Howard Schultz thinks politics are broken, and may run for president as an independent

Mac-7 said: Trump won the election and is the president

Thats all the support he needs

I know, I know.

 

Not really, before I voted for example, the worst had 10 votes, the least worst 10 and third party 0. After I voted, the worst still has 10, the least worst 10 and third party 1. That one represents a vote against the worst and least worst. For me to do as you stated, one or the other, the worst or the least worst would have had to go up by one while the other remained the same.

What I would really like to see is "None of the above," added to the ballot. I'm sure none of the above would have won the 2016 presidential election. Since Hillary was disliked by 58% of all Americans, Trump by 60%. If none of the above won, then you'd need to have another election without any of the candidates that were on the ballot when none of the above won.

That would mean the Republicans would have to choose someone other than Trump, the Democrats someone else other than Hillary.

 

Giftedone said: ↑
Neither side of the bird is about equal opportunity and less Gov't - that is the problem.

Both Red and Blue establishment hate fair and free markets. Both love regulation and tax law which keeps the little guy from competing and bastardize fair and free markets. Both love the Oligopolies, price fixing and anti competitive practices.

"Less Gov't" ? What USA have you been living in. Both Red and Blue love Big Govt, Big Gov't spending, Big debt and deficits and increasing Gov't power at the expense of essential liberty. Blue does not apologize for its actions but Red - who claims to be the party of small Gov't - are slightly worse than Blue (a high bar to achieve) with respect to Big Gov't spending and trampling essential liberty.....snip~


This is where you started. Neither side of the Bird is about equal opportunity and less government. That is the Problem. Both Red and Blue love big Government.

Then I show you just how that is not the case.

So you can esplain how that makes my statement about Equating All Repubs comment disingenuous since you stated Establishment which comes from the Party and by States.

 

JakeStarkey said: ↑
You don't get it. MMC, those state are big government progressive states. They have been for a long, long time.


https://www.cheatsheet.com/culture/...our-life-meet-americas-10-freest-states.html/


Now Jake that is what you stated.

How is S Dakota a big government progressive State. Answer Jake. Its not nor has it ever been.

Even #1 New Hampshire isn't listed as Big Government progressive State. Wherein you didn't know that it leans hard libertarian.

Its clear even with the link Jake. You can't comprehend what it says. So no.....it wasn't a personal attack even after you double down not comprehending what the link is saying. Did you still want to fall back on the victim status?


Now from the link that you can't comprehend.


“Freedom” means different things to different people. For some, it may refer to the ability to rid oneself of overbearing rules set by some sort of authority – be it your employer’s rules against using certain substances, or the government’s attempt to roll back personal rights. Or, viewed from another angle, some people may see the government’s attempted expansion of services as being freed from the tyranny of private sector power and monopolies. The battle over health care, pitting a freer market versus a potential single-payer system, comes to mind.

Freedom can have any number of meanings, but in terms of the economy, we typically mean freedom to be associated with choice. That can include the choice to open a business, the choice to buy a good or service, or the choice to accept a job offer, at a wage rate and duration chosen only by the parties involved. With as little outside interference as possible.

Obviously, some level of regulation is needed. The government has a role, which is to maintain the framework and infrastructure to keep the economy – and thereby the country – running at optimal levels. Its when government intrudes into other areas that things get squirrely. Minimum wage laws, environmental protections, etc. – all of these do impact the economy.

“Economic Freedom of North America is an attempt to gauge the extent of the restrictions on economic freedom imposed by governments in North America,” the report says. “The freest economies operate with minimal government interference, relying upon personal choice and markets to answer basic economic questions such as what is to be produced, how it is to be produced, how much is produced, and for whom production is intended. As government imposes restrictions on these choices, there is less economic freedom.”.....snip~

 

Favorability Ratings: U.S. Political Leaders
Favorable Unfavorable Spread
Donald Trump 40.5 55.0 -14.5
Nancy Pelosi 34.6 48.4 -13.8
Mitch McConnell 22.8 44.5 -21.7
Chuck Schumer 28.3 40.8 -12.5


https://www.realclearpolitics.com/?state=nwa


As usual Jake is wrong about Pelosi's favorable being much higher than Trump and that her approval ratings are skyrocketing. As shown by RCP.

