Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 motyak wrote:
As long as it's tied to potential shut downs/the actions of politicians, go on with the planned parenthood stuff. If it devolves into the "it's life at X/No its life at Y/no at Z!" Argument, or another kind that isn't related to politics, then the discussion on that will stop. But the thread still won't close

Fair enough boss.

 jasper76 wrote:
Never heard of Kasich, and Rubio is too far to the right for me to consider.

It's really going to take a surprise Powell candidacy at this point for me to seriously consider a GOP candidate.

Powell is not a Republican.

 Frazzled wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
Never heard of Kasich, and Rubio is too far to the right for me to consider.

It's really going to take a surprise Powell candidacy at this point for me to seriously consider a GOP candidate.

Powell is not a Republican.

Wikipedia, at least, tells a different story, one where he is a "liberal Republican".

Anyways, I seriously doubt he will run.

 motyak wrote:
As long as it's tied to potential shut downs/the actions of politicians, go on with the planned parenthood stuff. If it devolves into the "it's life at X/No its life at Y/no at Z!" Argument, or another kind that isn't related to politics, then the discussion on that will stop. But the thread still won't close

100% agreed. I didn't bring it up to start any debate about PP itself, it's really just coincidental that PP is going to apparently be this year's sticking point for both sides to throw a hissy fit over to get what they want to threaten a shutdown. They have to pick something, of course, and what better option than some manufactured public outrage to distract the public away from realizing what a poor job our Congress is doing. Hey, that sounds just like the bogeyman concept I described earlier.

 whembly wrote:

HRC's favorabiltiy rating is worse than Obama has EVER had on this poll.

Now do you understand why myself, and several others, have been repeatedly saying that Clinton is not a lock for the Big Chair?

 whembly wrote:

So, what ya'll think? Kasich/Rubio ticket?

It will never happen. Cruz is polling at about 6%, and he may well see a drop after his Planned Parenthood noise, while Kasich is polling at about 3%. Also consider that Kasich took a good amount of flak in Ohio for the anti-abortion bill he signed into law back in 2013, so adding Ted "let's shut down government for the fetuses" Cruz to the mix has a good chance of hurting him in Ohio.

 jasper76 wrote:
Never heard of Kasich, and Rubio is too far to the right for me to consider.

Kasich is a moderate Republican Governor... not sure where he'd "plot on that political scale" but I'd be surprised if he's labeled a strong con. (he freak'n implemented Obamacare).

It's really going to take a surprise Powell candidacy at this point for me to seriously consider a GOP candidate.

I would lurve... luuuuuuuuuuurve for Powell to run.

But, I think his wife forbade him from running for office.

 whembly wrote:

I would lurve... luuuuuuuuuuurve for Powell to run.

But, I think his wife forbade him from running for office.

I think a good deal of Americans from all walks of life would love if Powell ran. I think he'd be a shoe in, to be honest.

I remember reading something a-ways back in time where his wife was worried for his safety, because at the time he wouldve been the first African-American President, and she thought he might be assassinated. Not sure if the Obama presidency has changed that calculation, but I think if Powell was interested, we'd have heard about it by now.

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

HRC's favorabiltiy rating is worse than Obama has EVER had on this poll.

Now do you understand why myself, and several others, have been repeatedly saying that Clinton is not a lock for the Big Chair?

Yeah... I'm coming around to that.

It's interesting, that the there's a split of the usual Democrat leaning media over HRC. One side will continue to fight for HRC, but the others are ambivalent, at best...

Hence why I think Biden may be able to snatch victory in the primary.

However, I just can't shake HRC rising from the dead to take the WH. They're way too connected.

 whembly wrote:

So, what ya'll think? Kasich/Rubio ticket?

It will never happen. Cruz is polling at about 6%, and he may well see a drop after his Planned Parenthood noise, while Kasich is polling at about 3%. Also consider that Kasich took a good amount of flak in Ohio for the anti-abortion bill he signed into law back in 2013, so adding Ted "let's shut down government for the fetuses" Cruz to the mix has a good chance of hurting him in Ohio.

You think so? Kasich was one of the few governors criticising Cruz during the last shutdown.

*shrugs*

Looks like it'll be Walker/Bush or Walker/Rubio (you have to have the Floridians on the ticket).

