Hillary versus Biden

I am conflicted. I like Biden better than I like Hillary. Biden is like your odd, but lovable, uncle, like Uncle Billy on “It’s a Wonderful Life.” Hillary is nasty and arrogant, like the stepmother in “Cinderella. But Hillary is more likely to bring in moderate advisers. Biden will be beholden to the Obama wing of the party. History does not repeat, but do we want something more like the Clinton years, which were mostly okay, or more like the Obama years, which were clearly not as good.

Of course, it would be better in general to have a Republican win, so the other consideration is which is the weaker candidate - Biden or Hillary?

Biden is a poor campaigner, but so is Hillary. Both would have a well-functioning machine behind them, which would mitigate the weakness. Hillary doesn't talk enough and when she does she is carefully scripted and arrogant. Biden talks too much, doesn't stick the scripts and seems approachable.

So, I don't think it would be good to have either as president, but - surprising even to myself - I think I would prefer Hillary to Biden. When she "ran" the State Department, she did not do very much besides travel and try to take credit for things. This is not a good thing for a president, but she would probably appoint lots of Clinton era folks and not bother them too much, so that is better. Biden is also not an energetic leader, but his bench would be from the Obama wing. Bad as the Clinton wing might be, they Obama wing is worse. So advantage Hillary.

Let's make sure neither gets in.

Posted by Christine & John at September 4, 2015 12:49 PM
Comments
Comment #398195

Hillary. No question.
Biden is a good man with a strong track record and a great deal of experience legislating. Obama has used him as the point of contact with Congress, and to head negotiations. He really is a likable guy, an old fashioned pol who likes to give hugs and pats on the back. An acquaintance of the family who regularly came into contact with Senators and the VP described him as very nice, and ‘touchy.’ But Biden is a lunchbox kind of guy. He stands for the little guy and his power base is with the unions. I am not a lunchbox guy. I am not terribly fond of unions beyond their ability to drive wages higher.

Hillary is also a good woman with a strong track record and a great deal of experience in government. People who come into contact with her generally same nice things about her. I do know one detail about her through a person involved in security years ago. She wrote an autobiography and talked about how mad she was at her husband after the Lewinsky affair, and made him sleep on the couch. That detail is true. She was pissed. Hard to believe she was that deep in denial, but she was. But when it comes to that kind of personal and emotional stuff, I am generally willing to give people a pass. Who can say they have never behaved foolishly because of love and lust and jealousy and anger?

Although Biden and Hillary are very similar in their politics, I think Hillary is more of a social liberal, and for me, that is the deciding factor. She is more hawkish on foreign policy, and for me, that weighs against her.

She’ll be a solid president, and we won’t have to worry about her saying foolish things about tearing up agreements on day one, comparing Obamacare to slavery, and other silly things that are daily fare for the GOP candidates.

Btw, I think Trump made a mistake signing that pledge not to run a third party campaign. The GOP establishment and the Koch Brothers will never accept Trump.

Posted by: phx8 at September 4, 2015 3:02 PM
Comment #398199

None of the above for me. The Democratic Party has several current and former governors with executive experience who would do much better as President than either Clinton or Biden. Any of O’Malley, Cuomo, Patrick and Brown would all do quite well.

Posted by: Warren Porter at September 4, 2015 8:13 PM
Comment #398200

phx8

I would also prefer Clinton for the reasons I mentioned above. She will be too busy being queen to do too much damage. However, it would be better if neither Biden nor Clinton wins.

Re Trump - I am not a Trump supporter and never have been. I don’t think he will get nominated.

Posted by: C&J at September 4, 2015 10:49 PM
Comment #398201

John,

Are you still a Walker supporter or have any other candidates (such as Kasich) impressed you. I was honestly quite afraid of Walker until I started watching him speak and found him to be dull/boring. Kasich knows how to impress me.

Posted by: Warren Porter at September 5, 2015 7:04 AM
Comment #398204

“I am conflicted. I like Biden better than I like Hillary.”

Seriously, Jack you wouldn’t vote for either of them so what exactly is the point.

I recently heard that a box of rocks was about to announce for the Republican nomination. I hope it brings a more intelligent angle to the debate.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at September 5, 2015 1:48 PM
Comment #398205

Trump winning the nomination seems impossible, yet Trump leading in the polls is equally bizarre, so who knows?

Walker turned out to be a terrible candidate. Jeb :-0 too. Kasich seems like the only viable one out there. Originally I picked Cruz, and I will stick with that prediction. I figured this year would be the one where the GOP rejected the establishment/business/corporate wing, but I thought Cruz would reap the benefits. He will say anything- anything at all. But so will Trump, and Trump says it more pompously.

Posted by: phx8 at September 5, 2015 2:08 PM
Comment #398206

Phx8, I originally dismissed Marco Rubio, but he’s a good speaker and knows how avoid saying stupid, offensive shit. He’s going to do very well when all is said and done.

Posted by: Warren Porter at September 5, 2015 4:16 PM
Comment #398207

WP,
Rubio seems to be doing better after a shaky start. It is what he did prior to the campaign that hurts him. As the leader of the bipartisan Senate bill for immigration reform, he guided it through the Senate, but utterly failed with his fellow Republicans in the House, and ended up repudiating his own reform legislation. The consequences of his failure in leadership have been severe. He reversed his stand on Global Warming to please the base, and took a silly stand on Cuba to please some dinosaurs in Miami.

He’s young and he’s improving. This will be good practice for a better campaign in 2020.

Posted by: phx8 at September 5, 2015 4:58 PM
Comment #398208

phx8,

Yeah, but does the public really know enough to even care about that? Yes, he threw red meat to placate a few key GOP constituencies, but his instincts are good. We’ll have to see what happens when the Trump balloon pops. I honestly have no idea who will benefit. Cruz would get all the crazies (I bet you Carson’s bubble will burst before Trumps does), but will that be enough to win? The problem is with Jeb Bush and Scott Walker. They are acceptable to the establishment and have lots of money, but they have been completely flat-footed when interacting with voters. They are also sinking ships, but if they can keep the dollar bills flowing long enough, they might capture some of Trumps former supporters, which would be bad news for Kasich and Rubio.

It’s too bad, these guys have been quiet and hardworking the entire time. Yes, Rubio showed a bit of cowardice by caving to the special interest groups, but I don’t think that will be too much of a problem in the GOP primary. In any case, it will be exciting to see where we end up next year.

One more thought about Rubio, assuming he doesn’t capture the Presidency next year:
He isn’t running for reelection in the Senate in 2016, so he’ll be out of a job in 2017, but he would be a contender for the 2018 Florida Gubernatorial election which would give him the executive experience he needs. If he governs Florida well, he would be a shoe-in for President in 2024 or so.

Posted by: Warren Porter at September 5, 2015 6:03 PM
Comment #398209

Thanks for all the laughs fellows. Anyone trying to predict political outcomes this early in the game is just having fun.

Posted by: Royal Flush at September 5, 2015 6:27 PM
Comment #398210

No one on WB seems to like either Trump or Carson…the voters being polled seem to disagree.

But then, as I said, it is way too early to seriously prognosticate except for the laughs.

Posted by: Royal Flush at September 5, 2015 6:30 PM
Comment #398212
Anyone trying to predict political outcomes this early in the game is just having fun.

Of course. But boy is it fun.

No one on WB seems to like either Trump or Carson…the voters being polled seem to disagree.

We’ll wait and see and perhaps I’ll end up with egg on my face.

Posted by: Warren Porter at September 5, 2015 7:16 PM
Comment #398213

Rocky

No, I would not vote for either. But that doesn’t mean I would not have a preference if I did not get my first choice.

If Trump is the Republican nominee, I might have a problem. I supported Hillary’s husband, but Hillary is no Bill Clinton.

Posted by: C&J at September 5, 2015 8:59 PM
Comment #398214

Warren

I have a problem with Walker now, since he fell into that Trump immigration trap. Kasich seems a good candidate.

The one that seems really good is Carly Fiorina. I am not sure how well business experience transfers to politics, however. But better than Biden or Hillary.

Posted by: C&J at September 5, 2015 9:03 PM
Comment #398215

phx8

Rubio is very attractive but he is inexperienced. We may be beguiled by his Hispanic heritage. He is a lot like Obama and that argues against him. He may be better in a couple of years.

Posted by: C&J at September 5, 2015 9:05 PM
Comment #398216

Royal

I like Carson. I just fear that he has no experience. Politics seems easy and maybe the politics part is easy. Governing is harder.

