2016 elections - because it's never too early

[FunkMonk]

The only surprising thing about this is how surprised you are.

True, I shouldn't be 

[dps]

What's unfortunate about derspiess is I always felt Languish conservatives were more like me, the establishment wing guys who support free trade, have pro-business leanings, and advocate for candidates like Jeb/Romney or H.W. Bush back in the day. Instead it appears we have at least one Rush Limbaugh fooled imbecile here, which is a true travesty.

I don't really like Hillary because she's not in line with me on a lot of issues. I'm very disappointed she's abandoning TPP, I think minimum wage is kind of a dumb issue, but she's also pretty unobjectionable as most Dems go. She's not a far left firebrand, if anything I think she's running a few ticks further to the left than she'll govern (similarly to 2008 Obama.) I largely view her as a third Obama term, and while  I can type thousands of words in which I disagreed with Obama on things, I'll take a third Obama term over a first Trump one any day.

For me, competence in the office, when the alternative is extreme incompetence, will always outweigh even political ideology. The President's primary job is to govern, they are more than just a "flesh bag of ideals." That's one reason I said Bernie was so unsuited for office--he had not, and has not, ever indicated much of the pragmatism and competence to office required for the job.

Is Hillary dishonest? Sure, she lies. She is duplicitous quite a bit, in fact. But I compare her to Romney or W. Bush, two Republicans I supported, and I find her "not significantly more duplicitous than them" in their political behaviors. In fact both of those guys lied about a lot of stuff. I tend to take a 'real world' view of politicians, and expect most will be dishonest when honesty is politically damaging and lying is a viable option.

But this canard that Hillary is somehow the second coming of the Grant Administration, Warren G. Harding, or Huey Long is just absurd. The right has largely manufactured this image that she's one of the most corrupt people in American political history based entirely on false assertions or by taking "normal political activity" and making it out to be something very different. There is essentially no rational, evidence based argument that Hillary is any more dishonest or more corrupt than "any normal politician." It's only that the far right has given far more legitimacy to the most irrational claims against her that she appears to be so.

I'm more to the right than you--he best term to describe me politically would probably be as "Reaganite".  I don't have much faith in the Republican establishment (which may not mean the same thing to you as it does to me), but I'm not necessarily hostile to them either.

I do agree with you on the competence vs ideology point, though I wouldn't take it to an extreme, but it's a large part of why I'm anti-Trump (not that I don't have problems with some of his positions--if you can call them that--on certain issues).  I'm not saying that it's impossible for Trump to prove to be competent as President, just that's there's no evidence that he would be, while we have some reason to expect some competency from Hillary.  I do tend to think that either Hillary would have the most corrupt Presidential administration we've seen in a long time, but I think the same would be true of a Trump administration as well.

[CountDeMoney]

I would ask how our favorite conservative psychophant Hansmeister is doing, but I fear the Hillary-induced aneurysm was fatal.

[merithyn]

What's unfortunate about derspiess is I always felt Languish conservatives were more like me, the establishment wing guys who support free trade, have pro-business leanings, and advocate for candidates like Jeb/Romney or H.W. Bush back in the day. Instead it appears we have at least one Rush Limbaugh fooled imbecile here, which is a true travesty.

I don't really like Hillary because she's not in line with me on a lot of issues. I'm very disappointed she's abandoning TPP, I think minimum wage is kind of a dumb issue, but she's also pretty unobjectionable as most Dems go. She's not a far left firebrand, if anything I think she's running a few ticks further to the left than she'll govern (similarly to 2008 Obama.) I largely view her as a third Obama term, and while  I can type thousands of words in which I disagreed with Obama on things, I'll take a third Obama term over a first Trump one any day.

For me, competence in the office, when the alternative is extreme incompetence, will always outweigh even political ideology. The President's primary job is to govern, they are more than just a "flesh bag of ideals." That's one reason I said Bernie was so unsuited for office--he had not, and has not, ever indicated much of the pragmatism and competence to office required for the job.

