Shock defeat of majority leader Eric Cantor by Tea Party sends shockwaves through Republican Party

[Ulysses G.]

You and chuckd are like little lapdogs nipping at heels.

A very perspicacious argument. Again, the pot calling the kettle black. Please keep the personal insults to yourself.

[Scott]

Let's please keep it civil.

[NeverSure]

Controlling Interest. LINK

In a corporation, if you owned 1/3 of the stock, you could get yourself elected to chairman of the board. Of the other 2/3, it would take only the small difference to vote with you to put you over 50% You have controlling interest.

In a national election, just 10 percent of the voters being united, could probably cause a win. Most elections don't have that much difference to overcome a 10% block.

This is why the Democrats have courted blacks so hard. About 12% of the population is black, but 90% of them vote Democrat.

This is also why Obama was so anxious to get so many more people on government assistance. They will vote their pocketbooks - for Democrats.

"Welfare State Grows by Nearly 19% Under Obama – to Almost $1 Trillion a Year." LINK

If anyone is going to stop the out of control deficits and debt, it's going to be a united group, making a last stand.

They need only about 10%. Cantor found that out the hard way by ignoring them.

[chuckd]

I did not put words in your mouth. I quoted you exactly. As far as looking for an argument goes, this is yet another case of the pot calling the kettle black. Please go back and look at your own posts - including the one that I am replying to, before you went back and edited it.

I completed editing my post prior to your submitting yours.

I stated Republicans have certain buzz words and I named one that had just appeared in a post.

I then said they are not the words used by Democrats.

So I say it again, when no argument is available then you need to create one by placing words in my mouth.

Atleast NeverSure is intelligent and offers good insight. You and chuckd are like little lapdogs nipping at heels.

You have taken the very childish approach of silencing one of your critics by placing me on ignore.

How can I possibly be a thorn in your side now?

[ClutchClark]

So the larger US populace is not given any chance to hear from the true left, only from the liberal apologists of corporate greed who are falsely labeled as being from the left. This is in stark opposition to the period before WWII when socialists and communists and organized labor had loud voices in the national discourse. The healthy result was Roosevelt's New Deal which incorporated some of the more reasonable demands of the true left into national policy. Today even many of the liberal apologists bad mouth organized labor and that is one of the reasons that the USA is slowly crossing the River Styx in a handbasket.

I would agree with this claim, except to add that labors greatest gains actually occurred in the 1970's. Perhaps the fruition of the pre-WWII era of New Deal programs like the CCC.

What I find more surprising than the loss of liberal support for organized labor is how the Republicans have actually convinced their blue-collar members to think Organized Labor is the devil.

Talk about voting against ones' own self interest ;-)

[chuckd]

Blue collar workers that are Republican have learned to think for themselves.

Only the blue collar Democrats have to be told how to vote.

[NeverSure]

-snip-

What I find more surprising than the loss of liberal support for organized labor is how the Republicans have actually convinced their blue-collar members to think Organized Labor is the devil.

Talk about voting against ones' own self interest ;-)

The unions are the devil. Before there were so many worker protection laws, they were needed. The workers had to defend their rights. Have you had the pleasure to read about the coal miners in W. Virginia up until the late 1920's? They stood up to the owners who were backed by corrupt law enforcement. Many country songs we know were written about that era. "I'm Just a Coal Miner's Daughter" and "I Owe My Soul To The Company Store" are just a couple of them.

The coal miners wore red bandannas to show solidarity with each other. Many historians believe that's where the term "redneck" came from.

But today, with state and federal laws, those issues are a thing of the past. The unions ran 90% of the jobs out of Detroit since 1980.

The non-union workers in Kentucky and other states which have right-to-work laws (which allow anyone to opt out of a union) are booming with the auto manufacturing today. The workers are happy and consider a union an unnecessary intrusion and their dues an unnecessary expense.

Don't forget the corruption with the union bosses. They are like a mafia, but have lost a lot of power due to a massive loss of members.

As corrupt as the unions are, and as willing to break a manufacturer as they are, the workers and country are better of with the state and federal employment laws.

[CMNightRider]

Money did not have a lot to do with it. Eric Cantor far outspent his opponent.

And how much have Citizens United, Americans for Democracy and all the other Koch vehicles quietly spent plugging the tea bag mantra?