 

Yes it was not as easy as trump expected

But normally the winner is allowed to implement the agenda they were elected on

 

This is getting idiotic. The Establishment refers to Political and Bureaucratic elite - and the big money influence's. Obviously this is not referring to "All Republicans".

What is also true is that while "All Republicans" are not the Establishment ... the majority of Republicans keep voting these clowns in and re-electing them - despite the fact that these people do not represent Republicanism.

Last - your link was about "economic freedom" which has almost nothing to do with what I was talking about (sans lower taxes and perhaps less regulation) so your argument from a State perspective failed on two counts.

So then - rather than circle back on stupidity - may we move on. I am talking about Federal Politics .. The President, Congress and SCOTUS.

 

You are a victim of Fake News. In fact, Trump remains far more popular than the Congress and Pelosi.
Pelosi's approval numbers actually tanked during the "shutdown".

"A new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll shows that Speaker Nancy Pelosi — not President Donald Trump — plummeted most in popularity during the 35-day government shutdown.

The new poll shows the Speaker of the House experienced a 6-point drop in her approval rating. Only 28 percent of Americans rated Pelosi as favorable, while 47 percent rated her as unfavorable — a stunning 19 percent “upside down” unfavorable figure.

The Wall Street Journal reports that while voters in their poll did hold him responsible for the shutdown, Trump is down only 3 percent total since November, when the midterm elections were held. Hardly the roundhouse kick to the head that it could have been, given the bad mainstream press."
THE HILL, New poll shows Speaker Pelosi’s approval rating down during government shutdown, BY JEN KERNS, 01/28/19.
https://thehill.com/opinion/campaig...elosis-approval-rating-down-during-government

 

Yet this is where you started before you went on your tangent about establishment. Which again we were talking about Parties.


Giftedone said: ↑
Neither side of the bird is about equal opportunity and less Gov't - that is the problem.

Lastly the link was also about less Government. Which lets look at the title once again.

Want Less Government in Your Life? Meet America’s 10 ‘Freest’ States..... which they use the variable of economics and choice.

Bottomline, you were wrong about both parties aren't about equal opportunity and less government. It's clear you don't know what Republicans/Conservatives are about and think you can come up with excuses to show they are both the same. Fact is....Reality is.....they are not. So save the BS about who is being disingenuous. As it clearly isn't me.

 

The RP has always talked smaller limited government, but when all the rhetorical smoke clears the massive Deep State bureaucracy is still there - occasionally with a few minor flesh wounds. Big Government is the opium of every political class. Republicans become addicted fast, and Democrats enthusiastically mainline Big Government.

Has the RP ever had a credible politically feasible plan to reduce the size and power of government?

 

Frankly you and MMC seem to be in fundamental agreement. MMC is probably slightly more optimistic about the RP's potential as a vehicle of real reform. It is very unpleasant for ordinary Americans to accept exactly how complicit both parties are in the waste, corruption and error that now defines 21st century American government at every level.

“Politics in modern America has become a lucrative business, an industry that has less to do with policy and a lot more to do with accessing money and favors. … bills and regulations are often introduced not to affect policy change, but as vehicles for shaking down people for … money and favors. Indeed, the motive on both sides often has nothing to do with creating a “correct” policy but instead is often about maximizing profits.” EXTORTION, "How Politicians Extract Your money, Buy Votes, And Line Their Own Pockets, Peter Schweizer, HMO, NY, NY, 2013, p. 4.

 

The parties are not the same, but the differences are not nearly as significant as both parties would like voters to believe.
The trend line is always toward expanded government size and power.

How many phony votes were there to "repeal and replace" ObamaCare?

 

I think we do share similar political values. The disagreement is over whether or not Red Establishment (and by inference the GOP in general who keeps voting these clowns in and re-electing them) share these values.

All of what you state with respect to the state of Politics in the US is true. It is a "Pay to Play" system - and everyone knows it. I call it an Oligopoly-Bureaucracy Fusion Monster. If you are a Politician or Bureaucrat and you Play (go along with the agenda of the international financiers and national Oligarchs) you get paid. In the case of the Politicians many of them were elected on the basis of donations from the big money interests .. who then appoint bureaucrats and Judges that go along with these interests.

