Clinton leading all Republicans by double digits

a reply to: ownbestenemy

Actually the states would become regressive, balkanized entities incapable of supporting their own populations. Each and every one of them is only capable of functioning as it does thanks to the inter-connectedness and mutual support from the rest of the nation.

hell, take away taxation, and every "red state' except Texas collapses in a year. Real fast, think what would happen to the southwest, if the states were "sovereign" - Who owns the Colorado river? Its headwaters are in Colorado (thus the name) but its water is essential to Las Vegas, San Diego, Phoenix, and Tijuana. How about the Mississippi, for that matter?

Sorry buddy, but the whole "states are independent nations!" idea is defunct by over two hundred years.

a reply to: Tusks

We're freaking doomed. The stupidity of the majority of Americans today is astounding and unforgivable. The sheep are going to get exactly what they deserve and that'll be more status quo they get more power, more money, more of our freedoms and then pee on um calling it rain.

originally posted by: Tusks
Just beyond my imagination that this is possible:

www.washingtonpost.com... 90-11e4-9f89-561284a573f8_story.html

Clinton approaches the nominating season in a dominant position, leading Bush by 54 percent to 41 percent among registered voters and Romney by 55 percent to 40 percent.


Clinton leads in new 2016 poll
Beyond Bush and Romney — the two Republicans who have made the firmest moves toward a 2016 run — Clinton holds equally large leads over other potential Republican hopefuls. She tops Rand Paul and Chris Christie by 13 percentage points each, and leads Mike Huckabee by 17 points.

Clinton’s husband, former president Bill Clinton, appears to create little drag on her potential.

Among all voting-age adults, more than 6 in 10 say the fact that Bill Clinton served as president has no bearing on whether they would support Hillary Clinton’s candidacy. And among those who say her spouse’s presidency will matter, 23 percent say it will make them more likely to support her, while 14 percent say less likely.

I'm confused. What can you not believe is possible? That the MSM would publish poll results of this nature, or are you surprised at what the poll results are? No insult intended, but are you really surprised or is this a tongue in cheek post designed to provoke controversy and troll bait? (wink, wink, nudge nudge).

O.K., I'll play along. Here's the deal.

Anyone over the age of 12 in the US that's watched the news at least once a week for the last 8 years has observed and understands this phenomenon, which is: (drum roll please) 1) every election cycle the MSM trots out what's known in the business as "push polls". Those are where the publisher who contracts for the poll to be conducted tells the polling organization what result they want. The pollster then engineers the poll questions to produce the desired report, then 2) the MSM outlet produces the poll result, (feigning surprise of course), because they know that a large number of voters want to vote for the perceived winner.

In this case, Hillary hasn't announced yet and her supporters in the MSM are publishing the push poll results to show her she can win if she runs. The irony of this is that, there's a great likely hood that she would win. Another possible scenario is that the Clinton election machinery is already in play and they're now pressing the MSM to start trotting out the desired polls.

Its all smoke and mirrors. Or to quote one of my favorite songs, "Its only a paper moon, hangining over a cardboard sky, but if you make believe...."

Cheers

originally posted by: Onslaught2996

originally posted by: neo96

originally posted by: muse7
I don't see a Republican taking the White House again in my lifetime.

Then how do you explain the House, a Senate land sides ?

Back to back presidential victories are rare.

Last one was Reagan/ Bush to Bush/ Quayle.

As my pappy use to say don't count your chickens before their all hatched.

Why do you people continue to bring this up as if it was some great victory?

2/3 of Americans have shown they would rather not vote than vote republican.

I am sure when it comes to the presidency..those same 2/3 would turn out n vote dem.

That makes ZERO sense. Going by your post, those people are the most stupid people on the planet then. Did they not realize that for every Republican running, THERE WAS ALSO A DEMOCRAT? Going, by this logic, all the tickets in the last elections had ONLY Republicans on the ballot so people stayed home rather than vote for the ONE candidate....SMDH.

originally posted by: TurtleSmacker
a reply to: ownbestenemy

Rand doesn't know how to compromise.

By compromise, I mean completely abandon his entire ideology and adopt the correct (progressive) one.

Newsflash : NONE of them know how to compromise anymore

Republicans will win if the black and hispanic do not turn out to vote.SImple as that.Usualy goes back and fourth anyways.

originally posted by: Expat888
a reply to: Annee

Leave the whitehouse empty for four years ..or everyone write in for a homeless person to fill the whitehouse for the next four ..



Better yet .. just do away with the job entirely .. the world cant afford anymore of your politicians .. get yourselves leaders that actually represent you .. NOT a damn one of the politicians there does that...

Great.

Now try a real answer.

originally posted by: MOMof3
As a voting democrat, all I can say is, why don't republicans know as much about their own party as they do the democrat party?

Is it because we all know what to expect from democrats? Democrats are in on the money game too, but they come up with ideas like family maternity leave, free community college, healthcare for all.....

So basically they bribe you with "free" stuff.

a reply to: Dr0neT3k

Solutions to civilized problems that endanger the lives of american. Like being sick but not enough sick to go to ER. I really like the free clinic Idaho. You have to sit outside the medical building with the other sick people, then someone comes out, asks you questions, gives you a number, while you are standing outside in weather, hoping a doctor will see you. Solutions for abuse like that.

originally posted by: ownbestenemy
a reply to: TurtleSmacker

Very much so if the Federal Government recognized the sovereignty of each State.

