DescentBB

Dems will never get the presidency based on this Fox News poll:

"That explains, at least in part, why for the first time a majority -- 53 percent -- says the United States is less safe today than it was before 9/11. That’s up from 45 percent in September."

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/03 ... latestnews

People will not vote the weak Dem line up for President and instead will vote for someone from the Rep. side who shows the ability to protect America. I suggest Big Ears Obama start showing some cajones in dealing with the Islamnofacist.

I predict a dem win precisely because fox news says it won't happen.

Hell, I wish I could vote twenty times in the next federal american election, all for democrats... just to see you get red-faced.

won't have to. Fox is whistling in the dark, and they know it. The turnout and demographics in a Presidential race VASTLY favor Dems at this point. The scare tactics worked last fall in a low turnout, but 2016 won't be such. Also, people seemed to catch on to being scammed on ebola and immigration fears, and that perception is easily changed.

Did Fox take into account how the recent GOP-driven nonsense over funding the DHS might have affected said feelings of safety?

Didn't Fox predict Romney in 2012?

Just sayin'...

Part of me wants to believe it is anyone's game right now, but another part of me feels like the momentum of the country, the upcoming youth, the marginalized old, and certain trends in science and technology enterprise, will land the country slightly to the left of middle again. I hate to say it, but I don't think the GOP stands a chance unless they can muster up a brilliantly charismatic moderate. Personally, I like Jeb, but I'm not sure he can survive a campaign.

vision wrote:Didn't Fox predict Romney in 2012?

yes, about two hours before he conceded.

vision wrote: I hate to say it, but I don't think the GOP stands a chance unless they can muster up a brilliantly charismatic moderate. Personally, I like Jeb, but I'm not sure he can survive a campaign.

Funny how Reagan wasn't a moderate and he won in a landslide.

Reagan would be considered a leftist in the current environment. No comment on abortion, support for immigration amnesty, etc,etc.

woodchip wrote:Funny how Reagan wasn't a moderate and he won in a landslide.

Yeah, but that was over a generation ago. Not sure how you think that is relevant today. You might as well be talking about Calvin Coolidge.

The problem is since Reagan we have not had a candidate run on a conservative platform. Why does running on a conservative platform a generation ago mean it is irrelevant today?

woodchip wrote:The problem is since Reagan we have not had a candidate run on a conservative platform.

I suspect the no true Scotsman fallacy is in play here. Really chip? No conservative candidates have run since Regan? Did you hit your head recently? Your posts over the last several days are reaching a new level of stupidity.

woodchip wrote:The problem is since Reagan we have not had a candidate run on a conservative platform. Why does running on a conservative platform a generation ago mean it is irrelevant today?

Because, at the present time, Reagan's Conservative platform was not much more conservative than Obama's platform. The 'conservative' wing of the GOP has lost its marbles, and now is pushing more of a libertarian platform with xenophobia, and zero by way of actual economic ideas that have any merit.

vision wrote:I suspect the no true Scotsman fallacy is in play here.

It's a dead ringer.

woodchip wrote:The problem is since Reagan we have not had a candidate run on a conservative platform. Why does running on a conservative platform a generation ago mean it is irrelevant today?

What's your definition of a conservative platform then? If you go by today's mix of definitions from all the new tea partiers, the conservatism of old is too far to the left.

this just in:
WASHINGTON - Republicans today promised that there will be a "seamless transition of hatred" if President Barack Obama is succeeded in office by Hillary Clinton. "Like many Americans, we will be saddened to see our lawsuits, investigations, and general harassment directed towards President Obama come to an end," said House Speaker John Boehner. "But we want to reassure everyone that we are very much up to the challenge of transferring our hatred to a President Clinton." Boehner promised the American people that the tormenting of the new Democratic President would begin on her first day in office. "The fact that we began this process while she was still Secretary of State will really enable us to hit the ground running," he said.

Ha Ha, so now you’re a comedian…try and work up some of your own material.

(not that some might call half of what you say a joke..)

nah, that was stolen from Borowitz....

I see woodchip hasn't given me a woodchip approved definition of Reagan conservatism yet. Come on woody, fess up. I'd like to know what you think a Reagan conservative's principles should be, today?