Very difficult to tell these days, they seem quite adept at hiding it.

What is wrong with supporting the "Tea Party" financially. If the Koch brothers are sending money their way, then God bless them.

[Scott]

Off-topic and inflammatory posts removed.

[Johpa]

There is a difference: a lot more far left wackos in the democrat party and a lot more far right wackos in the republican party. The moderates are hard to find these days.

Problem is that there are very few from the true left that are allowed to speak on a national stage. Only those that the true leftist Chris Hedges calls "liberal apologists" are allowed to speak in opposition to the far right, and they are for the most part centrists. It is only the extremism on the right that allow these centrists to be branded "leftists". The voice of the true left, the voices of a Chomsky, an Alperovits, or a Nader, are rarely heard on any mass media forum. The corporate controlled media, whether it be FOX or MSNBC, silences these voices and creates a narrative that attempts to marginalizes these people on the true left. So the larger US populace is not given any chance to hear from the true left, only from the liberal apologists of corporate greed who are falsely labeled as being from the left. This is in stark opposition to the period before WWII when socialists and communists and organized labor had loud voices in the national discourse. The healthy result was Roosevelt's New Deal which incorporated some of the more reasonable demands of the true left into national policy. Today even many of the liberal apologists bad mouth organized labor and that is one of the reasons that the USA is slowly crossing the River Styx in a handbasket.

For those wanting to get an introduction to the true left I recommend reading Hedges before delving into the far more difficult discourse of Chomsky.

I'm not certain what you mean "there are very few from the true left that are allowed to speak on a national stage." How do you get more left than Obama, Reid, and Pelosi?

Why thank you for proving my point. You are totally oblivious to the true "left" in America because they have been silenced and marginalized by the corporate controlled media to the point that you imagine the Democratic Party to represent the "left". You apparently are not even cognizant that Ralph Nader, one of the most influential men in America in the 20th century, is far to the "left" of Obama. The folks that I note above are just as critical of, say, Obama as yourself, but they come from the true left. I can just turn on the TV and watch FOX news to get the position of the far right political view. And I can turn on the TV and watch CNN or MSNBC to get the centrist political view. But nowhere can you easily go and get the view from the true left because they are simply not invited onto the stage. It is very much a form of censorship by corporate America, and it is very effective as you clearly demonstrate by your statement.

[Ulysses G.]

Try the website alterNUT alterNET. They have all the far left views that your heart could desire, including Chomsky and Nader. Personally, I suspect that Obama is about the same place that they are in his views, but keeping his party in power is more important to him than being faithful to his ideology.

[snarky66]

Unions Mafia.

Unions Mafia. Little difference.

[Scott]

Off-topic posts removed.

[ClutchClark]

-snip-

What I find more surprising than the loss of liberal support for organized labor is how the Republicans have actually convinced their blue-collar members to think Organized Labor is the devil.

Talk about voting against ones' own self interest ;-)

The unions are the devil. Before there were so many worker protection laws, they were needed. The workers had to defend their rights. Have you had the pleasure to read about the coal miners in W. Virginia up until the late 1920's? They stood up to the owners who were backed by corrupt law enforcement. Many country songs we know were written about that era. "I'm Just a Coal Miner's Daughter" and "I Owe My Soul To The Company Store" are just a couple of them.

The coal miners wore red bandannas to show solidarity with each other. Many historians believe that's where the term "redneck" came from.

But today, with state and federal laws, those issues are a thing of the past. The unions ran 90% of the jobs out of Detroit since 1980.

The non-union workers in Kentucky and other states which have right-to-work laws (which allow anyone to opt out of a union) are booming with the auto manufacturing today. The workers are happy and consider a union an unnecessary intrusion and their dues an unnecessary expense.

Don't forget the corruption with the union bosses. They are like a mafia, but have lost a lot of power due to a massive loss of members.

As corrupt as the unions are, and as willing to break a manufacturer as they are, the workers and country are better of with the state and federal employment laws.