Trump I don’t like.

Posted by: C&J at September 5, 2015 9:08 PM
Comment #398217

Trump exemplifies the tea party faction of the GOP. He also appeals to the political newcomers. The lower middle class guy that really doesn’t have a clue so he follows along based upon the propaganda he hears on Fox and at work. Trump appeals to those who have low wage jobs and/or perhaps a short stint in the correctional system, those that think the answer to their economic woes is to run the Mexicans out of the country. For them that is real as they see their construction jobs filled by Mexicans for lower wages. Trump appeals to those that think they are paying taxes and supporting the blacks on welfare, while collecting food stamps and living in low income housing.

These guys are in their mid 30’s and just coming into some type of political awareness. They can and will vote. But they won’t vote for Fiorina, Carson, Cruz or most of the rest of the repubs currently running. If the repubs want the office of president they had better start marching to the Trumpster’s tune. Myself I am not a Clinton fan so Trump would get my vote unless Bernie wins the nomination, just because I want to call his bluff, in the next election. What better way to get these issues Trump harps on resolved than to confront them head on?

Posted by: j2t2 at September 5, 2015 9:43 PM
Comment #398218

j2ts,
Vote for Trump for president? Don’t even joke about that! It will never happen, but just contemplating it is disturbing- a carnival barker appealing to the worst in Americans, with absolutely no idea of how to implement his preposterous notions.

Never mind how! It will be great! It will be the best ever, I’m telling you! Believe me, everything will be so great, just wait and see, because I’m so smart- Did I mention I went to Wharton?- and if there is a problem at the border, I will just build a higher wall. Because right now the wall is too low, and the Mexicans are sending their murderers and rapists and some, I assume, good people, but the leaders of the Mexicans and Chinese and Japanese and the Iranians are smart and our leaders are so stupid, so stupid. But not me! Let’s make America great again! Whenever that time was… When? When? Doesnt’t matter! (Grabs the empty chair next to Clint Eastwood and smashes it over the back of an unsuspecting Jeb Bush).

C&J,
Carly Fiorina laid off 30,000 people I understand that a CEO might need to lay people off- but to take bonuses after doing so? And let’s not forget why those employees were laid off. She pushed an ill-advised merger with Compaq. As a result, the stock price lost 50% of its value, underperforming the S&P (-26%) and significantly underperforming IBM and Dell at that time. When she was fired the stock price increased in value 7% in just one day- that is, by $3 billion dollars.

Or as Trump said: ““Look, you have a woman who got fired from her job. And I mean fired viciously. She got fired viciously. She then went out and lost in a landslide when she ran in California for the Senate. And I mean, she lost in a landslide. She got clobbered. And now she’s running for president. Now, I’m all for it. I think she’s a very nice woman. But she got fired. And, she lost in a landslide. Does that qualify you to run for president?”

Posted by: phx8 at September 5, 2015 11:43 PM
Comment #398220

C&J, the main problem with Hillary is the problem we now have with a Republican Congress and Obama. The Republican leadership does not know how to say “NO” to Obama and thus cave and give him everything he wants; out for fear. The same thing would hold true for Clinton, the first woman president. The next president will no doubt have to appoint SC justices; could you honestly see McConnell or Boehner blocking the most left justices appointed by Clinton? I cannot. This is why Trump and Carson and even Fiorina are in the lead on the Republican side. The conservative voters see a spineless Republican leadership and presidential candidate field.

Royal, the left and moderates on WB do not like Trump, Carson, or Fiorina because their message is conservative. Like the MSM, blog sites are dominated by liberals or RINO’s.

Posted by: Blaine at September 6, 2015 9:27 AM
Comment #398221

Phx8 Trumps appeal is his honesty and when a politician is honest, a rare thing these days, they get attention. If Trump remains true and honest he has a good chance of gaining the nomination, as unbelievable as this may seem, as the evangelicals get on board the Donald’s train. He is picking up steam and once Carson and Fiorina are dismissed by the money men it will be the fascist wing of the repubs versus the Trumpets. Jeb has crashed and burned, Cruz is a pathological liar, Perry….well nuff said.

It is Trumps time, we need him, a rich businessman who can run the country the way it should be, like a corporation not a charity. Hell once we get through bankruptcy we will be stronger won’t we? With the Mexicans gone and the blacks in their place, the board of directors (that used to be “we the people”) can focus our hatred on Iran and get things moving. Think Kansas on a national scale when it comes to the economy, what with the low taxes and lower wages. Yep we can be great again and with the conservative movement behind Trump, the dems unable to field a candidate they even like, it is his time.


Posted by: j2t2 at September 6, 2015 9:50 AM
Comment #398222

Look at it this way phx8, if you replace “Hillary” with “Fiorina” and “Biden” with “Carson” in C&J’s post, as they are interchangeable (except Fiorina and Carson have no experience what so ever) the rise of Trump as the leading conservative candidate seems to be a shoo in.

If you look at conservative comments the lack of political experience is a positive to them. Trump has the money where as Carson and Fiorina don’t. If conservatives want this election to be their election they have no choice but Trump as the money men won’t pay the freight on any of the other candidates. Time to get on board the Trumpster as the movement leaders realize he is their man.

Posted by: j2t2 at September 6, 2015 10:03 AM
Comment #398223

“Trumps appeal is his honesty and when a politician is honest, a rare thing these days, they get attention.”

Trump isn’t any more honest than any other guy. He is just saying things he thinks people want to hear. He’s appealing to their basest fears. He’s the used car salesman trying to sell you that Chevy Vega at 2:30 in the morning.
“We’ve got a herd of Winnebagos, we’re giving them away.”

Trump will say anything just to see if people will listen. He’s no more going to fulfill his promises than we’re going to land a man on Pluto.

“…the left and moderates on WB do not like Trump, Carson, or Fiorina because their message is conservative. Like the MSM, blog sites are dominated by liberals or RINO’s.”

Funniest thing I’ve read this year.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at September 6, 2015 10:09 AM
Comment #398224

j2t2
“…it will be the fascist wing of the repubs versus the Trumpets. Jeb has crashed and burned, Cruz is a pathological liar, Perry….well nuff said.”

Trump has the money and he can claim no one owns him, which might be his most attractive asset. Unfortunately, his political philosophy, if he can be said to have one, is bizarre.

Jeb never had a chance. It was delusional from the word ‘go.’ His brother ruined the Bush as well as the conservative & Republican brand, and no one on the right can figure out how to right the ship. A gaggle of weak candidates seem unable to find a message that appeals to anyone outside the party fringes. Conservatism has moved to the right of Mussolini. It’s not a good situation.

Nevertheless, Jeb :-( has a lot of money, and it will take a long time for that campaign to die.

Cruz is a pathological liar. That about sums it up. I still think that kind of barking mad, howling at the moon appeal will carry Cruz a long way. Conservative leaders have been teasing the crazies by waving red meat in front of them for years, whether it is hatred of illegal immigrants, Mexicans, Planned Parenthood, blacks, Muslims, Iranians, bimbos, or whatever. Now Trump has given the crazies some red meat by coming right out and saying out loud what they think, and then refusing to apologize. Is it any surprise the crazies are roaring for more?

Rocky,
Is Trump honest? I don’t think so either. I think it is largely an act put on by a guy who is used to performing on camera. He reverts to word tracks- a kind of stump speech- that seems spontaneous because Trump knows how to deliver lines forcefully and with bombast. That is not the same as honesty. I don’t think Trump believes half the things he says, nor does he care. Trump is an entertainer and Trump is a businessman. He will say what he needs to say to get the deal done. He is not an ideologue, except in the sense that he appeals to the basest fears.

“…the left and moderates on WB do not like Trump, Carson, or Fiorina because their message is conservative. Like the MSM, blog sites are dominated by liberals or RINO’s.”

I don’t think Trump is liberal or conservative, unless conservative means appealing to base fears by pushing Birtherism, huge walls on the southern border, and so on.

Carson is incoherent. Apparently Republican voters like him because he seems like a nice guy and he is a skilled neurosurgeon. But you know what? My dog is really nice too and he has crazy canine skills. That does not make him a good candidate for president.

Or maybe it does? Conservatives have gone so far off the charts, it’s hard to know anymore.

Fiorina has a history of being more moderate than GOP voters realize. She is dishonest. She says what she thinks the crazies want to hear. FOX has been pumping her candidacy, mainly as a female vehicle for attacking Hillary, much the same way Carson is used to attack Obama.

