Why Walker might be the best choice.

a reply to: nwtrucker

So....if you can't agree to let the Regions of Common Interest go their own way, then your next best bet is a One Party State

Try reading the whole thing.

a reply to: nwtrucker

The GOP isn't capable of fielding a candidate that could win the White House in 2016. The GOP can be summed up by the old saying , the lunatics are running the asylum. Fringe political nutters like Cruz are in charge of the party. The Republican Party only has itself to blame for its gross political and policy failures.

a reply to: xpert11

Ditto the Democrat party....LMAO

a reply to: TonyS

I did. I was curious why you omitted the option of dissolution. No I add in being curious as why no answer to the last question. Nah...forget it. You didn't even consider it.

originally posted by: crazyewok
He pretty much committed Treason with Iran/Contra.

Don't forget that time when as governor of California he started negotiating secret deals with Iran to convince them to not work with the Carter administration.

a reply to: nwtrucker

And what fringe do we have on the left? Sanders, admittedly, is finally an actual 'left' candidate. But he is in no way running the party, nor does he shape the party the way that the far right has shaped the conservatives and the GOP. Anyway, the overly-large majority of the democratic party is center-right at best, including the president.

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: KeithCooper

Fine, if it's a corporation paying those wages.

What you leave out is the public sector unions are paid be ME. When I get less than them, wages and benefits, you expect me to 'not be jealous'?

Jealousy has nothing to do with it. I can't afford you. Period. It's called cutting expenses...deal with it.

Sounds like you're a victim of wage stagnation, that shouldn't be a surprise since about 90% of the country is.

I fail to see the appeal here. How does Walker appeal to anyone outside the GOP mainstream? Being the Governor of Wisconsin is fine and well, but that doesn't often translate to the national stage, especially in this case. I can't even imagine his appeal to women, minority voters, people under 50, voters turned off by evangelicals, etc.

Help me understand.

a reply to: 0zzymand0s

Outside the GOP mainstream... does any current candidate of either party resonate outside their party's mainstream?

I think not. I'm no political expert, just another working stiff with an opinion. I will give it a try, though.

Desirable? Ideal? Perhaps. Let's assume neither party has a candidate that resonates outside their party. In which case, that trait becomes a non-factor, from what I can see.

The GOP Establishment has disaffected it's own "mainstream" by attempting to reach that goal. IMO, they do that by avoiding any issue that would disaffect a larger body of potential voters...unless the polls show a majority supports that view. I.E. Obamacare, illegal immigration, the Iran agreement and the like. The result of that disaffection is the Tea Party and Libertarians, Constitution Party and a huge list of candidates.

One only has to look at the number of GOP candidates and then look at the Democrat candidates. The democrats are far more disciplined from an ideological viewpoint than the GOP. The differences between candidates are virtually semantics in both parties.

Anyone talking much about jobs, debt, economy in general? No one that is a viable/potential winner is in either party.

Trump's anger and diatribe is, at least, completely understandable and almost an "I've had enough and I'm not putting up with it anymore". I digress..

So if appealing across party lines is a non-starter, and it is, because the two parties and their polarization reflect the current culture and voters views!

So what's left? Issues, track record of the individual, likelihood of electability seems a huge one, financial backing....down-hill from there..

The only un-controlled/unpredictable factor lays in grass-root support. (The pollsters, political experts and pundits never seem to get this one right)

Bottom line is we aren't getting a candidate that appeals broadly.

All that's left is one's beliefs and who best reflects those beliefs via rhetoric and previous actions/results. That culls the herd massively no matter which party one supports.

For me, it's Walker...at this point. Do I want Public sector unions destroyed? NO. I do want them to reflect the current economic realities that the rest of us face and I want one less tail wagging the dog. One should have the right to join a union AND one should also have the right NOT to join a union. it's called freedom of choice, a basic tenet in our nation.

The union member should have a say in where his dues is spent and not be pressured via losing his union pension or by any other means into following leadership agenda.

Are there far more tails wagging the dog? Bigger ones? Of course. This is a start, a good one. (about all that realistically could be done at a state level).

Like I said...what do I know....

So assuming no cross party resonance, all flawed or disingenuous to some degree or another, what's left?

a reply to: Aazadan

Probably true.

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: TonyS

I did. I was curious why you omitted the option of dissolution. No I add in being curious as why no answer to the last question. Nah...forget it. You didn't even consider it.

Sorry, but.....I must not understand what you mean by dissolution. If by that you mean, dissolution of the United States, that's what I was talking about, albeit in a round about way, i.e., that the States be free to go their own way and reassemble as deemed appropriate by the individual States governments and people. I've long thought that as a Nation-State, the US has become far too large and far to diverse by regions to be administrated effectively. They can grow the Federal Government to the size of France, but making it larger just makes it more cumbersome and contradictory.
Just MHO, but that is the way I see it.

a reply to: TonyS

Then I think we've arrived at the same place by different routes, so to speak.

