Who will be the GOP's Presidential candidate?  

10 members have voted

  1. 1. Please select your best guess for the GOP ticket 2016

    • Jeb Bush
    • Donald Trump
    • Carly Fiorina
      0
    • Marco Rubio
      0
    • Rick Santorum
      0
    • Rick Perry
      0
    • Bobby Jindal
      0
    • Skip Andrews
      0
    • Chris Christie
      0
    • Lindsey Graham
      0
    • Ben Carson
      0
    • Ted Cruz
      0
    • Mike Huckabee
      0
    • John Kasich
      0
    • George Pataki
      0
    • Rand Paul
    • Scott Walker


Recommended Posts

This is the smart one?

Bush, conflating the current debate over undocumented immigration with maternity tourism, effectively shifted the focus surrounding the use of the controversial term "anchor babies," from Hispanics to Asians.

"What I was talking about was the specific case of fraud being committed, where there's organized efforts -- and frankly it's more related to Asian people coming into our country -- having children in that organized effort, taking advantage of a noble concept, which is birthright citizenship," Bush said Monday in McAllen, Texas.

Staff taking pay cuts...

And all of this was playing out while Bush’s campaign admitted that some of its top staff was already taking pay cuts in anticipation of a long slog through the winter, which is generally not a sign that things are going according to plan.

What surprises me about Bush isn’t that he’s a little out of practice. It’s more that he seems not to fully grasp what makes his campaign viable in the first place.

The Bushes are the last link to the old Guard:

By then, though, most of the old establishment families, the Tafts and the Lodges and other species of dinosaur, had either been swept away by the conservative tide or had drifted from the fold. The last Rockefeller to serve (Jay, the former West Virginia senator) cast off his Republican roots at an early age. The last Chafee in line (Lincoln) is now running for the Democratic nomination, even if no one knows it.

That leaves the Bushes, who never did quit. Because George H.W. Bush managed to become president for a while, he became the de facto patriarch of the dying establishment. And though his sons tried to modernize the family brand by going off to Texas and Florida, their last name alone has always been enough to reassure Republicans who were more interested in governing than in social crusades or storm-the-Bastille movements.

https://www.yahoo.com/politics/jeb-get-ahold-of-yourself-jeb-bush-has-dropped-to-127656250341.html

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

Now here is what we do not need...

 

A college law professor declaring for President in the Democratic primary battle:

 

 

A Harvard law professor who supports campaign finance reform has raised $1 million through Kickstarter and is planning to run for president.

The professor, Lawrence Lessig, told ABC News on Sunday he will seek the Democratic presidential nomination. He says he will be a “referendum president,” serving only until he wins passage of his campaign reform bill, the Citizens Equality Act. At that point, his vice president would take over. The Huffington Post, CNN and Politico are among the publications with stories.

Lessig plans to formally announce his candidacy on Wednesday.

Lessig has not named his vice presidential running mate. A section of his website asks for a vote on possible contenders, including some possibilities listed “just to see whether you are paying attention.” The list includes Sen. Elizabeth Warren, Jon Stewart, Facebook CEO Sheryl Sandberg and current candidates Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton.

“I think I’m running to get people to acknowledge the elephant in the room,” Lessig told ABC. “We have to recognize—we have a government that does not work. The stalemate, partisan platform of American politics in Washington right now doesn’t work. And we have to find a way to elevate the debate to focus on the changes that would actually get us a government that could work again, that is not captured by the tiniest fraction of the 1 percent.”

Lessig’s Citizens Equality Act has three components. First, it would end winner-take-all voting for Congress, replacing it with a system in which voters rank their choices to elect lawmakers from multi-member districts.[The Progressive Wet Dream]

 

Second, it would change voting laws with automatic voter registration, a national holiday for elections, and an amendment to the Voting Rights Act that revises the criteria for jurisdictions subject to preclearance review of voting changes.
 

Third, the act would give vouchers to every voter to fund congressional and presidential campaigns, and would provide matching funds for small-dollar contributions. [Apparently, the Act earns it's own money]

 

The last time we tried the College Professor route was Wilson!

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

This arcane prof. speak won't even get out of academia.

--Brant

"It's the economy, stupid!"

nuclear warfare is next in line

in most colleges and universities the student-professor brain ratio must be like 11:14 (assuming the average PhD has an IQ of 140 and the average student 110), but in Harvard it must be 15:14, with not much common real-world sense for the 14 (why can't Harvard hire better professors than Arizona State?)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you realize that if Joe, a.k.a. "good ole," "the dumbest man to ever occupy the Senate or the Vice Presidency" Biden would be my preferred candidate or Jim Webb!