Is Hillary dishonest? Sure, she lies. She is duplicitous quite a bit, in fact. But I compare her to Romney or W. Bush, two Republicans I supported, and I find her "not significantly more duplicitous than them" in their political behaviors. In fact both of those guys lied about a lot of stuff. I tend to take a 'real world' view of politicians, and expect most will be dishonest when honesty is politically damaging and lying is a viable option.

But this canard that Hillary is somehow the second coming of the Grant Administration, Warren G. Harding, or Huey Long is just absurd. The right has largely manufactured this image that she's one of the most corrupt people in American political history based entirely on false assertions or by taking "normal political activity" and making it out to be something very different. There is essentially no rational, evidence based argument that Hillary is any more dishonest or more corrupt than "any normal politician." It's only that the far right has given far more legitimacy to the most irrational claims against her that she appears to be so.

It took 12 years, but I finally found a post of yours that I truly respect.

[CountDeMoney]

I explained the whole "Trump/Warhammer40K" meme thingy to my father this weekend. 

I hadn't seen him shake his head in such abject disappointment and despondency since I was kicked out of college.

[Ed Anger]

I explained the whole "Trump/Warhammer40K" meme thingy to my father this weekend. 

I hadn't seen him shake his head in such abject disappointment and despondency since I was kicked out of college.

[CountDeMoney]

Well, well, well...thar she blows.

[Legbiter]

[Ed Anger]

Did she diddle her sister on stage?

[FunkMonk]

Lena Dunham... Are they trying to convince people to NOT vote for Hillary? 

[jimmy olsen]

I explained the whole "Trump/Warhammer40K" meme thingy to my father this weekend. 

I hadn't seen him shake his head in such abject disappointment and despondency since I was kicked out of college.

Have we heard this story before?

[DGuller]

What's unfortunate about derspiess is I always felt Languish conservatives were more like me, the establishment wing guys who support free trade, have pro-business leanings, and advocate for candidates like Jeb/Romney or H.W. Bush back in the day. Instead it appears we have at least one Rush Limbaugh fooled imbecile here, which is a true travesty.

I don't really like Hillary because she's not in line with me on a lot of issues. I'm very disappointed she's abandoning TPP, I think minimum wage is kind of a dumb issue, but she's also pretty unobjectionable as most Dems go. She's not a far left firebrand, if anything I think she's running a few ticks further to the left than she'll govern (similarly to 2008 Obama.) I largely view her as a third Obama term, and while  I can type thousands of words in which I disagreed with Obama on things, I'll take a third Obama term over a first Trump one any day.

For me, competence in the office, when the alternative is extreme incompetence, will always outweigh even political ideology. The President's primary job is to govern, they are more than just a "flesh bag of ideals." That's one reason I said Bernie was so unsuited for office--he had not, and has not, ever indicated much of the pragmatism and competence to office required for the job.

Is Hillary dishonest? Sure, she lies. She is duplicitous quite a bit, in fact. But I compare her to Romney or W. Bush, two Republicans I supported, and I find her "not significantly more duplicitous than them" in their political behaviors. In fact both of those guys lied about a lot of stuff. I tend to take a 'real world' view of politicians, and expect most will be dishonest when honesty is politically damaging and lying is a viable option.

But this canard that Hillary is somehow the second coming of the Grant Administration, Warren G. Harding, or Huey Long is just absurd. The right has largely manufactured this image that she's one of the most corrupt people in American political history based entirely on false assertions or by taking "normal political activity" and making it out to be something very different. There is essentially no rational, evidence based argument that Hillary is any more dishonest or more corrupt than "any normal politician." It's only that the far right has given far more legitimacy to the most irrational claims against her that she appears to be so.

It took 12 years, but I finally found a post of yours that I truly respect.

I think Otto and Yi have always been the two conservatives on Languish you can have an interesting discussion with, without being bombarded with stupid fascist shit.

[Ed Anger]

Lena Dunham... Are they trying to convince people to NOT vote for Hillary? 

I'd rather have Guy Fieri shit on my chest while eating a Hot Pocket.

[CountDeMoney]

I'd rather have Guy Fieri shit on my chest while eating a Hot Pocket.

That's so fucking wrong. 

You know it would be two Hot Pockets.

[Ed Anger]

Oh sweet Jesus, that Avatar.