White Republicans are revolting: They keep winning elections, and keep getting angrier

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: amazing

Anger is preferable to a sheep-like acceptance that seems the alternative.

I actually feel you guys fear the reaction you get from the right. Yet, the right hasn't done much of anything to give voice to that 'anger'. Do you have an explanation for that?

I see disagreement. I see two parties that have betrayed their trust. That prefer their own comfort zone engendered by the current 'system'. I see a group that is using the political options in accordance with the laws of the land. Making their points and swinging more and more into their camp. Perhaps that's the source of your 'fear' at the 'anger'.

I agree that anger is preferable to sheep-like acceptance. However the issue is outrage at one party. You listen to any right wing/conservative media and they are angry at liberals/democrats/lefties etc, however I often wonder why they can't focus some of that anger on the conservative/republican/righties. Do they have blinders on? It's baffling.

originally posted by: nwtrucker
Now we have to be an aspiring ambulance chaser to have an opinion. Guffaw. Rather when debate fails, one resorts to status as opposed to germane points. As far as the current version of the Constitution? "Interpreted" out of recognition of the original. My statement was "some form or the original Constitution". Not yours whatsoever. Marriage equality. Purely an arbitrary. One union represents the continuance of the race. The other? An indulgence of impulse for an extremely small minority. Nowhere near equal in by books.

We hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal.

Not the Constitution but it still sums up the ideals of the nation. Something you would readily discard while claiming to adhere to it. You even admit right here that you don't want a new nation that adheres to the Constitution, you want to have a new nation that rewrites the Constitution. So much for your previous assertions that it's a nearly perfect document.

And no, not to have an opinion. To have an informed opinion. There is a very big difference between the two. Law is written in a certain way and words mean things. It takes being taught law in order to understand the laws in the country, I think it's a very poor system when people aren't taught the laws or how to defend themselves in court. It creates all kinds of costly and time consuming bottlenecks in the courts. It's one of those areas where education would make government run better. As I said though, I fully realize it's unrealistic because there's this idea that compulsory education needs to stop at 18 despite the fact we run out of time to teach all of the must knows by 18, and none of the nice to knows. A better compulsory system would make college less necessary, which also solves a wide range of issues.

I've done my share of long drives, you're a truck driver. I would be very surprised if you never sat down and made a mental list outlining what people should learn when and how long they should get to do it, all the way from first grade to graduation. Concepts like this are all I can think about when driving (well, that and trying to solve math proofs), or maybe I'm weird. Every time I've done it I come to the same conclusion, there's not enough hours in the school year.

No, sonny. I would avoid civil war or revolution at all costs. Far better to agree to disagree and divvy up the nation allowing those of your ilk to continue on your merry way while the rest of us go in ours. That is compromise, IMO, and avoids the above options. However, you and yours brook zero tolerance for our beliefs and values. It is you who doesn't compromise and demand we do so when the pendulum is swinging away from your agenda.

Zero tolerance? Since you mention me specifically, point out an instance from me of zero tolerance, because I don't believe in such a thing. If you want to divvy up the nation, you must recognize that your side loses big time in the division which is what I was trying to explain earlier. Tactically it is a very poor idea to have a few states secede and make your own conservative utopia. The south east isn't viable due to an uneducated workforce. The south west isn't viable due to a lack of water. Texas isn't viable because of the border. The north west is out because it leans left rather than right. The north east is also out because it leans left. That leaves you with the midwest, but thanks to their landlocked status they're incapable of existing as a group, and will instead be divided between the other 5 powers.

The end result is a national scale of what happened to Austin Texas. Austin is one of the few large cities in the US to have no congressional representation. The districts were drawn such that Austin was cut into 5 districts which stretch across the state and dilute their more liberal vote with the more conservative vote of everyone else. That is what will happen to the midwest (except they'll be annexed).

That leaves you with only one option, try and fix what you see to be problems in the feds and stay in the nation.

Again, perhaps even that option won't be necessary. There's one more Presidential election that 'could' move thing in a direction in our liking. Failing that? I have my 'outs'.

You will require more practice before you move in your political career, methinks.

I'll say it flat out like this. The candidate you like, will not get elected. Center right is what you have to be to win the Presidency. Every election since 1980 has been a center right guy. Why do you think Bush still has so much support despite doing bad in the polls? His policies are 100% in line with what the voters want to put in office.