Its not a either/or equation. Workplace safety is one consideration so lets look at that first. As you point out, the unions served a vital role in making workplace safety a national priority and the Feds & States have long since enacted protective legislation and enforcement. So you are correct, as long as those laws protecting workplace safety standards are not in jeopardy then no need for unions, but it appears those safety standards are in jeopardy:

"Congressional Republicans are promising to scrub the government for what they say are "job killing" regulations. One of their primary targets is the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, or OSHA."

http://www.npr.org/2011/03/01/134177079/GOP-Looks-To-Make-Cuts-At-OSHA

The second consideration is that unions have also been directly responsible for raising workers' standard of living through improvements to wages, pensions and perks such as medical insurance. The following is a report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics:

"The median private-sector union member made $878 a week in 2011 compared to $716 for nonmembers, a nearly 23% premium. (The premium was somewhat smaller in the manufacturing sector: $836 per week for union members for $780 per week for nonmembers.) Such comparisons have limited value since there are numerous other variables that affect wages. But to the extent there is a union wage premium, the added cost of dues doesnt appear to negate it.

Then theres the question of benefits: 94% of private-sector union members have access to health-care benefits, versus 67% of nonunion members, according to BLS. And employers cover on average 83% of health insurance premiums for union members and their families versus 66% for nonunion members. Union members are also more likely to get paid vacation and sick time and retirement and life insurance benefits."

My one son is a member of the IBEW and another son is retired LEO with the FOP. They are able to provide a good life for their families thanks to their unions' strength at the negotiating table.

The third consideration would be the unions role in protecting workers from retaliatory and wrongful dismissal lawsuits:

"There are 80 million people employed in the private sector of the American economy. 1 Only about 20 million of these are union members protected from unjust dismissal by collective bargaining agreements. The remaining 60 million are employed "at will". "At will" employees serve at the unfettered discretion of employers. They can be fired for any reason, even a bad one, or for no reason at all. "

https://www.aclu.org/racial-justice_womens-rights/legislative-briefing-kit-wrongful-discharge

So, your response would suggest one of two possibilities:

The first is that you are not a blue-collar worker and are therefore unsympathetic to your fellow Hard-working Americans that are.

Or

That you are a blue-collar worker who has chosen to vote against his own self-interest by expressing the opinion you did above.

Regards

[NeverSure]

-snip-

What I find more surprising than the loss of liberal support for organized labor is how the Republicans have actually convinced their blue-collar members to think Organized Labor is the devil.

Talk about voting against ones' own self interest ;-)

The unions are the devil. Before there were so many worker protection laws, they were needed. The workers had to defend their rights. Have you had the pleasure to read about the coal miners in W. Virginia up until the late 1920's? They stood up to the owners who were backed by corrupt law enforcement. Many country songs we know were written about that era. "I'm Just a Coal Miner's Daughter" and "I Owe My Soul To The Company Store" are just a couple of them.

The coal miners wore red bandannas to show solidarity with each other. Many historians believe that's where the term "redneck" came from.

But today, with state and federal laws, those issues are a thing of the past. The unions ran 90% of the jobs out of Detroit since 1980.

The non-union workers in Kentucky and other states which have right-to-work laws (which allow anyone to opt out of a union) are booming with the auto manufacturing today. The workers are happy and consider a union an unnecessary intrusion and their dues an unnecessary expense.

Don't forget the corruption with the union bosses. They are like a mafia, but have lost a lot of power due to a massive loss of members.

As corrupt as the unions are, and as willing to break a manufacturer as they are, the workers and country are better of with the state and federal employment laws.

Its not a either/or equation. Workplace safety is one consideration so lets look at that first. As you point out, the unions served a vital role in making workplace safety a national priority and the Feds & States have long since enacted protective legislation and enforcement. So you are correct, as long as those laws protecting workplace safety standards are not in jeopardy then no need for unions, but it appears those safety standards are in jeopardy:

"Congressional Republicans are promising to scrub the government for what they say are "job killing" regulations. One of their primary targets is the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, or OSHA."

http://www.npr.org/2011/03/01/134177079/GOP-Looks-To-Make-Cuts-At-OSHA

The second consideration is that unions have also been directly responsible for raising workers' standard of living through improvements to wages, pensions and perks such as medical insurance. The following is a report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics:

"The median private-sector union member made $878 a week in 2011 compared to $716 for nonmembers, a nearly 23% premium. (The premium was somewhat smaller in the manufacturing sector: $836 per week for union members for $780 per week for nonmembers.) Such comparisons have limited value since there are numerous other variables that affect wages. But to the extent there is a union wage premium, the added cost of dues doesnt appear to negate it.