Posted by: phx8 at September 6, 2015 12:10 PM
Comment #398225

phx8,

The main issue for our illustrious right wing candidates that they know no boundaries as to what they say, and they don’t seem to care.
Trump doesn’t have a circumspect bone in his body, and the rest seem willing to say anything that will take the attention away from Trump.

It’s interesting, those on the left are talking issues, and those on the right are talking crap about each other.

Whoever survives the carnage of this dumpster fire will walk away weaker than when they walked in.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at September 6, 2015 1:28 PM
Comment #398226

Rocky,
The right is running into three problems with issues:
First, they spent all those years opposing everything Obama did. Instead of being an opposition that worked with him, but proposed alternatives to improve what was being put into effect, they simply opposed everything. They were the party of ‘no.’ Now that it is time to stand for something, too often they are just against things.

Second, the results of the Bush administration destroyed traditional conservative stands on issues. Their Neocon foreign policy resulted in the disaster of Iraq. Their tax cuts cratered the budget. Their deregulation resulted in the credit crunch and the near destruction of the economy. So much for foreign policy and the economy. They have been lost ever since, and reduced, once again, to simply being against everything or just plain denying it is even happening.

Third, the stands they take on their remaining issues are guaranteed disasters at the polls. Illegal immigration and immigration reform? They routinely saw horrible things about Hispanics. Social justice for blacks? They denounce Black Lives Matter. Gay marriage? They just keep getting worse. Preventing the perception of a War on Women? Forget that! They want to defund Planned Parenthood, and it is now acceptable to refer to professional women such as Megyn Kelly as ‘bimbos’.

Instead of inclusion and expanding their appeal, the right seems absolutely committed to alienating large blocs of voters in the name of ideological purity.

“Whoever survives the carnage of this dumpster fire will walk away weaker than when they walked in.”

Yup. Well said.

Posted by: phx8 at September 6, 2015 3:42 PM
Comment #398227


Trump is not a conservative, he is a “populist” in the truest sense of the word. In other words he plays on the hopes and fears of those who follow him.

The teapartiers have been doing this for years.

I read about this exercise on another blog;

Ask a conservative friend to close their eyes and then ask them to picture someone when you say the words “personal responsibility”.

Then ask them who’s in the picture.

On another note, apparently someone asked Scott Walker about the possibility of a wall on our Northern Border as well, and to paraphrase Charles Pierce at Esquire, “There were village idiots thinking seriously about taking up astrophysics when they heard his answer”…

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at September 6, 2015 4:28 PM
Comment #398228

Rocky,
“Then ask them who’s in the picture.”

I’m guessing they will picture someone else, and not themselves.

Walker has turned out to be a weak candidate. He is too slow on his feet. The Koch Brothers and the Club for Growth bought him because he was pliable, but it turns out the reason he was pliable is that he wasn’t very smart in the first place, so he was more than willing to say what he was told to say. No amount of money can conceal that from a national audience. He tries not to engage anyone on anything, and when he commits a gaffe, he immediately reverses it. In almost any given week he’ll come up with three different stands on the same issue.

Rubio will be back in 2020, and with more experience he could be formidable. We won’t be seeing Walker again.

Notice how no one will criticize Kasich? He’s a lock for VP.

Posted by: phx8 at September 6, 2015 5:40 PM
Comment #398229

phx8,

“I’m guessing they will picture someone else, and not themselves.”

It won’t be an “other” either.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at September 6, 2015 6:14 PM
Comment #398232
Trump has the money and he can claim no one owns him, which might be his most attractive asset. Unfortunately, his political philosophy, if he can be said to have one, is bizarre.

His philosophy! I am surprised he has one I thought he responded to the will of the people. He seems to be able to understand the conservatives and offers solutions to their problems. If you compare Trump to the rest of the sweet 16 he is the only one that acknowledges the issues important to the people of this country. I mean look at the way Huckabee runs to the Kentucky clerks side while Trump tells her to do her job. That appeals to many “conservatives by default”, just not the evangelicals. He leads in the polls because he deserves to lead in the polls. That sorry bunch he is competing with for the repub nomination are all controlled by those set on buying our government and cannot tell the people they want to vote for them the truth. Trump can and does, he is the GOP’s only hope if they want to win this election.

Is Trump honest? I don’t think so either. I think it is largely an act put on by a guy who is used to performing on camera.

He is honest in the way many conservatives define the word today. He is not politically correct which is what serves for honesty with the people I mentioned earlier. That is what is important, these people believe the reason wages are low is due to illegals so a big fence makes sense. The other candidates just don’t like the Mexicans and blacks because they vote against the repubs. Trump doesn’t like them because they keep wages low, that is the difference.

Posted by: j2t2 at September 7, 2015 3:42 PM
Comment #398233

wages low and taxes high. That is the difference.

Posted by: j2t2 at September 7, 2015 4:38 PM
Comment #398234

j2t2,

I think you are onto something. Trump’s appeal isn’t his fidelity to conservatism, it is his moderation that appeals to people. His rhetoric is crazy, but his actions are not. Watchblog’s conservatives (except for Jack) will be disappointed by a Trump administration.

Posted by: Warren Porter at September 7, 2015 6:30 PM
Comment #398235

Warren

Nobody would be more disappointed by a Trump administration than I would be.

I came into conservatism with Ronald Reagan. What I liked was the confident patriotism. He knew America was great. I liked the optimism. He knew Americans were great. I liked the openness and generosity. He knew Americans were good people. Reagan was not angry. Trump is no Ronald Reagan.

Reagan also said that you could accomplish anything as long as you didn’t mind NOT getting credit for it. Trump grabs credit for anything nearby.

Reagan could have strong values w/o being overtly insulting. Trump starts so many of his rants with something like “how stupid …” Reagan had wit and intelligence. Trump has anger and fear.

Posted by: C&J at September 7, 2015 7:05 PM
Comment #398236

Watchblog’s conservatives (except for Jack) will be disappointed by a Trump administration.
Posted by: Warren Porter at September 7, 2015 6:30 PM

Warren, I am willing to risk being disappointed by Trump as opposed to being nauseated by another RINO or Hillary.

How crazy does one have to be to believe that Carbon Dioxide is a pollutant? Lord help me, I exhale the stuff. Will my breath be taxed soon?

The joke was that Ted Kennedy wanted to tax our memories.

Sorry John…there is no Ronald Reagan on the horizon.

Posted by: Royal Flush at September 7, 2015 7:19 PM
Comment #398237

Dictionary definition of the scientific meaning of pollutant: “A substance or condition that contaminates air, water, or soil. Pollutants can be artificial substances, such as pesticides and PCBs, or naturally occurring substances, such as oil or carbon dioxide, that occur in harmful concentrations in a given environment.”

Posted by: phx8 at September 7, 2015 7:30 PM
Comment #398238

Well aren’t you something phx8. I never would have thought of that.

Take away CO2 and there goes all plant life. OH, wait, you know that.

Posted by: Royal Flush at September 7, 2015 7:40 PM
Comment #398239

“CO2 for different people has different attractions. After all, what is it? - it’s not a pollutant, it’s a product of every living creature’s breathing, it’s the product of all plant respiration, it is essential for plant life and photosynthesis, it’s a product of all industrial burning, it’s a product of driving – I mean, if you ever wanted a leverage point to control everything from exhalation to driving, this would be a dream. So it has a kind of fundamental attractiveness to bureaucratic mentality.” - Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Science, MIT

Posted by: Royal Flush at September 7, 2015 7:47 PM
Comment #398240

If you filled a room with CO2, what do you think would happen to you?

When it comes to Global Warming, CO2 is considered a pollutant in the sense that increases of it result in harmful concentrations. These concentrations are harmful because CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and it persists in the atmosphere for 80 years or more. There are many other greenhouse gases, including methane. Although methane is a much more powerful greenhouse gas, it only persists for about four years. The Lindzen quote plays upon the ignorance of Deniers. Many other greenhouse gases exist.

Another problem with introducing CO2 into the atmosphere is that much of it is absorbed into the oceans. Ever take care of a swimming pool? Ever test the PH? Well, burning fossil fuels introduces CO2 into the atmosphere, and it is absorbed by the oceans, resulting in a measureable change in the PH. It results in acidification, which in turn can prevent a chemical reaction that tiny sea creatures use to obtain calcium carbonate for their shells. Change the PH of the ocean enough and it WILL cause the ecosystem to collapse.

In addition, the oceans are measurably warming. And ice is melting, and the increase in sea level is also measureable.

