker is your guy?!? Not Rand Paul?

Walker always has this expression on his face as if someone has just swatted him in the face with a newspaper.

My god, let's not just hand the Presidency to whomever the Democrats put up on a silver platter, jeez.

There should at least be some sort of competition about it.

IMHO.

a reply to: derfreebie

2008..Every poll of the party's membership had Hillary vs Giuliani.

By the end of the 'process' we ended up with Obama and McCain.

Giuliani takes NY over Hillary. What, 47 electoral college votes swing to the Republicans? End of story.

The Reagan phenomena never to be allowed to occur again.

Does the strategy for Walker have any chance of success? Do the Republicans go the way of the Whigs?

a reply to: Gryphon66

My nod to Walker is based on the "ribbons on his chest". What he's done.

The expression on his face doesn't particularly move me.

I don't think Rand Paul is as electable as Walker. I see Paul as a activist, an educator than a 'politician'.

I care not for either Paul's views on the military and what 'should be done' internationally. A smart politician leaves all options on the table without committing to one...too soon.

So far, the attacks against Walker have come from the same people both within the Republican Establishment and the Dems who attacked Sarah Palin.

Sarah's real drawback being she was "uncontrollable" by the machine. Her 'real' sin... Initial attacks on Walker have been oh, "He didn't stay in collage and get his degree". This type of marginalization.

Paul? I could live with it. Sure. Neither could win without some strategy as above that flummoxes the TPTB.

Electability, solidarity in support, both financially and politically. Walker has the edge, IMO. Competition is usually inevitable, not mandatory, however.

a reply to: Sremmos80

Can't argue it. Many knew it was a B.S. move in the first place.

But then threatening a potential Gov't shutdown feeds your 'paycheck for the family's' scenario even more.

Giving that one 'priority' over all else could be applied to any major move by anyone. Might as well use it as the 'main issue' in any political decision and shut down any possibility of change completely.

Sorry, I won't let compassion trump survival. Assuming you even consider our national survival is at stake. I do.

a reply to: TrueBrit

Well said , sir.

I merely propose giving them a new fear, albeit short term, that throws their game off.

Threatening an 'independent/third' party run absolutely demolishes their strategy for the 2016 run.

Be that man Walker or Paul or whomever. No comments as of yet on that gambit....surprising.

a reply to: nwtrucker

"What he's done?"

Ah. Good enough.

In my mind, I think that's the very quality makes him unelectable nationally.

One thing for sure, and perhaps he does share this quality with Mrs. Palin (among others) ...

I don't know of anyone on the fence, folks either love him or hate him.

I guess we'll see. Thanks for your answer

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: ColCurious

The Libertarians haven't gotten much traction in the U.S..

The perception is they also have been subverted. By anarchists, secular humanists and National Marijuana party members.

Well, my perception anyways. Not a crowd I'd advise having a major say in running the free world....

This says it all. Anarchists... secular humanists... national marijuana party members... all represent freedom and liberty of the people. And that's apparently not what you want, nor obviously what either party wants.

My dad used to tell a horrible joke about the guy who asks a classy broad if she'd sleep with him for a million bucks. She thinks about it for a minute and agrees. He then asks if she'd sleep with him for $10 bucks and she exclaims, "What kind of woman do you think I am?" He says, "We've already established that. Now we're just haggling over the price."

Same principle here. Too many people have already chosen fascism and totalitarianism... now they're just fighting over who gets to be the dictator. You seem to have chosen the red one. Why should any politician be afraid of the people when they know how easily so many are bought with Trojan Horse legislation and regulation? When they know how easily we'll sell out the freedom of others for our own perceived benefit?

It's impossible to protect and defend freedom for ourselves if we're not fighting for the freedom of others at the same time, eespecially when/if they want to do things we don't want to do ourselves.

originally posted by: nwtrucker
To simplify, Tea Party/ new blood Vs. Establishment preferences/old blood.

Here's the thing, as I see it, as an outsider.

The Republican party is basically being used as nothing more than a corporate mouthpiece in Washington, that's pretty much where their power and strength comes from. Sure, they have support in some the Bible belt and the backward states, but this is not going to be enough to sustain them in the future, because even those audiences are slowly evolving away from what the party stands for.

