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.

You're right it is odd.

I'm a native Texan. Everyone else in the Northern Hemisphere should refer to themselves as native Greater Texans.

I mean we were gracious enough to let the other states join with us in 1845. Canada well, just wait a bit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Warren bugs me as she's very lefty in the speaching. It bugs me that often I agree, I just can't see how a committed leftist can run a nation (well, not run it into the ground). More importantly, she hasn't actually run anything so we'd be gett another amateur learning on the job. Enough with those.

Time for seasoned management.

Bring back Zombie Nixon!

 whembly wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Isn't Elizabeth Warren the one who claimed she was native american to get tenure but turns out she's whiter than whiteout?

That's the one...

She's also even more liberal and populist than Obama.

She is whatever a leftist version of a Tea Party politician would be (Chai Latte Party?) and she will do just as much damage as the conservatives are doing.

 Frazzled wrote:

Warren bugs me as she's very lefty in the speaching. It bugs me that often I agree, I just can't see how a committed leftist can run a nation (well, not run it into the ground). More importantly, she hasn't actually run anything so we'd be gett another amateur learning on the job. Enough with those.

Time for seasoned management.

Bring back Zombie Nixon!

I suspect you agree with the fact some of the problems she identifies do indeed exist. I suspect her solution set consists of More Federal Government with More Power funded by taxing an increasingly broad definition of The Rich. I bet your solution set is different.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Isn't Elizabeth Warren the one who claimed she was native american to get tenure but turns out she's whiter than whiteout?

That's the one...

She's also even more liberal and populist than Obama.

She is whatever a leftist version of a Tea Party politician would be (Chai Latte Party?) and she will do just as much damage as the conservatives are doing.

A contest between Warren and Paul would be very humorous, until we got stuck with the winner.

Well, no candidate is perfect, but I definitely agree with Warren on at least some issues. I like her, but would not consider her electable.

I think calling her the left-wing Rand Paul is probably pretty spot-on.

Come on, she specialized in bankruptcy law, the states may need such legal advice soon if it doesn't get it's spending under control

A contest between Warren and Paul would be very humorous, until we got stuck with the winner.

Agreed. I'd note Rand Paul is more LIbertarian than conservative though.

However he hasn't run anything either.

Paul's PAC put this out:

https://soundcloud.com/rand-paul/phone-call

Reminds me of something you would expect on an old Jerky Boys cassette (damn, did that Old Guy just use 'cassette'?)

 CptJake wrote:
Paul's PAC put this out:

https://soundcloud.com/rand-paul/phone-call

Reminds me of something you would expect on an old Jerky Boys cassette (damn, did that Old Guy just use 'cassette'?)

Eh....8 track you say?

45's baby.

 whembly wrote:
She's also even more liberal and populist than Obama.

That's because Obama isn't nearly as liberal as his opponents have made him out to be.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 whembly wrote:
She's also even more liberal and populist than Obama.

That's because Obama isn't nearly as liberal as his opponents have made him out to be.

But the NRA and FOX told me he was a terrible liberal of the worst sort so it must be true!

 Ahtman wrote:

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 whembly wrote:
She's also even more liberal and populist than Obama.

That's because Obama isn't nearly as liberal as his opponents have made him out to be.

But the NRA and FOX told me he was a terrible liberal of the worst sort so it must be true!

He doesn't even think guns are people.

 Frazzled wrote:
More importantly, she hasn't actually run anything so we'd be gett another amateur learning on the job. Enough with those.

Every first-term President is an amateur, not even governor is a comparable position.

 Chongara wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 whembly wrote:
She's also even more liberal and populist than Obama.

That's because Obama isn't nearly as liberal as his opponents have made him out to be.

But the NRA and FOX told me he was a terrible liberal of the worst sort so it must be true!

He doesn't even think guns are people.

The old thread was derailed with random "hahaha I don't like Obama" posts, we don't need to derail this one with random "hahaha people don't like Obama" posts. Some people might think he is histories greatest monster and some people might think that those people are the world's greatest idiots, but can we try to keep this thread at least somewhat factual and free of random swipes at people?

 dogma wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
More importantly, she hasn't actually run anything so we'd be gett another amateur learning on the job. Enough with those.

Every first-term President is an amateur, not even governor is a comparable position.

Somewhat.... I think that being a Governor can give a potential president a greater insight into herding cats. Sure, there's a learning curve... the Pres. has to be read on to all the secrets in Area-51 and all that, but that is, in part why the President has a cabinet of advisers (in theory)

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

Somewhat.... I think that being a Governor can give a potential president a greater insight into herding cats. Sure, there's a learning curve... the Pres. has to be read on to all the secrets in Area-51 and all that, but that is, in part why the President has a cabinet of advisers (in theory)

The President doesn't really herd cats, that's a task primarily left to Congressional leaders. Governor's don't really herd cats either, but they also don't undergo anywhere near as much scrutiny as the President does, or have to think about defense and foreign policy. That's a large part of why they usually only make national news when they deliberately try to, often when making a bid for President, or when they pull a Blago.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 whembly wrote:
She's also even more liberal and populist than Obama.