States are to be the breeding grounds for new and innovative thought; instead they must conform with the Central Government -- may it be via the highway funds or any other blackmailed idea.

Life doesn't go backwards, it goes forward ---- right or wrong.

That's the problem with Libertarianism ---- it wants to go back to "what was" or "what could have been".

Unless there is a cataclysmic event .... that is not going to happen.

I would hope that enough people in the US would be educated enough in our own history and not vote for either Clinton or Bush. We founded this country to be free of monarchy and dynastic rule and a vote for either of these families is a vote for tyranny.

originally posted by: asmall89
I would hope that enough people in the US would be educated enough in our own history and not vote for either Clinton or Bush. We founded this country to be free of monarchy and dynastic rule and a vote for either of these families is a vote for tyranny.

It's great to have that sentiment, but it offers no solution.

originally posted by: poncho1982


That makes ZERO sense. Going by your post, those people are the most stupid people on the planet then. Did they not realize that for every Republican running, THERE WAS ALSO A DEMOCRAT? Going, by this logic, all the tickets in the last elections had ONLY Republicans on the ballot so people stayed home rather than vote for the ONE candidate....SMDH.

It's true 2/3 of Americans did not vote.

They got tired of the same ol' crap and did not vote rather than vote republican. How else can you explain why 2/3 did not vote. maybe they thought the midterm vote was not important as important as the presidency.


Come the presidency..I am certain more people would come out..to make sure the republicans are not in charge of anything.

originally posted by: Hoosierdaddy71

originally posted by: muse7
I don't see a Republican taking the White House again in my lifetime.

Are you in your 80's? Lol

Clever!!

originally posted by: Annee

Life doesn't go backwards, it goes forward ---- right or wrong.

That's the problem with Libertarianism ---- it wants to go back to "what was" or "what could have been".

Unless there is a cataclysmic event .... that is not going to happen.

I suppose your preferred political ideology is the natural evolution of humanity and the one true way to the glorious future then?

Ideas are timeless. They make the time, not the other way around, and they're not conjured out of some other realm simply because it is the year 2015.

I can't say good ideas, as good and bad are purely subjective, but if the system or idea you support achieves the desired result, why does it matter what year it was thought up?

There's nothing new under the sun.

Edit:

Many critics of Libertarianism love to point out that it's naive owing to the fact that no nation has ever tried it. I suppose that's flexible.

originally posted by: TurtleSmacker

originally posted by: Annee

Life doesn't go backwards, it goes forward ---- right or wrong.

That's the problem with Libertarianism ---- it wants to go back to "what was" or "what could have been".

Unless there is a cataclysmic event .... that is not going to happen.

I suppose your preferred political ideology is the natural evolution of humanity and the one true way to the glorious future then?

Ideas are timeless. They make the time, not the other way around, and they're not conjured out of some other realm simply because it is the year 2015.

I can't say good ideas, as good and bad are purely subjective, but if the system or idea you support achieves the desired result, why does it matter what year it was thought up?

There's nothing new under the sun.

Edit:

Many critics of Libertarianism love to point out that it's naive owing to the fact that no nation has ever tried it. I suppose that's flexible.

I am not taking sides or discussing any personal political direction.

The logic is in progression.

There is reason in how and why a society develops. Society develops in certain ways by needs and wants.

Some people in their minds think less government is better. I don't think most truly comprehend the reality of what the result will be.

a reply to: Annee

Then why poo-poo Libertarianism?

After all, it isn't inconcievable that people will have enough bad experiences with a large system of government, and then "progress" into allowing more personal freedom.

I would profess that within the last 200 years political systems haven't developed on some straight line, but rather a chaotic spiderweb of changes, bigger and smaller government included in that. I don't see logic in the way society functions, outside of very basic interpersonal interactions.

After all, governments and political systems aren't some monolithic entity but are composed of individuals.

I'm still trying to figure out what this underlying meaning to the use of the words evolution and progress politically is.

It seems to be correlated with the subjective "good".

originally posted by: TurtleSmacker

Then why poo-poo Libertarianism?

After all, it isn't inconcievable that people will have enough bad experiences with a large system of government, and then "progress" into allowing more personal freedom.

I would profess that within the last 200 years political systems haven't developed on some straight line, but rather a chaotic spiderweb of changes, bigger and smaller government included in that. I don't see logic in the way society functions, outside of very basic interpersonal interactions.

After all, governments and political systems aren't some monolithic entity but are composed of individuals.

I'm still trying to figure out what this underlying meaning to the use of the words evolution and progress politically is.

It seems to be correlated with the subjective "good".

I am 68. I've always been an observer of how "patterns" fit together. Probably a bit Asperger. I got in trouble in grade school for wanting to discuss the philosophies of hows and whys. No time for that.

I lived through those times you could build additions to your house without permits, not allowed access to your medical and school records without a court order, punch your neighbor if he deserved it, spank your kid, jump when the military said jump, etc. Before Fair Housing, Disability Act, Civil Rights, Women's Rights, Gay Rights, etc.

Society needs rules.

Be careful what you ask for.

This news might lend credence to idea the scientists right and the doomsday clock is about to run down!

a reply to: skeptikal1

She should run for Repub and Demo !!

Wait she is already doing that now !??!??!!?