The Tea Party was an extreme conservative reaction to the evolution of society, it's basically made up of the UKIP ranters we have in the UK, the same people terrified of change, praising their Holy Book, attacking anything that might change society and wishing to return to some kind of "good old days" that actually never existed. You see the same things coming out of their mouths as you hear from UKIP. They seem to be generally older people who look back at the 60's and 70's through rose-tinted shades and want to drag everyone back to that.

The involvement of the Tea Party in the Republican Party was a serious blow, and many Republicans still haven't worked this out. Public attitudes are shifting, and the Republican party cannot keep up. In order to be a viable party you have to offer something to a large proportion of the public, and they simply aren't. The youth are rejecting the Republican party, as seen by the numbers at the last election.

You can no longer have a party basing their core attitudes on controlling women, anti-LGBT rhetoric, blocking progress, supporting corporate profits... this is not the kind of thing that the youth are going to support, but it's the kind of thing the core of the Republican Party cling to (Tea Party).

Some Republicans get it, and they've softened their opinions on gay marriage, corporate involvement in politics, the rights of women etc. They're the ones actually looking at the numbers and the level of support, and they know that the number of young voters who DIDN'T vote for them is going to rise next time, while the number who DID vote for them is always going to decline.

You could end up with two very similar parties, but the Republican party will have to abandon the religious ranting, the moralistic preaching, the meddling in people's lives, the nonsense from the Tea Party nutters... This would be a good thing, and lead to greater progress on important issues while maintaining a difference on economics.

The main problem the Republicans face is keeping up with public opinion and attitudes. Social evolution never stops, but political parties who cling to attitudes more suited to thirty years ago will very quickly fall out of favor. The Tea Party should be pushed out as an extreme right party, allowing the Republican party to modernize. This would also impact on funding, allowing the Tea Party to soak up the few million $'s from the extremist Christians, racists, xenophobic and nationalist groups while the Republicans get back to being a valid party the public can actually support.

originally posted by: nwtrucker

Threatening an 'independent/third' party run absolutely demolishes their strategy for the 2016 run.

No comments as of yet on that gambit....surprising.

We've already been there and done that. Ron Paul? Gary Johnson? How about Harry Browne? Or even Ross Perot???

Were you not paying attention at the RNC convention in 2012 when Romney and his minions broke rules to change the rules so that Ron Paul could be forced out? And to make sure no other upstart could get a decent chance in any election ever again? In other words, only the establishment pick could play?



Did you not pay attention to the many many accounts of vote flipping from Ron Paul to Romney in the Republican primaries?

My take on US Republican/Democrat politics:

Democrats:
Big government in form of bloated social programs and welfare

Republicans:
Big government in form of bloated military, MIC ,intelligence and police.

Have I pretty much got it right?

originally posted by: Rocker2013

originally posted by: nwtrucker
To simplify, Tea Party/ new blood Vs. Establishment preferences/old blood.

Here's the thing, as I see it, as an outsider.

The Tea Party was an extreme conservative reaction to the evolution of society.

I have to disagree to a certain extent. The Tea Party was an extreme populist reaction to the evolution of taxation and bank bailouts with tremendous popular support... which is exactly why it was hijacked, corrupted and portrayed as an extreme conservative movement.

Much the same way Occupy was a populist reaction to the same financial and government abuse with tremendous popular support... which is exactly why it was hijacked, corrupted and portrayed as an extreme progressive movement.

The PTB cannot afford to let any populist movement with the best interests of the people at heart be successful and will do anything they can to sabotage their efforts.

a reply to: nwtrucker

Really? You are surprised by this? Didn't you know that this is all scripted? This is how the Congress at the end of a President's term always behaves. Don't expect much waves to be made in the next two years, because Congress knows that they can just wait out the President's term.

6 Weirdly Specific Things That Screw All 2nd Term Presidents

#1. Everyone Is Waiting for You to Leave

a reply to: nwtrucker

Republicans vs Democrats is not real like wrestling, it's fixed like boxing...

If you think for a second that Walker is any different from Bush you are being suckered. Both take their orders from the Koch brothers. The republicans aren't RULED by fear that RULE by fear or don't you remember the "the mushroom cloud".

a reply to: nwtrucker

They're frauds in more ways than one. They also tricked you into thinking liberalism is bad.

Develop and strengthen your mind by practicing meditation, and your values will naturally lean left as a result.

On the other hand, weak minds lean right. Republicans are weak minded fools.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

👣

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: ColCurious

The Libertarians haven't gotten much traction in the U.S..

