Neither having voted nor making billions has any impact on how well a person would govern.
It's going to take a really hard kick to the stomach to dislodge your head from your arse.underage sex is still illegal last i checked. they shouldnt be fucking in the first place.
Somehow it doesn't surprise me to see you attempting to tar the Democrats while ignoring the obvious: what you've just said applies to virtually every political organization, anywhere ever, next you'll be trying to tell me the Republican party isn't for the most part a platform for Christian Conservatives?Since the Democratic Party runs on racial (and various and sundry other grouping) identity politics.
what? he did say thatSomehow it doesn't surprise me to see you attempting to tar the Democrats while ignoring the obvious: what you've just said applies to virtually every political organization, anywhere ever, next you'll be trying to tell me the Republican party isn't for the most part a platform for Christian Conservatives?
How about the Australian Labor Party.. which is a platform for Union members.
You can take any party and see it operates on identity politics. There is no political party anywhere, that doesn't run on some kind of identity; and if it existed nobody would vote for it anyway because it wouldn't align with their interests.
Deck Knight said:There are also blueprints that Conservatives and Republicans use all the time, it's just as a matter of course they don't usually involve exploiting race or sexual orientation (religion is more common, though.) Huckabee's "Chrisitan Leader" platform in the 2008 Presidential race is a great example.
Amen sir.Prop 19 was terribly written. As a Californian, I breath a sigh of relief.
Most definitely not, in a perfect world the most qualified candidate would win and we wouldn't have all this campaign bull shit.In a perfect world if you work harder, are at the polls longer, and fight harder to get your message out you would win,
sorry to here about that...It appears Massachusetts remains an insane asylum dispite all the effort grassroots Republicans put out this time. In a perfect world if you work harder, are at the polls longer, and fight harder to get your message out you would win, but here in Massachusetts it appears there is only one qualification for any office: The D.
That being said the top of our ticket (Baker) ran a terrible campaign that was more interested in giving credence to the spoiler (Time Cahill) then going after the sitting Governor. He was weak and late to the game in attacking the real threat to his election and built up the spoiler. That probably depressed the needed turnout in every race below him accross the state. The activists were at the polls but the base wasn't there.
So I'm looking forward to Deval's coming progressive income tax, expected to hit just about the time the federal medicaid funding propping us up expires. And four years from now? Well, Patrick won't run only because he can't, but I have a sinking feeling no matter how bad it gets Massachusetts has the political equivalent of battered-wife syndrome. We keep getting the same people because we truly, truly deserve them for never standing up to their abuses and never questioning them when dispite their absolute control and singular dominance of every aspect of the state they still blame the other party for every failing.
See the thing is "most qualified" is a subjective stand-in for "shares my political/economic/social values" and therefore reverts to the activities I described previously anyway.Most definitely not, in a perfect world the most qualified candidate would win and we wouldn't have all this campaign bull shit.
Running a business/corporation and running the government are two completely different things. Even Carly Fiorina said this. And Meg Whitman is a nice example in that you can't buy votes. Maybe if Whitman had a bit more substance in her campaign rather than "oh look I'm fucking rich and am using my own money to campaign," she might have won.See the thing is "most qualified" is a subjective stand-in for "shares my political/economic/social values" and therefore reverts to the activities I described previously anyway.
How many bankers and CEOs on Wall Street do you think have multiple advanced degrees from the best schools? How many of them have run billion dollar organizations with thousands of people working under them? It's a whole hell of a lot, yet despite them being far and away more "qualified" by any objective metric there is a large cross-section of voters who would never vote for them. Qualification is in the eyes of the beholder.