There is no contradiction there at all. Did you love your country, and love Reagan as well? Perhaps you are intentionally projecting Patriot's distaste for Government on the country, when what you should be focusing upon is what is justified to be distasteful about, like certain personalities, or overly abused powers and expansion. It is obviously defensible to hold the position to love our Country, and hate what our Government has become, and despise who represents us. In fact, I can do the exact same thing with you. I can love our country, and hate that you're actually in it.
You can always hope that Senator Graham's cogent, existential observation proves spurious, and that best-educated states suddenly emulate the worst-educated, and that Americans, in general, follow the example of aging "white men, those with less education." I'll be surprised.
I'm sorry you don't understand. I support the Constitution. I oppose tyranny. I support liberty and freedom. I reserve the God given right to alter or abolish the government that becomes despotic regardless of the means by which it was corrupted.
Ah, I see. So we have your pure speculation, nothing more. That's fine, but at least label it as such. Of course not. Polls generally tighten nearer the end of the race. And polls this far out have limited predictive value in terms of the final winner. But what's interesting is that the polls tightening doesn't usually have a big effect on the chances of each candidate winning. If you follow fivethirtyeight, you'd see this in election after election. The person who is leading four weeks out, by whatever margin, has something like an 80% chance of being the eventual winner, even though the polls usually tighten in the last four weeks. And the REASON polls this far out have little predictive value is not because they're meaningless; it's because there's still a year and a half for something to happen that could change minds. But they are very good at telling us if what has happened in the past has changed any minds. Right now, the polls are telling us that the right-wing noise has not affected Hillary's standing with voters much, if at all. That does not mean Hillary will win the presidency -- it just means the current right-wing noise is having no effect. You would much rather be in Hillary's shoes than, say, Rubio's at this point.
Too much heat? Her poll numbers are rising. And I'm pretty she the republican hate machine has been on her tale for over 2 decades now. She's pretty used to it.
You're asking if I love my country when my political preference is not in power? Yes, I do still love my country because I understand that a constant and controlled revolution is the core of our government and what America is. As I tried to explain, it is the mechanics of constant elections that makes our form of government so brilliant. If you can't love your country when a certain party is in power then you simply are looking to live in a tyrannical government and America is not for you. But, if you think because your preference is not in power somehow our government is now illegitimate then you don't understand our political system or what America truly is. Now, it is possible that elected leaders will and have abused powers and expanded into protected freedoms but there are multiple remedies for this. Whether it is the court system or the election process or amending the Constitution, the people still hold the ultimate power. For example, I am not keen on many aspects of the Patriot Act and the ruling taht money is somehow free speech but I know the remedies are at hand and don't go around blaming the government, as if it is some third party unaccountable to the people. I know if we vote accordingly these issues can be resolved. It is a matter of making them issues in elections and we are making progress toward resolving these issues.
The thing is that I don't believe you truly support the Constitution and you prefer a Conservative form of tyranny. The Constitution mandates the election of our leaders, you don't agree with that if the outcome is not to your preference. This is the point of our entire conversation. You are patriotic to your ideology, not your country. You can't accept a liberal in power as legitimately the voice of the people.
The thing is that you don't think for yourself. What makes you think I want any tyranny? That's just a dumb assumption. You are apparently unaware of the usurpation of the Constitution that is going on right now. There's nothing legitimate about that.
The reason why I think you want a Conservative based tyranny is because you treat the government as though there is a disconnection with the people. You talk about the government as though it is not legitimately elected, like it is a third party alien to the American people and our country. It is no such thing. The government is a direct reflection of the voters and the people. You get the government you vote for. Now, I do not disagree with you that individual rights are constantly being treaded on by this and every other administration but there is a remedy beyond fictitiously disconnecting the government from the people. We can go all the way back to Marbury v. Madison for judicial review or to the reelection of Abraham Lincoln as a referendum on the Emancipation Proclamation and a mandate for the 13th amendment. The point is the remedies are in place and the people remain in power over the government. Blaming this intangible "Government" for all of your disagreements with the will of the people is absurd. You might as well blame boogie-man because in America the power lies in the people and the vote. If you don't understand that then you don't understand what America is or why it is exceptional.
You've missed key points. The Clinton's survived Whitewater, Monica Lewinsky and impeachment. Despite all the scandals in the White House and a 24 hour prosecutor breathing down their necks when Bills second term came to an end he had one of the highest positive ratings of the modern Presidents. Hillary will have one of the best speakers in politics on the stump for her (Bill). Don't make the mistake of thinking that Hillary will be a mere candidate. Her campaign will be a part of a larger movement that will want to see a woman elected President.
I hope she doesn't dropout and all the global socialist (gazi's) go down with her when they're corruption and crony capitalism is exposed
After 2012 and 2014 you still believe in polling results? Got some beachfront property in Death Valley I want to sell ya.... http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2014/11/05/polls-election-bias-congress/18549755/ Republicans out-performed their poll numbers in race after race Tuesday, raising questions about pro-Democratic bias in this year's election's polls a major turnaround from the pro-GOP bias in 2012's polls. The series of misses caused at least one political forecaster Larry Sabato of the widely read Center for Politics' Crystal Ball to call for changes to the industry Wednesday. Sabato said on Fox News that he wanted an investigation of polls in Virginia that showed a double-digit lead for Democratic Sen. Mark Warner who wound up winning re-election by less than a point.
I'm curious how you think she can be the best chance for both Republicans and Democrats to win the White House in 2016. These appear to be mutually exclusive propositions. If she is the best chance for the Democrats, then wouldn't any other candidate be even better for the Republicans?
Hillary dropped out a long time ago. She is yesterday's breakfast - she may get a great deal of the Dem. party vote, but not as much as expected. Look at her - listen to her - people just don't like her, and in the end that's how most non-political junkies vote - she comes off as full of sh*t, shallow, and crass. I have no idea if she is or isn't any of those things, but that is how she resonates. She could still win, but she's a has been - the lack of any halfway decent challengers could give her the "meh, whatever" vote and do the trick.
Hillary is only special because of who she wants to be, not because of who she is or what she's done.
Which polls? This seems to indicate otherwise: http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/hillary-clinton-favorable-rating