While I like that ticket... it doesn't inspire any confidence.

 jasper76 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
Never heard of Kasich, and Rubio is too far to the right for me to consider.

It's really going to take a surprise Powell candidacy at this point for me to seriously consider a GOP candidate.

Powell is not a Republican.

Wikipedia, at least, tells a different story, one where he is a "liberal Republican".

Anyways, I seriously doubt he will run.

He supported Obama. He's moderately pro gun control. He's also 78, thats getting up there.

 Frazzled wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
Never heard of Kasich, and Rubio is too far to the right for me to consider.

It's really going to take a surprise Powell candidacy at this point for me to seriously consider a GOP candidate.

Powell is not a Republican.

Wikipedia, at least, tells a different story, one where he is a "liberal Republican".

Anyways, I seriously doubt he will run.

He supported Obama.

Oh yeah, I forgot that opposing Obama is now a GOP membership requirement.

 whembly wrote:

I would lurve... luuuuuuuuuuurve for Powell to run.

Considering how the Bush Administration threw him under the bus, I doubt he would be interested in a Republican candidacy. And, even if he were interested, he would quickly get RINOed. He could do quite well as a Democrat, though.

That said, he's 78, which would make him by far the oldest President at time of inauguration.

 jasper76 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
Never heard of Kasich, and Rubio is too far to the right for me to consider.

It's really going to take a surprise Powell candidacy at this point for me to seriously consider a GOP candidate.

Powell is not a Republican.

Wikipedia, at least, tells a different story, one where he is a "liberal Republican".

Anyways, I seriously doubt he will run.

He supported Obama.

Oh yeah, I forgot that opposing Obama is now a GOP membership requirement.

Give me a break. You cannot actively and publicly endorse the 'other' party's candidate for president (as Powell endorsed Obama) and expect to then headline a ticket for your party. Once you endorse the candiadte of the other party (regardless of nominally calling yourself an R or a D) you may as well join that candidate's party.

@CptJake: that's fine and all, but those rules are partisan rules, not mine. Supporting Obama or McCain would not have much bearing for me on whether Powell would make a good president.

 whembly wrote:

You think so? Kasich was one of the few governors criticising Cruz during the last shutdown.

Further evidence that Kasich, if he miraculously wins the nomination, wouldn't select Cruz as a running mate.

 whembly wrote:

Looks like it'll be Walker/Bush or Walker/Rubio (you have to have the Floridians on the ticket).

Walker would certainly come with a lot of baggage regarding the nature of his budget cuts in Wisconsin, especially given the state funding recently provided to build a new stadium for the Bucks.

 jasper76 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
Never heard of Kasich, and Rubio is too far to the right for me to consider.

It's really going to take a surprise Powell candidacy at this point for me to seriously consider a GOP candidate.

Powell is not a Republican.

Wikipedia, at least, tells a different story, one where he is a "liberal Republican".

Anyways, I seriously doubt he will run.

He supported Obama.

Oh yeah, I forgot that opposing Obama is now a GOP membership requirement.

What part of OBAMA IS A DEMOCRAT did you miss?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

I would lurve... luuuuuuuuuuurve for Powell to run.

Considering how the Bush Administration threw him under the bus, I doubt he would be interested in a Republican candidacy. And, even if he were interested, he would quickly get RINOed. He could do quite well as a Democrat, though.

That said, he's 78, which would make him by far the oldest President at time of inauguration.

Exactly. Why put yourself through that?

 Frazzled wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
Never heard of Kasich, and Rubio is too far to the right for me to consider.

It's really going to take a surprise Powell candidacy at this point for me to seriously consider a GOP candidate.

Powell is not a Republican.

Wikipedia, at least, tells a different story, one where he is a "liberal Republican".

Anyways, I seriously doubt he will run.

He supported Obama.

Oh yeah, I forgot that opposing Obama is now a GOP membership requirement.

What part of OBAMA IS A DEMOCRAT did you miss?

Obama is a democrat, Powell is a self-identified Republican. So what? If all you're saying is that Powells endorsement of Obama would be a detriment to his chances in a Republican Primary, then I agree and lets move on.

