Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2016 Presidential Watch
#1
This may be more of prophesy than politics, but the past election has planted seeds for the next.

Was Hillary smart for her positioning of both her and her husband? Biden is toast and will not be a viable candidate, but who else is out there on the Left - and possibly more importantly, who is out there on the Right who will turn into a viable candidate for 2016?

The mid-terms in 2014 will be a proving ground, of sorts. If the economy is still anemic, the candidates will be energized early, and will jockey to be a factor in the waning part of the Obama tenure. This goes for both sides.

The Right will broom the old, tired personalities. The new blood mostly looks Latino-ized: Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, and unbelievable, George P. Bush, whose Mexican mother blessed him with the Garnica moniker. The early picks won't last long.

Who will play the role of town-crier is still to be resolved, also. As many here have stated quite loudly, had Romney attacked Obama head-on, the outcome may have been different. Limbaugh and Gingrich have that ability - but few politicians know how to play that game and win. ...Especially with an antagonistic media contesting their every word.

On the Left, Chris Stevens was being groomed as a wunderkind, but his death shut down that avenue. Besides Hillary, who else will carry the blue baton to the finish line?
Reply
#2
Ted Cruz is my choice at this point. Rand Paul as well.

As for the Jackasses, their best candidate is Evan Bayh, if they have any sense.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
Hillary Clinton Is Like Herpes, "She Wont Go Away" - Anna Paulina
Reply
#3
Either Cruz or Paul is good for me, hopefully by 2016, one or the other will have a record to stand on of getting bills passed, and using the media well, without losing their principles.

Bayh is a cipher. He is both good and bad in every category. Fully Progressive on most issues - except a few moderate stances that make him not as bad as some.
Reply
#4
Hillary will so easily become the next nominee, IMO. If I had to lay money down. I bet she wins it all. The GOP is in for a generational falloff like the Canadian conservative party had after Mulrooney I think.

The party will take time to overthrow the fundies and we'll have to succeed at appealing to someone other than white folks named Smith and Jones as well.

That takes time and effort and wisdom. I don't see us winning big races until we've headed that direction.
Reply
#5
(11-11-2012, 03:15 PM)Palladin Wrote: Hillary will so easily become the next nominee, IMO. If I had to lay money down. I bet she wins it all. The GOP is in for a generational falloff like the Canadian conservative party had after Mulrooney I think.

The party will take time to overthrow the fundies and we'll have to succeed at appealing to someone other than white folks named Smith and Jones as well.

That takes time and effort and wisdom. I don't see us winning big races until we've headed that direction.

Patrick, I look at this a bit differently. I view the Fundies as problematic and the 'up front' issue, but not anywhere the main problem. They are not in any position to force their desires on the rest of us even if they tried. They are just a means to demonize the other side, by the Left.

The real problem in the GOP is the Statist(Big Government) GOP elite crowd, of which a few just happen to be Fundies. That's right, the Jackass-Lite crowd. They are the big stumbling block, and they need to be ousted completely, or all this is just rhetoric. If the Individual Liberty crowd can't take over the party, they need to go elsewhere and build another party, allowing the elitists to enjoy the semi-empty room.

FreedomWorks, and a few others, are doing their best to take over the GOP from within. I am a member of FreedomWorks, and wish them luck. But somehow, I just don't think this is going to occur. Individualists need to do unto the GOP what the GOP did unto the Whigs.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
Hillary Clinton Is Like Herpes, "She Wont Go Away" - Anna Paulina
Reply
#6
John, you are correct in a way. Big government is bad -- but if you equate that with Progressivism, you are succumbing to a Leftists strategy. Big government has happened - but Progressivism is something else. With proper leadership, big government can be turned around - but the Progressive principles will remain even with a smaller government.

Progressivism is all about an administrative state run by non-elected intellectuals. Obama's Czars are outside of the Constitutional design of government, so what are they? By definition they are outside of government - but are actively directing it. Yeah, they are government, but are also something else, inimical to our design and structure. We can shrink government and still have that administrative state in charge. We can grow government and still go back to Constitutional design. Two different things, and too easily conflated into the same problem, when they are different problems.

I do not want big government. I do not want Progressivism redefining our country. But they are two different problems to attack.

One thing is certain. Blocking Progressivism will result in a smaller government, but only as an after-effect.
Reply
#7
Are you sure we will even have an election in 2016? I just received the following very enteresting email, that was forwarded to me by blogger Dave Greene

Quote:Subject: FW: fine tuning your slavery
To:
Date: Saturday, November 10, 2012, 6:23 PM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: wynnr70@hotmail.com
Subject: fine tuning your slavery
Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2012 18:52:54 -0500

JUST BEFORE HURRICANE SANDY, OBAMA SIGNED EXECUTIVE ORDER MERGING HOMELAND SECURITY WITH PRIVATE SECTOR TO CREATE VIRTUAL DICTATORSHIP

TRUTHER NOVEMBER 9, 2012

While all eyes were on Hurricane Sandy in the days leading up to the storm’s breach on the mainland of the Northeast, the White House was busy devising new ways to enslave Americans under the guise of protecting national security. On October 26, 2012, Barack Obama quietly signed an Executive Order (EO) establishing the so-called Homeland Security Partnership Council, a public-private partnership that basically merges the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) with local governments and the private sector for the implied purpose of giving the Executive Branch complete and limitless control over the American people.