Then theres the question of benefits: 94% of private-sector union members have access to health-care benefits, versus 67% of nonunion members, according to BLS. And employers cover on average 83% of health insurance premiums for union members and their families versus 66% for nonunion members. Union members are also more likely to get paid vacation and sick time and retirement and life insurance benefits."

My one son is a member of the IBEW and another son is retired LEO with the FOP. They are able to provide a good life for their families thanks to their unions' strength at the negotiating table.

The third consideration would be the unions role in protecting workers from retaliatory and wrongful dismissal lawsuits:

"There are 80 million people employed in the private sector of the American economy. 1 Only about 20 million of these are union members protected from unjust dismissal by collective bargaining agreements. The remaining 60 million are employed "at will". "At will" employees serve at the unfettered discretion of employers. They can be fired for any reason, even a bad one, or for no reason at all. "

https://www.aclu.org/racial-justice_womens-rights/legislative-briefing-kit-wrongful-discharge

So, your response would suggest one of two possibilities:

The first is that you are not a blue-collar worker and are therefore unsympathetic to your fellow Hard-working Americans that are.

Or

That you are a blue-collar worker who has chosen to vote against his own self-interest by expressing the opinion you did above.

Regards

Sorry, that's just silly as in comparing apples and oranges. Written by someone with an agenda.

"80 million people employed in the private sector of the American economy."

Now lump them all together and say that the union employees have a better income without considering that plumbers and electricians who are largely union make a lot more money and have a lot higher level of training than a guy working in a car wash.

"At will employment" is a misnomer. You've never heard of state and federal wrongful termination laws or seen massive awards to employees.

The screwed up premise of the author is too outrageous to even answer in detail. The best I can say is that it's intentionally misleading.

[ClutchClark]

"Old Russian peasant saying: My neighbor has a cow and I do not have one. I want my neighbors cow to die."

We used to hear that back at the beginning of the Cold War and contrast it against the American ethic of opportunity and hard work. We Americans would never wish for misfortune to fall upon our successful neighbor--instead we would work hard to move up to the level the neighbor lived.

The TeaParty movement in the US has taken that old Russian peasant saying for their very own. They are angry at people with pensions so they try and dismantle pension funds. They are angry they don't have the benefits of union members so they attempt to destroy the unions. How ironic they have lost that very concept of hard work and the Land of Opportunity that has always defined America while labeling themselves "Patriots".

Food for thought.

Cheers

[Ulysses G.]

I am not a supporter of the Tea Party, but I think that your take on them is close to delusional. They want a reduction in the U.S. national debt and federal budget deficit by reducing U.S. government spending and taxes.

I think that they mostly have honorable intentions, but, my problem with them is that they they are amateurs in the political arena and are not willing to negotiate with the powers that be. I don't see their approach working in the long run.

[metisdead]

A post containing a personal insult has been removed. Keep it civil, if you can't be civil, back away from your keyboard.

[CMNightRider]

There is a difference: a lot more far left wackos in the democrat party and a lot more far right wackos in the republican party. The moderates are hard to find these days.

Problem is that there are very few from the true left that are allowed to speak on a national stage. Only those that the true leftist Chris Hedges calls "liberal apologists" are allowed to speak in opposition to the far right, and they are for the most part centrists. It is only the extremism on the right that allow these centrists to be branded "leftists". The voice of the true left, the voices of a Chomsky, an Alperovits, or a Nader, are rarely heard on any mass media forum. The corporate controlled media, whether it be FOX or MSNBC, silences these voices and creates a narrative that attempts to marginalizes these people on the true left. So the larger US populace is not given any chance to hear from the true left, only from the liberal apologists of corporate greed who are falsely labeled as being from the left. This is in stark opposition to the period before WWII when socialists and communists and organized labor had loud voices in the national discourse. The healthy result was Roosevelt's New Deal which incorporated some of the more reasonable demands of the true left into national policy. Today even many of the liberal apologists bad mouth organized labor and that is one of the reasons that the USA is slowly crossing the River Styx in a handbasket.

For those wanting to get an introduction to the true left I recommend reading Hedges before delving into the far more difficult discourse of Chomsky.

I'm not certain what you mean "there are very few from the true left that are allowed to speak on a national stage." How do you get more left than Obama, Reid, and Pelosi?