Posted by: phx8 at September 7, 2015 8:19 PM
Comment #398241
Nobody would be more disappointed by a Trump administration than I would be.

I meant you already have such low expectations for Trump that he would not disappoint you.

How crazy does one have to be to believe that Carbon Dioxide is a pollutant

All “pollution” on Earth is the result of naturally occurring substances reacting with one another. The issue is that disruptions to the equilibrium that preceded civilization can and do have deleterious impacts on mankind. The #1 rule of toxicology: it is the dosage that makes the poison. 280 ppm of CO2 resulted in the stable climate to which nearly all organisms have adapted to. If we were to reach 600 ppm, the change in climate would be severe enough to wreak damage upon the global economy, but overall, human civilization would still be safe. If we reached 800 ppm, things would be catastrophic, but I seriously doubt we’d ever reach levels that high. And at 10,000 ppm, CO2 begins to be toxic without regard to its impact on climate.

Basic application of the laws of quantum mechanics can tell us the wavelengths at which any molecule absorbs and emits radiation. Applying those formulae to CO2 reveals that it absorbs the longwave infrared radiation emitted by the Earth’s surface and reemits that radiation at the same frequency. The emitted radiance can be observed directly. Note that observations of radiation confirm the greenhouse effect and contradict Dr. Lindzen’s Iris hypothesis. Lindzen is an intelligent man and the atmospheric science community is forever indebted to him for his pioneering work explaining the atmospheric dynamics of the tropics, but he is also an old crank who is too stubborn to admit he is wrong. And why should he when he receives laud after laud from conservatives for his bankrupt ideas?

Posted by: Warren Porter at September 7, 2015 8:59 PM
Comment #398242
I came into conservatism with Ronald Reagan.

Howe sad, unfortunately you and many millions of other Americans did the same. Reagan was the charismatic actor beholding to the monied class that got him elected. After all he simply had to read the script. To bad we didn’t know then what we know now about the conservative movement and who pulls the strings, perhaps we would still be a great country.


What I liked was the confident patriotism. He knew America was great. I liked the optimism. He knew Americans were great. I liked the openness and generosity. He knew Americans were good people.

We all did C&J, whats not to like when it comes to compliments about ourselves as a country. To bad he led the nation into an era of corruption, his was the most corrupt administration in modern history right?

Reagan was not angry. Trump is no Ronald Reagan.

Got that right, Trump lays it out “I am corrupt but I am honest about it” Reagan was underhanded as he was simply the puppet and his rich friends had their hands up his a** manipulating the actor. Trump is the real deal. We all know he will accept bribes but we also know the rest of the bunch will do the same. The difference is Trump will brag about it while the others will try to keep it secret. Us little guys appreciate that.

Posted by: j2t2 at September 7, 2015 10:06 PM
Comment #398243

“…but he is also an old crank who is too stubborn to admit he is wrong.”

Seems to be a lot of that going around these days.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at September 7, 2015 10:46 PM
Comment #398244

It’s been pointed out a number of places, but it really is interesting that Trump pays so little attention to traditional conservative orthodoxy. He has come out in favor of tax hikes for the rich, especially hedge fund managers with their carry forward interest deals, and he has said favorable things about universal health care. Republican voters seem to be fine with this. Of course, it is hard to tell if Trump means any of it. He also came out in favor of repealing Obamacare and replacing it with… something.

But like I said, that’s the thing about Trump. He is not an ideologue. HIs campaign is nearly free of content. It is all about feelings and resentments. ‘They’ took something away. ‘They’ got something for nothing. ‘They are taking advantage. Now ‘We’ are not going to take it anymore! ‘We’ are going to take the country back to when it was great. Whenever that was. No one knows. We’ll get back to you on that.

Or, as Rocky put it:

“Trump is not a conservative, he is a “populist” in the truest sense of the word. In other words he plays on the hopes and fears of those who follow him.”

I still find it very difficult to believe anyone would actually vote for Trump or Carson or Fiorina. The only GOP candidate who worries me is Kasich. He’s not invulnerable by any means. But he’s pretty darn good.

Posted by: phx8 at September 7, 2015 11:06 PM
Comment #398249

LOL!

The left is running a self avowed socialist and a chick mired in wrongdoing and scandal. Things are getting so bad that now they are floating the idea of running an Obama lackey who will give us four more years of Obama policies.
But the problem is a moderate Democrat running as a Republican, and Conservative candidates who haven’t moved far enough left to please leftists?

LOL!
You guys are a hoot.

I agree C&J, I’d take Hillary over Biden any day.

Posted by: kctim at September 8, 2015 9:48 AM
Comment #398250

“If you filled a room with CO2, what do you think would happen to you?”

If you filled a room with oxygen, water, or politicians what do you think would happen to you?

Posted by: Royal Flush at September 8, 2015 2:02 PM
Comment #398252

j2t2

What we know about Reagan now that we didn’t really know then was how he had developed many of his ideas while traveling the U.S. and talking to Americans. His ideas were not unique, but he came about them honestly and thought them through. That was one of the factors that made him so successful. He believed in America and the America he believed in was the one where citizens take initiative.

We must also consider the power of inspiration and the strength of a catalyst. A great leader does not direct; he inspires. The ideas of his followers mix and expand. The sum becomes greater than the parts and greater than the leader’s vision. Much of what is attributed to the leader may not be original to him. Ironically, that is the mark of a real leader. He can “lead” people where he himself has not or cannot go.

Re corruption - the Reagan Administration was mostly free from corruption. Many of the scandals, including Iran-Contra, were more about trying to criminalize political disagreements. There was lots of artificially created smoke, but not much fire.

Re Trump and bribes in general. Few leaders on the national stage are seeking bribes. Most have more money than they really care about. The more dangerous are those seeking power. You could not bribe Hitler or Stalin. They were mostly uninterested in money once they had the power they wanted.

The Trump situation is a good illustration of a similar point. Trump is immune to bribes, but most other politicians are too. He brags that he does not need the support or rich individuals. That is perhaps true, but maybe not a plus. An ordinary politician may depend on 1000 rich and/or powerful people. What does that mean. It means that those 1000 people have more influence than we think they should. Consider Trump. Now we have ONE man making the decisions. Is that likely to be better? It is better to have a leader who has some dependencies than one who can just do as he pleases.

Posted by: C&J at September 8, 2015 3:34 PM
Comment #398253

j2t2

Finishing the “independent leader” thought, consider the Magna Carta. What did that do? It make the powerful individual (King John) more beholden to the nobles, a larger group of rich and powerful guys. We rightly consider that a step forward.

Posted by: C&J at September 8, 2015 3:36 PM
Comment #398254

TRUMP: “The politicians are going to destroy this country. They’re weak and they’re ineffective and they’re controlled by the lobbyists and special interests…They will do whatever I want … I’ve had lobbyists and I’ve had some very good ones. They could do anything. They could take a politician and have them jump off this ledge. “

COOPER: “Can you actually change that culture of corruption?”

TRUMP: “Well, you can in the sense that the top person can’t be bought [indicating himself] … but these lobbyists totally control these politicians … I see Bush [Jeb] with the lobbyists … they’re totally telling him what to do, like a little puppet. And the same with Hillary and everybody else. Now, when I’m in business, I’m part of that game … these guys are desperate for money. I don’t need it.”
CNN Interview with Anderson Cooper, 7/22/15

TRUMP: “When I called them they always treated me well. And that’s part of the game. And that’s part of what’s wrong with this country. Because as a businessman I could have gotten anything from anybody. And that is part of the problem. Lobbyists, donors, special interests … I have given millions … They won’t necessarily do what’s right for the country. They’ll do what’s right for their special interests, their donors, their lobbyists, et cetera. Not what’s good for the country.”

COOPER: “So, you weren’t giving money based on political beliefs, but you are giving money based on currying favor like in many people do.”

TRUMP: “People [politicians] love me. And you know what, I have been very successful. Everybody loves me.”

Trump is quite clear about this. Politicians are NOT “immune to bribes.” In exchange for funds they grant favors- the old quid pro quo. To equate someone who does not accept bribes as a potential Stalin or Hitler is a bit disingenuous. A person like Trump is not like King John, because he is responsible to votes, as opposed to a ruling nobility or plutocracy.

