It would be absolutely hilarious if it ends up being Fiorina/Rubio winning the election. The first woman and first Hispanic gaining the White House, and they are Republicans. The Left will go from batshit crazy to apoplectic.

How about a Jewish president ?

ZWICK 4 PREZ;1752504 wrote:How about a Jewish president ?

What are you going to do when Hillary beats Bernie?

HitsRus;1752491 wrote:....LOL, Tiernan a teacher....

I'm not sure he's a teacher but he's definitely in the field of education. And on the union side.

ZWICK 4 PREZ;1752504 wrote:How about a Jewish president ?

It wasn't that long ago people didn't think the president should be catholic.

I thought the Jews ran the world.

FatHobbit;1752506 wrote:I'm not sure he's a teacher but he's definitely in the field of education. And on the union side.

Lol seriously? And he pretends he makes a lot of money... LOL

QuakerOats;1752501 wrote:It would be absolutely hilarious if it ends up being Fiorina/Rubio winning the election. The first woman and first Hispanic gaining the White House, and they are Republicans. The Left will go from batshit crazy to apoplectic.

So, they'd be taking after your day-to-day routine?

Just because I support Teacher, Firefighter & Police Unions doesn't make me a History teaching, firefighting, Cop. But if you want your kid having bible studies in public schools while sitting next to pregnant teen girls because they can't get BC or abortions...go ahead and vote for Kasich because that is the nonscensical shit he thinks is important.

like_that;1752505 wrote:What are you going to do when Hillary beats Bernie?

Id most likely vote for her since every candidate except for trump is a complete looney over there.

Even Paul is jumping on the planned parenthood bandwagon.

ZWICK 4 PREZ;1752523 wrote:Id most likely vote for her since every candidate except for trump is a complete looney over there.

That's what I figured.

ZWICK 4 PREZ;1752525 wrote:Even Paul is jumping on the planned parenthood bandwagon.

He has always been on the bandwagon.

It's a good idea to base your vote for POTUS on abortion and religion since it will have absolutely nothing to do with real policy or accomplishments.

gut;1752531 wrote:It's a good idea to base your vote for POTUS on abortion and religion since it will have absolutely nothing to do with real policy or accomplishments.

Yes bc I want a president who will let their religious convictions interfere with doing their job properly. I want a president who will let his nutso side shine through in any gray area.

When it comes to just Ferris Wheels & Rocket Ships crazy how about Cruz? Is he not the looniest mofo ever elected to a major political office? But then what really scares me is how fkg nuts are the people that made the conscious decision to elect him in the first place? Whatever TX hell hole these people crawled out of should be burned to the soil line.

Tiernan;1752516 wrote:Just because I support Teacher, Firefighter & Police Unions doesn't make me a History teaching, firefighting, Cop. But if you want your kid having bible studies in public schools while sitting next to pregnant teen girls because they can't get BC or abortions...go ahead and vote for Kasich because that is the nonscensical shit he thinks is important.

Actually, most of the firefighters and cops have made their peace with Kasich... It's basically the teachers and SEIU...which one are you?

Well I'm neither Hits...but I do support their right to organize. What I don't support is any Republican candidate that thinks Abortion, Gay Marriage & school prayer are issues pertinent to this election. The only 3 issues any of these tools should be concerned about are 1. Jobs / Economy 2. National Security 3. Energy. Anything else is a waste of time for Federal intervention.

^^^I agree with you...see Marco Rubio. I'm just not sure why you think Kasich is all about that. He's entitled to his opinions on these issues like evryone else, but when handed a decision by the people (State issue5) or by the SCOTUS (gay marraige) he has accepted the outcome and moved on. Primarily, he does focus on jobs and the economy and the budget.

Tiernan;1752561 wrote:Well I'm neither Hits...but I do support their right to organize. What I don't support is any Republican candidate that thinks Abortion, Gay Marriage & school prayer are issues pertinent to this election. The only 3 issues any of these tools should be concerned about are 1. Jobs / Economy 2. National Security 3. Energy. Anything else is a waste of time for Federal intervention.

I agree and unfortunately the fore mentioned become an issue in federal elections because the feds have found it not a waste of time and intervened.

gut;1752531 wrote:It's a good idea to base your vote for POTUS on abortion and religion since it will have absolutely nothing to do with real policy or accomplishments.

