Well, at least Snow White (Hillary) is going to be nominated and not Republican dwarves such as Doc (Carson), Sleepy (Jeb), Grumpy (Walker), Dopey (Huckabee), Happy (Lindsay Graham), Bashful (Rubio) and Sleazy (Trump)

freeman3 wrote:Well, at least Snow White (Hillary) is going to be nominated and not Republican dwarves such as Doc (Carson), Sleepy (Jeb), Grumpy (Walker), Dopey (Huckabee), Happy (Lindsay Graham), Bashful (Rubio) and Sleazy (Trump)

Um, you missed it. None of those guys will be on the Democratic stage--as the Archduke was talking about the Democrats with his Snow White analogy.

Plus, if anyone is "sleazy," it's the person whose unofficial motto is "you have no proof . . . because I destroyed it, suckers!"

I don't think I am constrained by Archduke's analogy. I can point out the Republican seven dwarves. I guess Carly Fiorina can be Snow White. Glad she's good for something.

archduke

Hell, look at Lincoln "metric system" Chafee

Well, it may be odd to introduce conversion to the metric system as a major campaign plank.
But its a great deal odder that the US would be almost the only nation in the world that clings to the Imperial system. (Mynamar and Liberia make great company)
Ask any engineer, or architect ... The inefficiencies and redundancies they have to contend with when competing for work outside of the US
Ask any US company still manufacturing products for export...
And frankly ask anyone who has worked in the metric system about its advantages.

Archduke Russell John wrote:Also, one of my predictions has already proven wrong. I said Trump would not run. Unfortunately, he announced today. What a waste of his time and money.

Oh boy!

:buys more popcorn

rickyp wrote:archduke

Hell, look at Lincoln "metric system" Chafee

Well, it may be odd to introduce conversion to the metric system as a major campaign plank.
But its a great deal odder that the US would be almost the only nation in the world that clings to the Imperial system. (Mynamar and Liberia make great company)
Ask any engineer, or architect ... The inefficiencies and redundancies they have to contend with when competing for work outside of the US
Ask any US company still manufacturing products for export...
And frankly ask anyone who has worked in the metric system about its advantages.

Because we're all arguing against the metric system . . . or no one is.

It's just a dumb plank for a campaign. 90% of Americans can't explain the metric system at all.

If you want to argue for the metric system and see who wants to argue against it, start a forum. It should be fascinating to watch.

Of course, I won't watch it, but if I was . . . I'd be fixated by it.

danivon wrote:

Archduke Russell John wrote:Also, one of my predictions has already proven wrong. I said Trump would not run. Unfortunately, he announced today. What a waste of his time and money.

Oh boy!

:buys more popcorn

Don't get your hopes up. If he doesn't buy the New Hampshire primary**, he'll be out before South Carolina--if he stays in that long.

**He may cut to the chase and buy the whole State.

fate

It's just a dumb plank for a campaign

.

I don't disagree.

90% of Americans can't explain the metric system at all.

Then how do you explain your currency?

rickyp wrote:fate

It's just a dumb plank for a campaign

.

I don't disagree.

90% of Americans can't explain the metric system at all.

Then how do you explain your currency?

I have never explained dollars by using centimeters--or pennies for that matter.

I'm confident there is no good reason (other than the NFL lobbying) for us not converting to the metric system.

But, this is about the Republican Nomination for President. Chafee is not a Republican (and never was more than a RINO) and he will never be President.

Discussion over.

Doctor Fate wrote:

geojanes wrote:Fate, sorry if you already answered this, but what's your problem with Bush? What's wrong with him that he doesn't have your support?

1. He's the wrong guy at the wrong time. He is probably the only (realistic) GOP candidate who will bore people into voting for Clinton.

2. His stance on immigration. While I agree there should be a path to legalization for some illegals here, I have no confidence that Jeb will do anything to stop more illegals from coming in.

3. His "I'm the new Jon Huntsman" approach. We don't need another know-better-than-you running against the Party.

4. His last name. Enough already.

5. His support for Common Core. Here's the problem: ultimately it will be used to strengthen a Department that should not exist: Education. Furthermore, the grade school math "core" is absolute clap-trap.

6. I can't think of a thing he brings to the race that isn't better presented by other candidates.

His single-best credential is his wife and his fluency in Spanish. Other than that, no thanks.