This is Trump’s most resonant point. The traditional conservative messages no longer resonate with voters. They don’t care about tax cuts for corporations or the richest of the rich, nor do they want to reduce, destroy, or otherwise change Social Security and Medicare, nor do they care about busting unions. Just the opposite. If Trump’s followers can be said to want anything- and that is open to debate!- they seem to want to empower ‘US’ against ‘THEM.’ Tax cuts for the corporations or the rich will not accomplish that. Changing or destroying Social Security or Medicare will not do that. Busting unions will not do that either. Trump supporters seem more interested in jobs, preventing illegal immigrants from getting free stuff and stealing jobs, and preventing other countries from somehow taking advantage of us.

The establishment/Chamber of Commerce/corporatist conservatism of Jeb! and others has failed. Trump supporters have had enough of supporting a big business agenda, only to see their own agenda tossed by the wayside while their representatives enrich themselves in office and afterwards as lobbyists.


Posted by: phx8 at September 8, 2015 5:23 PM
Comment #398255

“It is better to have a leader who has some dependencies than one who can just do as he pleases.”
Posted by: C&J at September 8, 2015 3:34 PM

No president can do as he/she pleases. The president should be dependent upon the American people…not any special interest group or groups.

Posted by: Royal Flush at September 8, 2015 5:29 PM
Comment #398260

Royal

You are right about the American people. But in a practical sense, you have to look to a smaller group of concerned citizens. Despots have often looked to “the people” for support against “the elites.” After the elites are neutered the despot rules in comfort.

In America, we depend on interests to counter interests. We have institutions to empower alternative centers of power.

Posted by: C&J at September 8, 2015 9:34 PM
Comment #398262
the Reagan Administration was mostly free from corruption

Well after the rose colored glasses BS you just wrote I am not surprised you would say this C&J, unfortunately the facts just don’t bear you out.

“The presidency of Ronald Reagan in the United States was marked by multiple scandals, resulting in the investigation, indictment, or conviction of over 138 administration officials, the largest number for any US president.[1]”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reagan_administration_scandals

Selling arms to the Iranians! He should have been impeached. Were he the black guy in office now he would have been.


His ideas were not unique, but he came about them honestly and thought them through.

True well except for the honesty part, seems he had to lie cheat and steal to gain the upper hand in debates. Some idol C&J,

“Reagan’s team had somehow acquired President Jimmy Carter’s briefing papers he used in preparation for the October 28, 1980 debate with Reagan.”

But you keep glossing over the facts, and by all means keep those rose colored glasses on while you tell us about Fiornia or Walker or whoever.

Is that likely to be better? It is better to have a leader who has some dependencies than one who can just do as he pleases

Why C&J this is easy, you are asking if I would prefer someone politician bought and paid for by the Koch Bros, like Walker or a Trump who isn’t beholden to special interests and ideological driven billionaires! Well I would go with the one that can do as he pleases, but this sure explains why you are so high on Reagan despite the truth being so different from your revisionist memory of the good ol’ days.

Posted by: j2t2 at September 9, 2015 1:40 AM
Comment #398274

j2t2

You, as expected, left Georgie S. out of the pix, I know that is normal but just wanted to alert the audience to the omission. It is so typical for you southpaws to leave out the facts concerning what you are trying to spew forth. And that gives the appearance that you have investigated the subject when all you have done is cap’ed your data which is often twisted. That is what makes it so difficult to understand what you are trying to re-tell to others. Kinda like the old kids telephone game of saying something and telling the next person and so on until the full circle has been told and the result is totally different from what was started.

Posted by: tom humes at September 9, 2015 1:03 PM
Comment #398276

Reagan did not advance the liberal socialists agenda and is hated by them.

Obama has advanced the liberal socialists agenda and is loved by them.

In the election of 1984, Reagan captured 49 of 50 states and 525 electoral votes out of a possible 538 in his stunning victory over Walter Mondale, a sitting vice president.

His percentage of votes was an enormous 58.8%.

There is no need to wonder why Ronald Reagan is so hated by the left.

Posted by: Royal Flush at September 9, 2015 1:25 PM
Comment #398277

It isn’t about hatred Royal it is about facts. The simple fact is Reagan is a very good actor and in his advancing years had the charisma to win the landslide election you speak of. Heck Royal I liked him I thought him to be a decent person, not a Carter by any stretch but a decent person none the less. He was all fired up to swing America to the right and he did. Then he realized Laffler was wrong and corrected, that is a lot more decent than conservatives of today. They still spread the myths as if they were real.

But as a president he was more of a failure than most presidents. His administration was fraught with corruption. His administration, using the meme “government is the problem” led the way for others to follow and lets face it government has went downhill as it has become more corrupted. From selling arms to Iran to selling nuclear reactor parts to Iran (Cheney whilst at Haliburton) Reagan made it ok to do so with so many conservative Americans.

Tom please be a bit more even in your excuses. You would have use use Shultz as the fall guy but when Geitner or Holder did something you didn’t like did you blame Obama or Holder? The buck stops at the top.

Posted by: j2t2 at September 9, 2015 1:47 PM
Comment #398278

There is more than just facts and figures to use when judging the greatness of an American president. Just as great generals lose battles but win wars, one must judge on outcomes.

Ronald Reagan was good for the nation. He brought with him his enthusiasm for the greatness of the American people. He gave us all hope of a better America.

It is not necessary to be loved to be considered an effective president. Reagan was effective on both domestic and foreign issues of the day. Reagan’s policies enhanced the lives, and ensured the protection, of all Americans.

Posted by: Royal Flush at September 9, 2015 2:04 PM
Comment #398289

“Were he the black guy in office now he would have been [impeached].”

You are so right, j2t2.

In retrospect, the Iran-Contra affair was astounding for it’s arrogant disrespect for the law and abuse of executive powers.

For those that don’t remember, the Reagan administration traded arms with the Iranians (via Israel) as ransom for US hostages held in Lebanon and for money to fund the Contras in Nicaragua in direct violation of the law (Boland Amendment).

Reagan eventually admitted that he had traded arms for hostages contrary to his long stated policy of not paying ransom for hostages. He denied knowledge, though, of the diversion of funds from the arms sales to the Contras. The death of the CIA Director (William Casey) and the shredding of documents by Oliver North stymied the investigation as to whether Reagan actually authorized the operations.

Today, if the Obama administration did anything remotely similar to what Reagan and his administration did, Obama would certainly be impeached.

Posted by: Rich at September 9, 2015 7:12 PM
Comment #398292

Obama would not have been impeached and there is no reason to bring race into this. America is not a racist nation.

Obama’s dealings with Iran are also duplicitous. Or consider the IRS scandal. Obama’s executive orders on very important issues. None of these things have caused him to be impeached.

Posted by: C&J at September 9, 2015 8:40 PM
Comment #398296
There is more than just facts and figures to use when judging the greatness of an American president. Just as great generals lose battles but win wars, one must judge on outcomes.

But when you use facts and figures Royal you get a much more realistic basis to judge, this irrational emotional mumbo jumbo you are recounting is so typical of conservatives. It is why Trump is leading the polls against the less charismatic repub candidates. It isn’t what he did,you tell us, it is what we have come to believe he did that matters! He left us feeling all giddy with excitement while running a greedy corrupt administration, started the starve the beast strategy that has left us in debt, hollowed out the middle class with his Reaganomics but he told us it was the government fault so all is good.

If you ask me Trump and Reagan are cut from the same bolt. He could be just the guy you all have been waiting for, well except Trump is a bit more honest than Reagan ever was, but hey the times have changed.


Posted by: j2t2 at September 10, 2015 1:57 AM
Comment #398297
Obama’s dealings with Iran are also duplicitous. Or consider the IRS scandal. Obama’s executive orders on very important issues. None of these things have caused him to be impeached.

Gosh C&J you seem to have forgotten that Obama hasn’t traded arms for hostages like Reagan did! But he did get Bin Laden. Are you seriously trying to compare the US working with 6 other countries to get a treaty with the administration of Ronald Reagan selling arms to the Ayatollahs for profit! Or the non scandal IRS thing that resulted in zero charges as it turned out to be just conservatives blowing smoke?

DO you really think Issa would have given a pass to this administration had they sold guns to Iran? Really!

Posted by: j2t2 at September 10, 2015 2:07 AM
Comment #398303

“It isn’t what he did,you tell us, it is what we have come to believe he did that matters!”

A very annoying truth, j2t2. As a liberal, I don’t hate Reagan. He was far more pragmatic and compromising than the conservative myths would lead you to believe. Indeed, he would be drummed out of the Republican party today.