But you can endorse a member of an opposing party without changing your own party affiliation. Whether or not the voters will punish you for it or not is not is up to the voters.

You can, but you can never run for anything in that party again.

 jasper76 wrote:
@CptJake: that's fine and all, but those rules are partisan rules, not mine. Supporting Obama or McCain would not have much bearing for me on whether Powell would make a good president.

But it has a LOT of bearing on declaring a candidacy for one party or the other. Independents/3rd Party candidates don't well running for POTUS. Powell cannot run as an R because he publicly endorsed the D candidate over the R candidate. Period. He could run as a D, but would not have much of a chance without first running for and winning a state level office as a D. Frankly, he would not be welcomed by the D base at all.

 CptJake wrote:

Give me a break. You cannot actively and publicly endorse the 'other' party's candidate for president (as Powell endorsed Obama) and expect to then headline a ticket for your party. Once you endorse the candiadte of the other party (regardless of nominally calling yourself an R or a D) you may as well join that candidate's party.

And here, lady's and gentlemen, is a prime example of why we can't have nice things in the US.

Compromise, that thing which allows representative governments to function, means not blindly supporting a candidate or initiative because he or it originated within your party. It is entirely possible to remain a Republican while believing that the Democratic candidate for President would be better for the job. Especially when you aren't actually a politician.

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

I would lurve... luuuuuuuuuuurve for Powell to run.

Considering how the Bush Administration threw him under the bus, I doubt he would be interested in a Republican candidacy. And, even if he were interested, he would quickly get RINOed. He could do quite well as a Democrat, though.

That said, he's 78, which would make him by far the oldest President at time of inauguration.

Him running on the Democrat ticket would make me vote for him.

But, yeah... he's up there in the age bracket. So, his running mate need to be someone strong.

 dogma wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

Give me a break. You cannot actively and publicly endorse the 'other' party's candidate for president (as Powell endorsed Obama) and expect to then headline a ticket for your party. Once you endorse the candiadte of the other party (regardless of nominally calling yourself an R or a D) you may as well join that candidate's party.

And here, lady's and gentlemen, is a prime example of why we can't have nice things in the US.

Compromise, that thing which allows representative governments to function, means not blindly supporting a candidate or initiative because he or it originated within your party. It is entirely possible to remain a Republican while believing that the Democratic candidate for President would be better for the job. Especially when you aren't actually a politician.

Look at the way the Ds treated Lieberman... It sure as hell is not new nor unique to the Rs.

 CptJake wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
@CptJake: that's fine and all, but those rules are partisan rules, not mine. Supporting Obama or McCain would not have much bearing for me on whether Powell would make a good president.

But it has a LOT of bearing on declaring a candidacy for one party or the other. Independents/3rd Party candidates don't well running for POTUS. Powell cannot run as an R because he publicly endorsed the D candidate over the R candidate. Period. He could run as a D, but would not have much of a chance without first running for and winning a state level office as a D. Frankly, he would not be welcomed by the D base at all.

My main point going back is that so far, given the crop of GOP contenders, a surprise GOP Powell candidacy may be the only thing to get me to look at the Republican party s riously in 2016.

I agree it's highly unlike, ergo it doesn't seem likely at this point tha the Republican Primaries will produce a candidate that I will seriously consider.

 jasper76 wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
@CptJake: that's fine and all, but those rules are partisan rules, not mine. Supporting Obama or McCain would not have much bearing for me on whether Powell would make a good president.

But it has a LOT of bearing on declaring a candidacy for one party or the other. Independents/3rd Party candidates don't well running for POTUS. Powell cannot run as an R because he publicly endorsed the D candidate over the R candidate. Period. He could run as a D, but would not have much of a chance without first running for and winning a state level office as a D. Frankly, he would not be welcomed by the D base at all.

My main point going back is that so far, given the crop of GOP contenders, a surprise GOP Powell candidacy may be the only thing to get me to look at the Republican party s riously in 2016.

I agree it's highly unlike, ergo it doesn't seem likely at this point tha the Republican Primaries will produce a candidate that I will seriously consider.

So... is it time to release the Biden!!

 CptJake wrote:
Powell cannot run as an R because he publicly endorsed the D candidate over the R candidate. Period.

There is no rule preventing him from doing so.

