The Republican Primary Race Is Filling Up

[T.Lex]

That's how you got Reagan. In no rational world would he be in charge of anything.

1) He ended up doing alright. Reagan v. Carter was the first election I was old enough to pay attention to.

2) He was governor of California, so had executive experience in a REALLY big state.

3) It was the Cold War. Rational didn't always carry the day.

 

[jamil]

That's how you got Reagan. In no rational world would he be in charge of anything.

1) He ended up doing alright. Reagan v. Carter was the first election I was old enough to pay attention to.

2) He was governor of California, so had executive experience in a REALLY big state.

3) It was the Cold War. Rational didn't always carry the day.

Well, there he goes again. Pretending subjective choices are more a simple matter of logic and reason than one's world view.

I voted in that election. I remember the nation had a fairly low morale after 4 years of Carter. The mood was mostly "get that ****ing idiot out of the big chair". So the choice was, 4 more years of what we had, or go with the guy who ran California for 8 years. Of course the socialists out there hated him. But their complaints weren't issues of logic, nor reason--in other words, they weren't "rational". They were partisan.

In office it did not take long to get the economy humming. Something the ****ing douchebag before him couldn't do. But then, the douchebag before him didn't have that as a goal.

 

[T.Lex]

Well, there he goes again. ...

Uh... him "he" or me "he"?

 

[jamil]

Uh... him "he" or me "he"?

Sorry. Should have made that clearer. You're the audience. Alpo is the subject.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Well, there he goes again. Pretending subjective choices are more a simple matter of logic and reason than one's world view.

I voted in that election. I remember the nation had a fairly low morale after 4 years of Carter. The mood was mostly "get that ****ing idiot out of the big chair". So the choice was, 4 more years of what we had, or go with the guy who ran California for 8 years. Of course the socialists out there hated him. But their complaints weren't issues of logic, nor reason--in other words, they weren't "rational". They were partisan.

In office it did not take long to get the economy humming. Something the ****ing douchebag before him couldn't do. But then, the douchebag before him didn't have that as a goal.

I voted in that election too. There was no lesser of two evils in that one. The difference was stark. Now, Reagan was not perfect but this one was a no-brainer. Plus, you have to consider how Carter got elected in the first place. If you'll recall, it was Ford's turn, after Nixon left in disgrace (back when people resigned from office having been disgraced) for the republican party. When Ford pardoned Nixon, there was a reflexive gag by Americans and they pulled the anybody but Ford lever. Any democrat would have gotten elected that year...well, maybe except a socialist.

 

[bwframe]

Well, there he goes again. Pretending subjective choices are more a simple matter of logic and reason than one's world view.

I voted in that election. I remember the nation had a fairly low morale after 4 years of Carter. The mood was mostly "get that ****ing idiot out of the big chair". So the choice was, 4 more years of what we had, or go with the guy who ran California for 8 years. Of course the socialists out there hated him. But their complaints weren't issues of logic, nor reason--in other words, they weren't "rational". They were partisan.

In office it did not take long to get the economy humming. Something the ****ing douchebag before him couldn't do. But then, the douchebag before him didn't have that as a goal.

Deja Vu all over again?

What will Iran give up this time?

 

[jamil]

I voted in that election too. There was no lesser of two evils in that one. The difference was stark. Now, Reagan was not perfect but this one was a no-brainer. Plus, you have to consider how Carter got elected in the first place. If you'll recall, it was Ford's turn, after Nixon left in disgrace (back when people resigned from office having been disgraced) for the republican party. When Ford pardoned Nixon, there was a reflexive gag by Americans and they pulled the anybody but Ford lever. Any democrat would have gotten elected that year...well, maybe except a socialist.

That's a good point. Carter didn't win because America made a conscious, rational choice to move far left ideologically. And that's kinda what Alpo would have us believe, that Reagan was the "irrational" choice. And that's where the disconnect is. Alpo thinks he's the gatekeeper of political reason.