Why thank you for proving my point. You are totally oblivious to the true "left" in America because they have been silenced and marginalized by the corporate controlled media to the point that you imagine the Democratic Party to represent the "left". You apparently are not even cognizant that Ralph Nader, one of the most influential men in America in the 20th century, is far to the "left" of Obama. The folks that I note above are just as critical of, say, Obama as yourself, but they come from the true left. I can just turn on the TV and watch FOX news to get the position of the far right political view. And I can turn on the TV and watch CNN or MSNBC to get the centrist political view. But nowhere can you easily go and get the view from the true left because they are simply not invited onto the stage. It is very much a form of censorship by corporate America, and it is very effective as you clearly demonstrate by your statement.

MSNBC for a centrist political view. I don't think so. These people are as far to the left as you can get. Nader is a leftist for sure, and he even believes Obama deserves impeachment.

[impulse]

One can take any hot topic in politics and find that there is one or another party which won't compromise on it. Gay rights, women's rights, abortion, gun rights, on and on...

If every time someone took a firm stance on one of those issues he was an obstructionist rather than someone standing by his personally, strongly held beliefs, then everyone would be an obstructionist on something.

"Obstructionist" is a handy label for the loser to use against the winner.

It's one thing to stand behind your beliefs.

It's another thing completely to block even the stuff you do believe in- because if you did vote for it, someone on the other side of the aisle would look good and maybe get a few more votes.

Too many good ideas obstructed just because they weren't put forward from "our side".

[Morch]

"Old Russian peasant saying: My neighbor has a cow and I do not have one. I want my neighbors cow to die."

We used to hear that back at the beginning of the Cold War and contrast it against the American ethic of opportunity and hard work. We Americans would never wish for misfortune to fall upon our successful neighbor--instead we would work hard to move up to the level the neighbor lived.

The TeaParty movement in the US has taken that old Russian peasant saying for their very own. They are angry at people with pensions so they try and dismantle pension funds. They are angry they don't have the benefits of union members so they attempt to destroy the unions. How ironic they have lost that very concept of hard work and the Land of Opportunity that has always defined America while labeling themselves "Patriots".

Food for thought.

Cheers

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_DtXf0xscI

[NeverSure]

"Old Russian peasant saying: My neighbor has a cow and I do not have one. I want my neighbors cow to die."

We used to hear that back at the beginning of the Cold War and contrast it against the American ethic of opportunity and hard work. We Americans would never wish for misfortune to fall upon our successful neighbor--instead we would work hard to move up to the level the neighbor lived.

The TeaParty movement in the US has taken that old Russian peasant saying for their very own. They are angry at people with pensions so they try and dismantle pension funds. They are angry they don't have the benefits of union members so they attempt to destroy the unions. How ironic they have lost that very concept of hard work and the Land of Opportunity that has always defined America while labeling themselves "Patriots".

Food for thought.

Cheers

Please give me some reliable sources that say:

1. Tea Party members don't belong to unions.

2. Tea Party members don't have a cow so they want yours to die.

3. What in this thread caused your brain to go to Tea Party.

Now, some of us got through life with out having a mommy protecting us all of the way.

[NeverSure]

One can take any hot topic in politics and find that there is one or another party which won't compromise on it. Gay rights, women's rights, abortion, gun rights, on and on...

If every time someone took a firm stance on one of those issues he was an obstructionist rather than someone standing by his personally, strongly held beliefs, then everyone would be an obstructionist on something.

"Obstructionist" is a handy label for the loser to use against the winner.

It's one thing to stand behind your beliefs.

It's another thing completely to block even the stuff you do believe in- because if you did vote for it, someone on the other side of the aisle would look good and maybe get a few more votes.

Too many good ideas obstructed just because they weren't put forward from "our side".

Huh?

[Johpa]

......a blue-collar worker who has chosen to vote against his own self-interest ........

And that is the subject of Thomas Frank's book "What's the Matter with Kansas?: How Conservatives Won the Heart of America".

[impulse]

One can take any hot topic in politics and find that there is one or another party which won't compromise on it. Gay rights, women's rights, abortion, gun rights, on and on...

If every time someone took a firm stance on one of those issues he was an obstructionist rather than someone standing by his personally, strongly held beliefs, then everyone would be an obstructionist on something.

"Obstructionist" is a handy label for the loser to use against the winner.

It's one thing to stand behind your beliefs.

