The Next President is...

[Lord Ratner]

22 hours ago, brabus said:

My viewpoint is he didn’t start a single one of those pissing matches and actually kept his cool far better than the ones who started the BS in the first place, and certainly far better than trump would have. His answers are also well stated and thought out, especially considering it’s on the fly. I wish Desantis would have been more direct in addressing other candidates - he seemed a little quiet at times. Doesn’t affect my view on him though, still like him as a candidate who can crush Biden. 

I'm a big Vivek supporter, but he got over his skis a little. The "bought and paid for" accusations were gross. I hate that crap. He has a couple other attacks that I thought were scummy.

 

He needs to stick with being smarter and more open then the rest of the field.

 

But I also think he's running for VP. 

[HossHarris]

4 hours ago, Lord Ratner said:

 

But I also think he's running for VP. 

Agreed

[disgruntledemployee]

All the Pol pundits, etc, say the two most boring dudes on the stage came in last, which were former Govs Doug Burgum and Asa Hutchinson.  Those two together as P/VP (it doesn't matter which one) would probably do just fine.  They probably got enough grey matter between the ears to make informed decisions (unlike current dude), they both have executive level experience**, and they're boring.  I think boring is good. 

** I loved the irony of Pence when chastising Ramaswamy that now is not the time for OJT.  Rama should have retorted, "like your former boss did?"

PS.  The Desantis "smile" at the end of his opening rant, where he didn't really answer the question, was hilarious.  I can just imagine what was going on inside that brain... Ooh, a question... uhh, start the rant answer we rehearsed... look angry.. point... the end... uhh, smile?  smirk?  how do I smile again?  just fake it... say cheese?  He was the most fake up there the other night.  Let's invade Mexico!!!

[ClearedHot]

22 hours ago, M2 said:

It needs to be Desantis and Vivek!

And fuck Trump!  I hope to God it doesn't end up being him vs. Biden; but if it does, I will begrudgingly vote for the slightly-lesser idiot...

Surprised yet not surprised at the support for Vivek, IMHO he is dangerous and radical!

Have you guys actually read his policy proposals? 

1.  He wants to raise the voting age to 25 by AMENDING the Constitution and require a civics test to vote.  As populist as that sounds cool...but Holy freaking suppression of voting rights.  Have you ever noticed it is the radicals that want to amend the Constitution?

2.  He wants to abolish the FBI.  I am not a fan of the weaponsization of the FBI and while I support some serious retooling, but abolishing the FBI would have an astounding impact on the security of this nation.  His plan is to redistribute those funds to the Secret Service and DIA...the absolute ignorance is astounding. 

3.  “Climate change is a hoax."  Do you guys really believe that?  We have dumped trillions of tons of carbon into the atmosphere and it most certainly has had an impact.  That being said I think we should drill and go back to being energy independent.  If I were king for a day I would place a reasonable tax on energy sources derived from govt land and by law channel it ALL into a Manhattan like project to solve fusion or other cleaner energies.

4.  On the debate stage Wednesday night, Ramaswamy said the United States “pays single women more not to have a man in the house than to have a man in the house, contributing to an epidemic of fatherlessness.”  I agree with this statement, especially as it relates to minorities (67% of African American children are born into fatherless household).  HOWEVER, what program would he cut...support to single moms?  This has been tried many times and some key programs were cut under Clinton but the problem has only worsened because it is a social cultural issue.

5.  I can support cutting the Dept of Education but his suggestion to cut the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is again pure ignorance.  He thinks they are the obstacle to greater use of nuclear energy, it is actually the leadership appointed by politicians.  They do serve a purpose.

 Finally, after commenting "now that all the rehearsed lines are out of the way" he started rolling out all of his own.  If you think that was just extemporaneous replies I have some swamp land in Arizona to sell you.

I thought Desantis did better and policy wise he is closest to what I would to see.  He does have some issues that will hurt him, the 6 week abortion law in Florida is going to kick his ass with the folks int he middle.  As a Floridian he has also failed to deal with the Homeowners insurance crisis here and it is starting to drag him down locally.