Jeb Bush, Ben Carson, John Kasich, Rand Paul

Those 4 have support from moderates and in the cases of most of them they can also pull from Democrats. The challenge for each and every one of them is in getting through a primary that's hostile to more moderate views. They are the only candidates that are electable in a general election, unless you get some strange campaign matchup like Rubio vs Hillary who he absolutely destroys.

But in reality, the Democrat nominee will be Sanders, so that's the guy you've got to beat, and you can't beat him without getting the moderates.

I can't imagine ever going to another country because I don't like the person elected... actually, I take that back. In the past 2 or 3 weeks I have heard the following:
"I want to run 1000 sorties a day, reduce their entire country to rubble, kill anyone who is or might one day be involved with a group that will attack America, Civilians are just as guilty as militants, when it comes to a backwards people who don't even believe in God, you have no other choice but to kill them." -Duncan Hunter (R-CA)

Michele Bachman's numerous quotes about Jesus coming soon because of violence in Israel, and that if we escalate it, we can bring Jesus here to save us sooner.

A letter where the GOP demands to dictate the terms of the debates, and only allow questions that show candidates in a positive light (in other words, convert them from dumbed down reality shows to outright propaganda)

Presidential candidates are standing on the same stage as, and supporting, pastors that are calling for the death penalty for homosexuals.

And a few weeks before, these same candidates were at an interview/rally with a man where they all came to the same idea that if we can't deport the illegals, we need to enslave them to pick our crops.

When people in power are making these types of statements, serious # is about to go down, whether these people are laughed out of politics (more likely) or they claim enough power to enact these visions (less likely).

If these candidates go to the polls with these sorts of views, they will not get votes. It's as simple as that.

originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: amazing

Anger is preferable to a sheep-like acceptance that seems the alternative.

I actually feel you guys fear the reaction you get from the right. Yet, the right hasn't done much of anything to give voice to that 'anger'. Do you have an explanation for that?

I see disagreement. I see two parties that have betrayed their trust. That prefer their own comfort zone engendered by the current 'system'. I see a group that is using the political options in accordance with the laws of the land. Making their points and swinging more and more into their camp. Perhaps that's the source of your 'fear' at the 'anger'.

I agree that anger is preferable to sheep-like acceptance. However the issue is outrage at one party. You listen to any right wing/conservative media and they are angry at liberals/democrats/lefties etc, however I often wonder why they can't focus some of that anger on the conservative/republican/righties. Do they have blinders on? It's baffling.

All your post tells me is you don't listen to 'conservative' media much. Limbaugh spends almost as much time bashing the Republican Establishment as he does the left. Not quite as much time, but close.

FYI, there are many so-called right media that call themselves 'conservative' when they are actually not, IMO. The easiest way to tell them apart is the ones that do criticize the Republican party and those that do not.

Separating rhetoric from action is key. Rhetoric is a basic political tool used by all.

a reply to: Aazadan

Almost too much to bother with...but I will give it a try.

All men are created equal. What part of the word CREATED escapes you? It doesn't say all men ARE equal. It has a modifier. It is the word created.

A simple conservative rebuttal is the right want equality at the start line, the left at the finish line. The ability to evaluate falls under similarities and differences. One needs both. Remove one or the other and insanity ensues.

I agree the document is an ideal. I also recognize ideals cannot be attained. Merely approached. When I stated 'some form' of the Constitution, I was allowing those particular states to decide for themselves. DECIDE FOR THEMSELVES. Freedom of choice. Something this Federal gov't you so support is removing almost hourly. Personally? The original document is fine with me....

There is more than one definition of the word 'you'. Try looking at all of them...after you look up created.... The 'you' I was referring to was the crowd you support, back and in the long run, will personally profit from....although I think your better off sticking with video game creations.... ...in other words, as representative of a group or collective.

I won't bother with your breakdown of regional viabilities. The first requirement for 'viability' is FREEDOM. Your 'uneducated' south is fully matched by your inner cities on the coasts sans the criminality...

I agree my choice for President won't win. Your comment that center right always wins is flat-out wrong. Eisenhower wasn't center right, for his era, he won. Reagan wasn't center right for his era either. Bush 41 campaigned solely on Reagan policies. No center right republican has EVER won the Presidency.