True but every year this is the issues that are brought up, especially in Republican circles.

sleeper;1752604 wrote:True but every year this is the issues that are brought up, especially in Republican circles.

This. They often blame the debate moderators and the media for asking them questions on this topic but look - they are about to make a hey-day over the budget over Planned Parenthood funding. Even if you agree that there should be no federal funding for planned parenthood, one can see why Jake Tapper would bring up the topic. It is on the Republican candidates themselves (IMHO) to avoid making the topic controversial. They could say "I do not think that is an appropriate role for federal spending per my limited government values" but the fact is they take turns framing the issue in moral terms as much as possible to attract the attention of "values voters" to the point of absurdity i.e. Cary Fiorina lying about live babies kicking and screaming being murdered.


Democrats do this in their own way as well i.e. discussions of economic disparity are framed in racial, ethnic and gender terminology or they risk losing a constituency such as Martin O'Malley making the mistake of saying "All Lives Matter"

BoatShoes;1752614 wrote:This. They often blame the debate moderators and the media for asking them questions on this topic but look - they are about to make a hey-day over the budget over Planned Parenthood funding. Even if you agree that there should be no federal funding for planned parenthood, one can see why Jake Tapper would bring up the topic. It is on the Republican candidates themselves (IMHO) to avoid making the topic controversial. They could say "I do not think that is an appropriate role for federal spending per my limited government values" but the fact is they take turns framing the issue in moral terms as much as possible to attract the attention of "values voters" to the point of absurdity i.e. Cary Fiorina lying about live babies kicking and screaming being murdered.


Democrats do this in their own way as well i.e. discussions of economic disparity are framed in racial, ethnic and gender terminology or they risk losing a constituency such as Martin O'Malley making the mistake of saying "All Lives Matter"

Don't these politicians have political advisers to help them with this? One has to think they have done the analysis on whether they will draw more voters from framing the issues in moral terms rather than dodging the question to something less controversial. I don't work in politics so I'm not sure how it works.

sleeper;1752618 wrote:Don't these politicians have political advisers to help them with this? One has to think they have done the analysis on whether they will draw more voters from framing the issues in moral terms rather than dodging the question to something less controversial. I don't work in politics so I'm not sure how it works.

My guess is that they all cater to the lowest possible denominator -- the tabloid-reading, reality-TV watching couch potatoes. Instead of logical arguments like "Why should WE fund this program when we're umpteen gazillion dollars in debt?", they turn it into a pure emotional "LOOK AT ALL THE WIDDLE DEAD MURDEREDED BABIEZ!!!!!" rant where logic goes out the window and an exaggerated hyperbole appeal to emotions replaces it.

It's why, after a debate, it's almost essential to look online for a fact-checker article, since they just care about making broad appeals to emotions on the opinion that the average voter is too stupid and ignorant to care whether what they're saying is actually 100% true, because it's more to a candidate's benefit to say something that will appeal to "MORAL OUTRAGE" than something that will appeal to brains.

Sleeper...how naive of you. Political "advisors" are simply frustrated politicians either too ugly or too many skeletons to get in the race themselves. Remember that couple...one was Repub one was Dem? They were the two most butt ugly people on Sunday morning TV...couldn't have got elected Dog Catcher, well she might have got elected just Dog.

Heretic;1752625 wrote:My guess is that they all cater to the lowest possible denominator -- the tabloid-reading, reality-TV watching couch potatoes. Instead of logical arguments like "Why should WE fund this program when we're umpteen gazillion dollars in debt?", they turn it into a pure emotional "LOOK AT ALL THE WIDDLE DEAD MURDEREDED BABIEZ!!!!!" rant where logic goes out the window and an exaggerated hyperbole appeal to emotions replaces it.

It's why, after a debate, it's almost essential to look online for a fact-checker article, since they just care about making broad appeals to emotions on the opinion that the average voter is too stupid and ignorant to care whether what they're saying is actually 100% true, because it's more to a candidate's benefit to say something that will appeal to "MORAL OUTRAGE" than something that will appeal to brains.

You are probably right. Politicians don't care about the intelligent people as they are outnumbered by morons.