On almost every issue, there is a contradiction between what Reagan said and what he did. He talked about a balanced budget amendment but ran huge deficits during a serious recession. He was opposed to SS and Medicare but signed into law the FICA tax hikes recommended by his Greenspan Commission to save SS. He talked tough about terrorism but left Lebanon when the Marine Corps barracks were bombed by terrorists. He traded arms for hostages with the Iranians despite a pledge to never deal with terrorists. He confronted the Soviet Union with an arms race but then initiated and negotiated a strategic arms reduction treaty with them (START). The list goes on and on.

Posted by: Rich at September 10, 2015 10:28 AM
Comment #398304

I’ll probably kick back up the writing on this site in a few months when the election gets more into swing. Man, I’m excited. I think we all are. It’s about to be October for baseball season and it’s about to be primary season for the Presidential election. I’m a little giddy about it.

While I wait what I’ve been doing lately is just trolling hateful right wing idiots by taking a picture of President Obama and putting quote by President Reagan on it. Watching the misinformed frothy mouthed right wing idiots on Facebook flip out is hilarious.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at September 10, 2015 10:34 AM
Comment #398306

Adam,

Welcome back! As for your exploration of conservative gullibility on Facebook, that is awesome. It really demonstrates that the GOP is all about identity politics and personality rather than conservative ideology nowadays.

Rich,
I agree with you regarding Reagan. By far, Reagan and Clinton are probably the best Presidents we’ve had in the past half-century and I think a lot of it has to do with their ability to “talk right” but “act left”.

One of the big substantive differences between Obama & Clinton is that the former has refused to let right-wing politics to even influence his rhetoric. In particular, his biggest “scandals” have revolved truths he said that weren’t politically correct according to the conservative movement. Things like, “You didn’t build that!” and “It’s not surprising, then, they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.” These statements were silver bullets that pieced the heart of conservatism. They undermined core premises behind the ideology, which believes itself to be a pro-Constitutional movement intent on a just (but not necessarily equal) distribution of wealth.

Posted by: Warren Porter at September 10, 2015 11:09 AM
Comment #398307
Ronald Reagan was good for the nation. He brought with him his enthusiasm for the greatness of the American people. He gave us all hope of a better America.

Royal, he presided over the S&L scandal, which started the to big to fail bailouts of corporate America, the privatization of profit and socialization of losses, in other words he opened the flood gates and…. well the rest is history. Was that good for the country knowing what it has led to?

Reagan granted immunity to illegal immigrants. Was that so good for this country knowing what it has led to?

Reagan policies led to the largest income inequality since before the Great Depression yet he loves the American people! Really! Was this so good for the country knowing what it has led to?

This gushy emotions based thinking you are dealing with when the name Reagan is invoked has affected your critical thinking skills a bit my friend. Things you are against yet when Reagan did it you sing to the heavens how good he is/was. I just don’t understand why enthusiasm from Reagan is a good thing yet from Obama “hope and change” is a bad thing? You supported Reagan based upon his so called enthusiasm but I would suggest that you were taken in by his charisma and have been led astray as the conservative movement has taken the country so far to the right that the tea party makes sense.

I mean to actually be against anything Obama despite being or the same things when it was Reagan, to the point of shutting down government to be against Obama is taking it a bit far. Yet according to C&J it isn’t because Obama is the black guy, so can you please explain why it is I find it hard to believe what C&J has said when we put facts, not fiction or mythology, into play? The actions are the same, the emotions, for all you conservatives who use emotions instead of logic, expressed by the two presidents are the same yet your team treats Obama so differently.

Posted by: j2t2 at September 10, 2015 11:30 AM
Comment #398308

Truths? Silver bullets? Come on Warren. Those kind of statements are nothing more than BS left-wing talking-points meant to intentionally divide Americans amongst themselves.
And as far as them piercing the heart of conservatism, why did the left spend so much time trying to explain what Obama “really” meant when he said them?

First Warren, then of all people Rich, and now Adam are throwing common sense to the side and are now preaching the vile left-wing hate that is so prevalent in today’s politics. What’s the matter guys, Clinton, Sanders and Biden such crappy candidates you are starting to get a little worried?

Posted by: kctim at September 10, 2015 11:47 AM
Comment #398309
Those kind of statements are nothing more than BS left-wing talking-points meant to intentionally divide Americans amongst themselves.

Believe what you must to keep your ideology intact.

And as far as them piercing the heart of conservatism, why did the left spend so much time trying to explain what Obama “really” meant when he said them?
Conservatives claimed those statements revealed Obama’s secret socialism or his secret contempt for the American way. Neither of those claims were true and needed to be explained. However, both of Obama’s statements reveal serious shortcomings behind the conservative movement. Firstly, most “conservatives” do not have much fealty to the ideology in the first place (witness the massive support of Donald Trump who is by far the least conservative candidate). Secondly, most conservative ideology is prefaced upon the assumption that the division of wealth accurately reflects the division of contributions we each make to society. That presumption is false, as illustrated by the parade of small-business owners who denied any credit to anyone but themselves for their successful business even though they relied on contributions from a plethora of sources including the government. Posted by: Warren Porter at September 10, 2015 11:56 AM
Comment #398310
Clinton, Sanders and Biden such crappy candidates

They are crappy candidates, which is why I won’t be voting for them. That doesn’t change my philosophy. Both parties have mess on their hands when it comes to the 2016 election. If we have faith in the system, these problems will get sorted out by the political elite. In the mean time, we’ll wait and see.

Posted by: Warren Porter at September 10, 2015 12:00 PM
Comment #398313

kctim:

I had to check that there wasn’t another Adam around here. I don’t see one, so I must conclude you meant me when you said I was “…throwing common sense to the side and are now preaching the vile left-wing hate that is so prevalent in today’s politics.” What? How? You’ve lost me.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at September 10, 2015 12:11 PM
Comment #398314

“Believe what you must to keep your ideology intact.”

Seeing as the truth is easy to believe, not a problem at all.

“Conservatives claimed those statements revealed Obama’s secret socialism or his secret contempt for the American way.”

“Neither of those claims were true and needed to be explained.”

When reading the whole statement in context, there is no question that Obama is promoting the state over the individual. While he may not have come right out and call for government control, he very clearly said that individual success is not possible without the state.
Obama’s support of socialism is no secret.

Again, reading the whole statement in context, there is no question that Obama is demeaning those who do not live, or believe as he does. He does not support the 2nd Amendment and is not a deeply religious person, and in his statement, he very clearly blames support of one of our Constitutional rights and deeply held religious beliefs on a stagnant economy.
Obama doesn’t have some secret contempt for the American way, he has a VERY open dislike of those who disagree with him, and for a way of life he does not understand, nor cares to understand.

“However, both of Obama’s statements reveal serious shortcomings behind the conservative movement.”

No, his statements reveal just how totally clueless the left is about those on the right. You guys absolutely refuse to understand and respect the fact that not everybody is willing to give up individual rights for comfort and convenience. That not everybody wants what they believe, support and do, to be controlled by others.
That people don’t disagree with liberal policy because they are racists, but because they disagree with the loss of individual rights that comes with it.

But you guys go right ahead and keep believing that some “division of wealth” is what we “really” care about.

Posted by: kctim at September 10, 2015 12:49 PM
Comment #398315
No, his statements reveal just how totally clueless the left is about those on the right. You guys absolutely refuse to understand and respect the fact that not everybody is willing to give up individual rights for comfort and convenience. That not everybody wants what they believe, support and do, to be controlled by others.

Perhaps to ideologues such as yourself kctim it appears we don’t understand, but Obama hit the nail on the head when it comes to the “by default” conservatives. To think Obama is demeaning those he spoke about is well very emotional on your part, as it just isn’t so. He is summing up their actions and if they could put their emotions to words they would say the same thing. Of course you guys are in denial about this but if Reagan said the same thing staunch conservatives, such as Royal, would get all tingly inside and consider Reagan to be wise. The fact is you all just don’t like the person that said it. Hell he was trying to win their vote and you guys act as if he was insulting them!

I know black doesn’t have anything to do with it, you guys say that all the time, so it must be the fact that you guys are so stuck in your ideology, so sold on the absoluteness of your convictions, that you cannot deal with anything that resembles government. IMHO you have mislabeled your opponents and believe that any group of two or more are an attack on individual rights, but that is your problem as most people I know on the left just want all of us to have the same rights, not the selected few from those that were in power over 200 years ago.

Posted by: j2t2 at September 10, 2015 1:04 PM
Comment #398318

J2t2

“given a pass”. Political opposition is not the same as impeachment.