I did not and will not watch the Trump debate, between him and Tucker I have had enough narcissistic bloviating for a lifetime.

[brabus]

@ClearedHot

Overall, I think two things need to be considered when listening to anybody campaigning - what’s the actual point they’re making lying underneath whatever “base igniting” actions they propose, and understanding there will be ignorant statements made from those who have never been there, had a security clearance, etc. The latter’s approach to a problem change all the time once they’re afforded the opportunity to be fully informed, read in, etc. This is all par for the course.

1. 16 yr olds and illegals are voting in some states (locally). Millions of incredibly ignorant people vote all the time. These are problems. Will Vivek actually amend it to 25, probably not at all. But will he push for a civics test, maybe, and I fully support that. That’s not suppression, that’s a contract between the country and the citizens that they actually are informed enough to vote. I do not think anyone deserves to vote when all they know is their TikTok feed. If new citizens have to take this test, then no problem with people who were lucky enough to be born in this country have to take the same. Hell, the left should be arguing it’s racist to make immigrants take it and not make natural born citizens take it. Create a nice study packet that spoon feeds the answers, blatantly even. The actual point is people will read said study packet and actually learn even if they think all they’re doing is memorizing answers.

2. FBI, DOE, NRC, etc. He sees the massive problem of our govt agencies, and so do you. His comments are to fire people up, not literal. I do think he will push for significant reform, but it’s incredibly unlikely that a hypothetical president Vivek would actually put real effort into fully dissolving these agencies (other than DOE, that one should be dissolved).

3. You and Vivek are probably about lock step on this. Humans affecting climate is real, but the term “Climate Change” as defined by the left and currently used in the 2020s vernacular is a total lie. He could have phrased his response better by clarifying that important distinction. His following statement that more people have been hurt by “climate change policies” than actual climate change is completely accurate. He then follows up with how to make America energy independent…that’s the wheat (separated from the chaff) in this line of discussion…he wants to stop strangling current day American energy capabilities while simultaneously exploring and expanding nuclear energy for a cleaner future (to eventually replace those fossil fuels). That’s about as logical and smart as you can get on the topic of energy in a very simplified manner.

4. This is a problem as you said. Have to find ways to stop incentivizing people to not work and to not be a family unit. Unless I missed it, he really just highlighted this as a big problem in our society, but didn’t provide exact solutions. That will take some OJT before anyone could provide informed COAs.

5. See first comment and #2

 

[uhhello]

4 hours ago, ClearedHot said:

Surprised yet not surprised at the support for Vivek, IMHO he is dangerous and radical!

Have you guys actually read his policy proposals? 

1.  He wants to raise the voting age to 25 by AMENDING the Constitution and require a civics test to vote.  As populist as that sounds cool...but Holy freaking suppression of voting rights.  Have you ever noticed it is the radicals that want to amend the Constitution?

2.  He wants to abolish the FBI.  I am not a fan of the weaponsization of the FBI and while I support some serious retooling, but abolishing the FBI would have an astounding impact on the security of this nation.  His plan is to redistribute those funds to the Secret Service and DIA...the absolute ignorance is astounding. 

3.  “Climate change is a hoax."  Do you guys really believe that?  We have dumped trillions of tons of carbon into the atmosphere and it most certainly has had an impact.  That being said I think we should drill and go back to being energy independent.  If I were king for a day I would place a reasonable tax on energy sources derived from govt land and by law channel it ALL into a Manhattan like project to solve fusion or other cleaner energies.

4.  On the debate stage Wednesday night, Ramaswamy said the United States “pays single women more not to have a man in the house than to have a man in the house, contributing to an epidemic of fatherlessness.”  I agree with this statement, especially as it relates to minorities (67% of African American children are born into fatherless household).  HOWEVER, what program would he cut...support to single moms?  This has been tried many times and some key programs were cut under Clinton but the problem has only worsened because it is a social cultural issue.