Now add in the current lot running for the Democrats, Will use your argument back at you....Sanders is extreme left...no way he wins. He's already lost the moderates as reflected by the polls. Hillary? LOL. The montage of quotes that broad has put forth, and will be promoted in the final months, would wake up the dead!

Romney was center right and won the independents!...and lost the right base. Add it all up and the winner may be the most 'right' in history.....

As far as candidates standing on the same stage with pastors that called for the death penalty for homos, idiocy, by the way,....not much different than Obama with pastors that call the U.S. evil and the like.

I won't bother responding to your debate forum quotes. The diatribe received a 99.7 approval rating and was brilliant. The double standard between the two camps are blatant and your spin isn't worth any more comment. Simply put, if the voters dislike the format, they won't vote for them. A non-issue.....

The irony of your extreme quote examples is it makes the right look more 'moderate' in comparison.... The more I think about it, the better the right's chances look....

originally posted by: nwtrucker

originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: amazing

Anger is preferable to a sheep-like acceptance that seems the alternative.

I actually feel you guys fear the reaction you get from the right. Yet, the right hasn't done much of anything to give voice to that 'anger'. Do you have an explanation for that?

I see disagreement. I see two parties that have betrayed their trust. That prefer their own comfort zone engendered by the current 'system'. I see a group that is using the political options in accordance with the laws of the land. Making their points and swinging more and more into their camp. Perhaps that's the source of your 'fear' at the 'anger'.

I agree that anger is preferable to sheep-like acceptance. However the issue is outrage at one party. You listen to any right wing/conservative media and they are angry at liberals/democrats/lefties etc, however I often wonder why they can't focus some of that anger on the conservative/republican/righties. Do they have blinders on? It's baffling.

All your post tells me is you don't listen to 'conservative' media much. Limbaugh spends almost as much time bashing the Republican Establishment as he does the left. Not quite as much time, but close.

FYI, there are many so-called right media that call themselves 'conservative' when they are actually not, IMO. The easiest way to tell them apart is the ones that do criticize the Republican party and those that do not.

Separating rhetoric from action is key. Rhetoric is a basic political tool used by all.

LOL Once in while I'll tune into talk radio as I'm driving to see what's on the radar. and no Rush never bashes anyone on the republican side. Ever. He may say something like "the republican leadership should have seen this coming and done more to stop it" But that's weak and the next breath..."liberals like Obama want to literally destroy this great country"

All right wing media do this...weak criticism republicans and usually it's because they aren't doing more to stop liberals. LOL and then outrage and hateful rhetoric of the Democrats.

Surely you have to be able to see this? They all do it. O'Reilly, Coulter, Hannity and the rest.

originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: nwtrucker

originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: amazing

Anger is preferable to a sheep-like acceptance that seems the alternative.

I actually feel you guys fear the reaction you get from the right. Yet, the right hasn't done much of anything to give voice to that 'anger'. Do you have an explanation for that?

I see disagreement. I see two parties that have betrayed their trust. That prefer their own comfort zone engendered by the current 'system'. I see a group that is using the political options in accordance with the laws of the land. Making their points and swinging more and more into their camp. Perhaps that's the source of your 'fear' at the 'anger'.

I agree that anger is preferable to sheep-like acceptance. However the issue is outrage at one party. You listen to any right wing/conservative media and they are angry at liberals/democrats/lefties etc, however I often wonder why they can't focus some of that anger on the conservative/republican/righties. Do they have blinders on? It's baffling.

All your post tells me is you don't listen to 'conservative' media much. Limbaugh spends almost as much time bashing the Republican Establishment as he does the left. Not quite as much time, but close.

FYI, there are many so-called right media that call themselves 'conservative' when they are actually not, IMO. The easiest way to tell them apart is the ones that do criticize the Republican party and those that do not.

Separating rhetoric from action is key. Rhetoric is a basic political tool used by all.

LOL Once in while I'll tune into talk radio as I'm driving to see what's on the radar. and no Rush never bashes anyone on the republican side. Ever. He may say something like "the republican leadership should have seen this coming and done more to stop it" But that's weak and the next breath..."liberals like Obama want to literally destroy this great country"

All right wing media do this...weak criticism republicans and usually it's because they aren't doing more to stop liberals. LOL and then outrage and hateful rhetoric of the Democrats.