A...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like Rick just rolled.

Rick Perry's out.

Michael

Can he please lose those glasses!

There needs to be an intervention there.

punch-in-the-face.gif he also needs to work on reacting to a counter punch...boxer-knockout-smiley-emoticon.gif

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to be clear -- is this asking for a prediction of what will happen? The other poll seems to be asking what the people want.

I don't want to weigh in if it does, because I don't feel I've even been alive long enough to have enough knowledge of practical politics -- to say nothing of being actually interested and paying attention.

You find that a rational choice?

A...

Link to post
Share on other sites

The face was too hard featured.

--Brant

And clashed with the Texas drawl and big bright smile...

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

Scott Walker's out and it's weird.

 

First, The Donald:

 


 

No love lost between these two, but Trump is being gracious.

 

Next, Scott's announcement:

 

 

He used Trump's words in his announcement, saying we need to make America great again. A little later he called on other candidates to drop out so the remaining ones could stop Trump.

 

If he wants to bash Trump, OK. But to preface it by using Trump's slogan as his own?

 

Dayaamm!

 

That's classy...

 

:smile:

 

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites

Michael:

He'll still be on the short list for VP if he is interested.

Also, he is young and has a good track record building.

A...

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 months later...

I pulled the lever for Jeb Bush. What an idiot  I thought the Bush cachet and governoring would be enough to give him a big bag of support where it mattered -- in the actual contest heats. On that point I was wildly wrong. I eat crow in measure to my confidence that Bush would be nominated. Chew chew chew. Sigh. Chew some more.  

Why was I wrong? What happened to my thinking back in July that I couldn't see Jeb announcing his withdrawal last night?

On first self-criticism, two weaknesses: no proper survey, weighing, balancing, not seeking details. An example is how utterly irrelevant was Jeb's old job in Florida. That mattered zip, yet my gut call said it was an intangible 'bulk' in the game. Partner this with a vague 'feel' for hideous matchup between two hoary old Families, as a dread but sure bet. As with Trudeau, my eye was on the trade-in value of the Family brand (as with Clinton), but Jeb has the charisma of a corpse next to Justin and just about everybody.  I did not assess Jeb for qualities and attributes necessary.

Where else why wrong? Any third point of error is tied tightly to the first, repeated. Seek more data, do more weighing and assessing.

That is the problem in prognosticating. You should ought to expect some chaotic processes or at least the unexpected. You cannot predict how many rain-drops will hit New York on February X, but you can predict the predictable variability. If there is no variability, the set is fixed. And nothing is completely fixed in politics at this level: 

As I chew and chew, I think too of the thanks due to Trump for the folding Bush tent.

He more or less alone (building on the tepid initial Jeb support) branded the campaign as hospice-bound.  Too true, too telling, and contributory to decline. By tagging Bush as dead-wheeling and doomed, Trump was responsible in measure for the step-down last night. I am glad so glad the dynastic hopes are crushed. It is truly  a No Thanks moment. Good stuff.  I credit Trump. Chew chew.  Bush is gone and I must eat this gamey, boney sneaky-tasting boid., Vile but instructive. Keep crowing and prognosticating to a neutral blur of probabilities, changeable as the weather.

My brothers in error -- as registered by the poll in the thread-starter, in the clubhouse below.  Chew chew sigh chew chew.

Jeb Bush


×

  • william.scherk

    william.scherk

  • Derek McGowan

    Derek McGowan

  • Marc

    Marc

  • BaalChatzaf

    BaalChatzaf

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, william.scherk said:

I pulled the lever for Jeb Bush. What an idiot  I thought the Bush cachet and governoring would be enough to give him a big bag of support where it mattered -- in the actual contest heats. On that point I was wildly wrong. I eat crow in measure to my confidence that Bush would be nominated. Chew chew chew. Sigh. Chew some more.  

Why was I wrong? What happened to my thinking back in July that I couldn't see Jeb announcing his withdrawal last night?

On first self-criticism, two weaknesses: no proper survey, weighing, balancing, not seeking details. An example is how utterly irrelevant was Jeb's old job in Florida. That mattered zip, yet my gut call said it was an intangible 'bulk' in the game. Partner this with a vague 'feel' for hideous matchup between two hoary old Families, as a dread but sure bet. As with Trudeau, my eye was on the trade-in value of the Family brand (as with Clinton), but Jeb has the charisma of a corpse next to Justin and just about everybody.  I did not assess Jeb for qualities and attributes necessary.

