I had forgotten about her two terms in Congress, I knew she had been on the national scene longer than 2016. There aren’t many advantages to being wounded in combat but it does make you more memorable.
Actually, Obama only had 4 years in the Senate. IMO Obama would have been been a better President if he had 8 years in the Senate, he was a little too green in Washington to be effective at the legislative process.
When you layout Tammy’s resume in that fashion, it is actually pretty impressive. I went back and looked at her Wiki page, the woman also has a PHd, which started before she was deployed and finished in 2015, while serving in Congress, and a new mom, now that is an accomplishment. Tammy doesn’t have Bush 41 level of governmental experience, but it is well within the range of Presidential candidates. So I take back my objection.
Obama was green; Lincoln was greener. However, Lincoln was probably an outlier in terms of someone with so little government experience being an effective president (unless they have equivalent military experience).
Only cranks think that it means you need to be born in the US.
Natural born citizen is meant as the counter to a naturalized citizen. If you are a citizen workout going through the naturalization process, you can be president. Meaning if either parent is a citizen, or you are born in the US.
Some folks might argue otherwise, but they are fringe nuts. No one really cares what they think.
If you had Kasich with a Congress controlled by Democrats, i suspect you would actually have an effective government. He would work with them to actually do the work of governing.
Maybe. Would he work with them to institute tax increases on the wealthy and maybe modest increases on the middle class to help reduce the deficit? Would he do one of the two things that seem impossible to do, work with them to reduce military spending to help reduce the deficit? (The other is the third rail, Social Security.) Would he agree to do what it takes to reduce our national carbon footprint to fight global warming?
I don’t see a Republican actually elected willing to do these kinds of things. Once in office the immediate need becomes to secure the base for re-election. A Republican will secure the Republican base first and foremost.
The problem right now is half the Democrats are on what used to be the right wing. Take this nitwit Schumer, say, who is negotiating for a cheaper border wall for some insane reason. The country needs a strong correction to the left to the point that the GOP is pulled in that direction and becomes something vaguely sane again. As opposed to the way the Dems have generally (with the exception of a few so-called socialists) been pulled to the right for decades now.
I mean, even if Corsi is just a fringey bit-player in all of this, you can sort of understand the zeal to see him spend a little time behind bars. I’m imagining him trotting out that weird BP metaphor in front of investigators…
I think it’s closer to most the moderates are in the Democrats now, but there were moderate Democrats before, and that isn’t really an issue. If some of the moderate Republicans shifted left instead of jut going Independent, I see no reason to throw them out. That’s a negotiable position, those maybe more conservative voices but that doesn’t mean they hate the climate, women or minorities so much as maybe have concerns about paying for things, making sure regulations don’t strangle all industries, and some other things that does not include screwing over the poor, minorities or women.
Yeah, I mean at the end of the day I’d rather have Ben McAdams represent Utah than Jason fucking Chaffetz or Mia Love. He’s already annoyed me, but he does represent a very conservative state so I can understand if he tacks heavily to the center.
I think he would. The issue is I don’t have any clue what the Republican party stands for any more. The only unifying principal is appointing “conservative” judges, and pissing of liberals. I agree with Timex, Kaisch with a Democratic Congress, along with some old school Republican over coming filibuster might actually lead to an effective government.
Fiscal discipline matters, it is clear that neither party has it any more, so it would probably fall on president to use the veto to make it happen, and Kasich is a good choice for that. But Kasich is a pure pipe dream for Timex and I.
2020 ABCD election for me, Anyone But Crooked/Craptastic Donny, so I’ll be voting for the most moderate Democrat, but their politics will be secondary to their competence and character.
If the issue is that you don’t know what the Republican Party stands for any more, and if you think it only stands for appointing so-called conservative judges and pissing off liberals, then why on earth would you vote for any Republican for President? Isn’t that just asking for trouble?
Kasich will not be for tax increases on the wealthy. He will not be for military spending cuts of any substance. He will be for tax cuts on the wealthy, and he’ll be for improving the budget by cutting social services.
And at some point strengthening the internal security force (police) to maintain and protect the property of the wealthy as poverty drives more criminal and violent acts.
I think Reagan actually believed his bullshit. Because when the numbers didn’t add up, he started increasing taxes. Same for Bush Sr. But the experiment failed, the theory was incorrect. Everyone who came afterwards knew it to be so and was lying.