First off TC, get our fiscal house in order or we'll be like Detroit...only with no emergency mgr appointed

callmeslick wrote:this just in:
WASHINGTON - Republicans today promised that there will be a "seamless transition of hatred" if President Barack Obama is succeeded in office by Hillary Clinton. "Like many Americans, we will be saddened to see our lawsuits, investigations, and general harassment directed towards President Obama come to an end," said House Speaker John Boehner. "But we want to reassure everyone that we are very much up to the challenge of transferring our hatred to a President Clinton." Boehner promised the American people that the tormenting of the new Democratic President would begin on her first day in office. "The fact that we began this process while she was still Secretary of State will really enable us to hit the ground running," he said.

translation: we're scared that we won't have a black president to make into a bogeyman anymore.

tunnelcat wrote:I see woodchip hasn't given me a woodchip approved definition of Reagan conservatism yet. Come on woody, fess up. I'd like to know what you think a Reagan conservative's principles should be, today?

and the kids these days might be saying "he be straight up woodchippin, man"

woodchip wrote:First off TC, get our fiscal house in order or we'll be like Detroit...only with no emergency mgr appointed

Is that all you have? This is so idiotic. Please, elaborate. I would love to hear how the United States will be like Detroit. Please cite your sources when you do.

So you have no problem with base line budgeting, unsecured liabilities and a debt of 18 trillion. I'm more worried about that instead of global warming.

[youtube]q71cMRGXx9o[/youtube]

woodchip wrote:First off TC, get our fiscal house in order or we'll be like Detroit...only with no emergency mgr appointed

Nothing wrong with that when it's done properly and not indiscriminately, along with upping the tax rates on those fat and happy one percenters (the ONLY ones who are fat and happy at the moment) to speed things up, but a blanket gutting of everything, plus more tax cuts for the rich, will hurt the middle class and the poor far more. Plus, since Republicans like to cut taxes and spend on wars like drunken sailors, if we get a Republican president in 2016, we're doomed.

Great elaboration woody.

Great rebuttal vision

woodchip wrote:First off TC, get our fiscal house in order or we'll be like Detroit...only with no emergency mgr appointed

Well, Obama has done extremely well at that. If you used a bank card in the last week, you can thank him for even HAVING a fiscal house.

woodchip wrote:So you have no problem with base line budgeting, unsecured liabilities and a debt of 18 trillion. I'm more worried about that instead of global warming.

then you are a fool. Global warming is FAR more of a threat than borrowing at 0.5% interest to secure the nation's economy, and build for the future. Unsecured liabilities? Who gave us those? Mainly conservatives, who don't have the balls to tell voters we need a tax hike to cover obligations, yet still like to participate in every giveaway they can.

Funny how when Bush was trying to reduce the percentage of base line budget increases, all the loony left could say was how it was cutting their salaries and reducing their yearly stipends for favored programs. So it was the republicans that gave us social security, medicare and medicaid? I suggest you try fishing in another pond for sucker meat.

woodchip wrote:Funny how when Bush was trying to reduce the percentage of base line budget increases, all the loony left could say was how it was cutting their salaries and reducing their yearly stipends for favored programs. So it was the republicans that gave us social security, medicare and medicaid? I suggest you try fishing in another pond for sucker meat.

the public wants(no, DEMANDS) social security, medicare and medicaid, so the problem lies in folks without the backbone to raise the revenue to fund them.

Still haven’t figured out the problem with borrowing is not the interest rate, but the principal, when there is not enough revenue to cover it.

And yes I do understand the revenue side of the debate, but what I hear is something like…Just jump out of the plane…we will try and send the parachute later.

Prove the government can be fiscally responsible...then you can reasonably ask for taxes.

See...you keep asking for trust on that issue...sorry...no.

Spidey wrote:Still haven’t figured out the problem with borrowing is not the interest rate, but the principal, when there is not enough revenue to cover it.

with a good budget(Clinton had them, Obama is getting towards it), the revenue will go into surplus, which means a surpus while paying down the principal. Paying off bonds, as we do, always involves paying the principal, too. We can generate MORE than enough revenue in the US to do that, and without any pain to the economy or the public, if done right.

And yes I do understand the revenue side of the debate, but what I hear is something like…Just jump out of the plane…we will try and send the parachute later.

therein lies the problem......politicians ALWAYS promise the goodies first, and then(in the current environment) NEVER deal with paying for them. As I said, Clinton managed to get the balance right. Then, Bush came in and completely screwed it all up with tax cuts, additional Medicare entitlements and two wars.

Prove the government can be fiscally responsible...then you can reasonably ask for taxes.

as I've said two times already, Clinton and company(and that included Gingrich and other Republicans, before the crazies took over) figured it out, and the year 2000 is hardly ancient history.

See...you keep asking for trust on that issue...sorry...no.

I'm not asking for trust, just asking you to use your memory.

Trivia Question…

When was the last time congress passed a budget submitted by the president?

Spidey wrote:Trivia Question…

When was the last time congress passed a budget submitted by the president?

I'm guessing never and my second choice would be pre- 24 hour Cable TV News.

Spidey wrote:Trivia Question…

When was the last time congress passed a budget submitted by the president?

1997, I believe.