 CptJake wrote:

He could run as a D, but would not have much of a chance without first running for and winning a state level office as a D.

Not per the standard you laid out above, as he endorsed George W. Bush in 2000 and 2004.

 CptJake wrote:

Frankly, he would not be welcomed by the D base at all.

You might be surprised. His stance on LGBT issues would net him a lot of brownie points, and the belief that he got fethed over by the Bush Administration is widely held even among extremely liberal Democrats. Honestly he would have a lot more trouble with the R base, even if he hadn't endorsed Obama.

 jasper76 wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
@CptJake: that's fine and all, but those rules are partisan rules, not mine. Supporting Obama or McCain would not have much bearing for me on whether Powell would make a good president.

But it has a LOT of bearing on declaring a candidacy for one party or the other. Independents/3rd Party candidates don't well running for POTUS. Powell cannot run as an R because he publicly endorsed the D candidate over the R candidate. Period. He could run as a D, but would not have much of a chance without first running for and winning a state level office as a D. Frankly, he would not be welcomed by the D base at all.

My main point going back is that so far, given the crop of GOP contenders, a surprise GOP Powell candidacy may be the only thing to get me to look at the Republican party s riously in 2016.

I agree it's highly unlike, ergo it doesn't seem likely at this point tha the Republican Primaries will produce a candidate that I will seriously consider.

Just seems silly to say 'Unless a D wins the R nomination, I won't vote for the R nominee. I can't undersand why folks think it is unreasonable to want a D to win it"

I mean, no gak. You clearly will vote for the most liberal candidate. Just as I will clearly vote for the most conservative. But you don't see me whining that the Ds won't nominate a conservative R.

 CptJake wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
@CptJake: that's fine and all, but those rules are partisan rules, not mine. Supporting Obama or McCain would not have much bearing for me on whether Powell would make a good president.

But it has a LOT of bearing on declaring a candidacy for one party or the other. Independents/3rd Party candidates don't well running for POTUS. Powell cannot run as an R because he publicly endorsed the D candidate over the R candidate. Period. He could run as a D, but would not have much of a chance without first running for and winning a state level office as a D. Frankly, he would not be welcomed by the D base at all.

My main point going back is that so far, given the crop of GOP contenders, a surprise GOP Powell candidacy may be the only thing to get me to look at the Republican party s riously in 2016.

I agree it's highly unlike, ergo it doesn't seem likely at this point tha the Republican Primaries will produce a candidate that I will seriously consider.

Just seems silly to say 'Unless a D wins the R nomination, I won't vote for the R nominee. I can't undersand why folks think it is unreasonable to want a D to win it"

I mean, no gak. You clearly will vote for the most liberal candidate. Just as I will clearly vote for the most conservative. But you don't see me whining that the Ds won't nominate a conservative R.

Again, Powell is a self-described Republican. Whether his endorsement of Obama would, in reality, serve as a disqualifying factor in a Republican Primary is up to Republican Primay voters.

But he's not a Democrat. This is a "no true Scotsman" argument your putting forward, and verges on disrespectful since Powell has made it clear that he is a Republican. He may not meet your definition of Republican, but in reality , he is a Republican .

 CptJake wrote:

Look at the way the Ds treated Lieberman... It sure as hell is not new nor unique to the Rs.

I never implied that it was. Though the modern "good vs. evil" dichotomy of American politics definitely has its roots in Republican strategies that were employed during the 70's. Of course both sides do it now, but it is definitely far more pervasive within the GOP due to their nominal focus on moralizing. Not that Democrats don't moralize, it simply isn't as big a part of their general campaign strategy.

But he's not a Democrat. This is a "no true Scotsman" argument your putting forward, and verges on disrespectful since Powell has made it clear that he is a Republican. He may not meet your definition of Republican, but in reality , he is a Republican .

Hey if you want to believe that fine by me.

Yes, when it comes to political affiliations, I take people at their word unless I have some reason to believe they are lying. I don't have any reason to believe Colin Powell is lying about his political affiliation.

 jasper76 wrote:
Yes, when it comes to political affiliations, I take people at their word unless I have some reason to believe they are lying. I don't have any reason to believe Colin Powell is lying about his political affiliation.

Believe nothing. Trust no one.