Trump. Murica!

In reply to pres589:

I'll try to find it, but I did find something I didn't know: He advocated socialized health insurance for all, with income-based insurance rates.

GameboyRMH wrote:

mad_machine wrote: the problem with Sanders being "socialist" his ideas are not all that socialist.. it's that everyone else has moved very far right.

Yep, if Nixon were running today he would be just as "socialist" as Sanders, and even Reagan would probably fit better with the Democrats than the Republicans.

What a load of crap. How the hell do you come up with a ludicrous statement like that? Ever hear of a "Reagan Conservative"? Ever read the book?
Do some research before spewing dreck like that all over the place.

http://www.amazon.com/Principles-Reagan-Conservative-Paul-Kengor/dp/082530699X http://www.theblaze.com/blog/2014/03/03/the-11-principles-of-a-reagan-conservative/ https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=reagan%20conservative

Yes Reagan had a lot of far-right smack talk and was very far-right for his time, but by today's standards he was playing a very centrist game.

In reply to GameboyRMH:

Have you ever looked at his 11 principles? As a country we have moved to the left of every one of them! What factual information do you have to indicate the we have moved to the right?

Does this help?

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2011/0731/America-s-big-shift-right

GameboyRMH wrote: Yes Reagan had a lot of far-right smack talk and was very far-right for his time, but by today's standards he was playing a very centrist game.

That's a response that suggests you never read the link Bravenrace provided or that you have a view shaped as that of a non-citizen who wasn't even alive in 1980.

IMHO, Reagan's (and the Repubs) biggest failing was pandering to and aligning with social conservatives who still wield a big influence within the party. That's unfortunate because the majority of US voters are far more accepting of social changes than those who populate the fringe-right.

In contrast, Democrats drifted towards centrism with Pres. Clinton and lately have largely abandoned that direction. The Dems were soundly defeated when offering candidates like Humphrey, Muskie, Mondale, Teddy K and a 2nd term Carter. Now the party is dominated by progressive proponents with ideals even more extreme than those rejected when the aforementioned folks ran for office. That's why we see HRC running on the left coat tail of President Obama and why bottom-tier options like Sanders, O'Malley and Warren are touted as the future of the party.

People can rightly say the Repubs are "out of touch" but the Dems are in even worse shape. In six years Democrat policies and performance have forced a sharp rebuke to what was offered in 2008; look what happened to the US Congress. Now, the party is doubling-down with a more extreme agenda solicited by a candidate with a lackluster resume and even more dubious character.

It's no wonder US voters declare themselves as "Independents"; both parties represent the worst of two extremes.

In reply to oldsaw:

Calling Warren "bottom tier" makes me wonder if you're really as in-tune to what people want as you think you are. I mean, I don't see a lot of people expressing hope that we continue to remove regulation on banks or lending operations...

In reply to GameboyRMH:

That was written in 2011 at the height of the Tea Party Movement. Its not indicative of the overall direction of the country.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/183413/americans-continue-shift-left-key-moral-issues.aspx

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/american-politics-are-moving-to-the-left/2014/01/16/30161350-7885-11e3-af7f-13bf0e9965f6_story.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideological_leanings_of_U.S._Supreme_Court_justices\

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/01/14/1178873/-The-U-S-is-becoming-more-liberal

I can provide more if you require it.

Isn't "The Tea Party" the same folks saying the same thing but this time with a slightly different label? The GOP seems to be sharing the same messages. It also seems to be another path for outside money (Koch) to get funneled into the effort.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/11/20/the-republican-party-the-tea-party-basically/

pres589 wrote: In reply to oldsaw: Calling Warren "bottom tier" makes me wonder if you're really as in-tune to what people want as you think you are. I mean, I don't see a lot of people expressing hope that we continue to remove regulation on banks or lending operations...

Warren's stance on banking can only appeal to single-issue voters. Even though I don't trust the US electorate, I don't see that as enough to make her the next POTUS.

pres589 wrote: Isn't "The Tea Party" the same folks saying the same thing but this time with a slightly different label? The GOP seems to be sharing the same messages. It also seems to be another path for outside money (Koch) to get funneled into the effort. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/11/20/the-republican-party-the-tea-party-basically/

When was the last time the WashPo (and its' readers) focused on outside money influencing the Democrat party? Or does it not matter if the funding goes towards something one supports?

In reply to oldsaw:

Warren isn't running so, again, I'm not sure if you're really paying attention. She's stated this so many times it's not even funny.

The Washington Post has Mitt Romney Superfan, Jennifer Rubin on their staff. She writes articles like this; http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2014/03/27/democrats-funded-by-billionaires-complain-about-republicans-funded-by-billionaires/

In reply to pres589:

Cmon, pres...

I know what she claims (for now) but you and I both know the internal party pressure to do so exists.

Good on WashPo for having staffers like Rubin. Bad on you lasering-in on outside money influencing one party and ignoring its' impact on the other.

Just sayin.

I never once said that there was no outside money impact on the Democratic party. That would be foolish. The topic at hand was the Tea Party, which at this point is really just The Republican Party + Branding. To ignore how much money outside groups poured into this branding exercise seemed like a real oversight. The thing exists to gather more money from sources that might not otherwise play or play to that level.

As for Warren, yes, there is pressure on her to run. I would like to see her run. She didn't for 2016 and I support Sanders in her place. I like both of them as possible presidents. I also think your casting her as someone that appeals to people for a single issue or area is a mischaracterization of her. Ref: http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Elizabeth_Warren.htm