Total Posts:18|Showing Posts:1-18
Jump to topic:

GOP establishment getting wrecked

thett3
Posts: 14,334
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2015 1:52:07 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Just look at these numbers:

Explicitly anti establistment candidates Trump, Carson, and Cruz have 29.3%, 24.1% and 7.3% respectively. Throw in Rand Paul and Mike Huckabee who are niche candidates and have collectively 5% and you have 65.7%, AKA 2/3rds of the Republican base supporting anti establishment candidates.

Jeb! is at 7.1%. Rubio is at 8.8%.Kasich and Christie collectively have 5.1%. Even if you throw in Fiorina, who while an outsider has been shilled for by the establishment, the establishment has 24.1%....less than a quarter of the vote and less than Teflon Don is pulling in himself. LOL

As an edgy tough guy who hates the establishment, man, this development is hilarious to me

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com...
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
thett3
Posts: 14,334
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2015 1:54:28 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Jeb! is polling lower than the Cruz missile, lol. I bet the donors who bought Jeb! for $100,000,000 are feeling some regret now
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2015 2:04:05 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/4/2015 1:52:07 AM, thett3 wrote:
Just look at these numbers:

Explicitly anti establistment candidates Trump, Carson, and Cruz have 29.3%, 24.1% and 7.3% respectively. Throw in Rand Paul and Mike Huckabee who are niche candidates and have collectively 5% and you have 65.7%, AKA 2/3rds of the Republican base supporting anti establishment candidates.

Jeb! is at 7.1%. Rubio is at 8.8%.Kasich and Christie collectively have 5.1%. Even if you throw in Fiorina, who while an outsider has been shilled for by the establishment, the establishment has 24.1%....less than a quarter of the vote and less than Teflon Don is pulling in himself. LOL

As an edgy tough guy who hates the establishment, man, this development is hilarious to me

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com...

I still bet it doesn't hold.
thett3
Posts: 14,334
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2015 2:05:13 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Part of me feels bad for Jeb! who seems like a nice guy and obviously has some kind of inferiority complex (my bet is that W beat him up a lot as a child) but he should know better than to think being an obvious shill for whoever throws money his way isn't impressive. Trump is right, the system where wealthy donors buy off politicians has to go
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
thett3
Posts: 14,334
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2015 2:06:48 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/4/2015 2:04:05 AM, TBR wrote:
At 11/4/2015 1:52:07 AM, thett3 wrote:
Just look at these numbers:

Explicitly anti establistment candidates Trump, Carson, and Cruz have 29.3%, 24.1% and 7.3% respectively. Throw in Rand Paul and Mike Huckabee who are niche candidates and have collectively 5% and you have 65.7%, AKA 2/3rds of the Republican base supporting anti establishment candidates.

Jeb! is at 7.1%. Rubio is at 8.8%.Kasich and Christie collectively have 5.1%. Even if you throw in Fiorina, who while an outsider has been shilled for by the establishment, the establishment has 24.1%....less than a quarter of the vote and less than Teflon Don is pulling in himself. LOL

As an edgy tough guy who hates the establishment, man, this development is hilarious to me

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com...

I still bet it doesn't hold.

The next president of the United States has held a lead in the republican primary longer than there are days left until the voting begins. Virtually all of Carsons rise comes not from The Donald but from other candidates vote shares...people are fed up with establishment candidates who turn on them the moment they're sworn in
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2015 1:11:30 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/4/2015 1:52:07 AM, thett3 wrote:
Just look at these numbers:

Explicitly anti establistment candidates Trump, Carson, and Cruz have 29.3%, 24.1% and 7.3% respectively. Throw in Rand Paul and Mike Huckabee who are niche candidates and have collectively 5% and you have 65.7%, AKA 2/3rds of the Republican base supporting anti establishment candidates.

Jeb! is at 7.1%. Rubio is at 8.8%.Kasich and Christie collectively have 5.1%. Even if you throw in Fiorina, who while an outsider has been shilled for by the establishment, the establishment has 24.1%....less than a quarter of the vote and less than Teflon Don is pulling in himself. LOL

As an edgy tough guy who hates the establishment, man, this development is hilarious to me

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com...

Your last sentence confused me.

Personally I'm so anti establishment that I'd be willing to vote for a communist or NAZI party guy, had a chance.

Here is my concern with Trump. The guy has a really strong personality, people like Hillary or Jeb will just bend over and play by the rules. They aren't great leaders. Trump is a great leader, he will cut through red tape and do whatever it takes to get his way. I'm sure he'd do some great things, but it's kind of dangerous to set a precedent of breaking rules to get your way. It sets up people who aren't great leaders to manage and do the same thing.

