^^^^ Why do you think I love the guy?

No homo

(06-09-2014 09:31 PM)All or Nothing Wrote:  

(06-09-2014 08:09 PM)assman Wrote:  Not at all.

I'm saying we need to get rid of the statists. And that includes pretty much all the Democrats in office and most of the Republicans. Having those two groups find common ground, like Huntsman is trying to do, is only going to make things worse because it will mean more laws, more government, more debt, etc.

As long as the statists rule the roost, Americans would be better off if Congress sat on their hands and collected their checks for their entire term in office.

Allow me to play spin doctor here.

Statism may be becoming more prevalent as a reaction to the growing dysfunction of the federal government at the highest levels.

If Congressmen and Senators begin to work together in a way that rises above their respective party lines and begin to resolve the dysfunction that exists in the current two party system on the federal level, statism might become less appealing as a result.

Also, think about this, the government might be growing due to how it is complete mess at the highest level and this mess cascades downwards to lower levels of government where more people are required to make the government run. If the government becomes more efficient at the top, it may make all of the levels of government beneath it more efficient as well reducing the amount of people working for the government and as a result reducing the size of the government.

Just throwing my thoughts out there.

I think you are being naive. The things that Democrats and Republicans in Congress can find common ground on are generally not in the citizenry's interests.

Examples:
- widespread government surveillance, indefinite detention (no charge, no evidence): Patriot Act
- more federal level security: expanding funding for TSA (not only are they in every airport, they now operate on trains (Amtrak) and highways (VIPR program)
- more federal control of education: No Child Left Behind
- protection for members of Congress to trade on inside information
- Congressional exemption from Obamacare (in fairness to Republicans, this was primarily driven by Democrats, but if Democrats would allow exemption repeal to come to a vote, I'm sure plenty of Republicans would vote against)
- resolutions that are tantamount to declarations of war without having the sack to vote for a formal Declaration of War (look up the US' last Declaration of War, and then count up how many wars we've been in since then)
- confirm counterfeiters (money printers) as Fed Chairman

I could go on, but you get the point. On average, when Congress finds common ground and acts, the worse things get for Americans.

Both parties suck. If you're going to vote, vote for the Prohibition Party.

(06-08-2014 10:59 PM)Truth Teller Wrote:  Hillary doesn't have a chance. She's chronically unlikeable, uncharismatic, and worn out. She's the favorite until she gets up against guys who are young, energetic, and charismatic.

A lot of people try to say that Obama won the nomination because he was black. That's a gross oversimplification. Obama won the nomination because he was everything Hillary wasn't: young, likeable, and energetic. They saw him as someone they'd want to sit down and drink a beer with. They saw Hillary as the HR director or boss lecturing you about something you said.

Obama astutely targeted smaller caucaus states. By racking up wins in them through his campaign's relative strength at organizing and generating voter enthusiasm, he did quite well and created a lot of momentum. Hillary ignored these states, which was a strategic blunder.

It's all about the GOPs ability to pick a good candidate. If they cave to special interests again the election will be a non-event. Stave off the nutjobs and its a race. Most women don't actually like Hillary, she might be female but given half an excuse and they'll drop her.