Why not Tulsi Gabbard

[Orangeburst]

Who do you think runs this country? The President? Have you not been paying attention?

No tinfoil needed.

Tell you what since you want to name people....... Name the person or persons that were running this country the last 4 years ..... It sure as hell wasn't Biden.

Of course Presidents have littany of advisors that some rely on more heavily than others. Sure the bureacracy is powerful, but certainly not against the will of the Executive. You are implying there is somesecret cabal that tells the Exectuve what to do, but cannot identify them. Suit up for hat.

 

[StarRaider]

Of course Presidents have littany of advisors that some rely on more heavily than others. Sure the bureacracy is powerful, but certainly not against the will of the Executive. You are implying there is somesecret cabal that tells the Exectuve what to do, but cannot identify them. Suit up for hat.

TBSFBAG!

 

[Orangeburst]

Literally have some post that Trump is horrible choice as he is not electible, while promoting candidates that already got knocked out or never made the stage.

 

[AM64]

Not really. I’m totally at peace

Bent over and anticipating it is a reasonable posture in this political environment. BOHICA seems to be a way of life. The 1/6 guys can tell you all about fighting city hall. It's not the way to do things, but then it wasn't the first time the capitol has been invaded and taken hostage - just the first time that people were really prosecuted en masse. Sort of like left is OK but right is wrong when it comes to deciding when to hold protestors accountable.

 

[AM64]

Honestly this is the thing that drives me the craziest. In the last 100 years, democrats have held control of presidency/senate/house at the same time 3 times more often than republicans, including bidens first two years and the filibuster-proof first two years of Obama. Could’ve passed whatever they wanted. But they don’t. They hold the public hostage for votes. So a split vote ends up being the best option.

Oh we took a significant pounding when Obama was elected and the dems held everything. They couldn't shovel out money fast enough and don't forget obamaCare.

 

[volfanhill]

We we thru this before..I am talking policies. You are talking electability.

Congrats. You are Butch Jones starting Jarrett Guarantano.

 

[CobbVol]

Literally have some post that Trump is horrible choice as he is not electible, while promoting candidates that already got knocked out or never made the stage.

A number that complain probably don’t vote in the primaries. Principles and stuff.

 

[Orangeburst]

Congrats. You are Butch Jones starting Jarrett Guarantano.

Congrats..your guy didnt get an offer.

 

[KB5252]

Of course Presidents have littany of advisors that some rely on more heavily than others. Sure the bureacracy is powerful, but certainly not against the will of the Executive. You are implying there is somesecret cabal that tells the Exectuve what to do, but cannot identify them. Suit up for hat.

The prominence of the shadow agencies and the MIC appear to have congealed in the past 20 to 30 years.

Trump is a loose cannon, and he's hard to control, impulsive. I've witnessed agencies that normally keep their nose clean, stay out of politics wade into the fray and actually take sides.

I'd argue that's your cabal attempting to control that which they can't completely control. Why do it government officials get so damn rich above and beyond their salaries?

The psy ops at play and marketing as another poster pointed out is absolutely being used to control the population and steer the narrative.

Call it tin foil if you want, but this is my conclusion based on the things I've witnessed and noticed. Especially recently, the that 10 to 20 years.

 

[AM64]

Just who is “they”…in 2016, there were 12 Repub candidates, and voters voted. Look at ND talking about Doug Bergrum..liked him, but he was not elected.

But remember the fault in your argument is always the thing about BEING QUALIFIED. Lifetime politicians will and can sell that shizz every time, and the electorate will fall for it every time. The thing is Trump was the anomaly - and to be honest he really wasn't qualified to be president - the guy cannot hold an intelligent conversation or present a logical argument. Face it Trump is a marketer who believes there is no bad marketing or publicity.

 

[volfanhill]

Congrats..your guy didnt get an offer.

And your guy lost to Biden and might lose to Harris. But hey let's run him again in 2028. Maybe he can lose to Lizzo.

 

[Orangeburst]

But remember the fault in your argument is always the thing about BEING QUALIFIED. Lifetime politicians will and can sell that shizz every time, and the electorate will fall for it every time. The thing is Trump was the anomaly - and to be honest he really wasn't qualified to be president - the guy cannot hold an intelligent conversation or present a logical argument. Face it Trump is a marketer who believes there is no bad marketing.

being qualified is subjective.

 

[Orangeburst]

And your guy lost to Biden and might lose to Harris. But hey let's run him again in 2028. Maybe he can lose to Lizzo.

Lets run him again? That would imply somebody put him up to run, He was elected and has the biggest political movement I have witnessed in my lifetime..If the nation rejects him, it is what it is..Just because you and others are unhappy with the choice, doesnt dispute the massive support. Getting another Republican that could win doesnt mean anything as policies could be vastly different.

 

[NorthDallas40]

Literally have some post that Trump is horrible choice as he is not electible, while promoting candidates that already got knocked out or never made the stage.

As we have seen the last four presidential cycles bring horrible has nothing to do with being electable anymore. That’s a fact and it’s ridiculous as hell.

 

[Orangeburst]

As we have seen the last four presidential cycles bring horrible has nothing to do with being electable anymore. That’s a fact and it’s ridiculous as hell.

I am not the one talking electibility. In fact, I am being told Trump cant win because he is unelectable.

 

[NorthDallas40]

I am not the one talking electibility. In fact, I am being told Trump cant win because he is unelectable.

I never said any such thing. I said he’s a horrible candidate. And I believe that. But he could win. Because… as I’ve said now multiple times…. Both major party candidates suck. But one of them indeed will be the next president.

