OHIO GOV. JOHN KASICH SERIOUSLY CONSIDERING RUN FOR PRESIDENT

[jmyrlefuller]

In other words, he's actually had to govern a purple state, which means he's going fail the TEA litmus test, as well as the liberals' litmus test. This must be why senators are so popular with the far right and the far left. They never have to lead, and they can make symbolic stances.  Heck, even Sarah Palin took federal dollars for HPV testing in Alaska. RINO!!

If you constantly are being pulled in the wrong direction and let yourself be led by those who do, how is that leading? That's following!

[musiclady]

If you constantly are being pulled in the wrong direction and let yourself be led by those who do, how is that leading? That's following!

Kasich is leading.  That's why he won 86 out of Ohio's 88 counties.

He's the best Governor we've had in my lifetime, and has taken our great state from the bottom of the barrel economically, nearly to the top.  He inherited a disaster from Ted Strickland and has turned it into success.

That's not "following."

[jmyrlefuller]

Kasich is leading.  That's why he won 86 out of Ohio's 88 counties.

He's the best Governor we've had in my lifetime, and has taken our great state from the bottom of the barrel economically, nearly to the top.  He inherited a disaster from Ted Strickland and has turned it into success.

That's not "following."

I speak in general, not of Kasich in particular.

[Carling]

I speak in general, not of Kasich in particular.

I thought this thread was about Kasich, and how he's led Ohio?   

[Luis Gonzalez]

This argument over labels has been going on ad infinitum. Not just here. It's the same thing where ever you go on the Internet. You'd think you can simply look up the definition in the dictionary and get a simple meaning. But, no. Not in politics.

New rule. No one-word political identifiers. You gotta elaborate, give details, be precise if you employ labels. Flesh out the whole biography, if necessary.

Moderate here, conservative there, libertarian on that, liberal on these two issues (please name issues so that ridicule may be employed if needed).

But across multiple topics there is always a wide range of opinion weaving or lurching left or right—depending on the arbitrator or if consensus of what left or right means is ever possible.

Get my meaning.

Everyone seems to want to define the camps by standard labels like "conservative", "libertarian", "moderate", etc.

I think that there is a larger, more subtle division and that most disagreement stem from the difference between two distinct political camps: Pragmatism and Ideologism.

If you ask me to define myself according to those two camps, I belong to the pragmatist camp. I favor an approach to governance that assesses the truth of meaning of theories or beliefs in terms of the success of their practical application, where the practical application of those theories and beliefs expand personal freedom, diminish government control and shrinks its size, promote less government interference with the daily lives of citizens over more, considers the people as a whole in respect to laws and policies, and elevates Federalism over central planning ten times out of ten all the while keeping in mind that all Constitutionally-guaranteed liberties, rights and privileges belong to the totality of all American citizens, and that the Constitutional constraints placed on all levels of governments apply to all the persons under the jurisdiction of the United States.

I think that covers it.

[aligncare]

Everyone seems to want to define the camps by standard labels like "conservative", "libertarian", "moderate", etc.

I think that there is a larger, more subtle division and that most disagreement stem from the difference between two distinct political camps: Pragmatism and Ideologism.

If you ask me to define myself according to those two camps, I belong to the pragmatist camp. I favor an approach to governance that assesses the truth of meaning of theories or beliefs in terms of the success of their practical application, where the practical application of those theories and beliefs expand personal freedom, diminish government control and shrinks its size, promote less government interference with the daily lives of citizens over more, considers the people as a whole in respect to laws and policies, and elevates Federalism over central planning ten times out of ten all the while keeping in mind that all Constitutionally-guaranteed liberties, rights and privileges belong to the totality of all American citizens, and that the Constitutional constraints placed on all levels of governments apply to all the persons under the jurisdiction of the United States.

I think that covers it.

Indeed. It's fine to be idealistic and take a stand on principle. But, if the practical outcome of taking that stand (or making that vote) in effect results in an opposite outcome to your stated ideology or principles, what have you gained?

The important thing to remember is you can never punish your own party (that is, the party that most represents your interests) by non participation or by voting for the other party. It just doesn't work that way. A political party never, repeat, never "learns a lesson" in that way.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Indeed. It's fine to be idealistic and take a stand on principle. But, if the practical outcome of taking that stand (or making that vote) in effect results in an opposite outcome to your stated ideology or principles, what have you gained?

The important thing to remember is you can never punish your own party (that is, the party that most represents your interests) by non participation or by voting for the other party. It just doesn't work that way. A political party never, repeat, never "learns a lesson" in that way.

Actually, the opposing party learns how to get a portion of your party to either not vote of cast protest votes, so their campaign strategy centers on pissing opposition party voters off enough so that enough will cast those protest votes or not vote at all in sufficient numbers to impact the outcome of the election.

That's why modern political campaigns focus on attack ads.

Meanwhile voters tend to stress the differences they have with a candidate rather than the commonalities.

[truth_seeker]

Meanwhile voters tend to stress the differences they have with a candidate rather than the commonalities.

I know that virtually every Republican is closer to my views than virtually every democrat.

If you study their detailed purity litmus lists you will often find an item or two with which you disagree.

That is a tradeoff an adult voter should be able to think all the way through, and accept the disagreement, instead of resorting to threats to not vote, or vote 3rd party, or worst of all vote for the democrat.

[Luis Gonzalez]

I know that virtually every Republican is closer to my views than virtually every democrat.

If you study their detailed purity litmus lists you will often find an item or two with which you disagree.

That is a tradeoff an adult voter should be able to think all the way through, and accept the disagreement, instead of resorting to threats to not vote, or vote 3rd party, or worst of all vote for the democrat.