That's because Obama isn't nearly as liberal as his opponents have made him out to be.

Wazzat again?
http://voteview.com/Clinton_and_Obama.htm



Well into liberal land yo.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 dogma wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
More importantly, she hasn't actually run anything so we'd be gett another amateur learning on the job. Enough with those.

Every first-term President is an amateur, not even governor is a comparable position.

Somewhat.... I think that being a Governor can give a potential president a greater insight into herding cats. Sure, there's a learning curve... the Pres. has to be read on to all the secrets in Area-51 and all that, but that is, in part why the President has a cabinet of advisers (in theory)

There are a lot of things Presidents do and are responsible for that Governors don't even come close to. Simply put, there is a reason why nearly every President looks about 15 years older after only 8 years in office. I've often found this particular scene to sum up just that sort of thing:

 whembly wrote:

Well into liberal land yo.

Voting in a partisan manner does not necessarily indicate that the two Parties are far apart on an ideological level, which is a significant problem with DW-NOMINATE based analysis despite its efforts to control for that sort of variation.

On the Dems I want to see:
Hilary
Warren
Biden

For Repubs I want to see:
Jeb
Rubio
Walker
Jindal
Rand

Should be fun!

 Easy E wrote:
Rubio

Speaking of Mrs. Warren's family history, isn't Rubio the guy who claimed his parents had to flee after Castro rose to power, and then it turned out that they had actually left Cuba 3 years before and he made the whole thing up for votes?

Yep, that's him http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/marco-rubios-compelling-family-story-embellishes-facts-documents-show/2011/10/20/gIQAaVHD1L_story.html

 whembly wrote:

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 whembly wrote:
She's also even more liberal and populist than Obama.

That's because Obama isn't nearly as liberal as his opponents have made him out to be.

Wazzat again?
http://voteview.com/Clinton_and_Obama.htm

Spoiler:

Well into liberal land yo.

I'm sorry, your saying that Obama is really liberal, but less liberal than Clinton?

I think that problem here is scale. The Rs have gotten progressively more and more reactionary, tilting the scale. He, and the rest of the Ds, seems really liberal, but Reagan is liberal compared the current crop of Rs. You see more actual liberals and radicals in state and local politics, not many of them get into national politics, because you need money to do that.

Anyone know if Bernie Sanders is still planning to run ?

Part of me would like to see Biden run, but i'm not sure he can win in this climate. Being the leftie I am, i highly enjoyed his debate with Ryan before the last election. Unfortunately i think he's a little too frank for some people, despite how refreshing i find it.

That scale that shows relative liberalism vs conservatism in presidents - I think that scale was pretty damn fascinating, actually, if accurate. It shows that President Obama is actually the least liberal president in 70 years, and that democratic presidents are in general increasingly less liberal, but that Republican presidents have gotten more and more conservative.

Of course, I think the scale is probably nonsense, because as Cotor already pointed out, it shows Reagan towards the upper end of conservatism: a president who expanded the scope of government, signed legislation dramatically increasing the EITC, gave amnesty to illegal immigrants, increased taxes 11 times in 8 years, more than doubled the deficit, virtually eliminated the sale of select-fire weapons, and so on - so, I would question any methodology that shows Reagan as conservative as this.

Province once again that Governor Christie's biggest enemy remains Governor Christie, he flirted with the anti-vaxxers (again) today.

 Ouze wrote:
Province once again that Governor Christie's biggest enemy remains Governor Christie, he flirted with the anti-vaxxers (again) today.

Eh... he's playing to both sides.

*shrugs*

He ain't going to win the nomination.

He might be the VP choice though.

 Ouze wrote:
Province once again that Governor Christie's biggest enemy remains Governor Christie, he flirted with the anti-vaxxers (again) today.

Any good opinion I had of that man has now disappeared in a puff off bad science and idiocy. What a dropkick, him and that whole movement.

 motyak wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
Province once again that Governor Christie's biggest enemy remains Governor Christie, he flirted with the anti-vaxxers (again) today.

Any good opinion I had of that man has now disappeared in a puff off bad science and idiocy. What a dropkick, him and that whole movement.

The posted some more, ahem, clarifications:
Update, 11:20 am. Christie has issued a statement clarifying his comments -- and the full context of his statement. "To be clear: The Governor believes vaccines are an important public health protection and with a disease like measles there is no question kids should be vaccinated," said Christie spokeswoman Lauren Fritts. "At the same time different states require different degrees of vaccination, which is why he was calling for balance in which ones government should mandate."



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Anyone feel likes vacaccines are the media's new "Birth Control Pills" question for the GOP? It's being injected as an out-of-nowhere wedge issue question into the debate just because it hurts the GOP.

Almost all GOP politicians are pro-vaccination, of course -- but a distressing number of GOP voters are against it, making this a politically difficult question.

So a distressing number of GOP voters are stupid idiots?*

Strong words whembly.

*much better to just stick with "a distressing number of voters"