The perception is they also have been subverted. By anarchists, secular humanists and National Marijuana party members.

Well, my perception anyways. Not a crowd I'd advise having a major say in running the free world....

I can't disagree that libertarianism has been misunderstood and, in many cases, misrepresented.

I suggest that you invest some effort into discovering for yourself how the free world has already been saved by libertarians time after time.

Socialism: An Economic and Sociological Analysis - Ludwig von Mises

The Road to Serfdom - F. A. Hayek

The only arguable anarchist libertarian:

For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto - Murray Rothbard

originally posted by: nwtrucker

To simplify, Tea Party/ new blood Vs. Establishment preferences/old blood.

Further simplification, for argument's sake, Walker vs Jeb Bush. They are the leaders at this point in both camps. There are other possibilities, but let's use them as a test case.

Bush has the money from the Establishment and Corporate support. Walker, momentum, a willingness to fight and, yes, win.

Good example of the split amongst the right wing...Walker vs. Bush

TP vs. centrist GOP
Walker (Koch funded) vs. Bush (Banks and Corporations)

The Kochs are the TP. They funded it, they sold it to the people...The movement is a hybrid of libertarianism and the Kochs anti-regulation, climate change denying agenda etc.

Once upon a time in 1980 David Koch tried the indirect route to power running for VP on the libertarian ticket...

The Clark–Koch ticket promised to abolish Social Security, the Federal Reserve Board, welfare, minimum-wage laws, corporate taxes, all price supports and subsidies for agriculture and business, and U.S. Federal agencies including the SEC, EPA, ICC, FTC, OSHA, FBI, CIA, and DOE.[2][15] The ticket received 921,128 votes, 1.06% of the total nationwide vote,

And lest anyone confuse the Kochs for Libertarians of the Ron Paul stripe...the Kochs despise Ron Paul and have never once invited him to their annual "economic conference" of Billionaires. Ron Paul and the Kochs part ways in that ROn Paul is opposed to regulations because he believes in free-markets for the people...while the Kochs believe in STRONGER, pro business government control over monetary policy absent regulations...aka..a government built to serve industry vs. the people.

After that 1980 embarrassing defeat David Koch and his Brother opted to take a more direct route and buy government.

Rubio, Cruz, Rand Paul and Walker have all been courting the Kochs unprecedented Billion dollar pledge for 2016

They all have been attending recent "Freedom Partner" events to court the Kochs.

Jeb Bush has been conspicuously absent at those events.

The Kochs are trying to figure out who is most marketable...what Walker brings is less baggage than the Senators with their votes, history and larger public profile. But there are reservations about whether he is ready for prime time.

a reply to: Boadicea

Sorry, but not agreeing with Anarchists, Secular humanists and National marijuana Party members does not a fascist or totalitarian supporter make.

What is lacking in the above group to a degree and your disingenuous positioning of conservatives, is called balance.

Where's the balance in anarchy? Where's the balance in having the goal of wiping out Christian values and faith? Where the balance in promoting getting stoned?

Personally, I don't see value in it at all, never mind balance.

Painting a broad picture,-and that's all Libertarians do, is paint 'broad pictures'- how does having a laissez-faire attitude to personal freedoms, but a militia-like defense of the Constitution and Bill of Rights even work together?

Short answer is they don't.

Don't misunderstand, there are good people who buy into Libertarian views. I don't. Poorly thought out, no real consensus amongst them and the most popular members are all registered Republicans.

It inspires me NOT.

Now if was a commune....hmmm.

a reply to: Rocker2013

An interesting theory.

What it omits is the last two mid-term elections. (yes, a clank of the last presidential election, no argument there.)

Yet the fact remains that the Republicans have never had, in the modern era, a larger registered voter base, number of elected representatives at all gov't levels, and here's the big one, a more dissatisfied public with the so-called progressive, 'modern' Democrat party.

That flies in the teeth of your theory. The Tea Party resonates, for your edification, due to a dissatisfaction with both parties amongst the voters.

That's about as modern and 'progressive' as it gets. Thank you very much.

P.S. Nothing over the other side of the pond exactly inspires continuing in that direction either.

P.P.S. It is not unknown that the Republicans will go the way of the Whigs who became almost carbon copies of the Democrat Party. Hence the birth of the Republican Party. It looks more and more that their day is about done as well.

Sorry, but you'll just have to deal with it...