2016 elections - because it's never too early

[CountDeMoney]

Fuckers chocked his wheels.

[Barrister]

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.

[Valmy]

Looking through the Republican platform for my home state of Texas (God bless Texas), found this lovely nugget:

International Trade- We support free trade as a necessary component of American capitalism and
of the United States' influence in the world. We strongly oppose the Trans-Atlantic Trade and
Investment Partnership (TTIP), the Trade In Services Agreement (TISA), and the Trans-Pacific
Partnership (TPP). We demand the immediate withdrawal from the North American Free Trade
Agreement (NAFTA), and the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA). We demand
the repeal of the current Fast Track Authority/TPA.

International Organizations- We support United States withdrawal from the International
Monetary Fund, the World Trade Organization, and the World Bank.

http://www.texasgop.org/about/

WTH? That strikes me as something they should probably elaborate on. That is so bizarre because besides the bizarre Benghazi obsession there is nothing else in the foreign policy section that is too weird. Since when did all that become something people who favor capitalism and free trade should oppose?

Edit: Oh man. Anti-vaxxer shit. Smart Meter paranoia. Fuck. It is all in there. Well now I am depressed.

[CountDeMoney]

Dude, that's nothing new;  the wingnuts have always been bleating about NAFTA;  it just so happens that it's mainstream thinking now, because the wingnuts are now the mainstream.

All this anti-TPP talk is really pissing me off.  Can we please at least look like we're giving a half-assed effort in trying not to cede the Pacific Rim--and by extension, the global--economy to China?  Fuck. 

[11B4V]

You just all uppity after the hippie fest.

[Jaron]

TPP triggers me

[Liep]

[Legbiter]

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

More like a total lack of self-awareness and what impact they have on normies.

[Grey Fox]

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.

[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.

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.

Meh, I don't like being called a fascist, either.

And I'm still trying to remember which Languish conservatives are anti free trade.  I do seem to recall someone here who is generally conservative being protectionist, but I can't remember who it was.

EDIT:  Ok, apparently that wasn't about anyone here.  Sure sounded like it, though.

[Valmy]

Meh, I don't like being called a fascist, either.

And I'm still trying to remember which Languish conservatives are anti free trade.  I do seem to recall someone here who is generally conservative being protectionist, but I can't remember who it was.

EDIT:  Ok, apparently that wasn't about anyone here.  Sure sounded like it, though.

If I was talking about members of Languish I would have named them.

[garbon]

Name and shame. Name and shame.

[OttoVonBismarck]

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.

You're a Canadian so I think the assumption has always been in U.S. terms you'd be a Democrat, maybe a centrist Dem, but still a Dem.

[Valmy]

Name and shame. Name and shame.

Damn right.

[Malthus]

You're a Canadian so I think the assumption has always been in U.S. terms you'd be a Democrat, maybe a centrist Dem, but still a Dem.

I can't imagine what sort of ravening lunatic a Canadian would have to be, to be considered the equivalent of a US Republican these days.