Surely you have to be able to see this? They all do it. O'Reilly, Coulter, Hannity and the rest.

Either your unbelievably unlucky or outright a fabricator. With 100% certainty, Limbaugh is the leading media personality on the right that lambastes the Republican Establishment. He holds them in contempt, frankly. it is striking that you are unaware of that.

The other you mention much less so. The Nedved Crowd spend more time defending the Republican Establishment than any.

You should try listening for yourself a little more....

a reply to: amazing

P.S.

Why do you think there is split in the republican party? That there isn't a large segment that disagree with the Republican Establishment's policies?

Of course, there's a back-lash from the grass-roots. It largely occurs in the right media, as you call it. Blogs and radios.

Your whole premise suggests the right is in some kind of lock-step with the party. Come on, I know it's sat. A.M. But really....LMAO.

They keep winning STATE elections. Young people and others rarely turn out for state elections. Older people vote, baby boomers and up, and they tend to vote Republican. They actually vote during state elections. Notionally though, they tend to lose. Don't hold your breath for a Republican president if Carson or his ilk are nominated.

originally posted by: amazing
LOL Once in while I'll tune into talk radio as I'm driving to see what's on the radar. and no Rush never bashes anyone on the republican side. Ever. He may say something like "the republican leadership should have seen this coming and done more to stop it" But that's weak and the next breath..."liberals like Obama want to literally destroy this great country"

All right wing media do this...weak criticism republicans and usually it's because they aren't doing more to stop liberals. LOL and then outrage and hateful rhetoric of the Democrats.

Surely you have to be able to see this? They all do it. O'Reilly, Coulter, Hannity and the rest.

Rush and Hannity for sure are very much against the establishment Republicans, they're 100% TP backers through and through. Rush for example views moderate Republicans as traitors because they use the Republican tag but approach the Democrats on policy. Hannity says we need to use nuclear weapons on civilians to prevent them from being radicalized and supports such ludicrous ideas as the Penny Plan to reign in government spending. They're as far removed from mainstream Republicans as one can get.

I would say that Rush and Hannity ARE main stream. They both have millions of listeners ...how much more mainstream can you get? They both influence republican voters. They have a lot of influence. I can't take people that whine and complain and are negative all the time, so I can only take them in small, very small doses. It makes me sick really.

I do listen and read. I know what's going on.

These two and really most of the pundits on right wing media are to blame for all of this outrage.

It's one thing to dislike a policy and have an argument and discussion about it and offer a solution.

But when people use terms like feminazi and Obumer and the kenyan communist and all the rest. I know I can disregard everything those people say because they are clearly brainwashed and not right in the head.

When someone constantly complains about only one side of our government/they have blinders on to their own party. Like Limbaugh and Hannity and OReilly and Coulter...I know I can't trust someone who can't be honest.

a reply to: blujack21

Too many candidates to slime during mid-terms. Presidential elections? Just one person.

This time all you have is Hillary and Sanders. No 'feel good' candidate to vote for now

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: amazing
LOL Once in while I'll tune into talk radio as I'm driving to see what's on the radar. and no Rush never bashes anyone on the republican side. Ever. He may say something like "the republican leadership should have seen this coming and done more to stop it" But that's weak and the next breath..."liberals like Obama want to literally destroy this great country"

All right wing media do this...weak criticism republicans and usually it's because they aren't doing more to stop liberals. LOL and then outrage and hateful rhetoric of the Democrats.

Surely you have to be able to see this? They all do it. O'Reilly, Coulter, Hannity and the rest.

Rush and Hannity for sure are very much against the establishment Republicans, they're 100% TP backers through and through. Rush for example views moderate Republicans as traitors because they use the Republican tag but approach the Democrats on policy. Hannity says we need to use nuclear weapons on civilians to prevent them from being radicalized and supports such ludicrous ideas as the Penny Plan to reign in government spending. They're as far removed from mainstream Republicans as one can get.

Thank goodness.

originally posted by: amazing
I would say that Rush and Hannity ARE main stream. They both have millions of listeners ...how much more mainstream can you get? They both influence republican voters. They have a lot of influence. I can't take people that whine and complain and are negative all the time, so I can only take them in small, very small doses. It makes me sick really.

I do listen and read. I know what's going on.

These two and really most of the pundits on right wing media are to blame for all of this outrage.

It's one thing to dislike a policy and have an argument and discussion about it and offer a solution.

But when people use terms like feminazi and Obumer and the kenyan communist and all the rest. I know I can disregard everything those people say because they are clearly brainwashed and not right in the head.

When someone constantly complains about only one side of our government/they have blinders on to their own party. Like Limbaugh and Hannity and OReilly and Coulter...I know I can't trust someone who can't be honest.

Still putting out the same lies, eh? You asked why the right media doesn't criticize the Republican party. They do. Often.

I'd love to see the 'reasonable and rational' left media jump on their Democrat party. Not gonna happen.

I think there is a section of the party that is reasonable and willing to work with others, but the loudest bunch that gets the most attention are the nutbags.

Yes, the nutters have taken over the party and the herds are following along.

The only real question is did the republican herds become crazy over time, or were they nutters all along?

originally posted by: introvert
I think there is a section of the party that is reasonable and willing to work with others, but the loudest bunch that gets the most attention are the nutbags.

Yes, the nutters have taken over the party and the herds are following along.

The only real question is did the republican herds become crazy over time, or were they nutters all along?

Gee, we were thinking the same thing about the Democrat Party...

a reply to: amazing

Of course, calling Conservatives 'terrorists' or stating those that oppose climate change should be arrested...or Hillary's open up the borders, none of that is extreme, is it?

You might get the idea rhetoric is different from actions. Political rhetoric is even more extreme...on both sides.

Your quotes only impress the unthinking, on either side.

originally posted by: introvert
I think there is a section of the party that is reasonable and willing to work with others, but the loudest bunch that gets the most attention are the nutbags.

Yes, the nutters have taken over the party and the herds are following along.

The only real question is did the republican herds become crazy over time, or were they nutters all along?

A lot of the members of Congress on the Republican side are simply scared for their jobs. There's a healthy amount of politics going on in playing the role of the opposition party but despite their numbers the TP faction has made their feelings very clear. If they don't get the candidate they want, they're running their own challenger in a primary, and they're showing up to vote in large numbers. Thanks to gerrymandering elections are won in the primary so the TP gets these insane people into Congress.

Basically they're voting in elections no one else is voting in, and they're getting a lot of congressional power in doing so. Those who are left are scared, and the party leadership is paralyzed because large sources of funds like the Kochs are on the side of the TP, and they're dictating how much support can be given to the ordinary members who don't get on board. Basically the Republican party has been almost entirely bought by the Kochs. A few months ago, when Congress was passing a bunch of bills having to do with the change in power, they stopped in the middle of passing things with no opposition and closed Congress early, because over 80% of the participants had to fly out and have a private meeting with David Koch. That is where things are screwed up.

What's going on for them is a true tyranny of the minority situation right now. It's an interesting concept to discuss on a conspiracy forum actually. The people doing this control all of the money and all of the right wing media, and the fanatics that have bought into it make up somewhere under 5% of the members of the party. Yet thanks to the media and money control they're running it all, and thanks to gerrymandering and voters with fanatical devotion to their annointed candidates they push them through the primaries.

originally posted by: nwtrucker
All men are created equal. What part of the word CREATED escapes you? It doesn't say all men ARE equal. It has a modifier. It is the word created.

So all people begin in the same spot with the same amount of of potential? Then why do people achieve different levels of success in life? They all have the potential, so what that means is they don't have equal opportunity. Shouldn't we be trying to give equal opportunity to those in life?

A simple conservative rebuttal is the right want equality at the start line, the left at the finish line. The ability to evaluate falls under similarities and differences. One needs both. Remove one or the other and insanity ensues.

But we aren't equal at the starting line, and we aren't equal on the track all the way to the finish line. At no part is anyone equal.

I agree the document is an ideal. I also recognize ideals cannot be attained. Merely approached. When I stated 'some form' of the Constitution, I was allowing those particular states to decide for themselves. DECIDE FOR THEMSELVES. Freedom of choice. Something this Federal gov't you so support is removing almost hourly. Personally? The original document is fine with me....

