lpetrich
Contributor
Lean left in what way???
Pandering to Wall Street means that she's pro-business, and that's the Right's big shtick.
-
Features
US President 2016 - the Great Horse Race
- Thread starter lpetrich
- Start date
Pandering to Wall Street means that she's pro-business, and that's the Right's big shtick.
Harry Bosch
Contributor
There are many business people who are democratic and moderate. Modern republicans (Cruz and Trump) are becoming less business friendly. There is more room in Wall Street to expand democratic relations. A great many in Wall Street are fiscally conservative, socially liberal. Democrats shouldn't cede this voting block.
Cheerful Charlie
Contributor
She's backkkkkk! Palin suggests she might be good VP choice for Trump.
http://www.rawstory.com/2016/05/cho...tted-as-anybody-in-the-country-for-trumps-vp/
Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin (R) on Sunday said that she is ready to serve as Donald Trump’s vice presidential running mate, but she worried about being a “burden” to the presumptive nominee.
“I think I’m pretty much as vetted as anybody in the country could be vetted,” Palin told CNN’s Jake Tapper. “I think there are so many other great people out there in American that could serve in this position.”
http://www.rawstory.com/2016/05/cho...tted-as-anybody-in-the-country-for-trumps-vp/
Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin (R) on Sunday said that she is ready to serve as Donald Trump’s vice presidential running mate, but she worried about being a “burden” to the presumptive nominee.
“I think I’m pretty much as vetted as anybody in the country could be vetted,” Palin told CNN’s Jake Tapper. “I think there are so many other great people out there in American that could serve in this position.”
Colonel Sanders
Senior Member
Shockingly, she doesn't seem to understand that the results of her vetting were entirely negative to all but the most feebleminded voters in the U.S.
SimpleDon
Veteran Member
A third party can't get on enough ballots in enough states for the general election this late in the calendar for the establishment Republicans to go that way to run someone against Trump. There is a ready made option available however, the Libertarian party.
It is on the ballot in all fifty states. The platforms of the two parties overlap enough to make it work. The main areas of disagreement are drugs and gay rights. And the gay rights thing for the Republicans is just pandering to the religious right and they are supporting Trump.
It is on the ballot in all fifty states. The platforms of the two parties overlap enough to make it work. The main areas of disagreement are drugs and gay rights. And the gay rights thing for the Republicans is just pandering to the religious right and they are supporting Trump.
RavenSky
The Doctor's Wife
That would be the straw that breaks my eardrums this election cycle. I cannot stand the voices of any of the people running this cycle as it is. Bringing her back would be far too much to expect me to tolerate.
Can't we please have 8 more years of President Obama... or at least have him give all of the speeches for whoever wins?
angelo
Deleted
WTF is Palin still doing there? I thought America and the world had seen the last of her!
Harry Bosch
Contributor
Cheerful Charlie
Contributor
Right now the problem with the Libertarian Party is that they have as many candidates as the GOP had. Mostly kooks. The idea of some GOP candidate taking over the LP is problematic to say the least.
SimpleDon
Veteran Member
Apparently being a kook doesn't disqualify one from being a Republican candidate for office. It is one more point of similarity between Republicans and Libertarians, not a difference.
What kind of a candidate would you expect from the Libertarian party?
SimpleDon
Veteran Member
And I was thinking more on the order of the establishment Republicans providing the Libertarians with enough money to swing a few states to Clinton, not to field a Republican as a Libertarian candidate. Paul Ryan already has a full plate.
Jason Harvestdancer
Contributor
I don't get it. Sure Paul Ryan has "Paul" in his name, but other than that I can't think of a single reason why people keep mentioning him in relation to anything libertarian.
Palin is like political herpes - she might go into remission for a little while, but she'll always be back when you least expect it
SimpleDon
Veteran Member
I was joking that rather than back a third party or independent candidate for president against Trump the establishment Republicans should back the Libertarian candidate, that Libertarians are basically Republicans who do illegal drugs. Someone thought that I meant to run an establishment Republican as the Libertarian candidate for president. Joking once again I said that Paul Ryan already has too much on his plate inferring that he is the only one in the Republican party who they turn to when they need someone, for example, to be the Speaker of the House.
But it is hard to be serious when discussing Libertarians. They think that the only think that the government gets right and is worth preserving is the adjudication of civil lawsuits. I mean really.
Jimmy Higgins
Contributor
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2001
- Messages
- 45,990
- Basic Beliefs
- Calvinistic Atheist
There is that liberal CNN bringing out Sarah Palin.
Not sure if that is accurate at this time. These graphics are from the Libertarian party website. Unable to get delegates in NY, PA, OH, VA and IL, they may have a hard time reaching 270.
Cheerful Charlie
Contributor
Hyuk! Looks like Palin is backing a David Brat type outsider against Paul Ryan. That should ingratiate her with establishment Republican types.
Terrell
Veteran Member
- Joined
- Jan 6, 2006
- Messages
- 1,182
- Location
- DMV
- Basic Beliefs
- socially liberal/libertarian on most issues, but not all.
I think we'll have to wait and see if they're able to get on more state ballots. The ones that are in blue are states that they're in the process of getting on the ballot in, I don't know if they'll be successful.
Assuming that Gary Johnson is the Libertarian candidate and he can get some attention I could see him playing spoiler but I'm not so sure who it benefits. I think it's more complicated than simply thinking it hurts the Republicans.
Here are his positions on issues, some of these are old, some are new. I'd take the older ones with a grain of salt since I don't know if he's changed is views on those. Generally speaking he's not in favor of military interventionism.
http://www.ontheissues.org/Gary_Johnson.htm
Jason Harvestdancer
Contributor
I don't get it.
Republicans like business subsidies, Libertarians don't.
Republicans like policing the world, Libertarians don't.
Republicans like invading other countries, Libertarians don't.
Republicans oppose gay marriage, Libertarians don't.
Republicans want religious moral laws, Libertarians don't.
Republicans want to ban immorality, Libertarians don't.
Republicans like protective tariffs, Libertarians don't.
And all you can think of is drugs?
I disagree considerably with your assessment of libertarians.
A libertarian to a considerable degree agrees with a true Republican (not a neo-con!) on economic matters and with a Democrat on non-financial social matters.
Furthermore, you don't need to be a druggie to see that the drug war causes far more harm than the drugs.
I do agree the civil suit approach to things is nuts.