 

Only with State and Local Government.

 

MMC just does not understand that big state or little state, they are all progressive. They use their governmental powers to enact economic, cultural, political, social, etc., changes on the people, from the top down not bottom up.

MMC does not understand that Republican/Conservatives (which is party) are not states (which he was talking about).

MMC is simply a confused guy.

 

Isn't Kansas the most Republican state? What happened to them?

 

There has been some local government push back - especially with respect to the 2nd amendment. The CCW movement has swept the nation and reveals a great deal about real voter sentiment. But when it comes to shrinking the size and power of government at any level the only player is Trump and a handful of Republicans. Results: Trump has reduced the number of bureaucrats and regulations, but Congress has not had a role in those reductions, and the budget and debt continues to expand.

Someone, Trump or some other populist politician needs to craft a clear plan for specific reforms that offer real benefits to voters in exchange for their support. CCW is a good model. Vote for us and we will restore your ability to defend yourself.

The same approach could work for tax reform, or regulatory reform. As you know i favor an approach which would divert much of the river of cash flowing into government into individual vested accounts so that productive workers could independently negotiate to actually meet the unfulfilled needs government only pretends to address.

Take money and power from government and give it to the people. Even the most dismal Republican pol could probably figure out how to sell that to voters if such an idea could ever occur to it.

 

Schultz is making the dems look foolish.

 

The solution would be to form a political party that would not endorse a candidate unless they have a reasonable chance of winning.
They likely would have to compromise their values and get together a bunch of different groups to be able to form a coalition government, choosing a candidate capable of compromise who could appeal to all the different groups within the coalition.

 

They are still Republican.....they had a Repub State Senator switch Democrat. Which wasn't a surprise, since she voted more liberal than Democrats. S. Dakota is more Republican than Kansas.

Kansas is like Indiana.

You know how it is the left infests the major cities and starts the Lala land BS.

 

The RP in KS has apparently presided over the transformation of the state into a Red version of Blue Maryland.
Big Government/High Taxes and the occasional Democrat Governor when the RP voter base can no longer repress its gag reflex long enough to elect another RINO. Sad in a state founded by Republicans that were prone to stringing the severed ears of Democrat slavers into necklaces.

 

And it also is very telling about his perspective that the ultimate candidate nominated by the DNC will be chosen in a smoke filled back room and not by their voting blocks.

 

Democrats Now Aiming to Turn Kansas Purple.....

‘Democrats need a combination of a strong candidate and Republican implosion…’


(Bryan Lowry, McClatchy Washington Bureau) From former Attorney General Eric Holder’s redistricting operations to the millions of dollars directed toward Ted Cruz challenger Beto O’Rourke in the Texas Senate race, Democrats have made no effort to mask their designs on solid-red states.

Next up: Kansas.

After the Sunflower State dealt some surprise upsets to Republicans in 2018, Sen. Pat Roberts’s seat looks vulnerable to Democrats—and his 2020 race has quickly drawn a prominent potential challenger, former U.S. Attorney for Kansas Barry Grissom.

Democrats won the governor’s mansion in 2018 and one of the state’s four congressional seats. That momentum should put the Senate seat in play in 2020, argued Grissom, who has formidable credentials for a first-time candidate.

“I know Democrats just won the governorship, but I think that had more to do with [GOP nominee Kris] Kobach and maybe Brownback than Kansas lurching to the left,” Gonzales said.

A Democrat has not won a Senate election in Kansas since 1932—a drought that’s more than three decades longer than the party’s losing streak in presidential elections in the reliably red state.

“It took Herbert Hoover and the Great Depression,” Grissom said with a laugh about the last time a Democrat won a Senate race in Kansas......snip~

https://www.libertyheadlines.com/democrats-kansas-purple/

 

Then KS will go purple or blue if the RP does not come up with the kind of dramatic reform that its core base has been expecting for decades.
Smaller less intrusive government, more freedom and a significant cash benefit for the productive sector for its vote.
A push for transferring the entire education budget into accounts controlled by parents and guardians of children would probably be politically irresistible.

 

Don't worry Kansas has a bench.