Mostly because the only candidates are politicians ("How do you know a politician is lying?").
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Accepting the lie
- Thread starter katiemygirl
- Start date
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
But some confuse "facts" with "opinions".Slight majority?
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=207
Of course some will say that this is a "right wing" website, but facts are facts.
But i would also suggest that the more one actually studies and knows, the less they bar likely to want much to do with today's Republican Party. Indeed, studies have confirmed that those who hold ph.d. degrees are overwhelmingly to be more likely to vote Democratic more often than Republican. Part of the problem is that today's Republican Party ain't your mother's or grandmother's Republican Party. They used to call themselves "the party of family values", but now one would be more accurate in calling them "the family of selfishness & divisiveness", and they can't even get along with each other.
Last edited:
esmith
Veteran Member
And today's Democrats are not your Democrats of 50+ years ago. The majority of them are as far left as the minority of the Republicans are far right. Also diversity yields better ideas vice the lock step of the Democrats.....there is only 1 viable candidate for the presidential nomination. Isn't there a better choice than Hillary? And I don't mean Sanders, he is not electable.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Actually, that's not true. FDR and LBJ, for examples, were quite liberal, although the former actually started out being more conservative than he ended up being as the Great Depression forced him to change paradigms.
Secondly, the field started out with five and quickly has gotten narrowed down to two, and Webb definitely is more conservative than either Hillary or Bernie.
Thirdly, on a more personal note, Hillary is not my favorite Dem by any stretch of the imagination, but I can't see any Pub that would be a better choice. Also, the race for the presidency shouldn't be a popularity contest as if we were selecting a homecoming king or queen, and it's really more the party positions that should count most. The Pubs show no compassion for anything but their own pocketbooks and power, plus they simply can't can't even run their own party without rancor, let alone the country.
So, of the Pubs, who's your favorite, plus why do you think he/she/it would make a better president than Hillary or Bernie?
esmith
Veteran Member
Haven't made up my mind yet. I thought I might get an idea where they stood on economics with the CNBC debate but that didn't happen. Maybe the Fox Business debate will help, will have to wait to see if the candidates will give substantive answers. As far as the Democrats go I haven't heard anything of substance about the economy except they both seen to project the idea that the government will fix all of the problems and we all know or should know that the government can't. In addition I haven't heard one thing on how they plan to pay for their give-away programs and until Hillary is declared the Democrats choice (yes I know Bernie is still there, but get real he doesn't have a chance against the Clinton machine) and she has to run against a real candidate we will have to wait. The same can be said about the Republican candidates letting us know how their plans will work. But to be honest, I don't think they really had a chance to do so as of yet.
Now right now there are 3 major issues facing this country:
1. The economy.
2. Immigration
3. The geopolitical (including terrorism) tensions facing the world.
So what I want to hear from everyone is what they really want to do, not what they think their base wants to hear. But that’s never going to happen and especially in the primaries. Even in the general election they will do the same thing just to insure their base turns out, yet mellow enough to convince the fence-sitters which way to go without alienating their base.
Aquitaine
Well-Known Member
Just imagine what he'd be saying if Iraq 2.0 happened under a Democrat administration.
This is exactly why I don't put much effort into following candidates this far in advance.
At the moment, they are running for nomination not president. They will say anything to win that, even if they have to say something else later(which they will, because the voters who turn out for primaries aren't representative of the electorate).
Hillary's main strength is that she is such a foregone conclusion that she doesn't have to say things that won't play well with the independent/ undecideds later. She can let Sanders make her look centrist and Biden make her look competitive etc., while the Republicans make each other look extremistly stupid.
Tom
Personally, I think they stopped working for us a long time ago. Check out how many in congress are millionaires and billionaires. Do you think they relate? Do you think social security would be in the mess its in if the politicians relied on it. Or health care? None of them are on the new "affordable" care act. No , I don't have faith in either party. I think what we as voters see is akin to professional wrestling.
esmith
Veteran Member
Hillary is continuing to go left to try and outBernie Bernie. This will come back and bite her in the arse. She has already screwed-the-pooch with her remark about the VA problem. Of course her handlers are trying to spin it.