I wouldn't look to the states. In general they're more powerful than the feds and have less oversight. Every single state has a state Constitution and most of them have had hundreds of years to add freedoms to it and most have added one or two, but none of the states actually agree with what should be in it. What you'll probably find is that any group of states that creates a new national constitution will use that dirty word compromise to make a document they like, but given the track record states have had with their Constitutions there won't be much there.

There is more than one definition of the word 'you'. Try looking at all of them...after you look up created....

The 'you' I was referring to was the crowd you support, back and in the long run, will personally profit from....although I think your better off sticking with video game creations....

...in other words, as representative of a group or collective.

By crowd I support, I assume you mean the American people? I don't think much of partisan divides on either side, or of identifying positions with a political brand, though I recognize that's quite a popular thing to do.

I won't bother with your breakdown of regional viabilities. The first requirement for 'viability' is FREEDOM. Your 'uneducated' south is fully matched by your inner cities on the coasts sans the criminality...

There's not enough testing to say definitively but when the entire state of Louisiana boasts 67% literacy rates, something is wrong. Personally I'll wait for the PISA results in Dec. 2016, it's just another year and it will settle a lot of questions as to which areas are being educated better and worse than other areas.

I agree my choice for President won't win. Your comment that center right always wins is flat-out wrong. Eisenhower wasn't center right, for his era, he won. Reagan wasn't center right for his era either. Bush 41 campaigned solely on Reagan policies. No center right republican has EVER won the Presidency.

By our modern day view, it's always center right. Obama, W, Clinton, HW, Reagan are all center right. And yes, Reagan is center/right, Obama is further right than Reagan on policy. That's 35 years of that trend and looking at the candidates we have right now we're going to be pushing 40 years of it.

Now add in the current lot running for the Democrats, Will use your argument back at you....Sanders is extreme left...no way he wins. He's already lost the moderates as reflected by the polls. Hillary? LOL. The montage of quotes that broad has put forth, and will be promoted in the final months, would wake up the dead!

I agree that Sanders won't win, while like a lot of what he says and hope he frames the debate in the election a bit he has no chance. 1. He's too old. 2. Socialism is too dirty a word. 3. There is a de-facto religious test in place to be President, you need to be Christian. He may get the nomination though, people said Obama would never get elected and he did, so stranger things have happened.

Hillary won't get the nomination, her past is catching up to her and she'll be in a court battle until she's preemptively pardoned the day after the election.

Romney was center right and won the independents!...and lost the right base. Add it all up and the winner may be the most 'right' in history.....

Romney was the guy outsourcing all of our jobs, talking about how beautiful the Chinese slave labor camps are, making several thousand dollar bets with other candidates on stage, and then insulting all of the people whose jobs he exported with his makers and takers speech. Maybe if he acted a bit more like a reasonable human being he would have won.

As far as candidates standing on the same stage with pastors that called for the death penalty for homos, idiocy, by the way,....not much different than Obama with pastors that call the U.S. evil and the like.

It's completely the same thing. I've never given Obama a pass for that.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: nwtrucker
All men are created equal. What part of the word CREATED escapes you? It doesn't say all men ARE equal. It has a modifier. It is the word created.

So all people begin in the same spot with the same amount of of potential? Then why do people achieve different levels of success in life? They all have the potential, so what that means is they don't have equal opportunity. Shouldn't we be trying to give equal opportunity to those in life?

A simple conservative rebuttal is the right want equality at the start line, the left at the finish line. The ability to evaluate falls under similarities and differences. One needs both. Remove one or the other and insanity ensues.

But we aren't equal at the starting line, and we aren't equal on the track all the way to the finish line. At no part is anyone equal.

I agree the document is an ideal. I also recognize ideals cannot be attained. Merely approached. When I stated 'some form' of the Constitution, I was allowing those particular states to decide for themselves. DECIDE FOR THEMSELVES. Freedom of choice. Something this Federal gov't you so support is removing almost hourly. Personally? The original document is fine with me....

I wouldn't look to the states. In general they're more powerful than the feds and have less oversight. Every single state has a state Constitution and most of them have had hundreds of years to add freedoms to it and most have added one or two, but none of the states actually agree with what should be in it. What you'll probably find is that any group of states that creates a new national constitution will use that dirty word compromise to make a document they like, but given the track record states have had with their Constitutions there won't be much there.