5.  I can support cutting the Dept of Education but his suggestion to cut the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is again pure ignorance.  He thinks they are the obstacle to greater use of nuclear energy, it is actually the leadership appointed by politicians.  They do serve a purpose.

 Finally, after commenting "now that all the rehearsed lines are out of the way" he started rolling out all of his own.  If you think that was just extemporaneous replies I have some swamp land in Arizona to sell you.

I thought Desantis did better and policy wise he is closest to what I would to see.  He does have some issues that will hurt him, the 6 week abortion law in Florida is going to kick his ass with the folks int he middle.  As a Floridian he has also failed to deal with the Homeowners insurance crisis here and it is starting to drag him down locally.

I did not and will not watch the Trump debate, between him and Tucker I have had enough narcissistic bloviating for a lifetime.

Do you think ANY of what he said is actually possible?  They can't get a budget passed.  I take it more as this is what I would like to do but I know its never ever going to come close to happening and I'll make headway to restrict/restructure if I'm elected.  

[ClearedHot]

1 hour ago, brabus said:

@ClearedHot

1. 16 yr olds and illegals are voting in some states (locally). Millions of incredibly ignorant people vote all the time. These are problems. Will Vivek actually amend it to 25, probably not at all. But will he push for a civics test, maybe, and I fully support that. That’s not suppression, that’s a contract between the country and the citizens that they actually are informed enough to vote. I do not think anyone deserves to vote when all they know is their TikTok feed. If new citizens have to take this test, then no problem with people who were lucky enough to be born in this country have to take the same. Hell, the left should be arguing it’s racist to make immigrants take it and not make natural born citizens take it. Create a nice study packet that spoon feeds the answers, blatantly even. The actual point is people will read said study packet and actually learn even if they think all they’re doing is memorizing answers.

Voting rights are in the Constitution...adding a litmus test and 25 year age rule opens the door to doing the same with other rights.  I guess you now support a test to own a gun, have free speech or invoke your rights against self-incrimination.  This is a horrible and slippery slope to go down just because YOU are concerned about ignorant voters.  I agree there is a problem likely related to taking civics classes out of schools but trying to legislate a test to vote is insanity as a person who swore to protect and defend the Constitution.

1 hour ago, brabus said:

@ClearedHot

If new citizens have to take this test, then no problem with people who were lucky enough to be born in this country have to take the same.

Ahhh no...They take a test because they are NOT American's that why they take the test.  Lucky or not, Americans by birth are immediately veiled in all the rights afforded by the Constitution.

1 hour ago, brabus said:

@ClearedHot

 

2. FBI, DOE, NRC, etc. He sees the massive problem of our govt agencies, and so do you. His comments are to fire people up, not literal. I do think he will push for significant reform, but it’s incredibly unlikely that a hypothetical president Vivek would actually put real effort into fully dissolving these agencies (other than DOE, that one should

I see a problem as well as I have noted on numerous occasions...not the issue.  The issue is he is a radical who is not calling to fix the institution, rather he wants to burn it down.  You have to view radicals for what they SAY not what you think them mean.

[ClearedHot]

11 minutes ago, uhhello said:

Do you think ANY of what he said is actually possible?  They can't get a budget passed.  I take it more as this is what I would like to do but I know its never ever going to come close to happening and I'll make headway to restrict/restructure if I'm elected.  

You are "probably" correct, but in these hyperbolic times I pay attention when a radical screams changes to the Constitution. 

[HeloDude]

20 minutes ago, ClearedHot said:

Voting rights are in the Constitution...adding a litmus test and 25 year age rule opens the door to doing the same with other rights. 

Just curious if you’re supportive of removing the other age restrictions outlined in the Constitution?

[ClearedHot]

20 minutes ago, HeloDude said:

Just curious if you’re supportive of removing the other age restrictions outlined in the Constitution?

In general, I am in favor of keeping rather adding.  Imposing two new hurdles to vote is simply radical.

[tac airlifter]

11 minutes ago, ClearedHot said:

In general, I am in favor of keeping rather adding.  Imposing two new hurdles to vote is simply radical.

