This. Actually running for president is a lot like work and involves having policies and subjecting oneself to extraordinary scrutiny. The Donald just wants to play at being taken seriously as a presidential contender without ever being serious about being a presidential contender.
Trump’s not Perot. Hell, he’s not even Fred Thompson. He’s a category unto himself. A stupid, self-aggrandizing category.
Ben Carson’s ignorance of international relations is cringeworthy:
Yes, are three. Only one has potato. But still sad.
You know, for me 2016’s is shaping up to be THE weakest presidential election field in this country that I can think of since 1988. At this point in time I DEFINITELY “lean left” in my thinking but H.R.C. doesn’t really do anything for me and neither do any other potential Democratic candidates (well, Al Gore kinda does. I still feel that he got TOTALLY JOBBED back in Y2K. But the dude totally lacks charisma from what I can tell). The Republicans? Ha! I can’t think of even ONE person being touted as a potential candidate for President on that side of the aisle right now that I would even give much consideration to, let alone actually VOTE for (well, actually, I HAD been thinking “Jeb Bush” [of all freakin’ people] but the more I’m seeing about him, now, the more I’m thinking “Naaaaahhh!”). I’m tellin’ you - I won’t be surprised if I “forget” to vote in November 2016. Just not an inspiring group to me AT ALL.
I’m long past any hope of “inspiration” for voting. I just vote to avoid more dead Americans, and to avoid the worst of the nuttery on display. That means to me, in every recent election, voting for the Democratic candidate over the Republican candidate.
Like Pappy told me: “You may not find someone to vote for – but you’ll always find someone to vote against.”
Vote for Hillary: Not Insane!
There, that’s all you need to know.
I first pictured an Archer scene with the running joke about literally. My next picture was the reaction from the Joint Chiefs when he issued the order. I’d love to have that be in person and be in the back of the room to watch.
Ben Carson :smack:
It’s strange times. The Democrats are likely to nominate someone who’s strong on my most heavily weighted factor in voting for President - foreign policy. Rarely do the Democratic candidates, who do well with me in that regard, make it past the early primaries. Most of the Republican potential candidates are weak in that area that traditionally was a strength for the Party. The Republican candidates seem to ignore that area and focus on domestic, especially domestic social, issues. Is this election going to be held in opposite world?!?
And, at least somewhat more inspiring than “Vote For the Crook. It’s Important.”
Looks like I’ll be writing in Phil Lesh for Prez yet again…
BG, could I possibly ask a favor? Some of us occasionally browse the Dope when clicking links is not convenient. In the other thread where you posted this same link, **eschereal ** posted the money quote so that your dear, dedicated readers don’t have to click out to an external site to see what you’re on about. Could you maybe…just maybe…do the same? It would really be ever so helpful. Thx. 
Here ya go:
He’s rather trying to have it both ways. (A position, nay, an orientation which many Dopers can endorse, I’m sure. ;))
I think it’s less trying to have it both ways than an Obamaesque statement about seeing things from both sides and trying to figure out where to draw the line. Politically it’s probably the smartest thing to do.
Actually, I’m pretty sure Obama himself has talked this way about gay rights vs. freedom of religion.
BrainGlutton, you posted this exact same thing in two different threads. Please refrain from the cut and paste style of posting in the future. If you have something to add, at least try to be creative about it.
Well, in the fall of 2013, I was urging Virginians to “Vote for the faceless, soulless hack - it’s important!” - and Terry McAuliffe has turned out to be a pretty decent governor of my former home state.
And I really think it’s time that the Dems incorporated the fact that Dem candidates are sane, and GOP candidates are quite often not, into their basic message.
I seriously doubt that Obama has so much as left the door open a crack to the notion that a business establishment can choose who it’s going to serve, and who it’s not, on the basis of anything besides appropriate behavior and dress on its premises, and of course ability to pay.
I’m sure I could create a church that had low regard for Republicans and other conservatives, so that if I had a business, I could refuse to serve them on the grounds of religious liberty. And that would be ridiculous.
We can’t Balkanize our commerce, so that you might never know, until you go into a store, whether they might be unwilling to serve you. That’s something we need to be able to take for granted, and being open to both sides of the issue of whether you can choose who you want to do business with on religious grounds is frankly like being open to both sides on the issue of whether the Earth is more like a sphere, or has more of a resemblance to a cube.
:dubious: Of course I did. It fit perfectly in all three. That, sir, is creativity.