pacino wrote:Playing politics with Iran. Amazing. Undermining the President while we're negotiating with a foreign power. Whatever happened to 'respect for the Commander in Chief'?

just read about this... disrespectful and gross

pacino wrote:The letter made the case for Senate term limits.

Tom Cotton is what would happen if Ken Cuccinelli got into the Senate. They even look similar.

this is all just normal stuff, though. all presidents have had to deal with a congress like this

Christie "fans" follow him to Iowa:

http://www.newsworks.org/index.php/home ... Feature%29


If you watch the video, Christie is his normal douche-bag self; good to see that, after all these years, he has not lost the ability to joke at the expense of his State's citizens. What was kind of surprising were the comments from the host when he implies that thousands of people still homeless from Sandy is not a serious issue. We'll keep that in mind the next time a tornado levels one of YOUR towns.

The right to have a union bargain on behalf of you but not pay anything towards them is now the law in Wisconsin. Freeloaders.

No surprise as the Republican Party continues to shoot itself in the foot re: Iran. If I'm a Republican candidate this is the blueprint that I would run my campaign on:

i.) Run on a platform of a less interventionist foreign policy, including supporting continuing negotiations with Iran. Believe it or not, less intervention and less worldwide adventurism was a key tenet of many conservative politicians back in the day. It was actually a fairly progressive idea, spearheaded by President Wilson, that America's aim should be to make the world safe for democracy. Nixon centered his campaign on scaling down a Vietnam campaign that LBJ intensified...granted we know how this turned out as Nixon did nothing to slow down the war.

ii.) Run on a platform of federal sentencing reform. This basically expands on Bush's principle of "compassionate conservatism". Look, people like Rand Paul have said this, the goal of the party should be to open the tent and be more inclusive. Sentencing reform is hugely popular, and conservatives can play on the issue that "big government" is a direct cause of the bloated drug war. We are the most heavily incarcerated country in the developed world. That doesn't exactly scream "Land of the Free." The Republican Party needs to appeal to minority voters and this is one of the best ways to do that.

iii.) Campaign on ending the drug war. Again, this harks back to how hypocritical "conservatives" are regarding this issue. If you look back at harmful national policy over the past century, the drug war is clearly near the top of the list. Minority communities are obviously affected the most and this ties in with sentencing reform. Civil forfeiture laws were also born out of the concept of reducing crime and curtailing drug gangs. The drug war is responsible for some pretty heinous laws and general policy. This is the "big government" that Republicans love to hate and yet they have no problem locking up minorities to show they are "tough on crime".

Attack Hillary on all three fronts above. Bring it up in the debates and just focus on three above. She is extremely vulnerable on those issues and young voters aren't exactly thrilled with the prospect of having to choose between Hillary and another Republican nutjob. I would campaign in cities and urban areas and just harp on the issue of personal choice and getting the government off your back and hassling you for petty non-violent drug offenses. This is the best way to play up "limited government"...not to clamor for more war, attack Obama for being Muslim (haha), and stay silent on Ferguson but cause an uproar over the Bundy ranch. Such rampant stupidity in the party and it would be pretty easy to win the election if the above was the focal point of a conservative campaign. If the Republican party actually talked more about these issues they would be a viable party again.

Good points all, and I'd strongly consider voting for a viable conservative putting those points forward. But you just can't ignore the fact that a candidate can never become the GOP nominee unless they run on a steady diet of "Obamacare bad, socialism bad, MORE JOBS, fight the Muslims, keep out the illegals".

Neither party is exactly a party of intellectual discussion, but the Democrats have mostly sidelined their extremists (probably to the party's detriment), whereas the Republicans have mostly empowered theirs.

Agreed Richmond, and that's the shame of it all. At some point along the line the New England Republican (socially liberal, slightly more fiscally conservative) became obsolete and the Bible-belt neo-conservative wing of the party took over. I was at one time a registered Republican but I shed that affiliation a few years back...the party in its current form just does not represent really much of what I stand for at all. And what I alluded to before can be played up as conservative issues! This goes for gay marriage as well, the government should have no say in how someone chooses to lead their life. This is all plays well with the politics of today and the future. All limited government issues! The party was hijacked and so long as the tea party wing controls things I will be far removed from championing Republican candidates.

I think overall, more registered democrats would agree with your points than registered republicans.

Cotton enthusiasts boast of his big brain. Guy's like Petraeus w/o the hot chick on the side. Someone stroked his ego & he popped a chubby. I'm picturing an asshole like Cruz putting him up to this.

drsmooth wrote:Cotton enthusiasts boast of his big brain. Guy's like Petraeus w/o the hot chick on the side. Someone stroked his ego & he popped a chubby. I'm picturing an asshat like Cruz putting him up to this.

No, he didn't need any encouragement. Read this article from last September. The guy has been waiting his whole life for this moment.

http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2014/09/the-making-of-a-conservative-superstar/380307/

'Nice nuclear deal you got there. Be a shame if anything happened to it.'

pacino wrote:'Nice nuclear deal you got there. Be a shame if anything happened to it.'

this is normal behavior. all presidents have dealt with this.

Congress fought that Nuke Treaty Taft did with Czar Nicholas tooth and nail.

The main opposition to federal sentencing reform is conservatives.

td11 wrote:

pacino wrote:'Nice nuclear deal you got there. Be a shame if anything happened to it.'

this is normal behavior. all presidents have dealt with this.

Governors too. I remember one time when Bob McDonnell was trying to broker a deal with China to have them send a massive art exhibit to the Virginia Museum of Fine Arts. Senate Democrats sent xeroxed copies of their bare asses over to the Chinese government and wrote "Virginia hates commies" on them.

td11 wrote:

pacino wrote:'Nice nuclear deal you got there. Be a shame if anything happened to it.'

this is normal behavior. all presidents have dealt with this.

I haven't been able to keep up with this. how much of this is sarcasm?

RichmondPhilsFan wrote:

drsmooth wrote:Cotton enthusiasts boast of his big brain. Guy's like Petraeus w/o the hot chick on the side. Someone stroked his ego & he popped a chubby. I'm picturing an asshat like Cruz putting him up to this.

No, he didn't need any encouragement. Read this article from last September. The guy has been waiting his whole life for this moment.

http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2014/09/the-making-of-a-conservative-superstar/380307/

I got about halfway through this before getting really sad that this narcissist has any say on policy.

Andrea Mitchell said she 'wanted' t be working on the International Women's Day at the UN instead of asking questions about emails....but I guess her hands were tied?? She was FORCED to ask about emails and not what she wanted to. What a great reporter.

So why isn't Loretta Lynch getting a vote?