There is more than one definition of the word 'you'. Try looking at all of them...after you look up created....

The 'you' I was referring to was the crowd you support, back and in the long run, will personally profit from....although I think your better off sticking with video game creations....

...in other words, as representative of a group or collective.

By crowd I support, I assume you mean the American people? I don't think much of partisan divides on either side, or of identifying positions with a political brand, though I recognize that's quite a popular thing to do.

I won't bother with your breakdown of regional viabilities. The first requirement for 'viability' is FREEDOM. Your 'uneducated' south is fully matched by your inner cities on the coasts sans the criminality...

There's not enough testing to say definitively but when the entire state of Louisiana boasts 67% literacy rates, something is wrong. Personally I'll wait for the PISA results in Dec. 2016, it's just another year and it will settle a lot of questions as to which areas are being educated better and worse than other areas.

I agree my choice for President won't win. Your comment that center right always wins is flat-out wrong. Eisenhower wasn't center right, for his era, he won. Reagan wasn't center right for his era either. Bush 41 campaigned solely on Reagan policies. No center right republican has EVER won the Presidency.

By our modern day view, it's always center right. Obama, W, Clinton, HW, Reagan are all center right. And yes, Reagan is center/right, Obama is further right than Reagan on policy. That's 35 years of that trend and looking at the candidates we have right now we're going to be pushing 40 years of it.

Now add in the current lot running for the Democrats, Will use your argument back at you....Sanders is extreme left...no way he wins. He's already lost the moderates as reflected by the polls. Hillary? LOL. The montage of quotes that broad has put forth, and will be promoted in the final months, would wake up the dead!

I agree that Sanders won't win, while like a lot of what he says and hope he frames the debate in the election a bit he has no chance. 1. He's too old. 2. Socialism is too dirty a word. 3. There is a de-facto religious test in place to be President, you need to be Christian. He may get the nomination though, people said Obama would never get elected and he did, so stranger things have happened.

Hillary won't get the nomination, her past is catching up to her and she'll be in a court battle until she's preemptively pardoned the day after the election.

Romney was center right and won the independents!...and lost the right base. Add it all up and the winner may be the most 'right' in history.....

Romney was the guy outsourcing all of our jobs, talking about how beautiful the Chinese slave labor camps are, making several thousand dollar bets with other candidates on stage, and then insulting all of the people whose jobs he exported with his makers and takers speech. Maybe if he acted a bit more like a reasonable human being he would have won.

As far as candidates standing on the same stage with pastors that called for the death penalty for homos, idiocy, by the way,....not much different than Obama with pastors that call the U.S. evil and the like.

It's completely the same thing. I've never given Obama a pass for that.

I wouldn't trust literacy statistics whatsoever. Too many vested interests messing with them from the bottom on up. A regional issue. The Feds have no business involving themselves with that one....at least until they can fix the ones they do some responsibility for....don't hold your breath....lol.

Romney's loss was due to the 'feel good' vote Obama received. The rest? Minutia.

Reagan was NOT moderate right during his era, and you know it. He was hated by the moderate right/Rockefeller Republicans. Right through his Presidency. Compared to today's situation he'd be moderate right...and likely would have changed his campaign to match the current situation....much farther to the right, is my guess.

What you omit in your assessment regarding the trends of Presidential elections is the current economic, political and cultural issues. This election cycle is unprecedented. In multiple ways. Depending on previous election statistics, which I see as spun by the so-called 'experts' that both sides rely on, and the same mistake will continue.

The obvious, OBVIOUS, fact that the actions by the Republican Party has disaffected it's voter base. Therefore, it is flawed. Period.

You may marginalize the 'real' right, blame them, etc., when, in fact, the fault is within the Republican party, itself. They created this mess. They will change or go the way of the Whigs. Their last chance...

a reply to: Aazadan

So all people begin in the same spot with the same amount of of potential? Then why do people achieve different levels of success in life? They all have the potential, so what that means is they don't have equal opportunity. Shouldn't we be trying to give equal opportunity to those in life?

We aren't equal in that sense.

If we were, we'd all have the same IQ, hair and eye color, height, weight, etc.

We should hope for equality in the sense of having the same laws to operate off of - that IS having equal opportunity. The rules of game are the same for all.