I think we should do what the Romans did. For short periods of time, we should be able to elect dictators, for terms of 2-4 years. Maybe a 3/4 vote in the senate and house would allow a dictator to happen, so people like Trump can do great things, while also not setting any new precedents that could harm the office of presidency.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2015 4:18:59 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/5/2015 1:11:30 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 11/4/2015 1:52:07 AM, thett3 wrote:
Just look at these numbers:

Explicitly anti establistment candidates Trump, Carson, and Cruz have 29.3%, 24.1% and 7.3% respectively. Throw in Rand Paul and Mike Huckabee who are niche candidates and have collectively 5% and you have 65.7%, AKA 2/3rds of the Republican base supporting anti establishment candidates.

Jeb! is at 7.1%. Rubio is at 8.8%.Kasich and Christie collectively have 5.1%. Even if you throw in Fiorina, who while an outsider has been shilled for by the establishment, the establishment has 24.1%....less than a quarter of the vote and less than Teflon Don is pulling in himself. LOL

As an edgy tough guy who hates the establishment, man, this development is hilarious to me

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com...

Your last sentence confused me.

Personally I'm so anti establishment that I'd be willing to vote for a communist or NAZI party guy, had a chance.

Here is my concern with Trump. The guy has a really strong personality, people like Hillary or Jeb will just bend over and play by the rules. They aren't great leaders. Trump is a great leader, he will cut through red tape and do whatever it takes to get his way. I'm sure he'd do some great things, but it's kind of dangerous to set a precedent of breaking rules to get your way. It sets up people who aren't great leaders to manage and do the same thing.

I think we should do what the Romans did. For short periods of time, we should be able to elect dictators, for terms of 2-4 years. Maybe a 3/4 vote in the senate and house would allow a dictator to happen, so people like Trump can do great things, while also not setting any new precedents that could harm the office of presidency.

When reading this I was thinking... Well, we have that, just not a single person. Power in the US is very diffuse (built that way), but if Republican or Democrat win the executive and legislative branches, there is your 2/3.

Democracy's are slow - no doubt. You can't shake-up the entire scheme based on a "strong leaders" will regardless.
JMcKinley
Posts: 314
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2015 5:11:50 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/5/2015 4:18:59 PM, TBR wrote:
At 11/5/2015 1:11:30 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 11/4/2015 1:52:07 AM, thett3 wrote:
Just look at these numbers:

Explicitly anti establistment candidates Trump, Carson, and Cruz have 29.3%, 24.1% and 7.3% respectively. Throw in Rand Paul and Mike Huckabee who are niche candidates and have collectively 5% and you have 65.7%, AKA 2/3rds of the Republican base supporting anti establishment candidates.

Jeb! is at 7.1%. Rubio is at 8.8%.Kasich and Christie collectively have 5.1%. Even if you throw in Fiorina, who while an outsider has been shilled for by the establishment, the establishment has 24.1%....less than a quarter of the vote and less than Teflon Don is pulling in himself. LOL

As an edgy tough guy who hates the establishment, man, this development is hilarious to me

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com...

Your last sentence confused me.

Personally I'm so anti establishment that I'd be willing to vote for a communist or NAZI party guy, had a chance.

Here is my concern with Trump. The guy has a really strong personality, people like Hillary or Jeb will just bend over and play by the rules. They aren't great leaders. Trump is a great leader, he will cut through red tape and do whatever it takes to get his way. I'm sure he'd do some great things, but it's kind of dangerous to set a precedent of breaking rules to get your way. It sets up people who aren't great leaders to manage and do the same thing.

I think we should do what the Romans did. For short periods of time, we should be able to elect dictators, for terms of 2-4 years. Maybe a 3/4 vote in the senate and house would allow a dictator to happen, so people like Trump can do great things, while also not setting any new precedents that could harm the office of presidency.

When reading this I was thinking... Well, we have that, just not a single person. Power in the US is very diffuse (built that way), but if Republican or Democrat win the executive and legislative branches, there is your 2/3.

Democracy's are slow - no doubt. You can't shake-up the entire scheme based on a "strong leaders" will regardless.

Slow is good. Historically, rapid change is violent and messy.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2015 5:28:02 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Slow is good. Historically, rapid change is violent and messy.

