Reagan was way more liberal than the current crop of Repubs...
We've been quite Liberal since Reagan.
About time for a good solid Conservative or Libertarian.
-John
I'd say it's past time to replace BOTH parties. If you truly believe that one is more honest or trustworthy than the other, you're just delusional.
I'd say it's past time to replace BOTH parties. If you truly believe that one is more honest or trustworthy than the other, you're just delusional.
You'll probably not going to vote in any election since NO candidate has those values.
Some people can open their hearts & change for the better, others not so much.
Neither Clinton nor Obama ever claimed to be against it. They just weren't prepared to make it an issue in the 2008 election.
Compare & contrast that with the current raving & pandering on the Right.
"They're just as bad!" is the usual defensive right wing bullshit.
You just committed ATP&N suicide
I'm sorry to make this a "but they did it, too" point, but...Is that honestly what you think Hillary Clinton did over the last decade?
This is what she said in 2004:
"I believe that marriage is not just a bond but a sacred bond between a man and a woman. I have had occasion in my life to defend marriage, to stand up for marriage, to believe in the hard work and challenge of marriage. So I take umbrage at anyone who might suggest that those of us who worry about amending the Constitution are less committed to the sanctity of marriage, or to the fundamental bedrock principle that exists between a man and a woman, going back into the mists of history as one of the founding, foundational institutions of history and humanity and civilization, and that its primary, principal role during those millennia has been the raising and socializing of children for the society into which they are to become adults."
If you do believe that she's had a genuine change of heart since then, does it concern you that she can change her "fundamental bedrock principles" so quickly? Does she have any convictions that she won't change when the political winds shift? I mean, she's not undecided on the issue; she actually takes "umbrage" at anyone who questions her strongly held beliefs.
I disagree with Bernie Sanders on a lot of issues, but at least he seems upfront about his views and I will give him credit for that.
I'm sorry to make this a "but they did it, too" point, but...Is that honestly what you think Hillary Clinton did over the last decade?
This is what she said in 2004:
"I believe that marriage is not just a bond but a sacred bond between a man and a woman. I have had occasion in my life to defend marriage, to stand up for marriage, to believe in the hard work and challenge of marriage. So I take umbrage at anyone who might suggest that those of us who worry about amending the Constitution are less committed to the sanctity of marriage, or to the fundamental bedrock principle that exists between a man and a woman, going back into the mists of history as one of the founding, foundational institutions of history and humanity and civilization, and that its primary, principal role during those millennia has been the raising and socializing of children for the society into which they are to become adults."
If you do believe that she's had a genuine change of heart since then, does it concern you that she can change her "fundamental bedrock principles" so quickly? Does she have any convictions that she won't change when the political winds shift? I mean, she's not undecided on the issue; she actually takes "umbrage" at anyone who questions her strongly held beliefs.
I disagree with Bernie Sanders on a lot of issues, but at least he seems upfront about his views and I will give him credit for that.
Oh please I listed 3 things just as an example, none of which should be considered "pure ideology". You didn't want to quote them though cause you know yourself at least 1 or 2 should be attainable. You also dodged my quesiton of am I not supposed to vote for someone that represents what I want?He didn't do anything of the kind. He is just motivated to be blind, just as you are when you talk about voting for what you believe when what you believe can't win or probably isn't even running instead of subtracting a vote from a candidate that could win with your vote and allowing thereby, for a third person who you really would hate winning actually winning because you insist on a pure ideological vote. This notion of equivalency and ideological purity are two ways that people who hate themselves stick themselves in the eye. They refuse to face reality and act in a practical manner while patting themselves on the back as crusaders.
Form a third party that CAN win or push for a Constitutional Convention. Only with those two near impossibilities will anything change unless we finally fall flat on our faces. Don't dream and be lazy. Don't throw your vote away like a spoiled brat or if you do, know who you are.
4: Someone that nominates an AG that doesn't support Civil asset forfeiture and how about a reform on it while we're at it.
First of all you took it as a smear. I will add that Holder refused to prosecute the banks "To big to jail" so don't act like he WAS a saint.You demean yourself with that nasty smear. Holder has done more to limit civil asset forfeiture than any AG in modern history.
You make the perfect the enemy of the good.
Speaking of "luna"tics...How abhorrently ugly of you to hold this religious opinion that there is a middle that isn't moronic or extreme. That's just another lunatic extreme idea. 14 degrees left of center is where compromise should happen and that's about two hairs past a freckle.
First of all you took it as a smear. I will add that Holder refused to prosecute the banks "To big to jail" so don't act like he WAS a saint.
Oh and he's not in office anymore now is he? Loretta Lynch is and she supports it. Now I want her gone and from here out I want more AG's that do what Holder did.. but we didn't get that this last round did we? <-- you won't answer this because you are the enemy of honesty and integrity.
Are you capable of any thought that isn't 100% filled with bias? NOPE
First of all you took it as a smear. I will add that Holder refused to prosecute the banks "To big to jail" so don't act like he WAS a saint.
Oh and he's not in office anymore now is he? Loretta Lynch is and she supports it. Now I want her gone and from here out I want more AG's that do what Holder did.. but we didn't get that this last round did we? <-- you won't answer this because you are the enemy of honesty and integrity.
Are you capable of any thought that isn't 100% filled with bias? NOPE
That indeed does suck and I don't think people recognize how good holder was for the American people. Was he perfect? No but he's been one of the best I've seen.
He'd have likely done more if he didn't have to deal with a Congress full of spiteful assholes.
That's the real story of the Obama Admin in a nutshell.
And yet, I'd say obama will go down as one of the most consequential presidents in modern history all despite the worst and least productive congress. Amazing when you think about. Had it been someone else we probably would have had two lame duck presidents.
I look at it as being the exact opposite of what the right wanted with this president and I can't help but smile
If I fault Obama & my fellow Dems for anything, it was the foolish belief that Repubs might become partners in govt rather than bitter & spiteful saboteurs. They should have come out swinging like FDR's first 100 days. It's what the base wanted & what America would have gladly followed. Their lack of forceful leadership & direction allowed the backlash of 2010 & the quagmire that has followed.
Obama isn't some progressive librul. He's a socially liberal 70's era Republican.If I fault Obama & my fellow Dems for anything, it was the foolish belief that Repubs might become partners in govt rather than bitter & spiteful saboteurs. They should have come out swinging like FDR's first 100 days. It's what the base wanted & what America would have gladly followed. Their lack of forceful leadership & direction allowed the backlash of 2010 & the quagmire that has followed.
Shit. DirtyFuckingHippies (DFH) have been right going on 40 years now. The problem is that the Democratic party is a center-right party attempting to govern a massive Empire...in context of the rest of western civilization.Hindsight is 20/20. As moonie points out all the time, the left doesn't understand the rights irrational behavior and in this case I don't think they believed a whole political party would act like what amounts to a child throwing a temper tantrum for months let alone years.
If I fault Obama & my fellow Dems for anything, it was the foolish belief that Repubs might become partners in govt rather than bitter & spiteful saboteurs. They should have come out swinging like FDR's first 100 days. It's what the base wanted & what America would have gladly followed. Their lack of forceful leadership & direction allowed the backlash of 2010 & the quagmire that has followed.
Marriage has got historic, religious and moral content that goes back to the beginning of time, and I think a marriage is as a marriage has always been, between a man and a woman
On both sides of the isle, the primary voters are completely brainwashed and braindead. Both parties need to go. In order for that to happen, enough people have to wake up and vote in an outsider who will push hard for electoral reform.