Welcome to NEFF

Sign up for a new account today, or log on with your old account!
Register

Give us a try!

Welcome back to the new NEFF. Take a break from Twitter and Facebook. You don't go to Dicks for your fly fishing gear, you go to your local fly fishing store. Enjoy!

republican nominee

moosekid

moosekid

Handsomest Neff Member
There's a lot of Hilary bashing here which is all well and good, I don't give a shit.

But i'm curious who you all think is a stronger candidate?

This year's crop of Republicans are pathetic.

It can be hard to judge a Republican candidate before they actually do get the nomination. In order to get that nomination, they have to appeal to their base which often requires them to act like brain-washed religious fanatics. After they get the nomination, they can show their moderate colors and they usually don't look nearly as psychotic....

Just curious who you like?

If there were a Republican candidate who was pro-choice and supported a progressive income tax i'd likely get on board...
 
Both sides run to the right (R) and left (D) to gain their respective nominations then both move to the middle to try to win the vote. It has always been that way, nothing different here.

Look at Hillary try to convince her party she is a true progressive. She's far more moderate. She has voted for the same wall to block illegal immigrants that Trump is now pushing so hard. War? She's a major hawk.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Rusty Spinner said:
You do realize the Democrat candidates do the exact same thing, correct?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

100% agree.

And I know how moderate-leaning Hilary is.

...But since she gets bashed here all the time, I kinda assume that those who bash her will be voting Republican.

Which led me to ask them this question -- Who is your favorite Republican nominee??
 
I always vote for neither, I find an alternative candidate that fits.......

It's all I can do to fight the machine from the comfort of a life......and that's enough for me....

I firmly believe Hillary is a lying ****.......

and Moose is correct, the Republican candidates all suck......
 
moosekid said:
100% agree.

And I know how moderate-leaning Hilary is.

...But since she gets bashed here all the time, I kinda assume that those who bash her will be voting Republican.

Which led me to ask them this question -- Who is your favorite Republican nominee??
Click to expand...

Here's a novel idea, why don't we let them debate each other some more, fight for some early victories in states like Iowa, NH and SC, and then we can see who will be supported by Republican voters. Just look back in history. Eight years ago Rudy Giuliani was the run away shoe-in for the Republican nomination. Huckaby went on to win Iowa and surge to the top. Plenty of time to whittle down the large remaining group before we worry about this.

And watch Hillary go downhill fast and all due to her own actions. The FBI leaded yesterday that they are basically wrapping up their investigation on her illegal emails and turning attention to her dealings with the Clinton Foundation. Comey is pissed and wants Lynch to have zero wiggle room not to indict. We're looking at a game changer coming soon. Even the liberal press is beginning to turn against her in so many ways. She snatched defeat from the jaws of victory 8 years ago and is poised to repeat that now.
 
Hillary Clinton should be in prison, not participating in presidential candidate debates. Bernie Sanders is a delusional socialist. As of now I'm split between Trump and Cruz.
 
Rusty Spinner said:
Here's a novel idea, why don't we let them debate each other some more, fight for some early victories in states like Iowa, NH and SC, and then we can see who will be supported by Republican voters. Just look back in history. Eight years ago Rudy Giuliani was the run away shoe-in for the Republican nomination. Huckaby went on to win Iowa and surge to the top. Plenty of time to whittle down the large remaining group before we worry about this.

And watch Hillary go downhill fast and all due to her own actions. The FBI leaded yesterday that they are basically wrapping up their investigation on her illegal emails and turning attention to her dealings with the Clinton Foundation. Comey is pissed and wants Lynch to have zero wiggle room not to indict. We're looking at a game changer coming soon. Even the liberal press is beginning to turn against her in so many ways. She snatched defeat from the jaws of victory 8 years ago and is poised to repeat that now.
Click to expand...

Here's a novel idea...vote against the establishment, it is the only way to change the corrupt machine living in Washington, DC.....Trump is a huge part of that machine, and besides that he is a fucking looney tunes....:)
 
lightenup said:
Here's a novel idea...vote against the establishment, it is the only way to change the corrupt machine living in Washington, DC.....Trump is a huge part of that machine, and besides that he is a fucking looney tunes....:)
Click to expand...

Based on your argument, there are no anti establishment candidates running in either party. Feel The Bern has been in Congress for 28 years without any success to show for it and now he suddenly feels motivated to get things done. Yeah, right....

Why don't voters scream from the rooftops, TERM LIMITS!!!​????
 