I agree with many of your points, but I totally disagree with your take on voting.  Our elections are a national crisis, something radical must be done or our system risks illegitimacy.  I think fraud is widespread enough to impact results, and I am not alone. Whether this is true or not we do not know with certainty, because credible investigations are stymied. However, like many things with authority, the perception of impropriety is as damaging as actual impropriety itself.  I think voter ID laws and paper ballots are a minimum requirement moving forward.  

[ClearedHot]

1 minute ago, tac airlifter said:

I agree with many of your points, but I totally disagree with your take on voting.  Our elections are a national crisis, something radical must be done or our system risks illegitimacy.  I think fraud is widespread enough to impact results, and I am not alone. Whether this is true or not we do not know with certainty, because credible investigations are stymied. However, like many things with authority, the perception of impropriety is as damaging as actual impropriety itself.  I think voter ID laws and paper ballots are a minimum requirement moving forward.  

Voter ID laws and paper ballots (which I support), have NOTHING to do with raising the voting age 7 years and requiring a civics test.

[HeloDude]

1 hour ago, ClearedHot said:

In general, I am in favor of keeping rather adding.  Imposing two new hurdles to vote is simply radical.

So you’re for age restrictions on voting, but just the current age restriction.  I mean, if a 16 year old can operate a vehicle by themselves, surely they’re competent enough to be able to vote?  A lot of people are supportive of amending the Constitution to change the age to 16…would you be in favor?

[pawnman]

45 minutes ago, HeloDude said:

So you’re for age restrictions on voting, but just the current age restriction.  I mean, if a 16 year old can operate a vehicle by themselves, surely they’re competent enough to be able to vote?  A lot of people are supportive of amending the Constitution to change the age to 16…would you be in favor?

I'm in favor of a single age for adulthood. If you think 16 year olds are old enough to vote, they should also be allowed to drink, smoke, join the military, get credit cards, get married, move out, etc.

I'm not at all a fan of our tiered approach, where you're an adult for some things but underage for others. 

[brabus]

@ClearedHot Good counterpoints, appreciate the response. I think @uhhello summed my thoughts up well - fairly standard for candidates (especially in a primary where the party base is all that matters) to say hyperbolic things that resonate with the base, which then dovetail into the realistic path forward come general election. Good example is “burn it down” actually translates into “significant reform.”

Personally, I am very concerned with the current admin and would take any of the GOP field over the train wreck we have now. That doesn’t mean I love them all or don’t have a ranked preference, but I don’t see anybody running that I wouldn’t choose over Biden/his replacement. That’s not a R vs. D thing, it’s a that’s-how-low-they’ve-sunk-this-country thing and I have no faith that any Biden replacement would be different than him policy-wise.

[Blue]

7 hours ago, ClearedHot said:

3.  “Climate change is a hoax."  Do you guys really believe that?  

Yes.

[hindsight2020]

1 hour ago, pawnman said:

I'm not at all a fan of our tiered approach

yup yup, means testing is a cancer. 

[tac airlifter]

4 hours ago, ClearedHot said:

Voter ID laws and paper ballots (which I support), have NOTHING to do with raising the voting age 7 years and requiring a civics test.

That voter ID and legitimate traceable ballots aren't the national standard speaks to the depth of crisis we're already in.  Time for a candidate who takes the issue seriously, although I grant I'm not in favor of a civics test (who will test the testers?).

Imagine we're watching enemy targets & you stood up in a JOC full of prevaricating pussy Colonels and said "let's just attack these guys and eat their hearts!"  I'd support your enthusiasm, agree in principal that attacking is my preferred COA, and get with you later to revisit & tweak the whole cannibalism thing (which I don't support).  But let's get things moving in the right direction. That's how I feel here.  

Addressing boarder chaos, firing our disgraceful SECDEF then purging the military of his acolytes, and ensuring elections are run legitimately are my 3 top voting issues. 

[Prosuper]

1 hour ago, tac airlifter said:

Addressing boarder chaos, firing our disgraceful SECDEF then purging the military of his acolytes, and ensuring elections are run legitimately are my 3 top voting issues. 