Thanks for taking the time. It's surprising to me that I kinda like Bush. That's a bad sign for any Republican.

geojanes wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:

geojanes wrote:Fate, sorry if you already answered this, but what's your problem with Bush? What's wrong with him that he doesn't have your support?

1. He's the wrong guy at the wrong time. He is probably the only (realistic) GOP candidate who will bore people into voting for Clinton.

2. His stance on immigration. While I agree there should be a path to legalization for some illegals here, I have no confidence that Jeb will do anything to stop more illegals from coming in.

3. His "I'm the new Jon Huntsman" approach. We don't need another know-better-than-you running against the Party.

4. His last name. Enough already.

5. His support for Common Core. Here's the problem: ultimately it will be used to strengthen a Department that should not exist: Education. Furthermore, the grade school math "core" is absolute clap-trap.

6. I can't think of a thing he brings to the race that isn't better presented by other candidates.

His single-best credential is his wife and his fluency in Spanish. Other than that, no thanks.

Thanks for taking the time. It's surprising to me that I kinda like Bush. That's a bad sign for any Republican.

Over Mrs. Clinton?

bbauska wrote:Over Mrs. Clinton?

Given only those two choices, probably. She's got some character issues that are concerning, and character really is the most important thing. But in practice, I always try and find the best candidate regardless of party, and it's usually some third party guy who has no chance. So it's unlikely I'd support either of them.

geojanes wrote:

bbauska wrote:Over Mrs. Clinton?

Given only those two choices, probably. She's got some character issues that are concerning, and character really is the most important thing. But in practice, I always try and find the best candidate regardless of party, and it's usually some third party guy who has no chance. So it's unlikely I'd support either of them.

Thank you. I am not surprised you think the way you do.

geojanes wrote:

bbauska wrote:Over Mrs. Clinton?

Given only those two choices, probably. She's got some character issues that are concerning, and character really is the most important thing. But in practice, I always try and find the best candidate regardless of party, and it's usually some third party guy who has no chance. So it's unlikely I'd support either of them.

I'm glad to read this for another reason: I would vote for Jeb for exactly the same reason. Realistically, I don't think there is much difference between the two of them. However, I think he has more integrity than she does. Then again, compared to her, I can't think of anyone in politics (not under indictment or investigation, or previously convicted) who has less than she does.

One could argue they are different on social issues, but (again) realistically the courts are running the social issues these days.

I do find Jeb the least objectionable because there is a sense of decency and perhaps empathy that I typically find lacking (or at least not prominent) in a Republican candidates. I do not believe he would just blithely turn down death row appeals for clemency like his brother did. I am not sure that will be reflected in policies, however. He's a politician and would be subject to all kinds of pressures for policies from interests not showing much empathy for others.

As for Hillary, of course I think the character stuff is overblown. If you want to make a big over her keeping an email account at her home , fine. Or quibble with how the Clinton Foundation solicited donors when it has indisputably has done much good, fine. Or fault her when she supported the trade deal with Asia when she was acting as a loyal soldier of the government and has now qualified her support when she is free to give her own opinion, fine. Personally , I think this kind of stuff comes with the territory of both being in public life for over 20 years and being the subject of intense scrutiny from Republicans who cannot stand that the Clintons have been one of the main bulwarks against right-wing take-over of this country the past 25 years . Where would this country be without the Clintons? And you're going to accept how Republicans, bitter enemies of the Clintons, seek to define them, George?

The Clintons have their weaknesses but they are far,far outweighed by the good they have done. Voting for a third- party who is not subjected to any kind of scrutiny so there are no negatives is a cop-out in my book. When Ross Perot got popular enough his weaknesses got exposed. Surviving the intense scrutiny that comes with being a serious candidate is part of the justification of being president. It upsets me to think of all of the damage to this country caused by some misguided liberals voting for Nader.

I guess people can vote how they want. And I am not saying character is not relevant. But ultimately it should be related to the job as being president. Do you think Hillary is going to lie to get us into war ? Do you think she is going to be ok with torturing people? Do you she think she will be better or worse with regard to civil rights as compared to a Republican candidate? Better or worse with regard to illegal immigrants? Better or worse with regard to treatment of the poor? Better or worse with regard to treatment of women? Better or worse with regard to income stratification? Better or worse with regard to tax fairness? Better or worse with regard to health care? Better or worse with regard to environment? Better or worse as far as opportunity for the poor and middle class ?

The character of a person covers a lot of things . I am very sure that Hillary Clinton has better character than any of the Republican candidates.