Rusty Spinner said:
Based on your argument, there are no anti establishment candidates running in either party. Feel The Bern has been in Congress for 28 years without any success to show for it and now he suddenly feels motivated to get things done. Yeah, right....

Why don't voters scream from the rooftops, TERM LIMITS!!!​????
Click to expand...

The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge natural to party dissention, which in different ages & countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders & miseries, which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security & repose in the absolute power of an Individual: and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty." — George Washington, September 19, 1796


How's about you vote for ANOTHER PARTY!!!

They are out there...research them and make a meaningful choice...

For example. but not meaningful, maybe......Ron White announced in 2015 :O

 
I don’t trust any politician. They say what they think you want to here. Then their battle cries go silent after they are elected. If you look the nature of a politician they have zero accountability. The American public is at fault for this. I am in IT and I have to pass exams and take classes yearly to prove I am proficient at what I do. It is the same for doctors, lawyers’ accountants….. There are no prolificacy exams you an elected official. Would you use a lawyer that did not pass the bar? Would you use a doctor that did not pass their state boards? Hell no you would not. There are laws that prohibit them from practice without passing exams. We elect officials that we have no proof that they would be a qualified candidate or an intuitive notation of their competence. These are the most important positions in the country. The decisions they make have affect on everyone. If there should be proficiency exams for anyone, it should be politicians.
 
tomfly said:
I don’t trust any politician. They say what they think you want to here. Then their battle cries go silent after they are elected. If you look the nature of a politician they have zero accountability. The American public is at fault for this. I am in IT and I have to pass exams and take classes yearly to prove I am proficient at what I do. It is the same for doctors, lawyers’ accountants….. There are no prolificacy exams you an elected official. Would you use a lawyer that did not pass the bar? Would you use a doctor that did not pass their state boards? Hell no you would not. There are laws that prohibit them from practice without passing exams. We elect officials that we have no proof that they would be a qualified candidate or an intuitive notation of their competence. These are the most important positions in the country. The decisions they make have affect on everyone. If there should be proficiency exams for anyone, it should be politicians.
Click to expand...


May I ask, who is going to make these proficiency exams? the government? Will they regulate proficiency as well? Will they set-up a special committee?
 
lightenup said:
Proficient in proficiency.....
Click to expand...

:):):)




I take no tests to restore rivers, so I guess I can't be trusted either. :crap:

As for alternative parties, they are out there already. The growing trend is Independent as in no political party affiliation. That seems a good option. But I do feel strongly about de-centralizing power and think term limits is one critical step in the right direction.
 
Rusty Spinner said:
:):):)




I take no tests to restore rivers, so I guess I can't be trusted either. :crap:

But I do feel strongly about de-centralizing power and think term limits is one critical step in the right direction.
Click to expand...

Yes I also concur that term limits are a step in the right direction.....
 
lightenup said:
May I ask, who is going to make these proficiency exams? the government? Will they regulate proficiency as well? Will they set-up a special committee?
Click to expand...

Are you kidding LU , the government could not write an exam on the most proficient way to pick up dog crap.
What should be done:

1[SUP]st[/SUP] Make them take a psychological exam to test their moral compass. Law Enforcement and Firefighters are required to take it. The exam already exist

2[SUP]nd[/SUP] Have top Economists. Military Analysts, Foreign and Domestic Policy experts Accountants, Constitutional historians, Law professors, all write simulated real world scenarios. Have the candidate write a detailed response to the situations. Run the answers through a game theory model. This would be an un-cheatable test and without bias. (There would be no textbook correct answer) The model would give a positive outcome or a negative one to the decision. It would also give a highly accurate metric or their decision making and critical thinking skills.

3[SUP]rd[/SUP] publish the results

The Military uses game theory to simulate battle outcomes. Big corporations use it to direct the long term continuity. Why not use it on the individuals who make the most important decisions.
 
tomfly said:
Are you kidding LU , the government could not write an exam on the most proficient way to pick up dog crap.
What should be done:

1[SUP]st[/SUP] Make them take a psychological exam to test their moral compass. Law Enforcement and Firefighters are required to take it. The exam already exist

2[SUP]nd[/SUP] Have top Economists. Military Analysts, Foreign and Domestic Policy experts Accountants, Constitutional historians, Law professors, all write simulated real world scenarios. Have the candidate write a detailed response to the situations. Run the answers through a game theory model. This would be an un-cheatable test and without bias. (There would be no textbook correct answer) The model would give a positive outcome or a negative one to the decision. It would also give a highly accurate metric or their decision making and critical thinking skills.