RR did NOT sell arms for profit. His administration was trying to free hostages in the Middle East and fund anti-communist resistance in Central America. You may well disagree with their ideas and goals, but the motives were not venal or profit seeking.

Posted by: C&J at September 10, 2015 1:34 PM
Comment #398322

Adam, calling people “hateful right wing idiots” is hardly a term of endearment.

J2

If these last 10 or so years have proven anything, it is that you guys on the far-left don’t understand and respect, nor wish to ever understand and respect, those who disagree with you.

“The fact is you all just don’t like the person that said it. Hell he was trying to win their vote and you guys act as if he was insulting them!”

BS, and very pathetic on your part.
In his statements, Obama dismissed deeply held religious and Constitutional beliefs as a result of a stagnant economy. As if they would not support the 2nd Amendment or religion if they had more money. As if they would support illegal immigration if they had better jobs.
You don’t win votes by questioning somebody’s intelligence in such a way. And you most definitely don’t win votes by doing in the outward, hateful, hypocritical way you just did it.

“IMHO you have mislabeled your opponents and believe that any group of two or more are an attack on individual rights,”

My opponents are correctly labeled and I know exactly why they are labeled as such. You won’t find me having to resort to the race card.

I am not a liberal, I do not care about groups of people, I care about what they actually do.

“most people I know on the left just want all of us to have the same rights,”

Bullsh*t.
What you want is all of us to have the same rights that YOU think we should have. The right to freely exercise ones religion? Sure, but only in government approved places and as long as it doesn’t offend others. The right to keep and bear arms? Sure, as long as it is what YOU think we should have and where YOU think we should be able to have it. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures? Sure, unless it’s for tax purposes. Freedom of choice? Sure, unless that choice is to not support liberal policy.

“not the selected few from those that were in power over 200 years ago.”

What is with you guys and money? Jesus.
Our rights have NOTHING to do with money, comfort, convenience or emotions. Your rights aren’t being violated because somebody won’t give you something for nothing. Not because you have to work hard. Not because you can’t afford internet. Not because somebody disagree’s with you bang.

Jesus you guys have jumped the shark.

Posted by: kctim at September 10, 2015 2:06 PM
Comment #398328

j2t2 writes; “Gosh C&J you seem to have forgotten that Obama hasn’t traded arms for hostages…”

Of course not j2, he has forgotten the hostages and given Iran billions.

Rich wites; “he (Reagan) would be drummed out of the Republican party today.”

He was hated by the establishment Republicans of his day just as he would be today. RINO’s love to use Reagan’s name, but hate his policies.


Posted by: Royal Flush at September 10, 2015 2:37 PM
Comment #398330
there is no question that Obama is promoting the state over the individual

Conservatism is prefaced upon denying any role the state might play in an individual’s accomplishments. Obama’s statement put that into context by affirming that government is a tool that can be used for good as much as it can be used for bad. Obama did not make a quantifiable comparison between which contribution was greater, individual or state, so I think it is imprudent to assume one for him.

he very clearly said that individual success is not possible without the state.
Is individual success possible without the state? I don’t think so.
he very clearly blames support of one of our Constitutional rights and deeply held religious beliefs on a stagnant economy.
He said people’s pro-gun and pro-religion stances were to a certain extent a function of the nation’s economic troubles. I think the candidacy of Donald Trump vindicates this; many people who spent the last 5 years yelling and screaming about guns and religion are now falling in line behind a piper who until the year never expressed much religious conviction or support for gun rights.

Opposition to Obama nowadays has much more to do with personalities and identity politics than it does with deeply held beliefs.

No, his statements reveal just how totally clueless the left is about those on the right. You guys absolutely refuse to understand and respect the fact that not everybody is willing to give up individual rights for comfort and convenience. That not everybody wants what they believe, support and do, to be controlled by others. That people don’t disagree with liberal policy because they are racists, but because they disagree with the loss of individual rights that comes with it.
Many people in the base of GOP are a generation or two removed from New Deal Democrats who had no problem voting for a plethora of social welfare programs so long as only Whites were the beneficiaries of such programs. Now, the GOP base is throwing its support behind Donald Trump, the least conservative candidate to run this well in a GOP primary in living memory. Trump wants to raise taxes, which ought to be an anathema to conservatives, but he is instead gaining support, mostly because of his vitriolic rhetoric against Americans of Mexican descent.

kctim, I think you have to consider the possibility that you are not a typical conservative. You have proudly proclaimed your conviction in your interpretation of the Constitution. I don’t doubt the sincerity of your beliefs. However, many of your fellow conservatives do not necessarily agree with you when the fine details are looked at. For instance, Rich KAPitan and Royal Flush have on several occasions expressed support for the welfare state, but only under the condition that recipients perform community service and/or present themselves to other scrutiny to ensure the benefits are means-tested. That is far from the blanket opposition that you claim conservatives posses.

Posted by: Warren Porter at September 10, 2015 2:41 PM
Comment #398332

Allow me to remind you Warren that I wrote that neither Social Security or Medicare are part of the “welfare state”.

Posted by: Royal Flush at September 10, 2015 2:52 PM
Comment #398333

Regarding the “welfare state” let me add that I do believe in compassionate giving only to those who are not capable of caring for themselves.

Posted by: Royal Flush at September 10, 2015 2:53 PM
Comment #398334
I do believe in compassionate giving only to those who are not capable of caring for themselves.

That is fine. Just recognize that kctim and Rhinehold have repeatedly stated opposition to all federal welfare giving. Even when the beneficiaries are not capable of caring for themselves.

Posted by: Warren Porter at September 10, 2015 2:58 PM
Comment #398335

Warren, perhaps the prefer state help rather than federal help for those who can’t help themselves.

Posted by: Royal Flush at September 10, 2015 3:14 PM
Comment #398339

Warren

Conservatism is not “prefaced upon denying any role the state might play in an individual’s accomplishments.” It simply acknowledges that individual accomplishment is due to the hard work of the individual, not the generosity of the state. By telling people that they didn’t build their business, that somebody else is responsible for its success, Obama was promoting the state over the individual.

“Is individual success possible without the state? I don’t think so.”

Of course it is. Just as much now as it was for the first 100+ years of our country.

“He said people’s pro-gun and pro-religion stances were to a certain extent a function of the nation’s economic troubles.”

And he and the left are wrong about that. Support for the Constitution and deeply held religious beliefs have nothing to do with economic troubles, being brainwashed, or hating people.

Trump is saying the right things about the right topics. IF he were to the liberal disdain for religion or individual rights, he would be gone.

“Opposition to Obama nowadays has much more to do with personalities and identity politics than it does with deeply held beliefs.”

Yeah, I know. Despite the fact that I can tell you exactly what on and why I oppose Obama, it’s all really just because a says he’s a liberal or because he’s black.
Please.

“Trump wants to raise taxes, which ought to be an anathema to conservatives, but he is instead gaining support,”

That should be a lesson for liberals, don’t you think? Liberals love higher taxes, but yet you can’t get the support Trump has. Why? Because Trump isn’t attacking the individual, their rights, or their religion.

“mostly because of his vitriolic rhetoric against Americans of Mexican descent.”

His rhetoric is aimed at illegal aliens.

“kctim, I think you have to consider the possibility that you are not a typical conservative.”

I have never intentionally stated that I was a Conservative, Warren.

“However, many of your fellow conservatives do not necessarily agree with you when the fine details are looked at.”

I am very aware of that. In fact, I believe I have had civil discussions with both KAP and Royal over things we disagree on. Wasn’t told the disagreement was because I was racist or because I hated people. Nor were my intelligence or beliefs questioned.

Believe me, I am very aware that I disagree with Conservatives on many things. He11, I wouldn’t be surprised if C&J cringe every time they see my name pop up in their posts. LOL.

The fact is, Warren, is that Conservatives are closer to the Constitution than liberals are. They respect the guidelines of it and our nations founding history, more. Because of that, a Constitutionalist such as myself finds themselves closer to their ‘side,’ which leaves plenty of room to work with each other on those “fine details” you mention.

Posted by: kctim at September 10, 2015 5:03 PM
Comment #398340

Royal,

I will say it again and elaborate. Ronald Reagan would be drummed out of the Republican party today by its conservative wing. Why? Because Reagan repeatedly compromised his expressed conservative principals in order to get things done for the good of the country. He could actually have a drink with Tip O’Neill after hours and hammer out a compromise. Neither side got entirely what they wanted but the country got a workable piece of legislation.