. . . .

White House forming nationwide secret police to monitor lives of Americans

This is precisely the angle being taken with the new EO, except it goes even further in conflating federal power structures with local governments and the private sector. Based on the eery language contained in the EO, the federal government appears ready to begin rapidly expanding its command and control operations at the local level by establishing a vast network of homeland security ”partnerships” throughout the country, which will be tasked with reporting back to the central command center and feeding “intelligence” information as requested by federal officials.

“We must tap the ingenuity outside government through strategic partnerships with the private sector, nongovernmental organizations, foundations, and community-based organizations,” says the EO. It goes on to add that the merger between the federal government and the private sector is necessary to facilitate the government’s desire to better “address homeland security priorities,” which includes things like “responding to natural disasters … (and) preventing terrorism by utilizing diverse perspectives, skills, tools, and resources.”

An official Steering Committee will be established with representatives from virtually every single three and four-letter federal agency, and this committee will be guided by a separate council on how to best incorporate the federal government and DHS into every nook and cranny of American society. Once established, this council will maintain control over presumably all aspects of society by overseeing a secret police force comprised of spies from schools, community groups, churches, and various other local institutions.

“We must institutionalize an all-of-Nation effort to address the evolving threats to the United States,” adds the ominous EO, which was flown under the radar of the mainstream media.

You can read the complete EO for yourself at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-offi...tnership-c
Reply
#8
Better link Here.

As for what this EO is intended to do, it really has no teeth. It makes no claim upon local governments, except to be a conduit for State, local, tribal, and territorial stakeholders to the fed. Nowhere did I read any particulars about what makes a stakeholder.

This is just another Progressive attempt to create administrative authority outside of the Constitution, and any checks and balances.
Reply
#9
WmLambert Wrote:This is just another Progressive attempt to create administrative authority outside of the Constitution, and any checks and balances.

Exactly.
Reply
#10
John,

I bet both of us are partially accurate. I am not as unhappy as all.

Look at Canada. They are flat getting it done right now in most respects, avoided the stupidity of we yanks on banking and are sitting in very good condition here with a very talented and respected conservative party leader.

Yet, the conservative party almost expired in the 1980s.

I'm just not as depressed as some cons is all. We'll survive, some things are self correcting, like ObamaCare. You think it's permanent now, watch it get amended into a more benign monster due to it's job killing provisions, coercing businesses into part time employment, etc.
Reply
#11
Brian Mulroney destroyed the Progressive Conservative Party. In 1993 the PC's went from a majority government to 2 seats, and they never recovered. By the early 2000's the PC's merged with Stephen Harpers Alliance Party (which itself was the old Preston Manning Reform Party) to form the Conservative Party.
The true purpose of democracy is not to select the best leaders — a clearly debatable obligation — but to facilitate the prompt and peaceful removal of obviously bad ones. 
Reply
#12
(11-11-2012, 09:17 PM)WarBicycle Wrote: Brian Mulroney destroyed the Progressive Conservative Party. In 1993 the PC's went from a majority government to 2 seats, and they never recovered. By the early 2000's the PC's merged with Stephen Harpers Alliance Party (which itself was the old Preston Manning Reform Party) to form the Conservative Party.

In my opinion this is pretty much what must occur here in the US. If the TeaParty/FreedomWorks organizations, along with the Jim DeMints, Marco Rubios, Ted Cruz, and others started another party, I guarantee you it would quickly replace the GOP as the other major party. The GOP would be left with nothing but Big Government Dumbasses, such as McDoofus, that little asshole from South Carolina, and the DC elites, all with their fingers up their backsides. Those Big Government elitists, and that includes the Bushes, need to go ferment someplace else IMO. And it is entirely doable. It will just take a bunch of Fed Up pols, who have finally had it up to Here with all this elitism from both parties. Millions of official Independents, such as myself, would gladly join the party.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
Hillary Clinton Is Like Herpes, "She Wont Go Away" - Anna Paulina
Reply
#13
John,

What evidence is there that a tea party intellectual majority exists?
Reply
#14
(11-12-2012, 12:01 PM)Palladin Wrote: John,

What evidence is there that a tea party intellectual majority exists?

I wasn't trying to say that Patrick. But I am saying that the Tea Party, and other like minded groups, are a force for positive change. Together they make up a very large group.