I am of the opinion that we are beyond the point of restoration in any sense of the original intent, culture or life-style that was the U.S.A..

No party, system of parties can fix this as the original agreed upon Constitution has been eroded and altered by interpretation so far that that very document blocks any return to it's previous application.( The Judicial branch would block/reverse/delay or otherwise ensure that their means of achieving tenure and status remains as it is. I suppose that includes the other two branches as their power base depends on status quo, as well)

Undercutting and more fundamental was the Judeo-Christian moral code, despite the protestations of many, was largely given more than lip-service to by the majority. The was the framework that allowed the development of the Constitution.

Without both, there is little to no areas of consensus.

To avoid, as much as possible, the consequences of revolt or more and more oppressive efforts to keep it altogether by the Federalists, a general agreement to disagree and the parting of ways by all concerned is necessary.

They would have the option to go it alone, form new groups based on their beliefs any way they see fit.

The restoration of freedom of choice....and it's consequences/rewards....

Like you, that's the way I see it, rightly or wrongly.

a reply to: nwtrucker

"Without both, there is little to no areas of consensus. To avoid, as much as possible, the consequences of revolt or more and more oppressive efforts to keep it altogether by the Federalists, a general agreement to disagree and the parting of ways by all concerned is necessary."

You nailed that one, hit the ball out of the park. I couldn't agree more. But when I read your comment, the thought ran through my mind.....maybe even an amicable parting of ways isn't enough.

The reason I had that thought was against the backdrop of what happened to me yesterday at a restaurant. It didn't come to an outright confrontation, but it did bring out the fact that some people make incredibly bad winners and the people who've succeeded in knocking the legs out from under this society, who have destroyed any semblance of consensus or agreement about culturally accepted norms, rules and codes of behavior are extremely bad winners. They're smug, snarky, openly contemptuous, the first in your face with a sneer and the middle finger just because........they can and you are there.

So when I say an agreed parting of the ways may not be enough, what I mean is even if that was done, the contemptuous winners would still be in our face with the sneer and the finger. What would be enough? Remember the line from the movie...."Give me what I want and I'll Go Away". Cash me out and I'll leave. I'll go to Italy. I don't have any interest anymore in what happens to the US. Let the winners have it and let them reap the whirlwind. What we're really discussing here is they've undermined the culture built upon a granite foundation and replaced it with a house of cards built upon a foundation of sand. I just don't want to be damaged by the fall out when this house of cards collapses.

originally posted by: nwtrucker
The restoration of freedom of choice....and it's consequences/rewards....

Like you, that's the way I see it, rightly or wrongly.

Without the feds the area of the US would devolve into a bunch of brutal and bloody wars. Primarily over the fact that half the states are landlocked, and secondary over the issue of water rights. Not every state can secure for itself ports and fresh water.

a reply to: Aazadan

Yep, consequences...

Though I see bigger groups forming, agreements and accords reached amongst them. Not always though some to,ld to go stuff it...

Still, better than increasing oppression from the federalists or a revolution...

Somewhere down the line, rewards...

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: Aazadan

Yep, consequences...

Though I see bigger groups forming, agreements and accords reached amongst them. Not always though some to,ld to go stuff it...

Still, better than increasing oppression from the federalists or a revolution...

Somewhere down the line, rewards...

Historically right of passage agreements to make up for a lack of ports are just good enough to prevent all out war (you need peace to maintain the agreement and get some port access) but severely impoverish the land locked nation because the one providing access has a massive amount of negotiating power. We've avoided that problem in the US with a federal government that puts all of the states in line, but if you look one layer deeper you see that interstate trade regulation is one of the main ways the feds force compliance.

Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Utah, Wyoming, Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, Missouri, Arkansas, Illinois, Michigan, Ohio, Indiana, Kentucky, Tennessee, West Virginia, and probably Vermont would either lose their sovereignty (and probably be conquered) or devolve into third world countries within a decade.

a reply to: Aazadan

Possible. Yet, I see it from a different perspective. Those 'inland states' tend to the food producers, suppliers of oil, natural gas. They also tend to be much better armed than the coastal states.

Add in the population issues and much higher number of non-producing citizens, in the coastal states. The fruited plain also tend toward being much better armed, a higher percentage of veterans and without doubt a better grasp for self sufficiency.

Water is an issue for some, I agree. (I can't fathom why Texas hasn't used some of it's surplus to develop desalination plants at the gulf. California was attempting to but got blocked by Environmental groups...of course.)

If any regions are to fail, without accord, it is the overpopulated, food, and energy dependent states....or at least regions within some states.

Eastern Washington-the Cascade Mountains being the dividing point- would likely align/join Idaho and it's coalition and there'd be nothing the 'coastals' could do about it.

Overall, I agree to avoid/lessen the likelihood of war, a overseeing gov't/superpower helps....

Bottom line, from my point of view, all of these scenarios are less damaging than civil war/revolution....