Today, according to conservatives, it is anathema for the Republican leadership to even consider cooperation and compromise with Obama. Boehner and McConnell are traitors and heretics for cooperating in any way, shape or form. Better to shut the government down for a trivial conservative principal than allow some liberal tainted piece of legislation to pass.

Posted by: Rich at September 10, 2015 5:12 PM
Comment #398341

“Today, according to conservatives, it is anathema for the Republican leadership to even consider cooperation and compromise with Obama.”

Totally false. Conservative urge cooperation with the executive when it benefits all Americans.

“Boehner and McConnell are traitors and heretics for”…cooperating with the executive on matters harmful to the entire nation.

Posted by: Royal Flush at September 10, 2015 5:21 PM
Comment #398343

“The fact is, Warren, is that Conservatives are closer to the Constitution than liberals are.”

Come on, kctim! Self proclamation doesn’t make it so. I am sick and tired of this arrogant conservative drivel. Conservatives are uniquely privy to the proper interpretation of the Constitution. Bullshit! The meaning and interpretation of the Constitution has been vigorously debated since the day of its adoption. Neither side can legitimately claim ownership.

Posted by: Rich at September 10, 2015 5:52 PM
Comment #398345

The Republican senate leader and his minions will bear responsibility with obama, and his fellow traitors to American safety, for allowing a horrendous deal with Iran to be made and become effective.

Liberals need not wonder why a majority of Americans are really pissed off.

Posted by: Royal Flush at September 10, 2015 7:16 PM
Comment #398346
It simply acknowledges that individual accomplishment is due to the hard work of the individual, not the generosity of the state. By telling people that they didn’t build their business, that somebody else is responsible for its success, Obama was promoting the state over the individual.

Accomplishments are joint efforts. The state, the individual and many others each have their share of the credit.

Of course it is. Just as much now as it was for the first 100+ years of our country.
Last time I checked, we had a functional state during that century without which none of those accomplishments would have been possible.
And he and the left are wrong about that. Support for the Constitution and deeply held religious beliefs have nothing to do with economic troubles, being brainwashed, or hating people.
I think it is very clear that your fealty to your warped interpretation of the Constitution is sincere. But that does not mean the same is true of your fellow conservatives.
Yeah, I know. Despite the fact that I can tell you exactly what on and why I oppose Obama, it’s all really just because a says he’s a liberal or because he’s black. Please.
Again, I think your reasons for opposing Obama are atypical for people who oppose Obama. When I discuss opposition to Obama in a general nature, I am not talking about you.
That should be a lesson for liberals, don’t you think? Liberals love higher taxes, but yet you can’t get the support Trump has. Why? Because Trump isn’t attacking the individual, their rights, or their religion.
Exactly my point. The opposition to Obama is much more concerned with identity politics and personality than they are about fealty to conservative ideology. People hate Obama not because he implemented liberal policies such as raising taxes or government spending. They hate Obama because Obama has refused to place traditional rural America on a pedestal. Instead of proclaiming the greatness of individuals, Obama has embraced narratives that showcase the greatness of networks and communities. For Obama, the dense cities of the Northeast, Great Lakes and West Coast are the quintessence of America. People in the South and West feel excluded by that, which has resulted in an embrace of conservative ideology. But the conservatism expressed by these people is not sincere. This is why Obama didn’t earn any brownie points from conservatives even when he passed legislation that supported conservative goals. At this point, style is supreme and substance is inconsequential.
I am very aware of that. In fact, I believe I have had civil discussions with both KAP and Royal over things we disagree on. Wasn’t told the disagreement was because I was racist or because I hated people. Nor were my intelligence or beliefs questioned.
I think the same could be said about our own disagreements. You weren’t the target when Obama discussed bitter people clinging to guns are religion. Obama was talking about people who support a wide range of leftist policies, but still vote for conservative politicians for reasons of identity and personality rather than ideology.
They respect the guidelines of it and our nations founding history, more. Because of that, a Constitutionalist such as myself finds themselves closer to their ‘side,’ which leaves plenty of room to work with each other on those “fine details” you mention.

It all depends how you look at it. Unlike Royal Flush, I would support a wholesale elimination of Social Security. No more payroll taxes, no more benefits; effective immediately. I would even sign onto a repeal of the PPACA that also repealed the EMTALA law from the ’80s. What I oppose is the silly identity politics pushed forward by today’s GOP which supports the welfare state, but only for people who look or behave like the Rural America of previous decades. It is pure hypocrisy. Either support benefits for everyone or for nobody, but please don’t waste my time trying to discriminate between different groups of people.

Posted by: Warren Porter at September 10, 2015 8:18 PM
Comment #398347
Adam, calling people “hateful right wing idiots” is hardly a term of endearment.

Have you seen Facebook lately? I’m pretty sure we all know the people I’m talking about.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at September 10, 2015 10:20 PM
Comment #398352
RR did NOT sell arms for profit. His administration was trying to free hostages in the Middle East and fund anti-communist resistance in Central America.

So he made money from selling guns and used this money to fund something that was not funded by Congress but he didn’t make a profit and spend it on, or fund, terrorist in South America! No matter how you spin it C&J, Reagan made a profit from the sale of guns to the Ayatollahs in Iran and used the money to fund terrorist in SA, explain the difference between what Reagan has admitted to and what we have accused the Iranians of doing, supplying weapons to our enemies and funding terrorist.

Posted by: j2t2 at September 11, 2015 1:05 AM
Comment #398353
j2t2 writes; “Gosh C&J you seem to have forgotten that Obama hasn’t traded arms for hostages…”

Of course not j2, he has forgotten the hostages and given Iran billions.

Royal, you must be on the kool aid again, the nuclear deal doesn’t involve the US giving billions to the Iranians where are you getting this from?

Posted by: j2t2 at September 11, 2015 1:25 AM
Comment #398357

After watching parts of Joe Biden’s appearance on the Late Show with Stephen Colbert, I really don’t get the impression that he wants to run. I could be wrong but I think that the supposition that he may run is more grounded in the sincere belief that people have who do not want to see Hillary Clinton gain the nomination as President rather than his ambitions. If it were a choice between those two I would choose Hillary, definitely.

Posted by: Speak4all at September 11, 2015 9:40 AM
Comment #398358

Rich

I said Conservatives were closer to the Constitution than liberals, not that they are “uniquely privy” to its proper interpretation. They are more likely to work within the confines of the Constitution.
Liberals on the other hand, must work outside those limitations with end arounds and reinterpretation.

No, nobody has a lock on it, but only one side constantly seeks to change its meaning and history in order to get what they want, and that’s the far-left.

Posted by: kctim at September 11, 2015 10:02 AM
Comment #398360

Warren

“Accomplishments are joint efforts. The state, the individual and many others each have their share of the credit.”

Individual accomplishment is the result of individual effort.

“Last time I checked, we had a functional state during that century without which none of those accomplishments would have been possible.”

Functional? Yes. Controlling and intrusive as today’s? No.

“I think it is very clear that your fealty to your warped interpretation of the Constitution is sincere.”

My interpretation is based on the actual words and history of our Constitution, your rhetoric attempting to dismiss that fact is noted.

“But that does not mean the same is true of your fellow conservatives.”

I am not a Conservative.

“People hate Obama not because he implemented liberal policies such as raising taxes or government spending.”

People disagree with Obama because of the policies he supports and has forced upon them. Policies that infringe on the individual rights they cherish.
Again, the lefts biggest problem is in thinking that everybody believes money trumps rights.

“Instead of proclaiming the greatness of individuals, Obama has embraced narratives that showcase the greatness of networks and communities.”

And why would that be appealing to people who support individual rights and freedoms?

“For Obama, the dense cities of the Northeast, Great Lakes and West Coast are the quintessence of America.”

But they’re not typical America and where you guys go wrong is in trying to rule as if they are.
People in small town America don’t support more conservative ideology because they feel ‘excluded,’ they support it because it is less intrusive and controlling.
It has nothing to do with identity and personality, Warren.

“What I oppose is the silly identity politics pushed forward by today’s GOP which supports the welfare state, but only for people who look or behave like the Rural America of previous decades.”

Talk about identity politics, sheesh.
When people say they have been taxed enough already, it is because of the size of their paycheck and what that money is being used for, not because of who their money is going to.

Posted by: kctim at September 11, 2015 11:06 AM
Comment #399066
“Hillary is nasty and arrogant, like the stepmother in “Cinderella.”
Good analogy. Posted by: D.a.n at October 1, 2015 10:16 PM
Post a comment