Slow is a good way to stop some sort of Hitler from completely destroying a country, but I'd disagree that rapid is always violent and messy, or that that necessarily is a bad thing. I think leaders such as Julia's Caeser and Napolean have brought about massive positive change in a short period of time that was beneficial. Changes that persist until this day and we benefit greatly from. Such as Caeser fixing the Calender, or Napolean fixing how addresses were organized and numerous other things which are great and under appreciated, that is beside all the good they did for their own people during their short reigns.
JMcKinley
Posts: 314
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2015 4:49:34 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/5/2015 5:28:02 PM, Wylted wrote:
Slow is good. Historically, rapid change is violent and messy.

Slow is a good way to stop some sort of Hitler from completely destroying a country, but I'd disagree that rapid is always violent and messy, or that that necessarily is a bad thing. I think leaders such as Julia's Caeser and Napolean have brought about massive positive change in a short period of time that was beneficial. Changes that persist until this day and we benefit greatly from. Such as Caeser fixing the Calender, or Napolean fixing how addresses were organized and numerous other things which are great and under appreciated, that is beside all the good they did for their own people during their short reigns.

But both of those people also caused a great deal of unnecessary harm to people who were not part of their group. Yes some good things came of their rule, but there was also a great deal of pain and suffering.

But I agree that its probably not accurate to assume that ALL fast change is bad change. I would just prefer a government that has checks and balances to temper dramatic change even if that means that the change takes a bit longer.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2015 10:38:25 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/6/2015 4:49:34 PM, JMcKinley wrote:
At 11/5/2015 5:28:02 PM, Wylted wrote:
Slow is good. Historically, rapid change is violent and messy.

Slow is a good way to stop some sort of Hitler from completely destroying a country, but I'd disagree that rapid is always violent and messy, or that that necessarily is a bad thing. I think leaders such as Julia's Caeser and Napolean have brought about massive positive change in a short period of time that was beneficial. Changes that persist until this day and we benefit greatly from. Such as Caeser fixing the Calender, or Napolean fixing how addresses were organized and numerous other things which are great and under appreciated, that is beside all the good they did for their own people during their short reigns.

But both of those people also caused a great deal of unnecessary harm to people who were not part of their group. Yes some good things came of their rule, but there was also a great deal of pain and suffering.

But I agree that its probably not accurate to assume that ALL fast change is bad change. I would just prefer a government that has checks and balances to temper dramatic change even if that means that the change takes a bit longer.

Any person in great power, will have to make choices which will hurt a lot of people. That's why you have to look at the harm/benefit ratio
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/8/2015 8:56:55 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/5/2015 1:11:30 PM, Wylted wrote:

I think we should do what the Romans did. For short periods of time, we should be able to elect dictators, for terms of 2-4 years. Maybe a 3/4 vote in the senate and house would allow a dictator to happen, so people like Trump can do great things, while also not setting any new precedents that could harm the office of presidency.

Assuming this isn't sarcasm, I think that this is a terrible idea...

I mean, the idea of a dictator was one prominent theme that allowed Rome to slide from a republic to an empire.

The solution should be trying to fix our democracy by using our democratic principles - getting rid of gerrymandering, and I'd argue for a proportional system of representation.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/8/2015 11:45:39 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/8/2015 8:56:55 PM, Contra wrote:
At 11/5/2015 1:11:30 PM, Wylted wrote:

I think we should do what the Romans did. For short periods of time, we should be able to elect dictators, for terms of 2-4 years. Maybe a 3/4 vote in the senate and house would allow a dictator to happen, so people like Trump can do great things, while also not setting any new precedents that could harm the office of presidency.

Assuming this isn't sarcasm, I think that this is a terrible idea...

I mean, the idea of a dictator was one prominent theme that allowed Rome to slide from a republic to an empire.

Well, the rules were broken. Dictators were only allowed to be elected for 2 years, but Caeser was elected dictator for life. However it was necessary for him to become dictator because of how factional the government was, no real progress could be made.

Besides that, there is nothing wrong with an empire. Rome was doing extremely well. The downfall of Rome only happened because Democrats took power and allowed illegal immigration to take place.

The solution should be trying to fix our democracy by using our democratic principles - getting rid of gerrymandering, and I'd argue for a proportional system of representation.
EndarkenedRationalist
Posts: 14,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2015 12:06:05 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/8/2015 11:45:39 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 11/8/2015 8:56:55 PM, Contra wrote:
At 11/5/2015 1:11:30 PM, Wylted wrote:

I think we should do what the Romans did. For short periods of time, we should be able to elect dictators, for terms of 2-4 years. Maybe a 3/4 vote in the senate and house would allow a dictator to happen, so people like Trump can do great things, while also not setting any new precedents that could harm the office of presidency.

Assuming this isn't sarcasm, I think that this is a terrible idea...