There are some objective criteria for "rational". It's irrational if you vote for someone that you believe will make your desired outcome worse. Everyone had experienced the implementation of Carter's world view. And it made many people's lives suck. We could consider anyone who thought Carter ****ed up their country and then voted for him for a second term, was irrational. That Reagan won in such a landslide at least showed that in 1980, a pretty good majority of people did not make the irrational choice. The question of that time was: which one will produce a better outcome. And by the next election, enough people's lives were made better enough for another landslide election.

 

[Alpo]

Sorry. Should have made that clearer. You're the audience. Alpo is the subject.

Your adjectives tend toward the pejorative when referring to someone you don't like. And then you get incensed when it's ad hominem. You funny.

 

[jamil]

Your adjectives tend toward the pejorative when referring to someone you don't like. And then you get incensed when it's ad hominem. You funny.

Huh? But Alpo. I like you. Really I do. We just have different world views. I don't begrudge you because of that.

But you tend to make these silly subjective generalizations, like the one you made, as if you're the arbiter "rational". And I respond to that how I respond. And it wasn't ad hominem. It was assertively on point.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Huh? But Alpo. I like you. Really I do. We just have different world views. I don't begrudge you because of that.

But you tend to make these silly subjective generalizations, like the one you made, as if you're the arbiter "rational". And I respond to that how I respond. And it wasn't ad hominem. It was assertively on point.

I think he's talking about that puss-bag thing.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

 

[Alpo]

Huh? But Alpo. I like you. Really I do. We just have different world views. I don't begrudge you because of that.

But you tend to make these silly subjective generalizations, like the one you made, as if you're the arbiter "rational". And I respond to that how I respond. And it wasn't ad hominem. It was assertively on point.

There are quite a few papers on the "quality" of the Reagan presidency. Heroic is not a term I would associate with him. To the extent the present generation holds him in esteem, it is a clear indication that they have not lived through or studied that period very well.

 

[jamil]

I think he's talking about that puss-bag thing.

Oh. Well. I stand corrected. I guess I do make exceptions for exceptionally authoritative elected bullies like Chris Christie. Thankfully America seems to have had enough of him.

 

[jamil]

There are quite a few papers on the "quality" of the Reagan presidency. Heroic is not a term I would associate with him. To the extent the present generation holds him in esteem, it is a clear indication that they have not lived through or studied that period very well.

1) I have lived through the period. In my part of the world the mood changed dramatically. I was just starting out in college, wondering if there were any jobs to be had after I graduated. But stuff got good pretty quick and it wasn't that hard to find a good job. I'd say the trickle trickled at least in my world.

2) I do agree that Reagan is often hoisted on a higher pedestal than he deserves. The AWB is a black mark for sure. Lots of other stuff he did that I wasn't fond of. But as a president, he took a nation that was really hurting from low self-esteem, stagflation, a sense of inept government, and turned it around. America felt better about itself. He got a lot more credit than he deserved for the end of the Cold War. He helped, but he didn't do it. All in all, as it turned out, he was as rational choice for president as any we've had in modern history. You can disagree with him ideologically. But that doesn't make him an irrational choice.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Hillary tries to troll Rubio, Rubio fires back

'Shots fired!!' @HillaryClinton trolls Marco Rubio, and he hits back - twitchy.com twitchy.com

I tweeted her a list of burn wards in the DC area, in case she needs it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_burn_centers_in_the_United_States#District_of_Columbia

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Whoa, huge news if true. Trump, by law, is not allowed to be President.

It says so in the Constitution, near the end. One of the post-ambles I think.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I thought this video was funny.

Warning: You'll be taken to a Cruz campaign site to get to the video. I know that thought will repulse many in INGO.

https://www.tedcruz.org/l/to-be-a-clinton/

 

[Route 45]

Marco Rubio a closeted gay?

Bombshell Report: Marco Rubio's Gay Arrest Scandal Could END HIS CAMPAIGN!

 

[ArcadiaGP]

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Oh for **** sake, this guy is an idiot

If ted cruz doesn’t clean up his act, stop cheating, & doing negative ads, I have standing to sue him for not being a natural born citizen.

Yeah! Bring the power of the government in to make him stop saying mean things! ****ing birthers.