3[SUP]rd[/SUP] publish the results

The Military uses game theory to simulate battle outcomes. Big corporations use it to direct the long term continuity. Why not use it on the individuals who make the most important decisions.
Click to expand...
I thought it was obvious I was kidding you dope...:)
 
tomfly said:
Are you kidding LU , the government could not write an exam on the most proficient way to pick up dog crap.
What should be done:

1[SUP]st[/SUP] Make them take a psychological exam to test their moral compass. Law Enforcement and Firefighters are required to take it. The exam already exist

2[SUP]nd[/SUP] Have top Economists. Military Analysts, Foreign and Domestic Policy experts Accountants, Constitutional historians, Law professors, all write simulated real world scenarios. Have the candidate write a detailed response to the situations. Run the answers through a game theory model. This would be an un-cheatable test and without bias. (There would be no textbook correct answer) The model would give a positive outcome or a negative one to the decision. It would also give a highly accurate metric or their decision making and critical thinking skills.

3[SUP]rd[/SUP] publish the results

The Military uses game theory to simulate battle outcomes. Big corporations use it to direct the long term continuity. Why not use it on the individuals who make the most important decisions.
Click to expand...

Kind of interesting... Especially since both the general public and the super pacs will see the results. Would be fairly easy to see where allegiances lie..
 
Hillary was an abysmal failure as Secretary of State, is really completely unqualified to be Prez. She did let her husband fuck whoever he wanted though, so I guess she'd be a good chick to marry as a sugar mamma.
 
Trout Nazi said:
Hillary...is really completely unqualified to be Prez.
Click to expand...

That's a curious assertion. Plenty of reasons to distrust and dislike, but how do 8 years in the white house, 8 as US senator, and 4 as sec of state equal "completely unqualified?"
 
eddavidson9 said:
That's a curious assertion. Plenty of reasons to distrust and dislike, but how do 8 years in the white house, 8 as US senator, and 4 as sec of state equal "completely unqualified?"
Click to expand...

Aside from failing miserably at her job and getting people killed, exactly what has she accomplished in those 8 years? Are you that much of a liberal shill? Same with Bernie, 30 years of nothing, but this is the year he'll get things done. The Repubs got no one either, we're all fucked, but let's not pretend Billary is anything but a stuffed suit with kanckles.
 
Trout Nazi said:
Aside from failing miserably at her job and getting people killed, exactly what has she accomplished in those 8 years? Are you that much of a liberal shill? Same with Bernie, 30 years of nothing, but this is the year he'll get things done. The Repubs got no one either, we're all fucked, but let's not pretend Billary is anything but a stuffed suit with kanckles.
Click to expand...

Oh stop it. You can debate the results of her respective tenures all you want. But that's not what I was disagreeing with. Personally, I think she is unelectable, or nearly so, and would be a poor choice regardless. But that's not the point.

The issue is your choice of words...namely that service in these capacities does not count toward the knowledge and experience necessary for the position...you know...qualifications.
 
Nobody is qualified to be president, least of all anyone who's arrogant enough to think he/she is...You have to know everything about everything.

The success. (or failure) of an administration, depends on how good it is at hiring advisers, and how good it is at taking advice.
 
eddavidson9 said:
Oh stop it. You can debate the results of her respective tenures all you want. But that's not what I was disagreeing with. Personally, I think she is unelectable, or nearly so, and would be a poor choice regardless. But that's not the point.

The issue is your choice of words...namely that service in these capacities does not count toward the knowledge and experience necessary for the position...you know...qualifications.
Click to expand...

Her experience only counts if she were successful in anything she did, but that is not the case with Hillary. She's tanking anyway, so it will come down to an old white man. Not exactly the party of inclusion the Dems want us to think they still are. A tired old man from an inconsequential state that has zero to show for his 28 years in Congress.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Rusty Spinner said:
experience only counts if she were successful in anything she did,
Click to expand...

Failure can be a great teacher. Compare her 2008 campaign to this one. Wouldn't say she can't learn from her mistakes. I'll leave you with the rest of your statement unaddressed...only to say that I agree with part of it.

But I like Pete's takeaway better anyway.
 
eddavidson9 said:
Failure can be a great teacher. Compare her 2008 campaign to this one. Wouldn't say she can't learn from her mistakes. I'll leave you with the rest of your statement unaddressed...only to say that I agree with part of it.

But I like Pete's takeaway better anyway.
Click to expand...


Let me ask you a question; If you owned a company and one of your employees really sucked at all facets of what they did, would you promote them? Would you let them run the company?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top