Yep. VF said it best.
I think Nancy Reagan was extremely well-intentioned.
The fact that her campaign did little to help the situation is because she wasn't a statesman or a policy maker by nature, and had no idea how her actions would affect things.
The idea that children especially, and also adults, shouldn't use drugs for recreational purposes is a wonderful idea.
You can argue about the execution, but honestly, I don't think that's Mrs. Reagan's fault.
She didn't have the power to make the policies, nor the relevant experience/education to realize what the fallout of those policies would be.
Ahhh yes, that road of good intentions... where does it lead?
I do think she wanted to do good, but it was her vision of good. Obama thinks he is doing good.
I will agree she was not a policy maker, but just a face for the policies.
MoochHell isn't a policy maker either, but that didn't stop her from ruining school lunch programs nationwide.
I think it is horrible you insult two top women, two first ladies on international chick's day.
Democrats have always denied they are socialist. Currently they have a self described socialist, registered independent running on the democratic ticket. When will they start admitting they are socialists?
I don't think this question was answered.
I don't think the official hierarchy gives it much thought. Sanders is openly socialist. The bigger problem is that most people under 30 don't consider "socialist" to be a scary word. The leftist media and academia have indoctrinated them to believe that socialist policies are good, even though they have failed in 100% of the places they have been tried.
From a policy perspective, Sanders is really not that interesting. Have you seen his Twitter feed? It looks like a computer-generated output of bog-standard leftist talking points.
Thu Mar 10 2016 09:41:17 AM EST from IGnatius T Foobar @ Uncensored
I don't think the official hierarchy gives it much thought. Sanders is openly socialist.
Which is why I asked the question, when is the democratic party going to admit they are the socialist party?
The same time the Republicans admin they're open fascist?
... yes, they can do that in a live interview with Megyn Kelly. Fox News, Fair and Balanced.
Sun Mar 13 2016 01:59:23 PM EDT from athos-mn @ Uncensored
The same time the Republicans admin they're open fascist?
Is anyone on the republican side a self described fascist? Would the Grand Ole Party support a candidate if they said they were a fascist? Would that person be in the debates or on the republican ticket? I think they answer to those questions is no.
The democrats however have a self described socialist at their debates and on their ticket. It is about time they admitted it.
I was reading the comments on another website, in the comments people were explaining the difference between a socialist and a democratic-socialist. So the youngins are okay with it.
In socialism the government and corporate cartels operate as a single combined entity.
In fascism the corporate and government cartels operate as a single combined entity.
No one in the GOP has openly admitted to being a fascist, but most of them are. Marco "Make Zuckerberg Great Again" Rubio certainly is.
While I hate the republicans I loath the democrats. The point is that democrats have self admitted socialist on their ticket, but still deny they are socialists. The republicans could be considered fascists but not one of them has come out as one.
As you mentioned above there is very little difference between the two parties. Both parties goals are to grow government, increase spending, and reduce freedoms.
Google are such obvious commies. Their "algorithm" noticed that I'm following the primaries, so they're now sending me alerts. But, despite the fact that I'm only really following the Republican primaries, they completely ignored all of tonight's wins by Donald Lincoln Reagan Trump. All of the alerts they sent me are about Hitlery "The Butcher of Benghazi" Cunton.
So it seems Marco RINO has finally decided he can't win, and has dropped out. Good riddance.
Kasich, on the other hand, has taken his win of Ohio and declared that he now has a bold path forward. He only needs 112% of the remaining delegates to win. Obviously he's planning to be the one coronated at a brokered (read: cheated) convention. Despite the fact that Trump and Cruz will have the vast majority of the delegates, the liberal democrats who run the GOP will call Kasich the "compromise" candidate. And he will dutifully lose to Hitlery Cunton in the general election as planned.
My position remains the same: I'll vote for whichever candidate Rosie O'Donnell hates the most.
Right now it is cool to hate Donald Trump, which makes me like him, but I am more sensible than that.
So are we suppose to say "President Clinton" or "President Hillary"? You know the republicans will screw this up, with or without Hillary's good friend Donald.
What happens to the delegates that were for a candidate that dropped out? Do they choose anyone else or do the delegates go to the candidate the former candidate endorses? I believe Carson had delegates, who does his delegates go to?
Trump currently has 621 delegates, if you add the other candidates together there is 601. Almost as many people are against Trump as for him.
Well there's still Ted Cruz, who is basically a proxy for Goldman Sachs. And there's John Kasich, who thinks he can beat Hitlery Clinton because he won the Ohio primary. Kasich must be counting on being forced upon the people at a brokered convention. It's really the only available path. If the GOP Elite hadn't become the exact image of the caricature liberals paint of them (think: the monopoly guy lighting his cigar with a $100 bill) they'd have started encouraging everyone but their front runner to drop out months ago.
Regardless of how you want to paint the details, in the end we're getting Trump or Clinton. Period. No one else has a viable path to Pennsylvania Avenue.
It's important to think this way because of all of the down-ballot elections that will be affected by this.
Personally I think Ted Cruz should drop out and do a deal with Donald Trump to get nominated as a Supreme Court justice. He knows a lot about the Constitution when he isn't busy being owned by Goldman Sachs.
While I hate the republicans I loath the democrats. The point is
that democrats have self admitted socialist on their ticket, but
still deny they are socialists. The republicans could be considered
* Sanders is an independent running on the D ticket, basically attempting to seize the nomination against the wishes of the party elite
* The D nomination process is structured in such way as to favor the party establishment, and most of the superdelegates are voting to block Sanders. The D party is *designed* to block challenges from the far left (although it doesn't always work that way, see McGovern)
delegates to win. Obviously he's planning to be the one coronated at a
brokered (read: cheated) convention. Despite the fact that Trump and
This is silly. The best he can hope for is to take his measly 100 or so delegates to the convention and broker them for Cruz if he doesn't like Trump. Or Trump if he doesn't like Cruz (yikes!)