Underhill
Well-Known Member
Unless something drastic happens I see Hillary winning. The right is now stuck in the mire of extremist controlling the party. I know whoever gets the nod will move to the center, but they can't move too far as the hardliners are ready to jump ship if they see too much capitulation. Just look what is happening with Ryan. The guy who was the right wing revolution just a few years ago is now struggling to prove he is conservative enough.
No she isn't.esmith said:
Given your penchant for getting information from " news sources" that tell you what you want to hear, I don't doubt that you believe this. But it is not true,
any more than Obama is a communist Muslim from Kenya trying to take away your guns.
It's just not true.
Tom
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
There's a heck of a lot more "substance" coming out of the Democratic debates than the Republican ones as even some of the Republican commentators have admitted. With your list above, we are hearing pretty much nothing from most of the Republicans except sound-bites, with pretty much the exception of Trump.
I think it's obvious that they well know that these are hot issues whereas if they give their program, chances are they're gonna get shot down, much like what happened to Rubio when he previously mentioned his immigration plan that had a "pathway to citizenship" in it. The others in his party darn near crucified him on that. Trump's "brilliant" plan is to send over 10 million Hispanics back across the border and then a wall over 1000 miles long.
Their economic plans are mostly a farce, such as Carson's, and their "war on terrorism" is so wacky because they can't specify who we should be engaging other than ISIS, and how do we fight even them. All we hear is "Obama and Hillary screwed up"-- nothing about Bush of course.
At the end of the 2012 election, both Jindall and Graham said that their party looked like "the party of stupid", so you would think that they would have learned not to jump into the clown car this time, but they have.
esmith
Veteran Member
Ok I am going to point to the transcript of the CNN Democrats debate. Now just what "substance" can you find in the entire transcript. There was some "I'm going to do this" but no "This is how I will do it".
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ratic-debate-who-said-what-and-what-it-means/
Underhill
Well-Known Member
She has stayed about as centrist as a democrat can in a primary.
This is what has blown my mind about Hillary. She hasn't done anything remotely controversial politically. She has intentionally walked the moderate line to the point of annoyance, not pissing off her corporate donors, the NRA or anyone else. But the right has managed to paint her with this absurd brush. The republicans I work with (this county is 90% republican) hate her with a passion that is completely out of wack with what she has actually done.
I don't like her because she is too corporate. But I can't understand hating her. It's not like she took us into a war under false pretenses or traded weapons with the Iranians or anything...
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
And you really think I'm going to go through all that one piece at a time and comment on each item? I may be retired but I ain't that senile-- yet.
And again, let me repeat, that even some Republican commentators have criticized the lack of substance in their debates. Ever watch "Morning Joe", just for one source where I heard this on? The lack of any substance whatsoever is obvious, and then even what they do say is so wacky that they've turned those debates into a program that should only be shown on the Comedy Channel. Of course, some of the moderator's questions were no less wacky, imo.
Underhill
Well-Known Member
That isn't substance. Substance is talking about issues in a substantial way. Talking about a wall, or voicing patriotic claptrap every time a question is answered is not substance, it's pandering.
But in fairness, when you have 12 people on the stage it is hard to talk about much of anything with any real sincerity. That is the real difference. You have Trump and Carson, and 10 others trying to say something memorable enough to get a bump. So it's a bit of a circus.
What blows my mind is not the difference in the debates, it's who is polling well. I would expect a circus with 12 candidates. But the fact that the two biggest clowns are the ones pulling the most votes is mind blowing.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
And doncha just think that a lot of that comes from the effect from Fox and other wight-wing media t.v., radio, and internet-media sources? I'm trying to remember which prominent Republican stated a few months ago that Fox has probably hurt the party more then helped it because they have driven the candidates way to the right.
esmith
Veteran Member
Have any on the Republican or Democrats debates really asked any hard substantive questions? The answer is no. The Democrats debate was a love fest for Hillary...no one wanted to challenge her.(looking for a position in her administration if she gets elected?). All three of the Republicans debates have been without substance. Major problem here (Republican) is too many candidates with too little time to give more that a half-*** answer. I'm waiting for the 10 Nov debate, but again too many candidates.
Underhill
Well-Known Member
Definitely. I've said for a long time that the combination of cable news and the internet is destroying politics.