It's another thing completely to block even the stuff you do believe in- because if you did vote for it, someone on the other side of the aisle would look good and maybe get a few more votes.

Too many good ideas obstructed just because they weren't put forward from "our side".

Huh?

Even if Obama and the Dems miraculously came up with an idea that would cure cancer, balance the budget and create peace on earth- the Repubs would vote against it. And if a Repub was in the White House, the Dems would do the same.

They're obligated to do whatever they can to get their guy elected- no matter how much it damages the country.

[chuckd]

Even if Obama and the Dems miraculously came up with an idea that would cure cancer, balance the budget and create peace on earth- the Repubs would vote against it. And if a Repub was in the White House, the Dems would do the same.

They're obligated to do whatever they can to get their guy elected- no matter how much it damages the country.

The real problem is that Obama sort of did promise to cure cancer and secure peace in the world.

I honestly think he could have obtained bi-partisan support on those two issues had he tried to achieve them.

He never intended to balance the budget.

[impulse]

Even if Obama and the Dems miraculously came up with an idea that would cure cancer, balance the budget and create peace on earth- the Repubs would vote against it. And if a Repub was in the White House, the Dems would do the same.

They're obligated to do whatever they can to get their guy elected- no matter how much it damages the country.

The real problem is that Obama sort of did promise to cure cancer and secure peace in the world.

I honestly think he could have obtained bi-partisan support on those two issues had he tried to achieve them.

He never intended to balance the budget.

Completely dodges the point I was making in favor of a cheap shot at Obama.

But if you want to go down that path, it's amazing how quickly some people forget that the big debate in 2000 Bush/Gore election was how to spend the budget surpluses after 8 years of a Dem in the WH. Flash forward 8 years of Repubs at the wheel and???

Not that I'm a fan of Obama, but I don't fault him for failing to balance the budget when his predecessor's administration left us in 2 unwinnable and possibly perpetual wars, and in the worst financial downturn since the great depression.

But the cheap shot at Obama is not surprising since your signature line quotes the very president who set the country on the road to bankruptcy by trying to outspend the Soviets to "win" the Cold War- but never had a plan for the peace dividend that could have resulted. ("Won" the Cold War, at least until the Russkies could rearm, get their finances in order and come back in a generation. Kind of like they are doing in the Ukraine today, and the defeated and humiliated Germans did in 1939)

But that's a little far off the topic...

[chuckd]

That's not a cheap shot at all. It's a good solid shot.

...and who's rear end did Putin kick to come back with such style?

[ClutchClark]

"Old Russian peasant saying: My neighbor has a cow and I do not have one. I want my neighbors cow to die."

We used to hear that back at the beginning of the Cold War and contrast it against the American ethic of opportunity and hard work. We Americans would never wish for misfortune to fall upon our successful neighbor--instead we would work hard to move up to the level the neighbor lived.

The TeaParty movement in the US has taken that old Russian peasant saying for their very own. They are angry at people with pensions so they try and dismantle pension funds. They are angry they don't have the benefits of union members so they attempt to destroy the unions. How ironic they have lost that very concept of hard work and the Land of Opportunity that has always defined America while labeling themselves "Patriots".

Food for thought.

Cheers

Please give me some reliable sources that say:

1. Tea Party members don't belong to unions.

2. Tea Party members don't have a cow so they want yours to die.

3. What in this thread caused your brain to go to Tea Party.

Now, some of us got through life with out having a mommy protecting us all of the way.

You are not familiar with the TP support of "Right-to-Work" legislation? I apologize, I had thought you were a TP.

R-T-W is an attempt to weaken union membership and the gains that unions have brought to workers.

Here is a headline from the TeaPartyExpress, a newsletter of, for and by the TP:

"The Tea Party Wins and the Unions Lose, Again"

http://www.teapartyexpress.org/6315/the-tea-party-wins-and-the-unions-lose-again

I have some things to do so a good start ing point for you to learn about the TP's battle against unions would be to google.

As you have mentioned, you are a big boy now and don't need your hand held ;-)

[spidermike007]

It would be quite a dream if either the democrats, or the republicans could find an intelligent, savvy, and creative person with at least one degree of integrity, to run for president. Is there such a person in the US, who has any chances of raising the necessary money, and winning? How about shortening the election cycle to 90 days?

Spidermike

Chaiyaphum, Thailand

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app