Where else why wrong? Any third point of error is tied tightly to the first, repeated. Seek more data, do more weighing and assessing.

That is the problem in prognosticating. You should ought to expect some chaotic processes or at least the unexpected. You cannot predict how many rain-drops will hit New York on February X, but you can predict the predictable variability. If there is no variability, the set is fixed. And nothing is completely fixed in politics at this level: 

As I chew and chew, I think too of the thanks due to Trump for the folding Bush tent.

He more or less alone (building on the tepid initial Jeb support) branded the campaign as hospice-bound.  Too true, too telling, and contributory to decline. By tagging Bush as dead-wheeling and doomed, Trump was responsible in measure for the step-down last night. I am glad so glad the dynastic hopes are crushed. It is truly  a No Thanks moment. Good stuff.  I credit Trump. Chew chew.  Bush is gone and I must eat this gamey, boney sneaky-tasting boid., Vile but instructive. Keep crowing and prognosticating to a neutral blur of probabilities, changeable as the weather.

My brothers in error -- as registered by the poll in the thread-starter, in the clubhouse below.  Chew chew sigh chew chew.

Jeb Bush


×

  • william.scherk

    william.scherk

  • Derek McGowan

    Derek McGowan

  • Marc

    Marc

  • BaalChatzaf

    BaalChatzaf

William, Politics, like Rhetoric, is both a techne and an arte.

Statistics are important, and sometimes critical, to messaging and turnout.

However, there is a "pulse" on the ground and in the voting communities that has to be "sensed" by an election day

operations team/leader. 

As Korzybski explains, "the map is not the territory."

However, this is not just a philosophical throw away phrase.

I found this article to be intriguingly unique in how the author developed the concept:

Quote

NLP's 1933 roots and why eating menus isn't pretty

A founding principle of NLP, the distinction between a map and a territory made its debut in Alfred Korzybski's 1933 seminal work, Science and Sanity: An Introduction to Non-Aristotelian Systems and General Semantics.

The idea seems simple enough -- who, after all, would confuse a roadmap with a road, or a menu with a meal? Yet Korzybski observed that people often confuse what they think with 'reality'. Let's look at an example.

Nice phrasing in this paragraph:

Quote

Brains Aim to Please

Left to their own devices, our brains will accept whatever maps we give them and will use them again and again. Brains aim to please -- and that's a good thing, not a bad thing. They have a strong tendency, however, to reuse preferred maps, regardless of the territory. As a result, people sometimes get turned around, become lost, and make themselves unhappy. They may even put themselves in danger, all the while not realizing that a particular map they are using does not correspond to the territory they are navigating.

It would be as if someone moved to California from Kansas but continued to use his Kansas roadmap because he was familiar with it and liked it better than the California roadmap.

Continuing with the trope, the author notes that:

Quote

The difference is, with mental maps, we often don't realize that we're using a map at all. Our mental maps are not quite as obvious as a printed roadmap because we use our mental maps to think our thoughts and feel our feelings. In Korzybski's words, we easily confuse them with the territory.

Outdated Maps

No map is ever completely true. Maps are static analogs, like a snapshot, while territories are dynamic, like a river. Maps can become outdated. They may be resourceful at one time in our lives and limiting at another.

Here the author make a nice distinction and "extends the definition of 'map.'"

Quote

NLP extends the definition of 'map' to include both sensory perception and communication at the pre-linguistic level. The implications are profound. We can never know a thing in itself, we can only know our own neurological translation of it. By the time we are aware of anything through our senses, it has already undergone significant transformations. Information has been deleted, distorted and generalized by our nervous systems in the very process of performing what we call 'perception'.

Alan Watts once wrote, "We know the world by a process of constantly transforming it into ourselves." The epistemology of NLP's extension of "The Map is Not The Territory" to the pre-linguistic processes of perception and awareness is founded in science. It is a well understood fact of neurology that nothing can reach our awareness by route of our senses which has not been transformed into the terms of our nervous system.

The author concludes that:

Quote

Therapeutic Value

"The Map is Not The Territory," has tremendous therapeutic value. It allows us to accept our thoughts and feelings for what they are -- just thoughts, just feelings. It encourages us to take our thoughts with a grain of salt. We can become curious about them, we can evaluate them, and we can change them if other thoughts or feelings would be more useful, healthy and life affirming. We can improve our maps. And by doing so, we can improve the quality of our lives, our experiences, our relationships, our health and our success.

http://www.nlpls.com/articles/mapTerritory.php

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now