He would just go back to his seat on the Board of Raytheon after he steers a bunch of contracts their way. The next administration will just pick someone who has deep ties to the military industrial complex 

[ClearedHot]

16 hours ago, HeloDude said:

So you’re for age restrictions on voting, but just the current age restriction.  I mean, if a 16 year old can operate a vehicle by themselves, surely they’re competent enough to be able to vote?  A lot of people are supportive of amending the Constitution to change the age to 16…would you be in favor?

The age restriction has always been subjective and I think @pawnman captured it well, a single age for adulthood makes sense.  That single age is not 25.  More troubling is requiring a test to enjoy your rights afforded by the Constitution.  How is a civics test requirement any different from requiring a test to enjoy your second amendment freedoms?

14 hours ago, Blue said:

Yes.

Well it is a free country so good for you.  Looking at data I would say it is fairly convincing that releasing trillions of tons of carbon into the atmosphere has had an impact.  Denying the problem is a very different value proposition than finding a pragmatic way of dealing with it that doesn't destroy our economy or country.

15 hours ago, brabus said:

Personally, I am very concerned with the current admin and would take any of the GOP field over the train wreck we have now. That doesn’t mean I love them all or don’t have a ranked preference, but I don’t see anybody running that I wouldn’t choose over Biden/his replacement. That’s not a R vs. D thing, it’s a that’s-how-low-they’ve-sunk-this-country thing and I have no faith that any Biden replacement would be different than him policy-wise.

Great discussion and on this point we are in violent agreement.  I have never voted D in a Presidential election and while I don't want Trump in office ever again if it was a choice between him and anyone I currently see in the D party I would vote for him.  My "hope" is that the Republicans move toward the middle once the primaries are over and they don't have to serve red meat to their base.  The radical edges of both parties are extremely disturbing and yes the R's can be just as bad.  Religious zealotry in particular has killed far too many people.  I live in a very Red area with a lot of active and retired military.  I am absolutely incredulous that one of the big stories in my county right now is book banning.  There is a group of very religious and very extreme Republican woman that have started a crusade against books like the Scarlett Letter, as a result our public libraries are closed while the county works through the legal challenges. 

[VigilanteNav]

Donald Trump Has No Chance of Ever Becoming President Again - 19FortyFive

If you really don't want Biden to get a second term, heed this article and find a better GOP nominee and do your part to get that person nominated.  

[SocialD]

36 minutes ago, ClearedHot said:

...as a result our public libraries are closed while the county works through the legal challenges. 

 

WTAF?!?  Shut down a public library because a few bible thumping Karens?  No Karen, I should not have access to the library restricted because you're worried your kids might pick up a book that encourages free thought on things that may be contrary to your fragile religious views.  

[brabus]

@ClearedHot That’s insane the library is shutdown. I also live in a conservative place, but when we had some pissed off people find an inappropriate-for-kids book show up in the local library; all the board did was move it out of the kids section and into the adult section/require an adult to check it out. Some people called for banning it, but I’m glad the library took the action it did. A town/city library is for every book, regardless of who it may offend.

[ClearedHot]

17 minutes ago, brabus said:

@ClearedHot That’s insane the library is shutdown. I also live in a conservative place, but when we had some pissed off people find an inappropriate-for-kids book show up in the local library; all the board did was move it out of the kids section and into the adult section/require an adult to check it out. Some people called for banning it, but I’m glad the library took the action it did. A town/city library is for every book, regardless of who it may offend.

It's crazy, it started when a VERY right wing group called "Mom's for Liberty" went after the school board wanting 65 books banned and removed from public schools.  I will admit a few of those books had VERY graphic sexual content and should not be in elementary and middle school public libraries.  The Moms morphed that challenge into anything about LGBQT and race, then it morphed into removing it from the public libraries.  I don't think they will be happy until the only book anyone can read is the bible.

[brabus]

There are plenty of books popping up that don’t belong in school libraries due to explicit, adult content. However, public libraries are completely different.