I mean, the idea of a dictator was one prominent theme that allowed Rome to slide from a republic to an empire.

Well, the rules were broken. Dictators were only allowed to be elected for 2 years, but Caeser was elected dictator for life. However it was necessary for him to become dictator because of how factional the government was, no real progress could be made.

Besides that, there is nothing wrong with an empire. Rome was doing extremely well. The downfall of Rome only happened because Democrats took power and allowed illegal immigration to take place.

I know this is trolling because even a 7th grade textbook has a better and more accurate understanding of history than this, but I wanted to point out the irony of the anti-Statist, Liberty-loving Wylted saying "there is nothing wrong with an empire."

The solution should be trying to fix our democracy by using our democratic principles - getting rid of gerrymandering, and I'd argue for a proportional system of representation.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2015 12:09:34 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/9/2015 12:06:05 AM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 11/8/2015 11:45:39 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 11/8/2015 8:56:55 PM, Contra wrote:
At 11/5/2015 1:11:30 PM, Wylted wrote:

I think we should do what the Romans did. For short periods of time, we should be able to elect dictators, for terms of 2-4 years. Maybe a 3/4 vote in the senate and house would allow a dictator to happen, so people like Trump can do great things, while also not setting any new precedents that could harm the office of presidency.

Assuming this isn't sarcasm, I think that this is a terrible idea...

I mean, the idea of a dictator was one prominent theme that allowed Rome to slide from a republic to an empire.

Well, the rules were broken. Dictators were only allowed to be elected for 2 years, but Caeser was elected dictator for life. However it was necessary for him to become dictator because of how factional the government was, no real progress could be made.

Besides that, there is nothing wrong with an empire. Rome was doing extremely well. The downfall of Rome only happened because Democrats took power and allowed illegal immigration to take place.

I know this is trolling because even a 7th grade textbook has a better and more accurate understanding of history than this, but I wanted to point out the irony of the anti-Statist, Liberty-loving Wylted saying "there is nothing wrong with an empire."

I think some groups of people prefer an empire. If the Romans prefer it, that's what they should have. I don't think it's good for America, or the American people, no matter how good of one it would be. I wouldn't want to impose my libertarian values on a country who doesn't share them.

The solution should be trying to fix our democracy by using our democratic principles - getting rid of gerrymandering, and I'd argue for a proportional system of representation.
xus00HAY
Posts: 1,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2015 4:12:41 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
It seems to me that when you vote for Jeb Bush it is not unlike saying to his brother that he did OK and we forgive him.
xus00HAY
Posts: 1,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2015 4:48:53 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
I suspect that the Republicans will try a 100%negative campaign strategy. There is another republic candidate ,Governor Scott Walker who is keeping a low profile. He has signed on as a candidate but has suspended his campaign. Sometime next year the republican candidates now battling it out could quit, this would leave someone who would just try to keep his mouth shut while the other republicans convince America that the democrat candidate is a total ****head
jat93
Posts: 1,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2015 7:17:50 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/4/2015 1:52:07 AM, thett3 wrote:
Just look at these numbers:

Explicitly anti establistment candidates Trump, Carson, and Cruz have 29.3%, 24.1% and 7.3% respectively. Throw in Rand Paul and Mike Huckabee who are niche candidates and have collectively 5% and you have 65.7%, AKA 2/3rds of the Republican base supporting anti establishment candidates.

Jeb! is at 7.1%. Rubio is at 8.8%.Kasich and Christie collectively have 5.1%. Even if you throw in Fiorina, who while an outsider has been shilled for by the establishment, the establishment has 24.1%....less than a quarter of the vote and less than Teflon Don is pulling in himself. LOL

As an edgy tough guy who hates the establishment, man, this development is hilarious to me

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com...

Republicans are simply reaping what they've sown.

For years, they've posed as the party of small government liberty-lovers. They've railed against debts and deficits, but in office they've dramatically expanded those things... whereas Clinton, a Democrat, actually reduced the national deficit to zero. They've campaigned against increasing federal spending, but Reagan & GWB aggressively expanded federal budgets. Republicans give lip-service to free market capitalism, but orchestrated the TARP bailouts in 2008.

Republican administrations haven't lived up to their promises. Even with control of congress, a significant portion of Republicans see McConnell and Boehner as traitors. The anti-establishment base brought down Majority Leader Cantor in the primaries. Republican leaders have fed this beast for years, using it for votes and support, but now the beast is fed up with flip-flopping politicians. The beast is hungry. And from the POV of the Republican establishment -- the donor class, the political elite, and what's left of Republican moderates -- the beast is out of control.