Incidentally, I received this from Matt Kibbe yesterday, where he discusses the election and how FreedomWorks failed to deliver. Its a very good self-appraisal IMO.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
Hillary Clinton Is Like Herpes, "She Wont Go Away" - Anna Paulina
Reply
#15
(11-11-2012, 10:46 PM)John L Wrote: ...If the TeaParty/FreedomWorks organizations, along with the Jim DeMints, Marco Rubios, Ted Cruz, and others started another party, I guarantee you it would quickly replace the GOP as the other major party...

Not if it follows historical precedence. What normally occurs is the seizure of the party by the new blood from within. It's simple, Boehnerr and his alumni get replaced by the new members who sponsor their own leaders into leadership. Such a change can happen overnight in one election.

What won't happen is a new media within one election cycle. That will only come with the same paradigm that created the Left-wing media in the first place. The current monstrosity came about with the hopeful intellectual elites embracing socialism under Marx and Engels and strong personalities like John Dewey and Wilson designing an education system that creates brown-shirt useful idiots. FDR gave their design time to settle in. They didn't realize what they were doing was wrong, but once it was done - it became Juggernaut. For the schools and media to evolve to it's current ineptitude took three or four generations.

Reversing it will take a more-knowing approach and much patience. It may well take another four generations just to wean the useful idiots out of their positions in academia, because they will strive to replace themselves with those of similar mindsets.

Politics is far faster to reflect the public persona and adapt to it than is academia, but the political change will help to steer the fourth estate in the long run.
Reply
#16
Some changes can happen overnight, in a time of generally felt emergency, when massive riots tend towards race war, and natural disasters tend toward cataclysm, and a few leaders step forward and say that the only hope for the human race is to get back to God, which in turn is to be accomplished however they specify--which in turn will involve exalting the power and authority of these leaders and their pseudo-religious "revival" movement. Most of you may not believe it can happen, until it does.
Reply
#17
No - I don't mean Biblical timing - but basic historical trends. In economics, Jude Wanniski was asked how quickly Supply-side results could kick in, and he asked how long it takes to bend over and pick up a twenty-dollar bill on the ground. In politics, a coup d'etat takes longer to plan to accomplish. In one election cycle. the political preference of a people can be demonstrated and changes can occur. In Michigan, back in the late 1800's, the people got fed up with political money-grubbers appointing friends and accomplices to run businesses, like railroads and Canal-building - so they threw the bums out and wrote a new State Constitution to forbid government from trying to run business.

IOW, the change in direction is simple. Replacing a party may take longer.
Reply
#18
You are also going to have to do something about voter fraud. According to the Philadelphia Inquirer, Mitt Romney on Tuesday received ZERO votes in 59 Philadelphia voting divisions! ZERO!

Imagine that! S28
The true purpose of democracy is not to select the best leaders — a clearly debatable obligation — but to facilitate the prompt and peaceful removal of obviously bad ones. 
Reply
#19
Where have you been? Similar reports came from OH, VA, WI and FL -- precisely the right states. And take a look at West's race, unlike the freaking moron, Col. West is trying to fight it!

Here is something else related. Statistical model suggests widespread fraud in Russian election.

Key quote:
Quote:The new model, created by a team of Austrian scientists, takes a much more rigorous statistical approach, but it relies on a relatively simple idea: If an election has areas that have extremely high voter turnout -- close to 100% -- where that turnout is mostly for one candidate, the fix is likely in.
.

In the case of Putin, the aberrant data came from Chechnya: a small region, obviously very hostile to Russia, under military rule, delivered nearly 100% vote for his (I think) 2nd term election. Impossible, but also immaterial: the outcome would have been the same if the vote was 100% against Putin, the area is just too small. No idea about Uganda... but in case of the US, these happen to be very material states!

Someone should perhaps dig out the Austrian model and apply their algorithm to the US... but we know the answer already, don't we?
Sodomia delenda est

Reply
#20
It has been reported that Hillary had a stomach virus, fell, hit her head and received a concussion, and will be home bound and incommunicado for a week.

Several things spring to mind. Anybody know how long the usual time is between cosmetic surgeries? The last time she was thought to have gone under the knife was 2007. Since she was not hospitalized for the concussion - there are many questions. Does it take a full week to recover - enough time to avoid the Benghazi hearings? A stomach virus is a nice cover for a slimmer, trimmer-looking person, with bruising.

[Image: b.150.100.16777215.0.stories.thirdgroup....tures2.jpg] [Image: Hillary-Clinton-plastic-surgery.jpg]
Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  2012 Presidential Watch: Part II drgonzaga 400 128,247 12-13-2012, 12:57 AM
Last Post: WmLambert
  2012 Presidential Watch John L 1,886 953,440 05-12-2012, 10:39 PM
Last Post: John L

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)