the candidates responses about ISIS

[callmeslick]

....don't seem to impress THIS Republican. Must be a RINO.

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2016/01/ ... 20/?src=FB

[woodchip]

"I will tell you this: I do think that politics is a profession," he said. "And I think that if you don't have any experience in how government works, if you have never been in government, your ability to make the government work is going to be significantly reduced."


Yeah, so lets make sure the Presidential candidates all have some real experience in federal level governmental operations. This would exclude Bill Clinton and George Bush from being President, as it would Ronald Reagan. So lets hear more dreck from a Washington insider.

[callmeslick]

experience in government would not preclude Reagan(governor of CA), Bush(Texas) or Clinton(Ark). Put the thinking cap on when reading.

[woodchip]

Right, and if you were some Senator or Congressman with no leadership skills, he would still make a good President? I'll take someone like Trump over someone like Hillary who is notorious for screwing things up. Or some aging commie/socialist like Sanders who would put the country trillions more in debt by funding evermore feel good projects.

[callmeslick]

Right, and if you were some Senator or Congressman with no leadership skills, he would still make a good President?

yes, we've had examples of that type as well. Had Congressmen with proven leadership experience, too(Johnson, Ford), had folks with leadership but no governance experience(Washington, Grant, Eisenhower, Jackson) with wildly differing levels of Presidential competence. I have zero interest in accepting that part of the argument at all, just was pointing out they had experience as executives in government.

I'll take someone like Trump over someone like Hillary who is notorious for screwing things up.

I could never handle two things about Trump: Of course, the attitude....it is and would continue to be a global embarrassment to our nation. Plus, I have no grasp what he actually would support. Just looking at the past 20 years(his adult years, to some extent), he has said A LOT of disparate things. I just can't see what he stands for besides Donald Trump. Not what I need to see in my President.

Or some aging commie/socialist like Sanders who would put the country trillions more in debt by funding evermore feel good projects.

except, when you add up the numbers, balancing revenue v. outlay, he doesn't. Heck, even he is saying, quite plainly, that some of what he wants can only be seen as long-range goals to work toward. At least, he gets the problems, the core issues, with our economy post 1980. I see nothing risky whatsover about his proposals, and his focus on financial system reform, education being a high priority, reforming the military for the 21st century. These are common sense and long overdue. While I concede a sharp divide on universal healthcare, it too is economically brilliant for a changing workplace and marketplace. As opposed to Trump, you know where the old boy stands, even when one(as I) don't agree with all of it. He actually gives a crap about something other than himself. I'd say for any thinking person, save extreme ideologues, should find the contrast stark and the choice easy, were it to come to Trump v Sanders.

[vision]

Or some aging commie/socialist...

What year is this, 1960? And Sanders is only 74. What, you got some daddy issues or something?

[Spidey]

See his ad running in Iowa and tell me it’s not 1960.

(it’s posted in NS’s thread)

kumbaya hippy dippy…