 

[Orangeburst]

I never said any such thing. I said he’s a horrible candidate. And I believe that. But he could win. Because… as one said now multiple times…. Both major party candidates suck. But one of them indeed will be the next president.

Then read the page.
I am focused on policy differences..I have no clue what others consider important criteria. What you consider horrible, I consider one of the best terms in my life time, till covid.

 

[CobbVol]

And your guy lost to Biden and might lose to Harris. But hey let's run him again in 2028. Maybe he can lose to Lizzo.

Think about this (assuming you voted in the GOP primary). The person you viewed as electable and voted for lost to Trump, who lost to Biden, who might lose to Harris.

 

[volfanhill]

Think about this (assuming you voted in the GOP primary). The person you viewed as electable and voted for lost to Trump, who lost to Biden, who might lose to Harris.

I have. You haven't. 40-45% of the country will never vote for Trump. That's a fact. So we trot his ass out why? That's the definition of how to lose

 

[CobbVol]

I have. You haven't. 40-45% of the country will never vote for Trump. That's a fact. So we trot his ass out why? That's the definition of how to lose

I am not sure you have. That 40-45% you mention would not vote for any GOP candidate including Reagan.

 

[Orangeburst]

I am not sure you have. That 40-45% you mention would not vote for any GOP candidate including Reagan.

I am trying to figure out what was so horrible in 2017-2019 that he is considered horrible,..budget defict was too high, but I think the long term benefits of tax reductions led to growth that were only realized after covid..look at fed tax revenues now…massive.

Secured the border mostly
Reduction in regulations
No new wars
Appointed 2 good Scotus judges

It was horrible I tell ya.

 

[AM64]

I have. You haven't. 40-45% of the country will never vote for Trump. That's a fact. So we trot his ass out why? That's the definition of how to lose

40-45% probably aren't voting for anybody without a D attached to the name (fortunately the EC can help a bit with that foolishness). If you are assuming that there are non committed voters and moderate GOP voters who won't vote for Trump, you are probably right; but a candidate they might support isn't likely to siphon off dem voters or turn out independents in hordes either. This is a fully partisan sport now - not much different from the kind played on the football field. Hog and I talked about Jim Webb (a dem) as acceptable a few years ago, and some of us could consider Tulsi, but that's a long long way from making a dent by one party actually running a worthwhile candidate.

The liberal game is the same one communists used to subvert and take countries. It means creating victims and then convincing them that their lot in life will improve by the Robin Hood approach - the ideology not the candidate matters. With communism it means the level of misery will be shared by all except the corrupt totalitarians at the top. With liberals (read dems) it's not that extreme, but they will eventually starve the system and run it into the ground by theft and incompetence - taking from those who do make things work to distribute to those who don't - it will be a long wearisome process though.

 

[AM64]

I am trying to figure out what was so horrible in 2017-2019 that he is considered horrible,..budget defict was too high, but I think the long term benefits of tax reductions led to growth that were only realized after covid..look at fed tax revenues now…massive.

Secured the border mostly
Reduction in regulations
No new wars
Appointed 2 good Scotus judges

It was horrible I tell ya.

Dems have fine tuned the propaganda process. With Trump they used covid as the recency effect and the press as a bludgeon to paint Trump as corrupt and an out of control tyrant. Trump did plenty to aid their strategy.

 

[Orangeburst]

40-45% probably aren't voting for anybody without a D attached to the name (fortunately the EC can help a bit with that foolishness). If you are assuming that there are non committed voters and moderate GOP voters who won't vote for Trump, you are probably right; but a candidate they might support isn't likely to siphon off dem voters or turn out independents in hordes either. This is a fully partisan sport now - not much different from the kind played on the football field. Hog and I talked about Jim Webb (a dem) as acceptable a few years ago, and some of us could consider Tulsi, but that's a long long way from making a dent by one party actually running a worthwhile candidate.

The liberal game is the same one communists used to subvert and take countries. It means creating victims and then convincing them that their lot in life will improve by the Robin Hood approach - the ideology not the candidate matters. With communism it means the level of misery will be shared by all except the corrupt totalitarians at the top. With liberals (read dems) it's not that extreme, but they will eventually starve the system and run it into the ground by theft and incompetence - taking from those who do make things work to distribute to those who don't - it will be a long wearisome process though.

I think the whole gig is up honestly and we are in our throes. Impartial courts are hard to find so no acceptable final arbitrator.
Like each side wants a divorce and some calamity,like a financial crisis, will crack it open. Unfortunately, the powers of the world that we have pissed off, will take advantage. In fact, probably already are sowing discourse. Who to believe?

 

[AM64]

I think the whole gig is up honestly and we are in our throes. Impartial courts are hard to find so no acceptable final arbitrator.
Like each side wants a divorce and some calamity,like a financial crisis, will crack it open. Unfortunately, the powers of the world that we have pissed off, will take advantage. In fact, probably already are sowing discourse. Who to believe?

We pretty much mortgaged our future with China holding all the cards. Unfortunately it was a bilateral collusion of clueless politicians, greedy corporate leaders, and consumers seeking cheaper prices. We often have a bassackwards view of everything - and a belief that you can steal from the process with impunity. People, who should know better, see no harm in offshoring or automating manufacturing; they learned nothing from the Industrial Revolution. People who don't see high energy cost or mindless siphoning of money (economic fuel) through various schemes (like markets) have no clue about systemic processes - looking at thermodynamics with money as the fuel and how to maximize the process would be worthwhile. The hint is that you can't siphon or leak the inputs and expect a sustainable system. Simply put: if you are taking something out of the process without adding equivalent value to the process, you are crippling the viability of the process ... there is no free ride and no free lunch.