 

[DCPatriot]

I know that virtually every Republican is closer to my views than virtually every democrat.

If you study their detailed purity litmus lists you will often find an item or two with which you disagree.

That is a tradeoff an adult voter should be able to think all the way through, and accept the disagreement, instead of resorting to threats to not vote, or vote 3rd party, or worst of all vote for the democrat.

Absolutely!   

[musiclady]

I know that virtually every Republican is closer to my views than virtually every democrat.

If you study their detailed purity litmus lists you will often find an item or two with which you disagree.

That is a tradeoff an adult voter should be able to think all the way through, and accept the disagreement, instead of resorting to threats to not vote, or vote 3rd party, or worst of all vote for the democrat.

I would go a step farther and say that EVERY Republican is closer to my views than EVERY Democrat.

That's why (back to the thread topic  ^-^),  John Kasich should get the vote of every single conservative voter over Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, or Pocahontas.

(Why do we have to keep having to have this conversation anyway?  There IS a difference in the two parties, no matter how far astray Republicans have gone).

[DCPatriot]

I would go a step farther and say that EVERY Republican is closer to my views than EVERY Democrat.

That's why (back to the thread topic  ^-^),  John Kasich should get the vote of every single conservative voter over Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, or Pocahontas.

(Why do we have to keep having to have this conversation anyway?  There IS a difference in the two parties, no matter how far astray Republicans have gone).

I think it's just a simply matter of wanting 'YOUR' guy to be the winner.  You'd find the same kind of 'belligerent' debate with your buddies, selecting fantasy players in a draft.  It doesn't mean you don't like the person you're calling an "idiot". 

Or a RINO......   


Where it becomes a bit too uncomfortable to keep it light, is when somebody says they will NOT vote for the nominee or go 3rd party.  Then it's time to leave the thread.  LOL!

[truth_seeker]

(Why do we have to keep having to have this conversation anyway?  There IS a difference in the two parties, no matter how far astray Republicans have gone).

Well, because there are those, even on this site, who claim there is NO difference between the parties, even though plenty of evidence says otherwise.

[musiclady]

I think it's just a simply matter of wanting 'YOUR' guy to be the winner.  You'd find the same kind of 'belligerent' debate with your buddies, selecting fantasy players in a draft.  It doesn't mean you don't like the person you're calling an "idiot". 

Or a RINO......   


Where it becomes a bit too uncomfortable to keep it light, is when somebody says they will NOT vote for the nominee or go 3rd party.  Then it's time to leave the thread.  LOL!

I think you're probably right, DC.  It's about wanting others to be exactly the same as YOU are, when that's not even possible, no matter what party you belong to.

It's remarkable to me how quickly people attack new political blood (Mia Love, for one), when they make one statement they don't agree with.

Yikes.  That looks to me like arrogance.

I just don't think I've got all the answers to everything, and I understand that there is legitimate debate between people who all believe in our country and its amazing Constitution.

Like you, for instance.  I'd vote for YOU in a heartbeat, and I don't agree with you on practically anything!   :dx1:

[musiclady]

Well, because there are those, even on this site, who claim there is NO difference between the parties, even though plenty of evidence says otherwise.

That's the key word for me.  "Evidence."  Where is it?

Someone was talking here the other day about not supporting Republicans who vote "just like Democrats."

There ARE no such people!  There was not a SINGLE Republican vote on Obamacare....... the biggest issue of the last six years.

So who is it who votes with the Democrats all the time as a Republican?

NO one.

[DCPatriot]

I think you're probably right, DC.  It's about wanting others to be exactly the same as YOU are, when that's not even possible, no matter what party you belong to.

It's remarkable to me how quickly people attack new political blood (Mia Love, for one), when they make one statement they don't agree with.

Yikes.  That looks to me like arrogance.

I just don't think I've got all the answers to everything, and I understand that there is legitimate debate between people who all believe in our country and its amazing Constitution.

Like you, for instance.  I'd vote for YOU in a heartbeat, and I don't agree with you on practically anything!   :dx1:

You are the best, musiclady! 

We both want the same things.  Just have a difference on how to get there. 

[musiclady]

You are the best, musiclady! 

We both want the same things.  Just have a difference on how to get there.

Actually, with you it's not that big of a difference.

I just know you well enough to tease you a bit. 

[Formerly Once-Ler]

Everyone seems to want to define the camps by standard labels like "conservative", "libertarian", "moderate", etc.

I think that there is a larger, more subtle division and that most disagreement stem from the difference between two distinct political camps: Pragmatism and Ideologism.

If you ask me to define myself according to those two camps, I belong to the pragmatist camp. I favor an approach to governance that assesses the truth of meaning of theories or beliefs in terms of the success of their practical application, where the practical application of those theories and beliefs expand personal freedom, diminish government control and shrinks its size, promote less government interference with the daily lives of citizens over more, considers the people as a whole in respect to laws and policies, and elevates Federalism over central planning ten times out of ten all the while keeping in mind that all Constitutionally-guaranteed liberties, rights and privileges belong to the totality of all American citizens, and that the Constitutional constraints placed on all levels of governments apply to all the persons under the jurisdiction of the United States.

I think that covers it.

Marvelous post.

[Formerly Once-Ler]

I know that virtually every Republican is closer to my views than virtually every democrat.

If you study their detailed purity litmus lists you will often find an item or two with which you disagree.

That is a tradeoff an adult voter should be able to think all the way through, and accept the disagreement, instead of resorting to threats to not vote, or vote 3rd party, or worst of all vote for the democrat.

Vote for a rat?  That's crazy talk.  :vote: